Page 28 - ดุลพาห เล่ม3.indd

ดุลพาห

exclusive jurisdiction of the Japanese courts provided that the place where the
registration is to be made is within Japan.

Article 24 (1) of the Brussels I (recast), on the other hand, grants exclusive
jurisdiction on actions relating to rights in rem in immoveable property to the courts

of the EU member state in which the immoveable property is situated. It denies the
jurisdiction of the courts in which the defendant is domiciled. Moreover, actions

relating to land registration also fall within the domain of the exclusive jurisdiction
of the courts of the member state in which the register is kept, according to Article

24 (3). This approach can be contrasted with Thai and Japanese laws, where
jurisdiction concerning disputes over immoveable property including rights in rem

is conferred to both courts for the place of immoveable property and the courts for
the place of the defendant’s domicile. Thus, there is a possibility that Thai and

Japanese courts may assume international jurisdiction even for disputes concerning
immovable property located abroad if the defendant is domiciled in the forum .
55

(4) Jurisdiction based on the appearance of the defendant

(a) The current state of Thai law

A ground for jurisdiction based on the appearance of the defendant before
the courts is not recognized under Thai law. Section 2 the CPC provides that “the

complaint shall not be submitted to any courts, except in the following cases: … (2)
when the complaint is considered, it appears that such case is in the jurisdiction of

the Court according to the provisions of this Code governing venue and the
provisions of the law governing territorial jurisdiction of the Court.” Currently,

there is no provision in the CPC allowing Thai courts to assert jurisdiction over
a case on the basis of the appearance of the defendant.

55. See Wayupap, “Khodmhai,” 57. See also Nishitani, “International Jurisdiction of Japanese Courts,”
259.

กันยายน - ธันวาคม ๒๕๖๑ 17