natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ifølge Domstolens afgørelse kunne den omstændighed, at købe­ren ikke havde gjort indsigelse mod sælgerens ensidige bekræftelse, undtagelsesvis side­stilles med en accept af værnetingsaftalen, såfremt den mundtlige aftale indgik i det lø­bende forretningsforhold mellem parterne, der var baseret på den ene parts almindelige forretningsbetingelser, som indeholdt den pågældende værnetingsklausul.
According to that decision, the fact that the buyer did not object to a unilateral confirmation by the seller was, by way of exception, to be regarded as acceptance of a jurisdiction clause if the orally con­cluded contract formed part of a continuous trading relationship which existed between the parties on the basis of one party's general conditions of business containing the juris­diction clause in question.
Det afgø­rende synspunkt bag denne afgørelse — at der mellem parterne bestod et løbende forret­ningsforhold, der var baseret på den ene parts almindelige forretningsbetingelser, som indeholdt en værnetingsaftale — gjaldt også det foreliggende tilfælde.
The decisive factor in that case — the existence of a continu­ous trading relationship on the basis of one party's general conditions of business con­taining a jurisdiction clause — was also present in this case.
At der i den af Domstolen afgjorte sag var tale om det andet alternativ i konventionens artikel 17, stk. 1 (en mundtlig aftale, der er skriftligt bekræftet), og her om det første alternativ (en skrift­lig aftale) kunne ikke føre til en anden bedømmelse.
The fact that the case de­cided by the Court of Justice involved the second alternative described in the first para­graph of Article 17 of the Convention (an oral agreement evidenced in writing), whereas
[sagsøgtes møde]
[Entry of appearance by the defendant]
1-18 — A 1 Dom af 24. juni 1981 '), sag 150/80, Elefanten Schuh GmbH mod Jacqmain (anmodning om præjudiciel afgørelse indgivet af den belgiske Hof van Cassatie), Sml.
118 — A 1 Judgment of 24 June 1981,' Case 150/80, Elefanten Schuh GmbH ν Jacqmain [1981] ECR 1671 (Preliminary ruling requested by the Hof van Cassatie, Belgium) Advocate General: Sir Gordon Slynn (p.
1981, s. 1671 (Forslag til afgørelse fra generaladvokat Sir Gordon Slynn, s. 1690)
1690) defendant
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — sagsøgtes møde for den ret, som sagen er indbragt for — værnetingsaftale til fordel for en anden ret — retsvirkninger
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Entry of appearance by the — Agreement conferring jurisdiction on another court — Effect defendant
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — sagsøgtes møde for den ret, som sagen er indbragt for — bestridelse af kompetencen og realitetsindsigelser — retsvirkninger
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Entry of appearance by the — Objection to jurisdiction and defence on the substance — Effects
Indbyrdes sammenhængende krav — reglerne i artikel 22 — betingelser — indbyrdes sammenhængende krav indbragt for retter i flere kontraherende stater — retsvirkninger — ingen kompetence i en sag, som er sammenhængende med en verserende sag
Related actions — Provisions of Article 22 — Conditions — Related actions brought in the courts of different Contracting States — Effects — No jurisdiction in an action which is related to an action pending
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — værnetingsaftaler — formkrav — konventionens regler er udtømmende — en kontraherende stats fastsættelse af andre formkrav — regler om det sprog, der skal anvendes — ikke tilladt
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Jurisdiction agreements — Formal re­quirements — Definitive rules of the Convention — Other formal requirements laid down by a Contracting State — Provisions on the language to be used — Not permissible
Den belgiske Hof van Cassatie forelagde Domstolen en række spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af konventionens artikler 17, 18 og 22, som var rejst i anledning af en kassationsanke af en dom afsagt af Arbeidshof, Antwerpen.
The Hof van Cassatie, Belgium, referred several questions to the Court of Justice on the interpretation of Articles 17, 18 and 22 of the Brussels Convention.
Ved dommen var det tyske sel skab Elefanten Schuh GmbH og det belgiske selskab NV Elefant blevet dømt til in solidum at betale 3 120 597 BFR med renter til Pierre Jacqmain, bl.a. for at have afskediget ham uden varsel.
Those questions had arisen in the context of an appeal against a judgment of the Arbeidshof, Antwerp, order­ing Elefanten Schuh GmbH, a company incorporated under the laws of Germany, and Elefant NV, a company incorporated under the laws of Belgium, to pay Mr Pierre Jacq­main damages of BFR 3 120 597, plus interest, for the termination of his contract of em­ployment without notice.
