Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães; 2024-11-14; 458/24.2T8BCL.G1
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:PT:TRG:2024:458.24.2T8BCL.G1.DA
Date: 2024-11-14
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters;Lugano Convention
Origin: Portugal

82024PT1114(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case, which was resolved by the Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’), concerns the requirements for a foreign judgment to be recognised and enforced in Portugal.
A person domiciled in Switzerland (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) brought a case before the Juízo de Família e Menores de Barcelos (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) against the father, who was domiciled in Portugal (hereinafter ‘the defendant’), to obtain maintenance payments. The plaintiff presented a judgment issued by a Swiss court as an enforceable title, according to which the defendant was required to pay the plaintiff the monthly alimony amounting to CHF 1 000.
The Court of First Instance held that, for a foreign judgment to take effect in Portugal, it must first be recognised and made enforceable through the standard procedural steps, as governed by either national or international legal instruments. As no such procedure had been applied in the present case, the application was dismissed.
The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal, invoking Article 33 of the new Lugano Convention (1), according to which ‘a judgment given in a State bound by this Convention shall be recognised in the other States bound by this Convention without any special procedure being required’.
The Court of Appeal held that the key issue was whether the plaintiff had an enforceable title, as required by the CPC (2) and whether there was a legal instrument permitting the enforcement of the foreign judgment without review and confirmation. Although Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 (3) allows foreign judgments to be recognised without any special procedure, it cannot be applied to the present case, since Switzerland is not a Member State of the European Union. The 1973 Hague Convention (4) could not serve this purpose either, despite being binding on both Portugal and Switzerland, as it requires a procedure for the recognition of a foreign judgment. Finally, the legal instrument suggested by the plaintiff — the new Lugano Convention — is applicable to this case. However, the new Lugano Convention provides a mechanism for automatic recognition, but not for automatic enforcement. For foreign decisions to be enforced and not merely recognised, they must be declared enforceable in the state of origin, as provided by Article 38 of the new Lugano Convention. If a certificate of enforceability exists, recognition and enforcement are limited to a check of the formalities, such as providing a copy of the original judgment, identifying the parties and checking the date on which the document instituting the proceedings was served.
In the present case, it was necessary to initiate proceedings to declare the Swiss judgment enforceable, rather than immediately enforcing it without an enforceable title recognised in Portugal, as the plaintiff had done.
Therefore, the appeal was dismissed and the first-instance decision was upheld.
(1) Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
(2) Código de Processo Civil (Code of Civil Procedure).
(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations.
(4) The Hague Convention of 2 October 1973 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions Relating to Maintenance Obligations.