If one of the defendants did not sign a forum election, the

[account_disabled]

If there is more than one defendant, the claim can be filed in the court of residence of any of them, even if there is a forum selection clause before one of them. The general rule prevails, in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure.





TJ/PE

Demand in the case must be processed on the TJ-PE

City Hall Portal

With this understanding, the 4th Panel of the Superior Court of Justice accepted embargoes of divergence with infringing effects to reform the ruling of the Court of Justice of Pernambuco, which made the forum elected by contractual clause prevail.



This is a declaratory action combined with compensation for moral and material damages filed by a vehicle dealership, to obtain compensation due to the termination of the commercial concession contract with Volkswagen do Brasil. This contract has a forum clause, defining that any demands must be processed in São Paulo.



The dealership, however, jointly sued Banco B2B Lead Volkswagen, with which there is no forum selection clause. Therefore, the lawsuit was filed in Recife. In the first and second instance, the Pernambuco court upheld the contractual clause, declaring the São Paulo state court as the competent forum.



In an embargo for clarification, the 4th Panel corrected the understanding to adapt it to the jurisprudence of the STJ, according to which article 94, paragraph 4, of the 1973 Code of Civil Procedure prevails. In the 2015 edition of the code, currently in force, the rule is in paragraph 4 of article 46.







The rule states: "if there are two or more defendants, with different domiciles, they will be sued in the court of any of them, at the plaintiff's choice." For the rapporteur, Minister Raul Araújo, this clause applies even if there is, before one of them, a forum election clause.



Sergio Amaral

Minister Raul Araújo applied jurisprudence to make article 94 of CPC/73 prevail

Sergio Amaral

Extra understanding

In a unanimous vote, minister Luís Felipe Salomão followed the rapporteur's understanding and added the basis that there is no interest in acting for the exception of incompetence proposed by a defendant who opposes the option made by the plaintiff to file the action at his home.



In other words, when the plaintiff chooses the domicile of one of the defendants to file the action, it is not up to the defendant whose domicile was chosen to contest the choice.