Pierre Jacqmain var i 1970 blevet ansat som handelsagent af det tyske selskab Gustav Hoffmann GmbH, nu Elefanten Schuh GmbH; han arbejdede efter de instrukser, han fik af virksomhedens belgiske datterselskab, NV Elefant, i bestemte belgiske provinser, Hovedsagen havde sin oprindelse i de vanskeligheder, der opstod i 1975 mellem Pierre Jacqmain og de to selskaber, og angik betingelserne for det belgiske selskabs overtagelse af ansættelseskontrakten fra det tyske selskab.
In 1970 Mr Jacqmain had been employed as a sales agent by the German company Gustav Hoffmann GmbH, which subsequently adopted the name "Elefanten Schuh GmbH"; he performed his duties in various Belgian provinces in accordance with the instructions of that company's Belgian subsidiary, Elefant NV. The main action arose as a result of difficulties which occurred in 1975 between Mr Jacqmain and the two com­panies concerning details of the transfer of the contract of employment from the Ger­man company to the Belgian company.
Da Pierre Jacqmain anlagde sag mod de to selskaber ved Arbeidsrechtbank, Antwerpen, mødte de sagsøgte for denne ret og rejste først realitetsindsigelse mod de krav, der var fremsat mod dem.
Mr Jacqmain brought an action in the Arbeidsrechtbank, Antwerp, against the two companies. The defendant companies appeared before that court and by their first sub missions they contested the substance of the applications lodged against them.
I sit andet indlæg, som blev indleveret ni måneder senere, påberåbte det tyske selskab sig rettens inkompetence med den begrundelse, at ansættelseskontrakten indeholdt en bestemmelse, hvorefter retten i Kleve, Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland, var enekompetent til at pådømme enhver tvist vedrørende denne kontrakt.
In fur ther submissions lodged nine months later the German company claimed that the Arbeidsrechtbank did not have jurisdiction on the ground that the contract of employment contained a clause stipulating that the court at Kleve in the Federal Republic of Germany was to have exclusive jurisdiction in the event of any dispute.
Arbeidsrechtbank forkastede denne indsigelse, idet den fandt, at en sådan bestemmelse ikke kunne fravige artikel 627 i den belgiske retsplejelov, som for sager af denne art bestemmer, at retten på det sted, hvor erhvervet udøves, er kompetent.
The Arbeidsrechtbank dismissed that objection. It took the view that such a clause could not derogate from Article 627 of the Belgian Judicial Code which in disputes of this kind provides that the court of the place where the occupation is pursued is to have jurisdiction.
Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen's dom blev derefter appelleret til Arbeidshof, Antwerpen, som antog, at ansættelseskontraktens parter i medfør af artikel 17 i Bruxelles-konventio-nen af 27. september 1968 ved skriftlig aftale kunne tillægge retten i Kleve stedlig kompe tence ved at fravige den belgiske retsplejelovs regler om stedlig kompetence.
The Arbeidshof, Antwerp, to which an appeal from the judgment of the Arbeidsrechtbank was made, considered that pursuant to Article 17 of the Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968 the parties to the contract of employment could confer territorial jurisdiction on the court of Kleve by agreeing in writing to derogate from the rules on territorial jurisdiction contained in the Belgian Judicial Code.
Arbeidshof fandt imidlertid, at det tyske selskab ikke kunne påberåbe sig værnetingsklausulen, fordi ansættelseskontraken skulle have været affattet på nederlandsk i henhold til artikel 10 i den belgiske anordning om anvendelige sprog i forholdet mellem arbejdsgivere og arbejdstagere af 19. juli 1973 fra Kulturrådet for Det nederlandske Kulturfællesskab (Moniteur belge, s. 10 089). Arbeidshof fandt, at denne artikel 10, hvorefter aktstykker eller dokumenter, der ikke er affattet på nederlandsk, er ugyldige, også omfatter dokumenter, der er udarbejdet, før anordningen trådte i kraft. Under disse omstændigheder var ansættelseskontrakten, som var affattet på tysk, og værnetingsklausulen, som var en del heraf, ugyldig.
However, the Arbeidshof held that the German company could not rely on the jurisdiction clause on the ground that the contract of employment had to be written in Dutch by virtue of Article 10 of the Decree of 19 July 1973 governing the use of languages in relations between employers and employees, adopted by the Cultuurraad voor Nederlandse Cultuurgemeenschap [Culture Council for the Netherlands Cultural Community] (Moniteur Belge, p. 10089).
Det belgiske selskabs kassationsanke af Arbeidshofs dom blev afvist af Hof van Cassatie.
