Exclusive jurisdiction (art. 24) - Brussels Ia

Webb v. Webb

Proper performance of a trust relationship is not considered a right in rem because it is a right in personam ( here the trustee doesn’t have property rights he can claim erga omnes, he can only claim them against his son). It is not enough for the action to involve a right in rem (there was real estate in the trust), the action MUST be based on a right in rem and here it is not the case.

Reichert case

Actio paulianna seeking to render a disposition of a right in rem ineffective. The action paulianna should in itself not be considered a right in rem and doesn’t fall under art. 24(1).

Gaillard case

Right in rem: right having effect erga omnes (while right in personam only has effect towards debtor)

Action for rescission of contract of sale of immovable property does not constitute a right in rem for the regulation.

Elmes Property Services case

CJEU threw in the towel regarding the autonomous meaning of “right in rem”. It refers to the national law of the state to determine whether or not the right of co-owners of a building to prohibit the other to do something is a right in rem.

Weber v Weber case

Same conclusion as in Elmes property. The erga omnes effect on a right of pre-emption on immovable property shall be looked at from a national law perspective (= no autonomous meaning)

Klein v Rodhos ( not in materials)

Time share agreement does not fall under the notion of tenancy in the regulation. There needs to be a sufficient link between person and the immovable property.

Hacker Case

Art. 24 needs to be interpreted restrictively in light of the effect utile of the regulation, complex travel arrangements where you rent a place but you also have a lot of services (bar, catering, cleaning, activities etc.) do not fall under “tenancy agreement” in the sense of the convention.

Roompot Services case

The mere provision of electricity, cleaning after check-out etc. Do not make the contract a complex contract in the sense of Hacker. For Hacker to apply there needs to be an “experience” which is provided.

Schmidt v Schmidt case

A claim under art. 8 (4) can be brought together in front of the same court which is competent under art. 24. (But careful parties can choose for bifurcation instead if they want to)

BVG case (Not in materials)

Exception of art. 24(2) regarding the decisions of the corporate bodies should be interpreted restrictively. The mere fact that the company has entered into an agreement in violation of its bylaws does not suffice for the article to apply.

GAT v LUK case

Invalidity of patents falls under art. 24(2) of the convention, however in the regulation this has been codified in art. 24(4). States apply 24(4) differently some take over the whole case while others say that the 24(4) court is only competent to examine the validity of the patent and not the entire case. Invalidity of patents falls under art. 24(2) of the convention, however in the regulation this has been codified in art. 24(4). States apply 24(4) differently some take over the whole case while others say that the 24(4) court is only competent to examine the validity of the patent and not the entire case.

Hausergate case (not in materials)

AG in this case clarifies that the approach were the court under art. 24(4) is only competent for IP matters should be preferred, although there is no procedural guarantee that the judge will send back the case to the court that is competent for the whole case.

IRnova v. FLIR case

Art. 24 seems to have no reflexive effect. Meaning that if the court which is competent on the basis of the regulation is a non-EU court, the EU court which was seized doesn’t have to relinquish in favour of the third state court.