Supremo Tribunal de Justiça; 2024-05-15; 701.21.0T8LRA.A.L1.A.S.EA
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:PT:STJ:2024:701.21.0T8LRA.A.L1.A.S.EA
Date: 2024-05-15
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Portugal

82024PT0515(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a matter of jurisdiction in a case for civil liability for damages, brought before the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’)
A Portuguese company (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit in a Portuguese Court (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) against a Portuguese company (hereinafter ‘defendant 1’) and two German companies (hereinafter ‘defendant 2’ and ‘defendant 3’).
The plaintiff claimed that the defendants published a credit report concerning the plaintiff, which contained incorrect information (a debt of around EUR 6 million, supposedly the subject of a court case for enforcement). The plaintiff claimed that this report had caused damage to its reputation and loss of earnings.
Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 argued that Portuguese courts had no jurisdiction over the matter, since the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) requires a strict interpretation of Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1), considering that it only applies to primary damages, not to consequential damages occurring in another Member State. They then argued that the plaintiff's request for an apology to be printed in a German newspaper implies that the damages occurred in Germany.
The Court of First Instance denied the defendants’ claim and considered that the trial should be held in Portugal. The defendants appealed to the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’), which upheld the judgment of the Court of First Instance.
The defendants then appealed to the Supreme Court, which also upheld the judgment, with the following legal basis:
The jurisprudence of the CJEU states that, in order to assess which court had jurisdiction over a matter, the judge must take into consideration the initial petition filed by the plaintiff, regardless of its merit – it is not necessary, when ruling on the question of jurisdiction, to delve into the substance of the case, to analyse evidence, to judge the merit of the case under national Law. The court must assume liability and consider the defendant's objections, but only insofar as they are relevant to determining jurisdiction.
The CJEU has interpreted the expression contained in Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), ‘the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’, as including not only the place where the causal event takes place, but also the place where damages occur. If the place is not the same, the injured party is free to choose the jurisdiction of either. Such was the ruling in Case C-194/16 (2).
The alleged damages are connected to Portugal, since the plaintiff alleged to have lost clients that were companies with a registered address in Portugal. On the other hand, the plaintiff states that these negative reports might cause other companies not to do business with them in the future. Considering that the plaintiff’s business is carried out in Portugal, this is also a relevant connection for the purpose of determining jurisdiction.
(1) Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast).
(2) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 17 October 2017, Bolagsupplysningen and Iljsan, C-194/16, ECLI:EU:C:2017:766, paragraph 29.