After the failed attempt to introduce a special forum for rights in rem in movable assets in the proposal for the Brussels I bis Regulation, different questions arise regarding the reasons why the legislator has dispensed with its regulation. Procedurally, the forum rei sitae, which acts as an exclusive forum for rights in rem, does not solve the mobility problems that occur in rights in rem in movable assets. The European legislator has considered unnecessary the incorporation of a special forum because it is understood that it would be sufficient to invoke the forum of protective measures to grant erga omnes protection over tangible assets that are enforceable against third parties. In this sense, it is necessary to analyze the pros and cons of this solution, also offering other alternatives such as determining the jurisdiction of the courts of the place where the assets are located as a special forum acting alternatively with the forum of the defendant's domicile and the express or tacit legal jurisdiction. Another possible alternative is to consider the forum patrimonii for those assets that form part of a patrimonial mass, appealing to the forum non conveniens to determine the jurisdiction of the court best placed to claim for rights in rem over assets considered individually. On the other hand, solutions will also have to be offered regarding jurisdiction for rights in rem regarding means of transport and assets in transit, both characterized by being in constant movement. In these cases, the places of registration for means of transport must prevail. For assets in transit the alternation of the defendant's domicile together with the possibility of choosing between courts of dispatch of assets or destination of assets in order to thus offer a stable territory to open a procedure that ensures the protection of over rights in rem in movable assets. Legal certainty, effective jurisdictional protection, and economy in the process will be the basis of these proposals.
