Article 22
The following courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction, regardless of domicile:
1\. in proceedings which have as their object rights in rem in immovable property or tenancies of immovable property, the courts of the Member State in which the property is situated.
However, in proceedings which have as their object tenancies of immovable property concluded for temporary private use for a maximum period of six consecutive months, the courts of the Member State in which the defendant is domiciled shall also have jurisdiction, provided that the tenant is a natural person and that the landlord and the tenant are domiciled in the same Member State;
2\. in proceedings which have as their object the validity of the constitution, the nullity or the dissolution of companies or other legal persons or associations of natural or legal persons, or of the validity of the decisions of their organs, the courts of the Member State in which the company, legal person or association has its seat. In order to determine that seat, the court shall apply its rules of private international law;
3\. in proceedings which have as their object the validity of entries in public registers, the courts of the Member State in which the register is kept;
4\. in proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of patents, trade marks, designs, or other similar rights required to be deposited or registered, the courts of the Member State in which the deposit or registration has been applied for, has taken place or is under the terms of a Community instrument or an international convention deemed to have taken place.
Without prejudice to the jurisdiction of the European Patent Office under the Convention on the Grant of European Patents, signed at Munich on 5 October 1973, the courts of each Member State shall have exclusive jurisdiction, regardless of domicile, in proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of any European patent granted for that State;
5\. in proceedings concerned with the enforcement of judgments, the courts of the Member State in which the judgment has been or is to be enforced.
Section 7
Prorogation of jurisdiction
HRVATSKE ŠUME d.o.o., Zagreb v BP Europa SE
An unjust-enrichment claim for restitution is not within the exclusive jurisdiction under Article 22(5), even where it is brought because the time limit has expired for seeking restitution of sums unduly paid in the same enforcement proceedings.
E.ON Czech Holding AG v Michael Dĕdouch and Others
Article 22(2) of Regulation No 44/2001 gives the courts of the Member State where the company is established exclusive jurisdiction over an action reviewing whether the consideration payable by the principal shareholder to the minority shareholders is reasonable when their shares are compulsorily transferred to that principal shareholder.
Hanssen Beleggingen BV v Tanja Prast-Knipping
Article 22(4) of Regulation No 44/2001 does not apply to proceedings to determine whether a person was correctly registered as the proprietor of a trade mark.
Virpi Komu and Others v Pekka Komu and Jelena Komu
An action to terminate co-ownership in undivided shares of immovable property by selling the property through an appointed agent is a proceeding which has as its object rights in rem in immovable property within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 22(1) of Regulation No 44/2001.
flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines AS v Starptautiskā lidosta Rīga VAS and Air Baltic Corporation AS
An action seeking damages for alleged infringements of EU competition law is not proceedings whose object is the validity of decisions of company organs.
Irmengard Weber v Mechthilde Weber
An action before the courts of another Member State seeking a declaration that the exercise of a right of pre-emption attaching to immovable property is invalid falls within proceedings whose object is 'rights in rem in immovable property' under Article 22(1), provided that the action produces effects with respect to all the parties.
Irmengard Weber v Mechthilde Weber
Before staying its proceedings under Article 27(1) of Regulation No 44/2001, the court second seised must examine whether, because the court first seised failed to take account of the exclusive jurisdiction laid down in Article 22(1), that court's decision would be recognised in the other Member States under Article 35(1) of the regulation.
Proceedings brought by Siegfried János Schneider
Article 22(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 does not apply to non-contentious proceedings in which a Member State national, declared to lack full legal capacity and placed under guardianship under that State's law, asks a court in another Member State for authorisation to sell his share in immovable property there. Such proceedings concern the 'legal capacity of natural persons' within the meaning of Article 1(2)(a) and therefore fall outside the material scope of that regulation.
Solvay SA v Honeywell Fluorine Products Europe BV and Others
Article 22(4) does not preclude the application of Article 31 in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings.
Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (BVG), Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts v JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, Frankfurt Branch.
Article 22(2) does not apply to proceedings where a company argues that a contract cannot be relied on against it because the decision of its organs that led to the contract is allegedly invalid for infringing its statutes.
Nicole Hassett v South Eastern Health Board and Cheryl Doherty v North Western Health Board.
Point 2 of Article 22 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 is to be interpreted as meaning that proceedings, such as those at issue before the referring court, in the context of which one of the parties alleges that a decision adopted by an organ of a company has infringed rights that it claims under that company's Articles of Association, do not concern the validity of the decisions of the organs of a company within the meaning of that provision.