The judgment, dated April 18 and consulted today by Lusa, dismissed the appeal filed by the Humanitarian and Cultural Association of Firefighters of São Pedro da Cova, maintaining the appealed decision in its exact terms.

At issue is a large fire that broke out at 10:00 am on September 25, 2018, in a São Pedro da Cova scrap yard in Gondomar, in the district of Porto.

The fire, which was extinguished around 3:00 am the following day, was fought by several volunteer fire brigades, including the São Pedro da Cova Firefighters, who mobilized 23 firefighters and eight vehicles to the scene.

After extinguishing the fire, the association that manages the local fire brigade issued and sent an invoice to the company for the services provided in the total amount of 21,275 euros, which includes the food expenses of all firefighters who participated in fighting the flames, even from other corporations.

To this end, it alleged that, in the exercise of its functions, it had been contacted by the legal representative of the company, requesting its services to extinguish a fire that was occurring in its facilities, arguing that a verbal contract for the provision of paid services had been entered into.

As the company did not pay the invoice, the association filed an injunction to collect the debt in the Gondomar Local Civil Court, which, in June 2023, dismissed the action in its entirety and acquitted the defendant of the request, considering that the fire brigade belonging to the plaintiff "provides public services financed by the State".

Unhappy with the decision, the humanitarian association of firefighters appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing that it is a private entity that is not exclusively financed by the State, and that the revenues obtained from public contributions "are manifestly insufficient to ensure its subsistence".

It also stated that the provision of services resulted in "significant losses (monetary and material)" for the association that were never reimbursed by the State, since it was an industrial fire and the payment of the expenses assumed with the said intervention "is not admissible in light of the applicable Financial Directive".

However, the appellate judges concluded that, although the plaintiff is a private law entity, it is financed by public funds, adding that this public funding "is only justified by the purposes, of undeniable public utility, pursued by these entities, among which are the protection of people and property and the extinction of fires".

The TRP also states that no evidence was presented of the conclusion of any contract with the company where the fire occurred, and it was not even mentioned that there would be any cost associated with the intervention of the firefighters and to be borne by the defendant.

"It does not even seem reasonable to think that the defendant, when he called the firefighters for help due to a fire that had broken out, could have been aware that he was entering into a contract for the provision of services," the judgment states.

Read Also: About 250 volunteer firefighters were injured on duty since 2022 (Portuguese version)