Korkein oikeus; 2016-03-21; A, B and C, X and Y; KKO:2016:21
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:FI:KKO:2016:21
Date: 2016-03-21
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Finland

82016FI0321(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
A, B, C, X and Y were co-owners of an immovable property in Spain. A, B and C submitted a request to the Finnish District court for the termination of this co-ownership by way of sale, by an appointed agent, and for distributing the received purchase price among the co-owners. They based the jurisdiction of the Finnish court on the domicile of X.
X, together with Y, invoked Article 22(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (1) according to which 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 shall have exclusive jurisdiction; therefore, the Spanish courts should have jurisdiction over this case, as the property was situated in Spain.
The District Court considered that it had the jurisdiction and that Finnish law should be applied because the dispute related to a co-ownership and sale and not to rights in rem. On the contrary, the Finnish Court of Appeal considered that Article 22(1) of the Brussels I Regulation was applicable to this dispute, because the sale of the property fell within the meaning of rights in rem as required by this Article. The Court of Appeal held that the Spanish Courts had jurisdiction over the case and annulled the decision of the District Court.
A, B and C appealed to the Finnish Supreme Court demanding the annulment of the decision of the Court of Appeal. According to the Supreme Court, the Brussels I Regulation shall apply in civil and commercial matters, specific cases enacted therein apart. Generally, persons domiciled in a Member State shall, whatever their nationality, be sued in the courts of that Member State. The first paragraph of Article 22 states an exception to this general rule: the courts of Member State in which the property is situated shall have exclusive jurisdiction, regardless of domicile.
In this dispute, the definition of “rights in rem” used in Article 22(1) must be clarified. As the existing case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) was not sufficient, the Supreme Court filed a request for a preliminary ruling on this matter. The CJEU explained (2) that Article 22(1) must be interpreted as meaning that an action for the termination of co-ownership in undivided shares of immovable property by way of sale, by an appointed agent, falls within the category of proceedings ‘which have as their object rights in rem in immovable property’ within the meaning of that provision.
The Supreme Court, based on the aforementioned interpretation of Article 22(1), held that the Spanish courts had exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide this case, because the immovable property was situated in Spain. Therefore, the appeal by A, B and C was dismissed and the decision of the Court of Appeal was upheld.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgement in civil and commercial matters.
(2) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 17 December 2015, Virpi Komu and Others v Pekka Komu and Jelena Komu, C-605/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:833.