{"id":654312,"date":"2026-04-23T03:18:47","date_gmt":"2026-04-23T01:18:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-1982-16-6t8lra-c2-s2-2022-10-27-2\/"},"modified":"2026-04-23T03:18:47","modified_gmt":"2026-04-23T01:18:47","slug":"acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-1982-16-6t8lra-c2-s2-2022-10-27-2","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-1982-16-6t8lra-c2-s2-2022-10-27-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Ac\u00f3rd\u00e3o Supremo Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a \u2013 Processo 1982\/16.6T8LRA.C2.S2 \u2013 2022-10-27"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"kji-decision\">\n<p class=\"kji-summary\">Relator: VIEIRA E CUNHA. I &#8212; Por aplica??o da jurisprud?ncia uniformizada no Ac?rd?o desde Supremo Tribunal de Justi?a, proferida no p.? n.? 1479\/16.4T8LRA.C2.S1-A, se resultou n?o provado que, se o autor marido tivesse percebido que poderia estar a dar ordem de compra de obriga??es, cujo capital n?o era garantido pelo intermedi?rio financeiro, cumpridos os respectivos deveres de informa??o, n?o tivesse consentido e autorizado tal compra, mostra-se precisamente n?o provado o facto, a cargo do autor, que a jurisprud?ncia uniformizada exige para que se possa estabelecer nexo causal do facto para o respectivo resultado danoso. II &#8212; N?o se encontrando demonstrado o necess?rio nexo de causalidade, ? luz da jurisprud?ncia uniformizada, falta, no caso, o requisito da obriga??o de indemniza??o a que alude o disposto no art.? 563.? do C?digo Civil.<\/p>\n<hr class=\"kji-sep\" \/>\n<p class=\"kji-source-links\"><strong>Sources officielles :<\/strong> <a class=\"kji-source-link\" href=\"https:\/\/www.dgsi.pt\/jstj.nsf\/954f0ce6ad9dd8b980256b5f003fa814\/2235107b430f2cda802588ee00699fe2?OpenDocument&#038;ExpandSection=1\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">consulter la page source<\/a><\/p>\n<p class=\"kji-license-note\"><em>Portails officiels portugais (DGSI \/ Tribunal Constitucional). Republication en metadata_only par prudence licencielle ; consulter la source officielle pour le texte authentique.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Relator: VIEIRA E CUNHA. I &#8212; Por aplica??o da jurisprud?ncia uniformizada no Ac?rd?o desde Supremo Tribunal de Justi?a, proferida no p.? n.? 1479\/16.4T8LRA.C2.S1-A, se resultou n?o provado que, se o autor marido tivesse percebido que poderia estar a dar ordem de compra de obriga??es, cujo capital n?o era garantido pelo intermedi?rio financeiro, cumpridos os respectivos deveres de informa??o, n?o tivesse consentido e autorizado tal compra, mostra-se precisamente n?o provado o facto, a cargo do autor, que a jurisprud?ncia uniformizada exige para que se possa estabelecer nexo causal do facto para o respectivo resultado danoso. II &#8212; N?o se encontrando demonstrado o necess?rio nexo de causalidade, ? luz da jurisprud?ncia uniformizada, falta, no caso, o requisito da obriga??o de indemniza??o a que alude o disposto no art.? 563.? do C?digo Civil.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7762],"kji_court":[7763],"kji_chamber":[8784],"kji_year":[32183],"kji_subject":[7724],"kji_keyword":[7772,7774,7771,7773,7636],"kji_language":[7770],"class_list":["post-654312","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-portugal","kji_court-supremo-tribunal-de-justica","kji_chamber-2-seco","kji_year-32183","kji_subject-civil","kji_keyword-acordao","kji_keyword-justica","kji_keyword-processo","kji_keyword-supremo","kji_keyword-tribunal","kji_language-pt"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v27.5 (Yoast SEO v27.5) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Ac\u00f3rd\u00e3o Supremo Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a \u2013 Processo 1982\/16.6T8LRA.C2.S2 \u2013 2022-10-27 - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-1982-16-6t8lra-c2-s2-2022-10-27-2\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"ru_RU\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ac\u00f3rd\u00e3o Supremo Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a \u2013 Processo 1982\/16.6T8LRA.C2.S2 \u2013 2022-10-27\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Relator: VIEIRA E CUNHA. I - Por aplica??o da jurisprud?ncia uniformizada no Ac?rd?o desde Supremo Tribunal de Justi?a, proferida no p.? n.? 1479\/16.4T8LRA.C2.S1-A, se resultou n?o provado que, se o autor marido tivesse percebido que poderia estar a dar ordem de compra de obriga??es, cujo capital n?o era garantido pelo intermedi?rio financeiro, cumpridos os respectivos deveres de informa??o, n?o tivesse consentido e autorizado tal compra, mostra-se precisamente n?o provado o facto, a cargo do autor, que a jurisprud?ncia uniformizada exige para que se possa estabelecer nexo causal do facto para o respectivo resultado danoso. II - N?o se encontrando demonstrado o necess?rio nexo de causalidade, ? luz da jurisprud?ncia uniformizada, falta, no caso, o requisito da obriga??o de indemniza??o a que alude o disposto no art.? 563.? do C?digo Civil.