There fell within the category of proceedings which had as their object “rights in rem in immovable property”, within the meaning of article 22(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, an action brought before the courts of another member state, seeking a declaration of invalidity of the exercise of a right of pre-emption attaching to that property and which produced effects with respect to all the parties. Before staying its proceedings in accordance with article 27(1) of Regulation No 44/2001, the court second seised was required to examine whether, by reason of a failure to take into consideration the exclusive jurisdiction laid down in article 22(1) thereof, the decision of the court first seised would be recognised in the other member states in accordance with article 35(1) of that Regulation.

The Court of Justice of the European Union so held in a request for a preliminary ruling in German proceedings between the claimant, Ms Irmengard Weber, and the defendant, her sister Ms Mechthilde Weber, in which the claimant sought an order that her sister consent to the entry on the Land Register of the claimant as the owner of certain immovable property. The request concerned the interpretation of articles 22(1), 27 and 28 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L12, p 1).

THE COURT held that where a third party purchaser challenged the validity of the exercise of the right of pre-emption in an action such as that in the instant proceedings, that action would seek essentially to determine whether the exercise of the right of pre-emption had enabled, for the benefit of its holder, the right to the transfer of the ownership of the immovable property subject to the dispute to be respected. In such a case, the dispute concerned proceedings which had as their object a right in rem in immovable property and fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the forum rei sitae. In a situation such as that at issue, if the court first seised gave a judgment which failed to take account of article 22(1) of Regulation No 44/2001, that judgment could not be recognised in the member state in which the court second seised was situated. In those circumstances, the court second seised was no longer entitled to stay its proceedings or to decline jurisdiction, and it had to give a ruling on the substance of the action before it in order to comply with the rule on exclusive jurisdiction. Thus, the fact that, in accordance with article 27 of Regulation No 44/2001 the court second seised, which had exclusive jurisdiction under article 22(1) thereof, had to stay its proceedings until the jurisdiction of the court first seised was established and, where that jurisdiction was established, had to decline jurisdiction in favour of the latter, did not correspond to the requirement of the sound administration of justice.