International contracts represent a category of negotiation that involves, directly or indirectly, relations that transcend the borders of a single nation. These agreements can link the jurisdictions of multiple countries, whether due to the nationality or location of the contracting parties, the place where contractual obligations are performed, or the economic and legal effects generated by the contract. As a result, the laws of different countries may apply to the relationship between the parties.
In this context, it is important to highlight that, in international contracts involving legal entities connected to Brazil, the Brazilian judiciary can be invoked in certain situations, regardless of international jurisdiction. This may occur, for example, when one of the parties is domiciled in Brazil, including foreign companies with branches in the country, or when the contractual obligation is to be performed within Brazilian territory.
Given the potential involvement of the Brazilian judiciary in international contracts, it is crucial to mention an important position taken by the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) on the matter. The court has a well-established understanding that an action filed abroad may coexist with one filed in Brazil, even if both concern the same contract. In this way, the court emphasizes the importance of international cooperation to ensure that the contracting parties' interests are properly addressed.
With this allowance, the possibility of discussing the fulfillment of contractual obligations in Brazilian territory is highly advantageous for international creditors, particularly when discussing the enforcement of arrears.
However, despite this permission granted by the Superior Court of Justice, which facilitates debt collection and expands the procedural options available to creditors, the court imposes a significant restriction regarding these contracts. This limitation prohibits the filing of claims involving international contracts in Brazil when the contract includes an exclusive foreign jurisdiction clause.
In other words, when the contracting parties stipulate that any disputes arising from the contract will only be resolved in a foreign court, Brazilian jurisdiction is excluded by mutual agreement between the parties. In this case, the creditor will not be able to take advantage of the tools offered by the local judiciary.
In light of this legal framework, it is crucial for parties engaged in international contracts with Brazilian components to meticulously assess the jurisdiction clauses and the associated legal implications. The selection of jurisdiction may substantially affect the enforceability of rights and the efficacy of asset recovery.
Moreover, a thorough understanding of the intricacies of the Brazilian legal system and effective engagement with the local judiciary are essential for sound risk management. For international creditors, the option to invoke the Brazilian judiciary provides an additional layer of protection; however, awareness of the limitations imposed by exclusive foreign jurisdiction is vital.
Ultimately, the increasing globalization and interconnectedness of economies make it even more relevant to understand the legal issues surrounding international contracts. Cooperation between jurisdictions, the adequacy of collection strategies, and specialized legal advice are key elements to ensure that the interests of the parties are preserved and that contractual commitments are fulfilled efficiently and effectively.