The Belgian company's appeal to the Hof van Cassatie against the judgment of the Arbeidshof was held inadmissible.
Da det tyske selskabs kassationsanke navnlig vedrørte gyldigheden af værnetings klausulen, jfr. Bruxelles-konventionens artikel 17, besluttede Hof van Cassatie at stille Domstolen tre spørgsmål.
Since the German company's appeal concerned inter alia the question whether the jurisdiction agreement was valid in the light of Article 17 of the Convention, the Hofvan Cassatie decided to refer three questions to the Court of Justice.
Domstolen udtalte herom (i præmisserne 7 — 29):
In reply to those questions the Court of Justice held as follows (paragraphs 7 to 29 of the decision):
»Det første spørgsmål
"Question 1
7 Det første spørgsmål er affattet således:
7 Question 1 is worded as follows:
'a) Finder artikel 18 i konventionen af 27. september 1968 om retternes kompe tence og om fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser i borgerlige sager, herunder handelssager, anvendelse, når parterne har indgået en aftale om kompetence i medfør af artikel 17?
'1. (a) Is Article 18 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters applicable if parties have agreed to confer jurisdiction on a court within the meaning of Article 17? (b) Is the rule on jurisdiction contained in Article 18 applicable if the defendant has not only contested jurisdiction but has in addition made submissions on the action itself?
8 Artiklerne 17 og 18 udgør afdeling 6 i konventionens afsnit II, som vedrører vær netingsaftaler; artikel 17 omhandler egentlige værnetingsaftaler, artikel 18 stiltiende værnetingsaftaler, som er en følge af, at sagsøgte giver møde.
8 Articles 17 and 18 form Section 6 of Title II of the Convention which deals with prorogation of jurisdiction; Article 17 concerns jurisdiction by consent and Article 18 jurisdiction implied from submission as a result of the defendant's appearance.
Spørgsmålets første del angår forholdet mellem disse to former for værnetingsaftaler.
The first part of the question seeks to determine the relationship between those two types of prorogation.
9 Konventionens artikel 18, 1. pkt., bestemmer, at den ret i en kontraherende stat, for hvilken sagsøgte giver møde, er kompetent, og i 2. pkt., at denne regel ikke finder anvendelse, såfremt sagsøgte kun giver møde for at bestride rettens kompetence, eller såfremt en anden ret i medfør af konventionens artikel 16 er enekompetent.
9 In the first sentence, Article 18 of the Convention lays down the rule that a court of a Contracting State before whom a defendant enters an appearance is to have jurisdiction and in the second sentence it provides that that rule is not to apply where appearance was entered solely in order to contest the jurisdiction, or where another court has exclusive jurisdiction by virtue of Article 16 of the Convention.
10 Det tilfælde, som er omfattet af artikel 17, er altså ikke en af undtagelserne fra reglen i artikel 18.
io The case envisaged in Article 17 is not therefore one of the exceptions which Article 18 allows to the rule which it lays down.
Desuden kan der ikke af konventionens almindelige opbygning eller formål udledes nogen begrundelse for at antage, at parterne efter en værnetings aftale i henhold til artikel 17 skulle være afskåret fra frivilligt at indbringe deres sag for en anden ret end den, der er udpeget i aftalen.
Moreover neither the general scheme nor the objectives of the Convention provide grounds for the view that the parties to an agreement conferring jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 17 are prevented from voluntarily submitting their dispute to a court other than that stipulated in the agreement.
11 Heraf følger, at konventionens artikel 18 også finder anvendelse, når parterne har indgået en værnetingsaftale i medfør af artikel 17.
n It follows that Article 18 of the Convention applies even where the parties have by agreement designated a court which is to have jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 17.
12 Spørgsmålets anden og tredje del vedrører det tilfælde, hvor sagsøgte har givet møde for en ret, jfr. artikel 18, men bestrider denne rets kompetence.
12 The second and third parts of the question envisage the case in which the defendant has appeared before a court within the meaning of Article 18 but contests the jurisdiction of that court.
13 Hof van Cassatie spørger først, om artikel 18 finder anvendelse, når sagsøgte både har rejst indsigelse om rettens inkompetence og nedlagt påstand om sagens realitet. litet.
13 The Hof van Cassatie first asks if Article 18 has application where the defendant makes submissions as to the jurisdiction of the court as well as on the substance of the action.
14 Selv om der er forskelle mellem de forskellige sproglige versioner af konventionens artikel 18 vedrørende spørgsmålet, om sagsøgte for at udelukke den pådømmende rets kompetence skal begrænse sig til alene at bestride denne kompetence, eller om han kan opnå det samme ved både at bestride den pådømmende rets kom petence og realitetspåstanden, er denne sidste løsning mest i overensstemmelse med konventionens formål og ånd.
