Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2025:563
Date: 2025-07-10
Language of the case: Polish
Court formation: Ninth Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Poland

Translation C-99/24 - 1 
Case C-99/24 [Chmieka] i 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
7 February 2024 
Referring court: 
Sąd Rejonowy w Koszalinie (Poland) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
31 January 2024 
Applicant 
G.M.K.-Z.B.M. 
Defendant: 
S.O. 
  
Case ref.: […] 
ORDER 
of 31 January 2024 
The Sąd Rejonowy w Koszalinie w I Wydziale Cywilnym (First Civil Division 
of the District Court, Koszalin, Poland), sitting in the following composition: 
[…] 
following consideration in Koszalin in closed session 
of the action brought by G.M.K.-Z.B.M. in K. 
against S.O. 
concerning payment 
makes the following order: 
 
i This case has been given a fictitious name which does not correspond to the real name of any of the parties to the proceedings. 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 31. 1. 2024 – CASE C-99/24 
 
2  
(1) pursuant to Article […] the proceedings shall be stayed, 
(2) a reference for a preliminary ruling shall be made to the Court of 
Justice of the European Union as set out in the annex, which forms an 
integral part of this order. 
(Judge […]) 
REFERENCE FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING 
Referring court: 
The Sąd Rejonowy w Koszalinie (Poland) 
consisting of: […] 
Case reference of the referring court: […] 
Parties to the main proceedings and their representatives: 
Applicant: G.M.K.-Z.B.M. in K., represented by […], radcy prawny. 
Defendant: S.O., represented by […], radcy prawny, and […], adwokat 
Content of the questions: 
(1) Must Article 66 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction 
and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and 
commercial matters be interpreted as meaning that the ‘institution of 
legal proceedings’ means the lodging of an application by an applicant 
in a procedural matter or the lodging, by the defendant, of a request for 
review of the case after the definitive conclusion thereof, 
and, depending on the answer to the above question: 
(2) Must the provisions of Chapter II of Council Regulation (EC) 
No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition 
and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters 
or the provisions of Chapter II of [Regulation No 1215/2012] 
be interpreted as meaning that a person domiciled in one Member State 
may be sued in the courts of another Member State for payment of 
remuneration for the non-contractual use of immovable property 
situated in that other Member State? 
CHMIEKA 
 
3 
Subject matter of the dispute in the main proceedings and relevant facts 
1 G.M.K. brought an action before the Sąd Rejonowy w Koszalinie [(‘the Sąd 
Rejonowy’)] on 15 March 2013 against T., S., M. and Sz. O. concerning the 
payment of remuneration for the non-contractual use of the municipality’s 
property situated in Koszalin (Republic of Poland) following the termination of a 
tenancy agreement. The applicant stated the residential address of all defendants 
in Poland. An order for payment was issued in the case, which was received at the 
address in Poland by one of the defendants on behalf of all the others. The order 
for payment was not challenged and was found to be valid and enforceable. 
2 By a letter addressed to the Sąd Rejonowy on 7 July 2023, S.O. successfully 
lodged a statement of opposition to the order for payment, requesting that the case 
be reviewed and the action of 15 March 2013 against her be dismissed. The 
defendant contended that the Polish court lacked jurisdiction, stating that since 
2007 she has been domiciled solely in the Kingdom of the Netherlands and has 
never concluded a tenancy agreement for the property in question with the 
municipality. 
3 The applicant G.M.K. argues that there is such a strong legal link between the 
defendants that it is expedient to determine the case for payment together. The 
defendants are all related and lived together in the applicant’s property. The 
tenancy agreement for that property was concluded solely by T.O. (the mother of 
the other defendants) in 1994. Termination of the tenancy agreement was notified 
to T.O. and an order was issued for the eviction of all the defendants from the 
property in question in 2007. 
Provisions of national law 
4 The first paragraph of Article 18 of the Ustawa z dnia 21 czerwca 2001 r. o 
ochronie praw lokatorów, mieszkaniowym zasobie gminy i o zmianie Kodeksu 
cywilnego (Law of 21 June 2001 on the protection of tenants’ rights, municipal 
housing stock and amendments to the Civil Code) [(‘the Law on the protection of 
tenants rights’)]: 
Persons occupying a property without legal title shall be obliged to pay 
compensation on a monthly basis until the date on which the property is vacated. 
5 Article 505 of the Code of Civil Procedure: 
(1) The defendant may lodge a statement of opposition to the order for payment. 
(2) The order for payment shall become null and void in so far as it is contested 
by the statement of opposition. A statement of opposition by only one of the co-
defendants concerning the same claim and concerning one or more of the claims 
granted shall render the order null and void only as regards them. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 31. 1. 2024 – CASE C-99/24 
 
