Court of Justice of the 
European Communities
L-2925 Luxembourg
Nº 2001/52

Library, Research
and Documentation

Recent case-law relating to the Brussels 
and Lugano Conventions on Jurisdiction 
and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil 
and Commercial matters

Art. 1, para. 2 (1)
Art. 6 (4)
Art. 16 (1)

Court  :  H°yesterett
Date  :  25.04.2000
Parties  :  Mabel Jakobsen / Bob Nilsen og Heide K. Ask ZŠhle Nilsen

Keywords  : 
E-01.02.01 Lugano Convention - Material scope - Excluded matters - Wills and succession - Definition
E-16.01.00 Lugano Convention - Exclusive jurisdiction - Immovable property - Proceedings which have as their object "rights in rem in, or tenancies of, immovable property" - Definition - Action concerning rights in immovable property - Inclusion
E-06.04 Lugano Convention - Special jurisdiction - Matters relating to a contract and immovable property - Challenge to the validity of the contract - No effect - Chain of contracts - Party to the contract having transferred the immovable property to spouse - Action may be brought against the spouse

Summary  :   
1. "Wills and succession" for the purposes of Article 1, para. 2,(1) of the Lugano Convention covers only disputes concerning succession rights, that is to say disputes which could not have arisen independently of succession.

2. "Rights in rem in, or tenancies of, immovable property", for the purposes of Article 16(1)(a) of the Convention, covers actions concerning rights in immovable property.

3. Where two defendants, who are domiciled in the territory of a Contracting State, have been sued, pursuant to Article 16(1)(a), of the Convention, in a court of a Contracting State in the context of an action concerning rights in immovable property located in that State, that court is also competent, under Article 6(4) of the Convention, to hear a claim in contract in relation to successive transfers of that immovable property.

That is the case even if the claimant is disputing the validity of the transfer to the first defendant and the contractual link, as far as the second defendant is concerned, consists in the fact that the first defendant transferred the immovable property back to him, that transfer having taken place for no consideration between married defendants. As far as the second defendant is concerned, that result is supported by considerations relating to procedural economy.

Annex  :  Judgment in original language (Norwegian)