14 Although differences between the different language versions of Article 18 of the Convention appear when it is sought to determine whether, in order to exclude the jurisdiction of the court seised, a defendant must confine himself to contesting that jurisdiction, or whether he may on the contrary still achieve the same purpose by con testing the jurisdiction of the court as well as the substance of the claim, the second in terpretation is more in keeping with the objectives and spirit of the Convention.
Ifølge de civilprocesretlige regler i visse kontrahe rende stater kan den sagsøgte, som kun rejser kompetencespørgsmålet, fortabe ret ten til at gøre sin anbringender vedrørende realiteten gældende, såfremt retten forkaster anbringendet om inkompetence. En fortolkning af artikel 18, som gjorde det muligt at nå et sådant resultat, ville være i strid med beskyttelsen af retten til forsvar i ho vedsagen, som er et af konventionens formål.
In fact under the law of civil procedure of certain Contracting States a defendant who raises the issue of jurisdiction and no other might be barred from making his submissions as to the substance if the court rejects his plea that it has no jurisdiction.
Sidstnævnte begreb er vanskeligt at anvende ved fortolkningen af konventionen, da der er betydelige forskelle mellem de kontraherende staters lovgivninger vedrørende sagsanlæg, de sagsøgtes møde for retten og den måde, hvorpå sagens parter skal formulere deres påstande. Det følger imidlertid af formålet med artikel 18, at såfremt indsigelsen mod kompe-
An in terpretation of Article 18 which enabled such a result to be arrived at would be con trary to the right of the defendant to defend himself in the original proceedings, which is one of the aims of the Convention.
(fortsat 3) tencen ikke rejses forud for enhver realitetsindsiglese, kan den i hvert fald ikke frem­føres efter tidspunktet for den stillingtagen, som i henhold til national procesret anses for det første forsvar, der fremføres for den ret, som sagen er indbragt for.
However, it follows from the aim of Article 18 that if the challenge to jurisdiction is not preliminary to any defence as to the substance it may not in any event occur after the making of the submissions which under national procedural law are considered to be the first defence addressed to the court seised.
π Anden og tredje del af det første spørgsmål må derfor besvares med, at konven­tionens artikel 18 skal fortolkes således, at kompetencereglen i denne bestemmelse ikke finder anvendelse, når sagsøgte ikke blot har rejst indsigelse om inkompetence, men desuden har nedlagt påstand om realiteten, såfremt indsigelsen om inkompe­tence, hvis den ikke fremsættes forud for enhver realitetsindsigelse, dog ikke sker efter tidspunktet for den stillingtagen, der efter national procesret anses for det første forsvar, der fremføres for den ret, som sagen er indbragt for.
Therefore the answer to the second and third parts of Question 1 should be that Article 18 of the Convention must be interpreted as meaning that the rule on jurisdic tion which that provision lays down does not apply where the defendant not only contests the court's jurisdiction but also makes submissions on the substance of the action, provided that, if the challenge to jurisdiction is not preliminary to any de fence as to the substance, it does not occur after the making of the submissions which under national procedural law are considered to be the first defence addressed to the court seised.
Det andet spørgsmål
Question 2
18 Det andet spørgsmål er affattet således:
18 Question 2 is as follows:
'a) Kan sammenhængende sager, som anlagt hver for sig måtte anlægges ved ret­ter i forskellige kontraherende stater, i medfør af konventionens artikel 22 anlæg­ges samtidig ved en af disse retter, såfremt dens lovgivning tillader forening af indbyrdes sammenhængende sager, og retten er kompetent til at påkende begge sager?
'2. (a) In application of Article 22 of the Convention, can related actions which, had they been brought separately, would have had to be brought before courts of different Contracting States, be brought simultaneously before one of those courts, provided that the law ofthat court permits the consolidation of related actions and that court has jurisdiction over both actions?
b) Gælder dette også, såfremt parterne vedrørende én af de tvister, som har ført til sagsanlæggene, i medfør af konventionens artikel 17 har aftalt, at en ret i en anden kontraherende stat skal være kompetent?'
(b) Is that also the case if the parties to one of the disputes which have given rise to the actions have agreed, in accordance with Article 17 of the Convention, that a court of another Contracting State is to have jurisdiction to settle that dispute?'
19 Formålet med konventionens artikel 22 er at opstille regler for sammenhængende sager, som anlægges ved retter i forskellige medlemsstater.
