The appellant filed an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Lisbon of 8 November 2022 confirming the first instance decision of the Maritime Court of Lisbon that it lacked jurisdictional competence to hear the appellant's claim for EUR 490,929.74, and consequently acquitted the respondent.

The appellant argued that its claim concerned compensation for damage arising from the arrest of the ship V... by the respondent, which was allowed to lapse for reasons solely attributable to the respondent's negligence and inertia. The appellant based its claim on delict (arts 483.1 and 621 of the Civil Code). The appellant alleged that the arrest of the ship, following a dispute over payment for bunker supplies, was unjustified. The arrest, which expired due to the respondent failing to file a claim on the merits, caused several losses, including an inability to use the ship for 5 months, during which time it was not possible to obtain income to pay the crew's wages; having to pay the costs relating to the ship's stay in port; and having to incur expenses in connection with the arrest process, respective attachments of third party claims, and provision of security for the vessel's release.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

Law No 62/2013, of 26 August, the Law on the Organisation of the Judicial System (Lei da Organização do Sistema Judiciário (LOSJ)) provides in art 40 that 'Judicial courts have jurisdiction over cases that are not attributed to another jurisdictional order.' This law divides jurisdiction among the different courts of first instance, depending on the subject matter, defining cases that fall under the jurisdiction of the specialist jurisdictional sections of the District Courts or courts of broad territorial jurisdiction. The Maritime Court is a court of broad territorial jurisdiction and is competent to hear those cases listed in art 113. These include, in art 113.1.a: 'Compensation due for damage caused or suffered by ships, vessels, and other floating devices, or resulting from their maritime use, under the general terms of law'.

From this provision, it is clear that it was the legislator's intention for the Maritime Court to deal with all issues that are specific to ships and floating devices, whether in terms of contracts that are specific and exclusive to them, or in relation to maritime trade. These issues naturally require technical knowledge that a specialised Court will be more easily able to manage, thus guaranteeing, as far as is possible, a uniform treatment of similar issues, at least within the area of territorial jurisdiction of the Maritime Court, where they will arise most frequently. In terms of civil liability, this provision reserves only actions arising from pollution of the sea and other waters to the Maritime Court's jurisdiction.

The appellant bases its claim on the text of art 113.1.a, but without reason. This provision involves compensation claims for damage caused or suffered by ships, boats, and other floating devices, or resulting from their maritime use. However, in this case, the ship was only the seized object, and any compensation that will be determined does not refer to damage caused or suffered by it, or to damage arising from its maritime use. The main issue is the damage that its owner suffered as a result of not being able to carry out maritime use of the ship during the arrest. The ship itself neither suffered nor caused damage as would happen in a navigation accident, or during cargo operations, or discharge of goods.

Whether the seized asset is a ship or any other asset does not affect the jurisdiction of the court competent to hear the action for compensation for damage caused by a seizure that turned out to be unjustified or that expired due to the negligence of the arresting party. Nothing alleged by the appellant appears to particularly relate to maritime traffic, maritime trade, or a specific contract that can only involve ships.

Since the material competence to hear this case is not attributed by law to any specific Court, it is covered by the residual competence of the Civil Courts.