Case C‑386/12

Siegfried János Schneider

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad)

(Jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Scope — Legal capacity of natural persons — Exclusive jurisdiction in matters relating to rights in rem in immovable property — Scope — Non-contentious proceedings concerning the right of a person who has been placed under guardianship and is domiciled in a Member State to dispose of immovable property situated in another Member State)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 3 October 2013

1.        Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Scope — Civil and commercial matters — Status or legal capacity of natural persons — Autonomous interpretation

(Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 1(2)(a))

2.        Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Provisions of that regulation qualified as equivalent to provisions of the Brussels Convention — Interpretation of those provisions in accordance with the case-law of the Court relating to the Convention

(Convention of 27 September 1968; Council Regulation No 44/2001)

3.        Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Exclusive jurisdiction — Actions concerning rights in rem in immovable property — Scope

(Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 22(1))

4.        Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Scope — Matters excluded — Status or legal capacity of natural persons — Non-contentious proceedings for authorisation to sell immovable property brought by a person who has been placed under guardianship in another Member State — Non-applicability of exclusive jurisdiction in matters relating to rights in rem in immovable property

(Council Regulation No 44/2001, Arts 1(2)(a) and 22(1))

1.        See the text of the decision.

(see paras 18, 19)

2.        See the text of the decision.

(see para 21)

3.        Article 22(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Contracting State in which the property is situated does not encompass all actions concerning rights in rem in immovable property, but only those which both come within the scope of the [Brussels Convention] and are actions which seek to determine the extent, content, ownership or possession of immovable property or the existence of other rights in rem therein and to provide the holders of those rights with protection for the powers which attach to their interest.

(see para. 21)

4.        Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters and, in particular, Article 22(1) thereof must be interpreted as not applying to non-contentious proceedings by which a national of a Member State who has been declared to be lacking full legal capacity and placed under guardianship in accordance with the law of that State applies to a court in another Member State for authorisation to sell his share of a property situated in that other Member State, in view of the fact that such proceedings are concerned with the ‘legal capacity of natural persons’ for the purposes of Article 1(2)(a) of Regulation No 44/2001, a matter which falls outside the material scope of that regulation.

In that regard, an application by a person who has been placed under guardianship for authorisation to dispose of his immovable property is directly linked to the legal capacity of the natural person concerned for the purposes of Article 1(2)(a) of Regulation No 44/2001: the fact that judicial authorisation is necessary for the disposal of immovable property belonging to persons under guardianship is the immediate consequence of their lack of full legal capacity, being a requirement laid down for their protection in that context.

In addition, the particular fact that the judicial authorisation to sell, applied for by the person under guardianship, involves a property which belongs to him cannot be regarded as decisive in determining whether those proceedings concern ‘rights in rem in immovable property’ for the purposes of Article 22(1) of Regulation No 44/2001. Those proceedings do not seek to determine the extent, content, ownership or possession of immovable property or to provide the person under guardianship, as the owner of that property, with protection for the powers which attach to his interest. Instead, the sole aim of such proceedings is to determine whether it is in the interests of a person who lacks full legal capacity to dispose of his immovable property; his rights in rem as owner of that property are not being called in question.

(see paras 26, 28, 30, 31, operative part)