JURE summary

JURE summary

I. Under Article 615(1)(b) of the CPC (¹), applicable to orders by virtue of Article 613(3) of the same Code, a judgment is null and void if it does not specify the factual and legal grounds justifying the decision. This may be the case where there is a complete lack of reasoning, or where the reasoning is so deficient in fact or in law as to prevent the parties from fully understanding and critically analysing the grounds (both factual and legal) of the decision. This is not the case if the contested decision is sufficiently reasoned to allow the plaintiffs to identify the alleged error of law and to develop their critical arguments in that respect.

II. As the defendants have raised an objection of absolute lack of jurisdiction based on the (alleged) failure to satisfy any of the criteria for determining international jurisdiction set out in Article 62 of the CPC, it is necessary to assess whether any of these criteria are met. This assessment must consider the way in which the action was framed, as well as how the plaintiff structured the claim and respective cause of action.

III. According to a ‘descending order of practical application’, international jurisdiction is determined by the principles of coincidence, causality and necessity, as set out in points (a), (b) and (c) of that Article. Therefore, if the international jurisdiction is already attributed to the Portuguese courts by the principle of causality (and it is clear that, in this case, point (a) does not apply), there is no need to resort to the principle of necessity.

IV. According to the principle of causality, an action may be brought before the Portuguese courts if the cause of action (even if only some of the facts) arose in Portuguese territory. According to the principle of necessity, an action may be brought before the Portuguese courts if a subjective situation with a significant personal or substantive connection to Portuguese territory can only be recognised in proceedings before the national courts, which may occur due to a legal or practical impossibility.

V. Under Article 62(b) and (c) of the CPC, the Portuguese courts have international jurisdiction to hear a case brought by a foreign company (a banking institution based in Puerto Rico) against four companies based in Venezuela. The action is based on the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil under Venezuelan law and seeks to order the defendants to pay the sum owed by the parent company, which, together with the defendants and other subsidiaries, forms a group of state-owned oil companies held by the State of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and controlled by the government of that country. In related interim proceedings, sums deposited in a Portuguese banking institution have been seized in the context of judicial consignment proceedings. The plaintiff alleges that these sums are the only guarantee of satisfaction of its claim and is pursuing compulsory payment in enforcement proceedings brought in Portugal. The plaintiff also alleged, albeit on a subsidiary basis, that the parent company and the defendants had acted in concert in order to rely on the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil under Portuguese law.

(¹) Código de Processo Civil (Code of Civil Procedure).