The prevalence of the montreal convention after the 2017 stf decision; what about jurisdiction?
| Autor | Delphine Defossez - Janny Carrasco |
| Cargo | Lecturer in law, Northumbria University, U.K. - Postdoctor in Social Justice and Inequality in Latin America from the Universidade de Brasília, UnB |
| Páginas | 43-63 |
THE PREVALENCE OF THE MONTREAL CONVENTION
AFTER THE 2017 STF DECISION; WHAT ABOUT
JURISDICTION?
A PREVALÊNCIA DA CONVENÇÃO DE MONTREAL APÓS A DECISÃO
DO STF 2017; QUE ACONTECE COM A JURISDIÇÃO
Delphine Defossez
Lecturer in law, Northumbria University, U.K.;
LL.B. in European Law, Maastricht University, The Netherlands;
LL.M. in Comparative European and International Law,
European University Institute, Italy; LL.M. in International
Commercial and Maritime Law, Swansea University, U.K;
Ph.D., Universidade de Brasília, Brazil.
E-mail: md.defossez91@gmail.com
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7285-0491
Janny Carrasco Medina
Postdoctor in Social Justice and Inequality in Latin America
from the Universidade de Brasília, UnB.
Post-Graduate Professor at the Pontifícia Universidade
Católica de Minas, PUC-MG.
PhD in International Law from the Universidade de Brasília, UnB.
Assistant Professor at Marta Abreu Las Villas Universidad, Cuba.
Master in Higher Education from the Universidad Marta Abreu Las Villas, Cuba.
Law Degree from Marta Abreu Las Villas Universidad, Cuba
. Email : jannycarrasco83@gmail.com
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2183-9182
RESUMO
Este artigo analisa os possíveis impactos da decisão do Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF)
de 2017, que encerrou a disputa de longa data sobre a prevalência da Convenção de
Montreal sobre o Código de Proteção e Defesa do Consumidor (CDC), na jurisdição. Na
verdade, a Convenção de Montreal contém um artigo que regula a jurisdição em caso
essencialmente em consonância com o artigo 21.º do Novo Código de Processo Civil
(CPC). No entanto, em algumas situações, pode ocorrer um conflito. O artigo primeiro
do CPC. Em seguida, analisa várias interpretações do Artigo 33 em todo o mundo e o
conceito de fórum non conveniens. Conclui que os conflitos poderiam estar presentes
apenas na teoria, uma vez que algumas interpretações do artigo 33 estariam em linha
com a forma como os tribunais brasileiros já decidem os casos.
Palavras-chave:Convençao de Montreal ; Novo CPC ; CDC ; Jurisdição ; Julgamento STF
Artigo | Article | Artículo | Article
Recebido: 13/10/2020
Aceito: 24/04/2021
Este é um artigo de acesso aberto licenciado sob a Licença Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial-SemDerivações Internacional
4.0 que permite o compartilhamento em qualquer formato desde que o trabalho original seja adequadamente reconhecido.
This is an Open Access article licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License
that allows sharing in any format as long as the original work is properly acknowledged.
Revista Direito.UnB |Janeiro – Abril, 2021, V. 05, N.2 | ISSN 2357-8009| p. 43-63
43
ABSTRACT
This article analyses the possible impacts of the 2017 Brazilian Supreme Federal Court
(STF) decision, which put an end to the long-standing dispute regarding the prevalence of
the Montreal Convention over the Código de Proteção e Defesa do Consumidor (CDC), on
jurisdiction. Indeed, the Montreal Convention contains an article regulating jurisdiction in
case of both delays (Article 33(1)) and death or bodily injury (Article 33(2)). This provision
is mostly in line with Article 21 of the Novo Código de Processo Civil (CPC). However, in
some situations a conflict might occur. The article first analyses the decision and then
the conflicts between Article 33 Montreal and Article 21 CPC. It then looks at various
interpretations of Article 33 around the world and the concept of forum non conveniens.
It concludes that the conflicts might only be present in theory, as some interpretations of
Article 33 would be in line with the manner Brazilian courts already decide cases.
Keywords: Montreal Convention; New CPC; CDC; Jurisdiction; STF judgment
1. Introdução
The 2017 Brazilian Supreme Federal Court (STF) decision puts an end to the long-
-standing dispute regarding the prevalence of the Montreal Convention over the Código
de Proteção e Defesa do Consumidor (CDC). While the STF decision is a victory, it is not a
complete one. Indeed, the eleven ministers unanimously ruled that moral damages shou-
ld not be subject to any limit which is not in line with the Convention’s wording as moral
damages are excluded from the Convention altogether.
This decision also raises other questions and potentially creates another problem;
jurisdiction. Indeed, the Montreal Convention does not only tackle air carriers’ liability, it
also contains a provision on jurisdiction. With the recent STF judgment, one can wonder
whether, in the Brazilian legal system, the Convention will be prevailing over national laws
as a whole or whether the judgment will only remain applicable to the CDC. As such the
discussion is whether international law should prevail over national law1 or not and whe-
ther the STF judgment was one of a kind that should stay this way.
Up until now, Brazil assumed a broad jurisdiction in consumer cases2, with cases
being resolved in Brazil while the connecting factors pointing to another country. Accor-
ding to Article 21 Novo Código de Processo Civil (CPC), Brazilian courts have jurisdiction
if (I) the person is domiciled in Brazil, (II) the place of performance is in Brazil or (III) the
1 BRASIL. Medida Cautelar na Ação Direta de Inconstitucionalidade ADI n°1.480-DF (1997), 1997.
[hereinafter Novo CPC]. Artigo 22(II).
Revista Direito.UnB |Janeiro – Abril, 2021, V. 05, N.2 | ISSN 2357-8009| p. 43-63
44
Para continuar a ler
PEÇA SUA AVALIAÇÃO