Order — ECLI:EU:C:2019:416
Date: 2019-05-15
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Lugano Convention
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Anonymised version 
Translation       C-827/18 — 1 
Case C-827/18 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
24 December 2018 
Referring court: 
Amtsgericht Kamenz (Germany) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
23 November 2018 
Applicant: 
MC 
Defendant: 
ND 
  
[...] 
DECISION 
In the case of 
MC, [...] Dresden 
– Applicant – 
[...] 
against 
ND, [...] Meilen, Switzerland 
– Defendant – 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 23. 11. 2018 — CASE C-827/18 
 
2  
Anonymised version 
on the basis of unjust enrichment 
the Amtsgericht Kamenz (Local Court, Kamenz)  
[...] 
on 23 November 2018 
has ordered as follows: 
Pursuant to point (a) of the first sentence of Article 267 TFEU, the proceedings 
are referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary 
ruling on the interpretation of the Lugano Convention which governs the referring 
court’s international jurisdiction  
in particular concerning the interpretation of Article 22 No 1 of the Lugano 
Convention, valid from 1 January 2010. [Or. 2] 
Is the disputed principal claim for EUR 535, based on a notarial purchase contract 
of 10 February 2016 for the purchase of a residential apartment located in 
Großröhrsdorf, falling under the jurisdiction of the Local Court, Kamenz, which, 
derived specifically from the transfer of possession and enjoyment to the applicant 
on 1 April 2016, in accordance with Paragraph 6 of the notarial contract, was still 
effected by means of the defendant’s tenant’s rental payment on 1 April 2016 in 
respect of the residential apartment [...] to be regarded as proceedings within the 
meaning of Article 22 of the Lugano Convention, 
which have as their object the payment in respect of a right in rem in immovable 
property or tenancies of immovable property, 
or is the international jurisdiction of a German court to be derived from another 
provision of the Lugano Convention, 
or [is] the international jurisdiction of the Swiss court which has jurisdiction in 
respect of the defendant’s domicile justified (Article 2(1) in conjunction with 
Article 5 No 1 of the Lugano Convention)?  
Reasons 
The Lugano Convention is applicable to the proceedings, since the applicant is 
domiciled in the Federal Republic of Germany, the defendant is domiciled in 
Switzerland and both States are Contracting Parties to the Lugano Convention. 
The Local Court, Kamenz, is required to request a preliminary ruling, since its 
decision concerning the value in dispute of EUR 535, which is not appealable, 
may potentially no longer be subject to appeal under national law (see 
Paragraph 511(2) of the Zivilprozessordnung (Code of Civil Procedure; ‘the 
ZPO’)) (second sentence of Article 267 TFEU). 
MC 
 
3 
Anonymised version 
By letter of 20 April 2016, the defendant confirmed to the applicant that she had 
received the purchase price amounting to EUR 60 000 on 1 April 2016 and that 
ownership, benefits and burdens of the residential apartment had been transferred 
to the applicant [...]. 
On 19 May 2016, the applicant sent a letter to the defendant claiming that the 
former tenant of the defendant’s apartment had still paid the rent for April 2016 
and that in view of the transfer of ownership, benefits and burdens, there is a 
claim for payment of the sum of EUR 535 [...], which the defendant refused 
because rental arrears up to and including March 2016 still had to be covered. […] 
The defendant contends that no lease existed between the applicant and the 
defendant. The court at the defendant’s place of residence has jurisdiction in 
respect of an action for unjust enrichment. The payment at issue covered the 
payment of outstanding operating costs arising from the tenancy and operating 
costs. The certificate pledging the rent deposit guarantee was sent to the applicant 
by letter dated 17 April 2016. In accordance with [the notarial contract] the 
defendant is entitled to deduct operating costs [...]. 
The applicant maintains that, in accordance with Article 22(1) of the Lugano 
Convention, the Local Court, Kamenz, has international jurisdiction because the 
alleged contractual entitlement to benefits derived after transfer of ownership 
specifically refers to a rental payment by the defendant’s former tenant to the 
defendant and is to be legally categorised as a claim on the ground of unjustified 
enrichment under Paragraph 812 of the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (German Civil 
Code; ‘the BGB’) [...]. [Or. 3]  
Reference is made to the referring court’s provisional interpretation of the law in 
accordance with the order of 2 May 2018 [...] and of 8 June 2018 [...] in addition 
to Article 24 of Regulation No 1215/2012 and the case-law laid down in relation 
to Article 24(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012. 
This will also determine the exclusive jurisdiction to rights in rem in immovable 
property or tenancies thereof. 
This is not at issue in the relationship between the parties. The parties were and 
are not in such a contractual relationship. Under German law, the tenancy 
agreement could only be transferred to the applicant after his registration at the 
land registry in respect of the relevant acquisition of title (see Paragraph 873 
BGB), and not already on 1 April 2016. The notarial contract concluded between 
the parties is relevant in respect of any benefits derived in the meantime. 
[...]