Opinion of Advocate General Darmon delivered on 8 February 1994

1 Original language: French.

2 As amended by the Convention of Accession of 9 October 1978 (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1).

3 Dyer-Van Loon Report on Trusts and Similar Institutions, Hague Conference on Private International Law, Proceedings of the Fifteenth Session, 8 to 20 October 1984, Volume II, 1985, p. 64, No 110.

4 Les Trusts Anglo-Saxons et le Droit Français, LGDJ, 1992, p. 38, No 65.

5 Competence Judiciaire et Exécution des Jugements dans le Marché Commun, Dalloz, 1972.

6 Paragraph 146. See also the Jenard Report, OJ 1979 C 59, p. 34 and 38; Bellet, P.: L'élaboration d'une Convention sur la Reconnaissance des Jugements dans le Cadre du Marché Commun, Journal du Droit International, 1965, p. 833, 857; Gothot et Holleaux: La Convention de Bruxelles du 27 Septembre 1968, Jupiter, 1985, paragraph 141; Kaye, P.: Civil Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Professional Books, 1987, p. 874.

7 Judgment in Case C-115/88 Reichert and Others v Dresdner Bank [1990] ECR I-27. It should be remembered that following delivery of that judgment the referring court made a fresh reference in order to determine whether the action paulienne could be treated as an action covered by Articles 5(3), 16(5) and 24 of the Convention (judgment in Case C-261/90 Reichen II [1992] ECR I-2149). The second judgment is not relevant for the purposes of these proceedings.

8 Judgment in Case 73/77 Sanders v Van der Putte [1977] ECR 2383.

9 Judgment in Case 288/82 Duijnstee v Gaderbauer [1983] ECR 3663.

10 Paragraph 8.

11 Paragraph 9.

12 See, on this point, the study by Lagarde on Le Principe de Proximité dans le Droit International Privé Contemporain, Académie de Droit International, Recueil des Cours, 1986, I, Volume 196 of the collection, p. 9 et seq., 129.

13 Paragraph 10.

14 Paragraph 11.

15 Paragraph 12.

16 Journal de Droit International, 1990, p. 503.

17 P. 505.

18 Revue Critique de Droit International Privé. 1991, p. 151.

19 P. 157.

20 Paragraph 9 of its observations.

21 P. 9 of his observations.

22 See Verheul, J. P.: The EEC Convention on Jurisdiction and Judgments of 27 September 1968 in Netherlands Legal Practice, Netherlands International Law Review, 1975, p. 210.

23 Judgment in Case 241/83 Rosier v Rottwinkel [1985] ECR 99.

24 At p. 104 in fine. English academic writers also consider that the subject-matter of the claim determines the forum and not the purpose. See, to this effect, Dashwood-Hacon-White: A Guide to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Convention, Kluwer, 1987, p. 29; Anton, A. E-: Civil Jurisdiction in Scotland, Green & Son Ltd, 1984, p. 103.

25 OJ 1979 C 59, p. 34, my emphasis.

26 OJ 1979 C 59, paragraph 166 at p. 120.

27 See the Dyer-Van Loon Report, cited above in footnote 2, paragraph 9 at p. 15.

28 Sec, in this regard, the definition of a trust in Artide 2 of the Hague Convention of 1 July 1985 on the law applicable to trusts and on their recognition, in the Hague Conference on Private International Law, Proceedings of the Fifteenth Session, 8 to 20 October 1984, cited above in footnote 2, p. 362.

29 Paragraph 167(b), at p. 121, second paragraph, in fine.

30 Conflict of Laws in the European Community, Professional Books, 1987.

31 At p. 237. See also Megarry and Wade: The Law of Real Property, 1984, p. 114, who state as follows: If by rights in rem is meant (as normally) rights enforceable against third parties generally, as opposed to rights in personam which are enforceable only against specified persons (e. g. contractual rights), then equitable rights to property are unquestionably rights in rem, though somewhat different írom legal rights to property. See also Kaye, op. cit., p. 901.

32 Paragraph 11 of the order for reference.

33 At pp. 3683 and 3684.

34 Paragraph 26.

35 P. 903.

36 Pp. 901 and 902.

37 P. 903, (d).

38 Paragraph 120 at p. 108.

39 Paragraphs 169 to 172.

40 Paragraph 172(c), at p. 122.

41 La Convention de Bruxelles du 27 Septembre 1968, Jupiter, 1985.

42 Paragraph 145 at p. 84. They also state that: Article 16(1) confers exclusive jurisdiction on the courts of the country in which the immovable property is situated to entertain actions based on a principle or accessory right in rem in immovable property (paragraph 144, my emphasis).

43 Paragraph 146.

44 P. 35.

45 Journal de Droit International, 1986, p. 440. See also, to this effect, the commentary by Bischoff in the same publication, 1978, p. 388 and 393.

46 P. 444.

47 Paragraph 13.

48 Paragraph 13.

49 See, on this point, Gaudemet-Tallon, H.: Les Conventions de Bruxelles et de Lugano, LCD], 1993, p. 204 et seq.