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-1982-16-6t8lra-c2-s2-2022-10-27-2\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\u041f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0435\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u044f \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0447\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"1 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442\u0430\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-1982-16-6t8lra-c2-s2-2022-10-27-2\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-1982-16-6t8lra-c2-s2-2022-10-27-2\\\/\",\"name\":\"Ac\u00f3rd\u00e3o Supremo Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a \u2013 Processo 1982\\\/16.6T8LRA.C2.S2 \u2013 2022-10-27 - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-23T01:18:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-1982-16-6t8lra-c2-s2-2022-10-27-2\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-1982-16-6t8lra-c2-s2-2022-10-27-2\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-1982-16-6t8lra-c2-s2-2022-10-27-2\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/avocats-en-droit-penal-a-paris-conseil-et-defense-strategique\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jurisprudences\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Ac\u00f3rd\u00e3o Supremo Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a \u2013 Processo 1982\\\/16.6T8LRA.C2.S2 \u2013 2022-10-27\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"description\":\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"width\":2114,\"height\":1253,\"caption\":\"Kohen Avocats\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ac\u00f3rd\u00e3o Supremo Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a \u2013 Processo 1982\/16.6T8LRA.C2.S2 \u2013 2022-10-27 - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-1982-16-6t8lra-c2-s2-2022-10-27-2\/","og_locale":"ru_RU","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ac\u00f3rd\u00e3o Supremo Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a \u2013 Processo 1982\/16.6T8LRA.C2.S2 \u2013 2022-10-27","og_description":"Relator: VIEIRA E CUNHA. I - Por aplica??o da jurisprud?ncia uniformizada no Ac?rd?o desde Supremo Tribunal de Justi?a, proferida no p.? n.? 1479\/16.4T8LRA.C2.S1-A, se resultou n?o provado que, se o autor marido tivesse percebido que poderia estar a dar ordem de compra de obriga??es, cujo capital n?o era garantido pelo intermedi?rio financeiro, cumpridos os respectivos deveres de informa??o, n?o tivesse consentido e autorizado tal compra, mostra-se precisamente n?o provado o facto, a cargo do autor, que a jurisprud?ncia uniformizada exige para que se possa estabelecer nexo causal do facto para o respectivo resultado danoso. II - N?o se encontrando demonstrado o necess?rio nexo de causalidade, ? luz da jurisprud?ncia uniformizada, falta, no caso, o requisito da obriga??o de indemniza??o a que alude o disposto no art.? 563.? do C?digo Civil.","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-1982-16-6t8lra-c2-s2-2022-10-27-2\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\u041f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0435\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u044f \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0447\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f":"1 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442\u0430"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-1982-16-6t8lra-c2-s2-2022-10-27-2\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-1982-16-6t8lra-c2-s2-2022-10-27-2\/","name":"Ac\u00f3rd\u00e3o Supremo Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a \u2013 Processo 1982\/16.6T8LRA.C2.S2 \u2013 2022-10-27 - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-23T01:18:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-1982-16-6t8lra-c2-s2-2022-10-27-2\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"ru-RU","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-1982-16-6t8lra-c2-s2-2022-10-27-2\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/acordao-supremo-tribunal-de-justica-processo-1982-16-6t8lra-c2-s2-2022-10-27-2\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/avocats-en-droit-penal-a-paris-conseil-et-defense-strategique\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jurisprudences","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Ac\u00f3rd\u00e3o Supremo Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a \u2013 Processo 1982\/16.6T8LRA.C2.S2 \u2013 2022-10-27"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/","name":"Kohen Avocats","description":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"ru-RU"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#organization","name":"Kohen Avocats","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"ru-RU","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","width":2114,"height":1253,"caption":"Kohen Avocats"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_likes_enabled":false,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision\/654312","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/kji_decision"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=654312"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=654312"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=654312"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=654312"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=654312"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=654312"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=654312"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=654312"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}