19 Article 22 of the Convention is intended to establish how related actions which have been brought before courts of different Member States are to be dealt with.
Bestemmelsen indeholder ingen regler om kompetence; navnlig bestemmer den ikke, at en ret i en kontrahe­rende stat er kompetent til at pådømme en sag, som er sammenhængende med en anden sag, der er indbragt for denne ret i medfør af konventionens regler.
It does not confer jurisdiction ; in particular, it does not accord jurisdiction to a court of a Contracting State to try an action which is related to another action of which that court is seised pursuant to the rules of the Convention.
22 Det fremgår af spørgsmålets ordlyd, at Hof van Cassatie har begrænset sit spørgsmål til gyldigheden af en værnetingsaftale, som ifølge domstolslandets nationale lovgivning er ugyldig, hvis den er affattet på et andet sprog end det i denne lovgivning foreskrevne.
22 From that wording it appears that the Hof van Cassatie is solely concerned with the validity of an agreement conferring jurisdiction which is rendered void by the na tional legislation of the court seised as having been written in a language other than that prescribed by that legislation.
23 Artikel 17 bestemmer, at værnetingsklausulen skal have form af en skriftlig aftale eller af en mundtlig aftale, der er skriftligt bekræftet.
23 Article 17 stipulates that the agreement conferring jurisdiction must take the form of an agreement in writing or an oral agreement evidenced in writing.
24 Ifølge den rapport om konventionen, som blev forelagt de kontraherende staters regeringer samtidig med udkastet til denne, er disse formkrav en bestræbelse på dels at tage hensyn til handelssædvaner, men samtidig at fratage værnetingsklausuler, der ubemærket kan optages i kontrakterne, deres virkning; dette gælder f.eks. trykte værnetingsklausuler i forretningsbreve eller på fakturaer, som ikke er godkendt af den part, de gøres gældende mod.
24 According to the Report on the Convention submitted to the Governments of the Contracting States at the same time as the draft Convention those formal require ments were inserted out of the concern not to impede commercial practice, yet at the same time to cancel out the effects of clauses in contracts which might go unread, such as clauses in printed forms for business correspondence or in invoices, if they were not agreed to by the party against whom they operate.
Af disse grunde kan værnetingsklausuler kun til lægges betydning, såfremt de er aftalte, hvilket forudsætter, at parterne er nået til enighed om dem.
For those reasons juris diction clauses should be taken into consideration only if they are the subject of a written agreement, and that implies the consent of all the parties.
I øvrigt mente forfatterne til artikel 17, at der af hensyn til retssikkerheden måtte fastsættes udtrykkelige regler om værnetingsaftalers form.
Furthermore, the draftsmen of Article 17 were of the opinion that, in order to ensure legal certainty, the formal requirements applicable to agreements conferring jurisdiction should be expressly prescribed.
25 Artikel 17 har således til formål selv at fastsætte regler om værnetingsaftalers form af hensyn til retssikkerheden og for at sikre parternes samtykke.
25 Article 17 is thus intended to lay down itself the formal requirements which agreements conferring jurisdiction must meet; the purpose is to ensure legal certainty and that the parties have given their consent.
26 De kontraherende stater kan derfor ikke frit fastsætte andre formkrav end de i konventionen nævnte.
26 Consequently Contracting States are not free to lay down formal requirements other than those contained in the Convention.
Dette bekræftes ved den omstændighed, at artikel I, stk. 2, i den protokol, der er kynttet som bilag til konventionen, udtrykkeligt fastsætter særlige formkrav for personer, der har bopæl i Luxembourg.
That is confirmed by the fact that the second paragraph of Article 1 of the Protocol annexed to the Convention expressly prescribes special requirements of form with regard to persons domiciled in Luxembourg. bourg.
27 Anvendt på spørgsmålet om, hvilket sprog, der skal anvendes i værnetingsaftalen, indebærer denne ordning, at en kontraherende stats lovgivning ikke kan hindre en sådan aftales gyldighed, blot fordi det anvendte sprog ikke er det i denne lovgivning foreskrevne.
CONVENTION OF 27. 9 1968 - ARTICLE 18
28 En modsat fortolkning ville i øvrigt være i strid med formålet med konventionens artikel 17, som netop tilsigter at gøre det muligt ved aftale at vælge en ret i en kontraherende stat, som uden dette valg normalt ikke ville være kompetent.
28 Moreover, any different interpretation would run counter to Article 17 of the con vention the very purpose of which is to enable a court of a Contracting State to be chosen by agreement where that court, if not so chosen, would not normally have jurisdiction.