Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2015:833
Date: 2015-12-17
Language of the case: Finnish
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Subject matter: Area of freedom, security and justice;Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Finland

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber), 17 December 2015 1. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Provisions of that regulation characterised as equivalent to those of the Brussels Convention — Interpretation of those provisions in the light of the case-law of the Court on the convention — Exclusive jurisdiction — Actions concerning rights in rem in immovable property — Meaning — Independent interpretation — Restrictive interpretation (Convention of 27 September 1968; Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 22(1), first para.) 2. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Exclusive jurisdiction — Actions concerning rights in rem in immovable property — Meaning — Scope (Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 22(1), first para.) 3. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Exclusive jurisdiction — Actions concerning rights in rem in immovable property — Meaning — Action for the termination of co-ownership in undivided shares of immovable property — Included (Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 22(1), first para.) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 23, 24) 2. See the text of the decision. (see paras 26, 27) 3. The first paragraph of Article 22(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters 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. First, an action for the termination of co-ownership in immovable property, designed to bring about the transfer of a right of ownership in immovable property, concerns rights in rem which have effect erga omnes and is intended to ensure that the holders of those rights can protect the powers attached to their interest. Second, considerations of sound administration of justice, which underlie the first paragraph of Article 22(1) of the regulation, also support such exclusive jurisdiction. Accordingly, the transfer of the right of ownership in immovable property resulting from such an action will entail the taking into account of situations of fact and law relating to the linking factor as laid down in that provision, namely the place where the immovable property is situated. The same applies, in particular, to the fact that the right of ownership in immovable property and the rights of use encumbering that right are the subject of entries in the Land Register of the Member State where the property is situated in accordance with the law of that Member State, the fact that rules governing the sale, by auction where appropriate, of that property are those of the Member State in which the property is situated, and the fact that, in the case of disagreement, the obtaining of evidence will be facilitated by proximity to the locus rei sitae. (see paras 29-31, 33, operative part)