- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-433/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 November 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Ellmes Property Services Limited v SP (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Article 24, point 1 — Exclusive jurisdiction in matters relating to rights in rem in immovable property — Article 7, point 1(a) — Special jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract — Legal action brought by a co-owner seeking an order that another co-owner cease the use, for touristic purposes, of immovable property subject to co-ownership)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019CA0433
62019CA0433
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
18.1.2021
Official Journal of the European Union
C 19/8
(Case C-433/19)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Article 24, point 1 - Exclusive jurisdiction in matters relating to rights in rem in immovable property - Article 7, point 1(a) - Special jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract - Legal action brought by a co-owner seeking an order that another co-owner cease the use, for touristic purposes, of immovable property subject to co-ownership)
(2021/C 19/09)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Ellmes Property Services Limited
Defendant: SP
Operative part of the judgment
1.Point 1 of Article 24 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that an action by which a co-owner of immovable property seeks to prohibit another co-owner of that property from carrying out changes, arbitrarily and without the consent of the other co-owners, to the designated use of his or her property subject to co-ownership, as provided for in a co-ownership agreement, must be regarded as constituting an action ‘which has as its object rights in rem in immovable property’ within the meaning of that provision, provided that that designated use may be relied on not only against the co-owners of that property, but also erga omnes, which it is for the referring court to verify.
2.Point 1(a) of Article 7 of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that, where the designated use of immovable property subject to co-ownership provided for by a co-ownership agreement cannot be relied upon erga omnes, an action by which a co-owner of immovable property seeks to prohibit another co-owner of that property from carrying out changes, arbitrarily and without the consent of the other co-owners, to that designated use must be regarded as constituting an action ‘in matters relating to a contract’, within the meaning of that provision. Subject to verification by the referring court, the place of performance of the obligation on which that action is based is the place where the property is situated.
(1) OJ C 357, 21.10.2019.