An asymmetric jurisdiction clause is valid even where one party may sue only in the single court designated by the clause, while the other may also sue in any other competent court. That is so only if: (1) the clause designates courts of one or more EU Member States or of states that are parties to the 2007 Lugano Convention; (2) it identifies objective factors precise enough for the court seised to determine whether it has jurisdiction; and (3) it is not contrary to Articles 15, 19 or 23 and does not derogate from exclusive jurisdiction under Article 24.

Article 24(4) does not apply to courts of third States and gives them no jurisdiction, exclusive or otherwise, to assess the validity of patents granted or validated by those States. A Member State court seised under Article 4(1) of an infringement action concerning a patent granted or validated in a third State has jurisdiction under Article 4(1) to rule on a validity defence - provided that its decision does not affect the existence or content of that patent in the third State or cause that State's national register to be amended.

A contract under which a tourism professional lets holiday accommodation in a holiday park to an individual for short-term personal use, and also provides a range of services for a lump sum, is not a 'tenancy of immovable property'.

Article 24(4) does not apply to proceedings that seek to determine, in an action based on alleged inventor or co-inventor status, whether a person is the proprietor of rights to inventions covered by patent applications filed and patents granted in third countries.

2. Article 24(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that an action for recovery of a fee relating to a daily parking ticket for a designated parking space situated on the public highway does not come within the concept of 'tenancies of immovable property' within the meaning of that provision.

An action by one co-owner of immovable property to stop another co-owner from changing, arbitrarily and without the other co-owners' consent, the designated use of that property laid down in a co-ownership agreement is an action 'which has as its object rights in rem in immovable property' under Point 1 of Article 24 - provided that that designated use can be relied on not only against the co-owners but also erga omnes, which is for the referring court to verify.

An action for interim relief in which an international organisation invokes immunity from execution to obtain both the lifting of an interim garnishee order executed in another Member State and a prohibition on levying such an order in future on the same grounds does not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State where the interim garnishee order was executed.

Article 24(1) and (5) of Regulation No 1215/2012 do not give exclusive jurisdiction to the courts of the Member State where the property is located or to the courts of the place of enforcement for opposition proceedings brought by a creditor concerning the proceeds from a judicially ordered auction of an immovable property, seeking both a declaration that a competing claim no longer exists because of a counter-claim and a declaration that the pledge securing enforcement of that claim is invalid.

Under the first subparagraph of point 1 of Article 24 of Regulation No 1215/2012, an action to remove from the land register the mortgage on a building is an action "relating to rights in rem in immovable property". An action for a declaration that a credit agreement is invalid, and that the notarised deed creating a mortgage to secure the debt under that agreement is invalid, does not fall within that concept.

An action to avoid a gift of immovable property because the donor lacked capacity to contract falls not under the exclusive jurisdiction in Article 24(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012, but under the special jurisdiction in Article 7(1)(a). An action to remove from the land register notices evidencing the donee's right of ownership falls under the exclusive jurisdiction in Article 24(1).