Tribunal da Relação do Porto; 2024-10-21; 271/23.4YRPRT
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:PT:TRP:2024:271.23.4YRPRT.D5
Date: 2024-10-21
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Portugal

82024PT1021(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a matter of recognition of a foreign judgment, brought before the Tribunal da Relação do Porto (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’).
The plaintiff, a British company, filed a suit in a British court (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) against a Portuguese company (hereinafter ‘the defendant’), claiming that the defendant had defaulted on a contract. The defendant was duly notified and submitted a defence, which was struck out by the Court of First Instance, which sentenced the defendant to pay the damages requested by the plaintiff, as well as interests and court costs.
The defendant argued that the judgment of the British court should not be recognised in Portugal for the following reasons:
- There was no proof that the judgment had become final.
- The British courts did not have jurisdiction over the matter because the contract was signed after the transition period of Brexit. This meant that, according to Article 66 of the Brexit Agreement (1), the Rome I Regulation (2) applies and its Article 3 states that, as a rule, contracts shall be governed by the law chosen by the parties. In this case, the defendant denies having agreed to submit the contract to British Law or British courts. Under the terms of the RJSPME (3), specific provisions are applied to microenterprises in the same way as to consumers, namely, those in Articles 90 and 91, regarding information requirements. Since these requirements were not met, the jurisdiction clause is not binding towards the defendant; therefore, under the terms of Article 4(3), Article 6(1)(a) and Article 6(2) of the Rome I Regulation, Portuguese Law should apply. As for jurisdiction, the general rule of the domicile of the defendant should apply, as per Article 4 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (4). The same result would occur by applying Article 17(2) and Article 18(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast).
- If Portuguese Law had been applied, the judgment would have been more favourable to the defendant.
- The contract was no longer in force at the time the plaintiff filed the suit.
The Court of Appeal ruled as follows:
- Under the terms of Article 980(b) of the CPC (5), to be recognised in Portugal, a foreign judgment must be final. The burden of proof lies on the defendant. The defendant claims that the plaintiff could not obtain the certificate from the British court, which would make it even more difficult for the defendant. However, the difficulty of proof does not invert the burden of proof. Besides, the defendant does not, at any time, claim that they appealed the judgment, which leads to the conclusion that it is definitive.
- The judgment may not be recognised, as per Article 980(c) of the CPC, if it violates a norm which attributes exclusive jurisdiction to Portuguese courts. This is not the case.
- The judgment must also respect the right of defence (Article 980(e) of the CPC). The defendant claims that the British court struck out its defence without justification, hearing witnesses, or replying to the allegation of the lack of jurisdiction, thereby revealing partiality. As for jurisdiction, the British court considered itself competent when it passed judgment on the matter. As for the defendant’s defence, it is the position of Portuguese doctrine that the courts are allowed to recognise a foreign judgment which, despite not safeguarding the defendant’s fundamental rights, was accepted by the latter. This was the case, considering that no appeal was filed.
- The defendant also claimed that, if Portuguese Law had been applied, the result would have been more favourable. The Court of Appeal did not agree.
- However, the Court of Appeal did consider that the judgment was unintelligible in the part that related to court costs. The plaintiff had asked for a payment of GBP 1 500, and the judgment mentioned GBP 15 000. Therefore, under Article 980(a) of the CPC, this part of the judgment was not recognised.
(1) Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community.
(2) Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I).
(3) Regime Jurídico dos Serviços de Pagamento e da Moeda Eletrónica (Portuguese law which transposes Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on payment services in the internal market).
(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) Código de Processo Civil (Code of Civil Procedure).