Irmengard Weber v Mechthilde Weber.
Date: 2014-04-03
29. The Court may, at the request of the parties, order the reopening of the oral procedure in accordance with Article 83 of its Rules of Procedure if it considers that it lacks sufficient information, or that the case must be dealt with on the basis of an argument which has not been debated between the parties (see, to that effect, Case C‑470/12 Pohotovost ’ [2014] ECR, paragraph 21 and the case-law cited).
34. In that regard, it should be recalled that, in accordance with settled case-law, in proceedings under Article 267 TFEU, which are based on a clear separation of functions between the national courts and the Court of Justice, the national court alone has jurisdiction to find and assess the facts in the case before it and to interpret and apply national law. Similarly, it is solely for the national court, before which the dispute has been brought and which must assume responsibility for the judicial decision to be made, to determine, in the light of the particular circumstances of the case, both the need for and the relevance of the questions that it submits to the Court. Consequently, where the questions submitted concern the interpretation of EU law, the Court is in principle bound to give a ruling (see, inter alia, Case C‑332/11 ProRail [2013] ECR, paragraph 30 and the case-law cited).
35. Thus, the Court may reject a reference for a preliminary ruling submitted by a national court only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of EU law that is sought is unrelated to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual and legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it (see, to that effect, inter alia, Case C‑413/12 Asociación de Consumidores Independientes de Castilla y León [2013] ECR, paragraph 26 and the case-law cited).
40. In its case-law on Article 16(1)(a) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36) (‘the Brussels Convention’), which is also applicable for the interpretation of Article 22(1), the Court has already observed that, in order to ensure that the rights and obligations arising out of the Convention for the Contracting States and for the individuals concerned are as equal and as uniform as possible, an independent definition must be given in EU law to the phrase ‘in proceedings which have as their object rights in rem  in immovable property’ (see, to that effect case C‑115/88 Reichert and Kockler  [1990] ECR I‑27, paragraph 8 and the case-law cited).
41. In that regard, it is necessary to take into consideration the fact that the essential reason for conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the courts of the Contracting State in which the property is situated is that the courts of the locus rei sitae  are the best placed, for reasons of proximity, to ascertain the facts satisfactorily and to apply the rules and practices which are generally those of the State in which the property is situated ( Reichert and Kockler , paragraph 10).
42. The Court has already had the occasion to rule that Article 16 of the Brussels Convention and, accordingly, Article 22(1) of Regulation No 44/2001, must be interpreted as meaning that the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Contracting State in which the property is situated does not encompass all actions concerning rights in rem  in immovable property, but only those which both come within the scope of the Convention or of Regulation No 44/2001 and are actions which seek to determine the extent, content, ownership or possession of immovable property or the existence of other rights in rem  therein and to provide the holders of those rights with protection for the powers which attach to their interest (Case C‑386/12 Schneider [2013] ECR, paragraph 21 and the case-law cited).
43. Similarly, under reference to the Schlosser Report on the association of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters and to the Protocol on its interpretation by the Court of Justice (OJ 1979 C 59/71, p. 166), the Court has held that the difference between a right in rem  and a right in personam  is that the former, existing in an item of property, has effect erga omnes , whereas the latter can be claimed only against the debtor (see order in Case C‑518/99 Gaillard  [2001] ECR I‑2771, paragraph 17).
50. Called on to rule on the question whether the provision of the Brussels Convention corresponding to Article 27 of Regulation No 44/2001, namely Article 21 thereof, authorises or requires the court second seised to examine the jurisdiction of the court first seised, the Court has held, without prejudice to the case where the court other than the court first seised has exclusive jurisdiction under the Brussels Convention and in particular under Article 16 thereof, that Article 21 concerning lis pendens  must be interpreted as meaning that, where the jurisdiction of the court first seised is contested, the court other than the court first seised may, if it does not decline jurisdiction, only stay the proceedings and may not itself examine the jurisdiction of the court first seised (see Case C‑351/89 Overseas Union Insurance and Others  [1991] ECR I‑3317, paragraphs 20 and 26).
51. It follows that, in the absence of any claim that the court other than the court first seised had exclusive jurisdiction in the main proceedings, the Court has simply declined to prejudge the interpretation of Article 21 of the Brussels Convention in the hypothetical situation which it specifically excluded from its judgment (Case C‑116/02 Gasser  [2003] ECR I‑14693, paragraph 45, and Case C‑1/13 Cartier parfums — lunettes and Axa Corporate Solutions Assurances [2014] ECR, paragraph 26).
52. Having subsequently been asked about the relationship between Article 21 of the Brussels Convention and Article 17 thereof, relating to exclusive jurisdiction pursuant to a jurisdiction clause, which corresponds to Article 23 of Regulation No 44/2001, it is true that the Court held in Gasser  that the fact that the jurisdiction of the court other than the court first seised is assessed under Article 17 of that Convention cannot call in question the application of the procedural rule contained in Article 21 of the Convention, which is based clearly and solely on the chronological order in which the courts involved are seised.