Investigación, docencia y práctica del Derecho internacional privado | Research, Teaching & Practice on Private International Law
23 May 2014
The ECJ Judgment 3 April 2014, case C-438/12, Weber v. Weber: Exclusive Jurisdiction and Lis pendens
por Celia Carrillo Lerma
Lawyer in Murcia, Spain, and doctoral candidate
The Judgment of the ECJ of 3 april 2014, case C-438/12, Weber v. Weber, deserves great recognition. It encourages the free movement of judgments and the existence of a genuine European judicial area, and besides the Court of Justice interprets the EU law magnificently. The summary of the judgment is as follows:
a) A right in rem of pre-emption and its exercise are a part of the matter of «rights in rem in immovable property» within the meaning of Article 22 (1) of the Brussels I Regulation.
b) Art. 25 compels a court which is seised of a case to decline jurisdiction in favor of another which has exclusive jurisdiction on the matter.
c) The application of lis pendens and related actions rules just give in when they coincide with an exclusive jurisdiction under Art. 22 in favor of only one of the courts hearing the case.
d) Whether, despite the above, a judgment is pronounced in violation of the provisions on exclusive jurisdiction laid down in Art. 22, that sentence will never achieve the recognition or enforcement in the requested Member State -Art. 35.1-. If it is presupposed that the judgment will not can be recognized or enforced, the court which has to hear the case should continue to do so.
a) A right in rem of pre-emption and its exercise are a part of the matter of «rights in rem in immovable property» within the meaning of Article 22 (1) of the Brussels I Regulation.
b) Art. 25 compels a court which is seised of a case to decline jurisdiction in favor of another which has exclusive jurisdiction on the matter.
c) The application of lis pendens and related actions rules just give in when they coincide with an exclusive jurisdiction under Art. 22 in favor of only one of the courts hearing the case.
d) Whether, despite the above, a judgment is pronounced in violation of the provisions on exclusive jurisdiction laid down in Art. 22, that sentence will never achieve the recognition or enforcement in the requested Member State -Art. 35.1-. If it is presupposed that the judgment will not can be recognized or enforced, the court which has to hear the case should continue to do so.
Otros artículos de interés
The ECJ Judgment of 13 March 2014, Marc Brogsitter v. Fabrication de Montres Normandes EURL, case C-548/12
Judgement of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 March 2014, Marc Brogsitter v. Fabrication de Montres Normandes EURL, case C-548/12, Report of cases still not avai...
The ECJ Judgment 19 December 2013, case C-9/12, La Maison du Whisky SA
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 December 2013, Corman-Collins SA v La Maison du Whisky SA, case C-9/12, Report of cases still not available, e-versi...
The ECJ Judgment 3 April 2014, case C-387/12, Uwe Spoering vs. Hi Hotel
1.- Mr. Spoering, photographer, gave the reproduction of its photographs to Hi Hotel HCF SARL for the use, exclusively, in their brochures and websites. However...
The ECJ Judgment 16 January 2014, case C-45/13, Andreas Kainz vs. Pantherwerke AG
1. International jurisdiction and applicable law are paramount for the entrepreneur who is planning to trade in an international area. Companies should develop ...