4  
European Union law 
6 Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of 
judgments in civil and commercial matters: 
Article 66(1). This Regulation shall apply only to legal proceedings instituted, to 
authentic instruments formally drawn up or registered and to court settlements 
approved or concluded on or after 10 January 2015. 
Article 5(1). Persons domiciled in a Member State may be sued in the courts of 
another Member State only by virtue of the rules set out in Sections 2 to 7 of this 
Chapter. 
Article 7. A person domiciled in a Member State may be sued in another Member 
State: 
…  
([2]) in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, in the courts for the place 
where the harmful event occurred or may occur; 
Article 8. A person domiciled in a Member State may also be sued: 
(1) where he is one of a number of defendants, in the courts for the place where 
any one of them is domiciled, provided the claims are so closely connected 
that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of 
irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings; 
Article 24. The following courts of a Member State shall have exclusive 
jurisdiction, regardless of the domicile of the parties: 
(1) in proceedings which have as their object rights in rem in immovable 
property or tenancies of immovable property, the courts of the Member State in 
which the property is situated. 
7 Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and 
the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters: 
Article 3(1). Persons domiciled in a Member State may be sued in the courts of 
another Member State only by virtue of the rules set out in Sections 2 to 7 of this 
Chapter. 
Article 5. A person domiciled in a Member State may, in another Member State, 
be sued: 
… 
CHMIEKA 
 
5 
3. in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, in the courts for the place 
where the harmful event occurred or may occur; 
Article 6. A person domiciled in a Member State may also be sued: 
1. where he is one of a number of defendants, in the courts for the place where 
any one of them is domiciled, provided the claims are so closely connected 
that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of 
irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings; 
Article 22. The following courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction, regardless of 
domicile: 
1. in proceedings which have as their object rights in rem in immovable 
property or tenancies of immovable property, the courts of the Member State 
in which the property is situated. 
Need for an interpretation of EU law 
8 At the current stage of the proceedings, the Sąd Rejonowy must rule on the 
defendant S.O.’s plea alleging that the Polish court lacks jurisdiction. The 
applicant claims that the Polish court has such jurisdiction and that the correct 
interpretation of the legislation in this respect is of relevance to a number of cases 
relating to satisfaction of the housing needs of the municipality’s residents. If the 
plea is found to be well founded, the Sąd Rejonowy will dismiss the 
municipality’s action of 15 March 2013 and there will be a legal basis for 
discontinuing enforcement against the defendant. 
9 The subject matter of the dispute is the demand for payment of remuneration for 
the use, by the defendant S.O., during the period at issue (2011-2012), of the 
municipality’s property situated in Koszalin (Republic of Poland). The defendant 
had no right to that property at that time. She had previously lived in the property 
at issue as a child with her mother, who had concluded a tenancy agreement for 
that property. After the municipality terminated the tenancy, a Polish court 
ordered the eviction of the defendant’s entire family. The municipality contends 
that the family failed to vacate the property despite the eviction order. The 
defendant S.O., on the other hand, claims that she moved permanently to the 
Kingdom of the Netherlands in 2007. In the proceedings thus far it has been 
established that at the time the applicant brought the action on 15 March 2013 and 
at the time the defendant lodged her statement of opposition on 7 July 2023, the 
defendant S.O. was domiciled in the Kingdom of the Netherlands. 
10 The case for the payment of remuneration for the use of another person’s 
immovable property is a civil case and falls within the scope ratione materiae of: 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 31. 1. 2024 – CASE C-99/24 
 
