EUPillar S.F. v C.R. - C.11.0172.F - Cass., 13 September 2012

Summary

In divorce proceedings between the parties, the parties agreed on 29 February 2000 that the appellant, Mr. S. F. would pay a monthly alimony to the defendant, Mrs. C. R., and also that he would cede his rights in the property co-owned by them to her. The property is situated in France. The divorce was finalised on 6 April 2000.The parties seised the Justice of the Peace of Mons by voluntary appearance on 26 October 2000. The Justice of the Peace implemented the agreement between the parties and decided that Mr. S. F. would have to appear before a notary to sign the authentic documents to transfer the ownership of the property within a month. On appeal, the Court of First Instance of Mons confirmed that the first judge had jurisdiction to oblige Mr. S. F. to sign those documents even if they relate to a property situated in France. Mr. S. F. lodged an appeal against this judgment before the Court of Cassation. The Court of Cassation considers that Art. 22(1) Brussels I Regulation (which provides that in proceedings which have as their object rights in rem in immovable property or tenancies of immovable property the courts of the Contracting State where the property is situated are to have exclusive jurisdiction) must not be given a wider interpretation than is required by its objective, since it results in depriving the parties of the choice of forum which would otherwise be theirs and, in certain cases, results in their being brought before a court which is not that of any of them. As regards the objective pursued by Article 16(1)(a) of the Brussels Convention [now Art. 22(1) Brussels I Regulation] it is clear that the essential reason for the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Contracting State where the property is situated is that the court of the place where property is situated is best placed to deal with matters relating to rights in rem in, and tenancies of, immovable property. Article 16(1)(a) of the Brussels Convention 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. The Court of Cassation decides that the claim of the original plaintiff, Mrs. C. R., results from the contractual obligation which Mr. S. F. incurred by agreeing to the divorce settlement of 29 February 2000. This claim is therefore not related to rights in rem in immovable property or tenancies of immovable property within the meaning of Art. 22(1) Brussels I Regulation, as construed by the ECJ in its case law.