EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62012CA0438
Case C-438/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München — Germany) — Irmengard Weber v Mechthilde Weber (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 22(1) — Exclusive jurisdiction — Disputes in proceedings which have as their object rights in rem in immovable property — Nature of the right of pre-emption — Article 27(1) — Lis pendens — Concept of proceedings involving the same cause of action and between the same parties — Relationship between Articles 22(1) and 27(1) — Article 28(1) — Related actions — Criteria for assessing whether to stay proceedings)
Case C-438/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München — Germany) — Irmengard Weber v Mechthilde Weber (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 22(1) — Exclusive jurisdiction — Disputes in proceedings which have as their object rights in rem in immovable property — Nature of the right of pre-emption — Article 27(1) — Lis pendens — Concept of proceedings involving the same cause of action and between the same parties — Relationship between Articles 22(1) and 27(1) — Article 28(1) — Related actions — Criteria for assessing whether to stay proceedings)
Case C-438/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München — Germany) — Irmengard Weber v Mechthilde Weber (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 22(1) — Exclusive jurisdiction — Disputes in proceedings which have as their object rights in rem in immovable property — Nature of the right of pre-emption — Article 27(1) — Lis pendens — Concept of proceedings involving the same cause of action and between the same parties — Relationship between Articles 22(1) and 27(1) — Article 28(1) — Related actions — Criteria for assessing whether to stay proceedings)
OJ C 159, 26.5.2014, p. 6–6
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
26.5.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 159/6 |
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München — Germany) — Irmengard Weber v Mechthilde Weber
(Case C-438/12) (1)
((Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 22(1) - Exclusive jurisdiction - Disputes in proceedings which have as their object rights in rem in immovable property - Nature of the right of pre-emption - Article 27(1) - Lis pendens - Concept of proceedings involving the same cause of action and between the same parties - Relationship between Articles 22(1) and 27(1) - Article 28(1) - Related actions - Criteria for assessing whether to stay proceedings))
2014/C 159/07
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Oberlandesgericht München
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Irmengard Weber
Defendant: Mechthilde Weber
Re:
Request for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht München — Interpretation of Articles 22(1), 27, 28 and 35(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Lis pendens — Proceedings involving the same cause of action and between the same parties brought in the courts of different Member States — Interpretation of ‘the same cause of action’ and ‘the same parties’ — Situation in which the first action was brought by a third party against both parties and the second action was brought by one of those parties against the other
Operative part of the judgment
|
1) |
Article 22(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, must be interpreted as meaning that there falls within the category of proceedings which have as their object ‘rights in rem in immovable property’ within the meaning of that provision an action such as that brought in the present case before the courts of another Member State, seeking a declaration of invalidity of the exercise of a right of pre-emption attaching to that property and which produces effects with respect to all the parties; |
|
2) |
Article 27(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that, before staying its proceedings in accordance with that provision, the court second seised is required to examine whether, by reason of a failure to take into consideration the exclusive jurisdiction laid down in Article 22(1) thereof, the decision of the court first seised will be recognised in the other Member States in accordance with Article 35(1) of that regulation |