6  
- Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement 
of judgments in civil and commercial matters, and 
- Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction 
and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial 
matters. 
11 In the first place, determining which of those regulations is applicable in this case 
by virtue of their scope ratione temporis remains at issue. Under Article 66(1) of 
Regulation No 1215/2012, this Regulation shall apply only to legal proceedings 
instituted … on or after 10 January 2015. 
12 The uncertainty concerns whether the concept of ‘institution of proceedings’ 
should relate to the date on which G.K. brought the action for payment against the 
defendant (15 March 2013) or the date on which the defendant lodged the 
statement of opposition (7 July 2023) with a request for review of the case. 
13 In the second place, depending on the answer to the first question as to which of 
the regulations is applicable in this case, the rules of jurisdiction laid down in that 
regulation need to be analysed. The wording of the provisions of the two 
regulations is identical in this respect. 
Determining the rules of jurisdiction in respect of the above case requires analysis: 
14 First, Article 7(2) of Regulation [No 1215/2012] (corresponding to Article 5(3) of 
Regulation [No] 44/2001). It is necessary to consider whether residing in another 
person’s property without legal title following the termination of the tenancy 
agreement authorising the occupation of that property constitutes tort, delict or 
quasi-delict. 
Under Polish law – the Law on the protection of tenants’ rights – residing in 
another person’s property without legal title does not constitute tort. In its 
resolution of 7 December 2007 in Case III CZP 121/07, the Sąd Najwyższy 
(Supreme Court, Poland) held: ‘The findings made do not permit liability as 
referred to in Article 18(1) to (3) of the Law on the protection of tenants’ rights to 
be regarded as liability in tort. The relinquishment in those provisions of fault as a 
condition for liability does not allow facts falling within their scope to be 
classified as an offence within the meaning of Article 415 of the Civil Code and 
cannot be subsumed under other provisions of the Civil Code on torts. There are 
also no grounds for assuming that those provisions themselves define an offence 
of a particular type …’. 
However, the Court of Justice of the European Union, in its judgment of 25 March 
2021 in Case C-307/19, held that the concept of ‘matters relating to tort, delict or 
quasi-delict’ within the meaning of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1215/2012 
covers all actions which seek to establish the liability of a defendant and do not 
concern ‘matters relating to a contract’ within the meaning of Article 7(1)(a) of 
CHMIEKA 
 
7 
that regulation, in that they are actions not based on a legal obligation freely 
consented to by one person towards another (paragraph 83 and the case-law cited). 
15 Secondly, Article 8(1) of Regulation [No 1215/2012] (corresponding to 
Article 6(1) of Regulation [No] 44/2001). It is necessary to analyse whether it is 
expedient to determine and hear together the case for payment of such 
remuneration against all members of the family who once resided together in the 
property to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate 
proceedings. At the same time, under Polish law, only the persons actually 
occupying the property are liable for payment. There are no provisions providing 
for joint and several liability of all family members. Therefore, it is possible to 
deliver different judgments in respect of each family member, depending on the 
finding as to whether he or she actually occupied the property at issue during the 
period covered by the action. This appears to militate against the applicability of 
that provision as a basis for jurisdiction in this case. 
16 Thirdly, Article 24(1) of Regulation [No 1215/2012] (corresponding to 
Article 22(1) of Regulation [No] 44/2001). It is necessary to consider whether a 
demand for payment of remuneration for the use of another person’s property 
without legal title following the termination of the tenancy agreement authorising 
the occupation of that property is a case relating to ‘rights in rem in immovable 
property’ or ‘tenancies of immovable property’. It appears that such an 
interpretation should be rejected in light of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 
the European Union of 3 October 2013 in Case C-386/12. 
17 If none of the abovementioned provisions is applicable, in accordance with 
Article 5(1) of Regulation [No 1215/2012] (corresponding to Article 3(1) of 
Regulation [No] 44/2001), there will be a lack of jurisdiction in the case, 
justifying dismissal of the action of 15 March 2013. 
(Judge […])