European Business Law, the fourth volume in our series, shows how the European authorities simultaneously abolish all restrictions on access to and exercise of economic activities and support the growth of domestic markets, through the harmonization the internal legislation or the enactment of genuinely unified regulations.

European Business Law

Any proceedings linked to a leasing contract concerning immovable property fall within Article 24(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012, irrespective of whether the action is based on a right in rem or on a right in personam . Such is the case for disputes concerning the obligations of the landlord and of the tenant under a tenancy, as well as concerning the existence or interpretation of tenancies, their …

Tenancies of immovable property

Any proceedings linked to a leasing contract concerning immovable property fall within Article 24(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012, irrespective of whether the action is based on a right in rem or on a right in personam . Such is the case for disputes concerning the obligations of the landlord and of the tenant under a tenancy, as well as concerning the existence or interpretation of tenancies, their duration, the giving up of possession to the landlord, the repairing of damage caused by the tenant, the recovery of rent or of incidental charges . 

Article 24(1) seeks to “ensure a rational allocation of jurisdiction by opting for a solution whereby the court having jurisdiction is determined on the basis of its proximity to the property” which is the best placed to obtain first-hand knowledge of the facts relating to the creation of tenancies and to the performance of the terms thereof. Thus, a dispute as to a lease relating to immovable property situated in several Member States falls in principle within the respective jurisdiction of the courts of each of those States for the portion of immovable property situated on their territory, unless the immovable property has special characteristics such as it might be more appropriate to regard it as a single unit and deem it to be entirely situated in one of those States . 

Article 24(1) does not apply to disputes which are only indirectly related to the use of the property let, such as those concerning the loss of holiday enjoyment and travel expenses , or which concern the operation of a business, which is a movable property by its very nature , or which relate to a contract which not only concerns the right to use a time-share apartment, but also concerns the provision of separate services of a value higher than that of the right to use the immovable property  or those concerning a complex contract concluded by a business organizing travel and its customer and relating to the use of short-term accommodation, among other services, in return for a lump sum . By contrast, a dispute relating to a contract between a travel operator and his client concerning the short-term letting of a holiday home of which the travel operator is not the owner, which contains clauses relating to insurance in the event of cancellation and to guarantee of repayment of the price paid by the client, falls within Article 24(1) where the clauses are only ancillary provisions which cannot alter the status of the tenancy contract to which they relate . 

Lastly, regarding tenancies of immovable property concluded for temporary private use for a maximum period of six consecutive months, in addition to the courts of the Member State in which the property is situated, jurisdiction may revert to the courts of the Member States in which the defendant is domiciled, “provided that the tenant is a natural person and that the landlord and the tenant are domiciled in the same Member State (…)” .

Case C-8/98 Dansommer [2000] ECR I-393, LawLex200700001585JBJ. It should be noted that for Article 24(1) to apply to a dispute concerning rights in rem in immovable property, it is not sufficient that a right in rem in immovable property be involved in the action or that the action have a link with immovable property: the action must be based on a right in rem and not on a right in personam, See Case C-294/92 Webb [1994] ECR I-1717, LawLex200900002116JBJ.

Case 241/83 Rösler v Rottwinkel [1985] ECR 99, LawLex200900001699JBJ.

Case 158/87 Scherrens v Maenhout and others [1988] ECR 3791, LawLex200900001580JBJ: an immovable property whose component parts are adjacent and located in two distinct Member States but subject of a single lease, may, for example and according to the Court of Justice, be regarded as a single unit in the State where it is situated almost entirely. 

Case 73/77 Sanders v Van der Putte [1977] ECR 2383, LawLex200900002011JBJ.

Case C-73/04 Klein [2005] ECR I-8667, LawLex200900001163JBJ.

Case C-280/90 Hacker v Euro-Relais [1992] ECR I-1111, LawLex200900002078JBJ: a complex contract entered into between a business organizing travel and its customer, which relates both to the use of short-term holiday accommodation of which the business is not the owner, and to other services, such as information and advice where the travel organizer proposes a range of holiday offers, the reservation of accommodation and travel arrangements, the reception at the destination and cancellation-insurance cannot be considered as a tenancy agreement, within the meaning of Article 24(1) of the regulation.

Case C-8/98 Dansommer [2000] ECR I-393, LawLex200700001585JBJ: an action for damages for taking poor care of premises and causing damage to accommodation falls within the exclusive jurisdiction provided for in proceedings having as their object tenancies of immovable property, even where the action is brought by a tour operator from which the defendant had rented the accommodation, insofar as the claimant does not act as travel operator but as the party subrogated to the rights of the owner. 

The concurrent jurisdiction in favor of the courts of the State where the defendant is domiciled derives from the Saint Sebastian Convention of 26 May 1989 on the accession of Spain and Portugal (OJ L 285 of 31 October 1989, 1). Before, the Court of Justice had already considered that Article [24(1)] was applicable to a tenancy of immovable property, whatever its characteristics, including where the contract is entered into for a short term only and relates only to the use and occupation of a holiday home, See Case 241/83 Rösler v Rottwinkel [1985] ECR 99, LawLex200900001699JBJ. 

European Business Law

342. Tenancies of immovable property

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

342. Tenancies of immovable property

Demandez un accès gratuit au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise