Tribunal da Relação de Coimbra; 2024-10-08; 8296.23.3T8PRT.A.C1.9D
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:PT:TRC:2024:8296.23.3T8PRT.A.C1.9D
Date: 2024-10-08
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Portugal

82024PT1008(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
I. The international jurisdiction of the Portuguese courts is determined by the quid disputatum, i.e. the terms in which the plaintiff frames the disputed legal relationship. This assumes that the dispute reveals one or more connecting factors with one or more legal systems other than that of the forum. The national court before which the action is brought must identify the connecting factors with the forum State that justify its jurisdiction.
II. Article 59 of the CPC (1) provides that Portuguese courts have international jurisdiction if any of the circumstances mentioned in Articles 62 and 63 are met, or if the parties have conferred jurisdiction upon them under Article 94. This is without prejudice to any provisions that may be established in European Union regulations or other international instruments.
III. Where the parties are domiciled in different Member States and the disputed legal relationship falls within the scope of civil matters not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the national courts, the applicable rules of European Union law must be taken into account as set out in Article 2, Article 4(1) and (3), Article 5 and second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union (2), Article 59 of the CPC, and Article 8(4) of the Constituição (3). These rules are set out in the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (4), which establishes a European Union regime for jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. This regime is directly applicable in the domestic legal system (Article 288(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (5)).
IV. Article 4 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) establishes the general principle of jurisdiction as the domicile of the defendant. However, the Regulation provides exceptions to this general rule in specific cases that are listed exhaustively in the Regulation. Article 5(1) states that ‘persons domiciled in a Member State may be sued in the courts of another Member State only by virtue of the rules set out in Sections 2 to 7 of this Chapter‘.
V. The special jurisdiction rule set out in Article 7(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) stipulates that the matter must be of a contractual nature. This provision must be interpreted as meaning that R., who is domiciled in the territory of a Member State, may be sued in the courts for the place where the obligation in question was or should have been performed (point (a)), or, ‘in the case of the provision of services, the place in a Member State where, under the contract, the services were provided or should have been provided’ (second indent of point (b)).
VI. The Court of Justice of the European Union has consistently ruled that Article 7(1)(b) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) must be interpreted as meaning that ‘in the context of a contract for the carriage of goods between Member States in several stages, with stops, and by several means of transport, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, both the place of dispatch and the place of delivery of the goods constitute places where transport services are provided, for the purposes of that indent‘ (6).
VII. In an application for a European order for payment, where payment is sought for the international carriage of goods, the specific rules set out in the CMR Convention (7) must be taken into account, in accordance with Article 71(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast).
VIII. According to Article 31(1) of the CMR, international jurisdiction is determined by reference to the domicile of the defendant or the place of performance of the obligation, as assessed by either the place of dispatch (loading) or the place designated for delivery of the goods.
IX. As the defendant is domiciled in Spain and the goods were dispatched and delivered in Spain and France, respectively, the national (Portuguese) courts lack international jurisdiction to hear an action seeking payment for the carriage of these goods. This is because, under national law, the place of payment of the price is not a relevant connecting factor for establishing international jurisdiction.
(1) Código de Processo Civil (Code of Civil Procedure).
(2) Treaty on European Union.
(3) Constituição da República Portuguesa (Constitution of the Portuguese Republic).
(4) 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).
(5) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
(6) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 11 July 2018, Zurich Insurance plc and Metso Minerals Oy v Abnormal Load Services (International) Ltd., C-88/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:558.
(7) Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR).