Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa; 2024-06-20; 4425/20.7T8ALM-D.L1-2
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:PT:TRL:2024:4425.20.7T8ALM.D.L1.2.A0
Date: 2024-06-20
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Portugal

82024PT0620(52)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
I. The international jurisdiction of the Portuguese courts is assessed exclusively in accordance with the assignation criteria or principles set out in Article 62 of the CPC (1), namely: the coincidence principle (point (a)), the causality principle (point (b)) and the necessity principle (point (c)). Jurisdiction is recognised if one of these principles is satisfied.
II. Regarding the principle of causality, the Portuguese courts have international jurisdiction whenever the cause of action occurred within national territory, or if the cause of action is complex (consisting of multiple actions or legal facts), whenever at least one of the constituent facts occurred in Portugal.
III. In non-contractual civil liability actions seeking compensation for an unlawful act, the cause of action is complex, consisting of a voluntary act that infringes another’s rights, unlawfulness, fault, a causal link and damage. For international jurisdiction to be conferred on the Portuguese courts, it is sufficient that at least one of these elements occurs in Portugal.
IV. In the present case, the plaintiff is seeking to establish the defendant’s non-contractual civil liability for infringing the plaintiff’s personality rights, specifically the right to image and name, by means of an unlawful act.
V. The international jurisdiction of the Portuguese courts must be assessed based on the claim and cause of action asserted by the plaintiff, and the specific allegations made must be considered.
VI. In this case, the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (2) is not applicable. Firstly, the defendant is not domiciled nor has a registered office in any of the Member States of the European Union (but rather in the United States of America) – see Article 5 of the Regulation. On the other hand, none of the exceptions provided for in Article 6 of that Regulation apply.
VII. In similar cases, it is the established and uniform understanding of the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Supreme Court) that the causality criterion set out in Article 62(b) of the CPC is met when the injured party’s centre of interests is considered to be in Portugal during the period in which the alleged damage resulting from the infringement occurred.
VIII. As the facts alleged in the initial petition are sufficient to demonstrate that the centre of interests of the plaintiff was in Portugal during the period in which the alleged harm attributed to the defendant occurred, this implies the necessary recognition of the international jurisdiction of the Portuguese courts, as the causality criterion is met.
IX. Accordingly, it must be recognised that the alleged facts establish a sufficiently solid connection between the plaintiff’s case and the Portuguese state to justify the recognition of the international jurisdiction of the Portuguese courts, and there is no pertinent basis for arguing that exorbitant jurisdiction is thereby exercised.
X. The concept of the centre of interests of the injured party is based on European Union law and the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
XI. However, its use does not imply the direct and immediate application of, or any binding adherence to, European Union law or case law. Rather, it is used as an auxiliary element in interpreting and understanding the connecting factor set out in Article 62(b) of the CPC.
XII. For determining jurisdiction, the CJEU follows the criterion of the injured party’s centre of life, namely defined as the place where they have their centre of interests, where their social environment is rooted, where they interact with their peers, and where the damage to their personality rights naturally has the greatest impact.
XIII. As no judicial presumptions were employed that would require consideration of facts beyond those stated in the claim, and as there was no direct or indirect application of European Union law or CJEU guidelines, but rather an assessment of the Portuguese courts’ jurisdiction based on the causality principled outlined in Article 62(1)(b) of the CPC, any potential ruling of unconstitutionality would not affect the judgment under appeal so as to alter or modify it, either wholly or partially. This renders any such constitutional review entirely unnecessary.
XIV. Accordingly, there is no need to address the alleged constitutional issues raised in the arguments of the appeal, since the normative interpretations challenged as unconstitutional were not verified, as they were not included in the appealed decision or the present collegiate decision.
(1) Código de Processo Civil (Code of Civil Procedure).
(2) 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).