Oberlandesgericht Wien, Urteil vom 29/12/2006 13 R 222/06x
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:AT:OLG0009:2006:RW0000361
Date: 2006-12-29
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Austria

82006AT1229(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE SUMMARY
JURE SUMMARY
The plaintiff, domiciled in Austria, commenced proceedings against the defendant, domiciled in Prague (CZ) before the Landesgericht of Vienna (AT) seeking payment of outstanding maintenance. The case has not yet been decided. During the proceedings, the plaintiff applied for an injunction ordering the defendant by way of a protective measure to refrain from disposing of certain real property situated in the Czech Republic. In order to substantiate her application, she contended that the real property constituted the total assets of the defendant, who was just about to assign it to his present wife. The defendant asserted that the court lacked international jurisdiction over the application for an interim injunction. He held that, according to Article 22(1) Brussels I Regulation, the Czech courts had exclusive jurisdiction. The Landesgericht of Vienna acceded to the application and ordered the defendant to refrain from selling or burdening the real property. It dismissed the plaintiff’s further application for an order for the registration of the prohibition of disposal in the Czech land register on the ground that such an order would interfere with the sovereign rights of the Czech Republic. The defendant lodged an appeal against the interim injunction before the Oberlandesgericht (OLG) of Vienna (AT).
The OLG of Vienna (AT) affirms the judgment by the Landesgericht and dismisses the defendant’s appeal. It holds that exclusive jurisdiction according to Article 22(1) Brussels I Regulation only applies with regard to rights in rem and to claims which are based on such rights or directly arise from them. The principle that the courts at the situs of a real property are best suited to determine rights in rem only applies where such rights are involved. The plaintiff’s application for a protective measure is not based on such a right in rem. It rather has the objective of safeguarding the enforcement of a right in personam.