natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Corte di cassazione udtalte indledningsvis, at den værnetingsklausul, der fandtes i det ikke underskrevne udkast til kontrakt mellem parterne, ikke kunne lægges til grund, idet den hverken var skriftlig eller skriftligt bekræftet, således som det udtrykkeligt kræves i konventionens artikel 17.
It followed that the obligation which might be incumbent upon the company as a result of the first offer of employment, which had been accepted by Mr Muni, could not be an obligation to give him employment in the place where, according to the terms of the agreement, the employment was to be undertaken (namely, in Italy), because only the actual employer could be subject to such an obligation and in this case the actual em­ployer was not the defendant company but Società Müller Italia.
Hellerikke den omstændighed, at Mueller KG i forbindelse med ophævelsen af retsforholdet mellem selskabet og Muni havde påberåbt sig en anden klausul i udkastet og i denne forbindelse havde omtalt retsforholdet som en »kontrakt«, kunne i sig selv tages som udtryk for Mueller KG's klare vilje til at lade værnetingsafta­len være gældende for sager, der måtte blive anlagt mod selskabet.
Nor could it be said that the company was, for that reason, obliged to proceed with the formation of an Ital­ian subsidiary (an obligation which, if it existed, would have had to be performed in Italy); at most the company was obliged to undertake the necessary promotional activi­ties in connection with the formation of such a subsidiary, activities which, because of their economic nature, must be performed, not in Italy, but at the seat of the parent com­pany.
Sagsøgeren gjorde endvidere gældende, at den italienske domstols kompetence i hvert fald fulgte af:
The court held that, as a result of the company's interest in the sound and profita­ble management of the projected Italian subsidiary, it had become an indirect benefi­ciary of the economic fruits of the work undertaken by Mr Muni.
1) konventionens artikel 5, nr. 1, da der var tale om retten på det sted, hvor den for­pligtelse, der lå til grund for sagen, skulle opfyldes;
The company's con­duct in that episode and the payment of remuneration to Mr Muni in respect of the pro­bationary period were justifiable on that basis rather than on the basis of its position as an employer.
(fortsat 2)
(continued 3)
2) konventionens artikel 5, nr. 5, da der var tale om en sag, der vedrørte driften af en filial eller lignende virksomhed, og da det var den italienske domstol, der havde den stedlige kompetence på virksomhedens hjemsted.
Civil Code, according to which the place of performance was the debtor's place of resi­dence. In conclusion, in the absence of any special jurisdiction, the general jurisdiction rule contained in Article 2 of the Convention must be applied.
Corte di cassazione udtalte om det sidstnævnte anbringende, at det ikke kunne tages til følge, da Mueller Italia på intet tidspunkt var blevet oprettet som afdeling af det tyske selskab og heller ikke havde påbegyndt sin virksomhed.
Finally, the court held that Article 413 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure (as amended by Law No 533 of 11 August 1973) had not, as Mr Muni contended, repealed the Convention to the extent to which it applied to employment disputes: in conferring upon the Pretore mandatory jurisdiction over employment disputes, that article laid down a rule which did not relate to the question of international jurisdiction but gov­erned solely jurisdiction as between different national courts, whose international juris­diction was not doubted.
Sagen angik således ikke »drif­ten af en filial« m.v., således som det kræves i bestemmelsen.
1-5.1.2 — Β 24 Gerechtshof, 's-Hertogenbosch, Judgment of 27 March 1979, Bombardieri ν Esta Trust Reg. Nederlandse Jurisprudentie 1980, No 512
Heraf fulgte, at den forpligtelse, der for Mueller KG muligvis var en konsekvens af det første ansættelsestilbud, som Muni havde accepteret, ikke bestod i, at der skulle oprettes et arbejdsforhold på det sted, hvor aftalen skulle opfyldes (dvs. i Italien), idet en sådan forpligtelse kun kunne påhvile den, der rent faktisk var arbejdsgiver, hvilket i dette til­fælde ikke var det sagsøgte selskab, men Mueller Italia.
Acting from Amsterdam, the plaintiff, a Liechtenstein company, ordered ice-cream machines from the defendant, who was resident in Italy.
På den anden side kunne det hel­ler ikke antages, at Mueller KG af denne grund var forpligtet til faktisk at etablere en af­deling i Italien (en forpligtelse, der skulle opfyldes i Italien).
The machines were intended for a Netherlands company called Bibita and were to be delivered to that company in the district of Maastricht in the Netherlands.
Mueller KG havde dog pligt til at træffe de fornødne foranstaltninger til, at afdelingen blev oprettet, men der var her tale om erhvervsøkonomiske foranstaltninger, der ikke skulle træffes i Italien, men på moderselskabets hjemsted.
Alleging that the machines delivered were defective, the plaintiff claimed rescission of the contract and damages. It also pleaded a claim in tort (onrechtmatige daad) which had been assigned to it by Bibita.
Det skulle herefter afgøres, hvilke forpligtelser Mueller KG havde over for til sagsøge­ren.
The local court in Maastricht held that it had jurisdiction but that the Convention was not appli­cable because the plaintiff was not domiciled in a Contracting State.
Corte di cassazione udtalte herom, at det sagsøgte selskab — på grund af dets inte­resse i en regulær og overskudsgivende ledelse af den planlagte afdeling i Italien — ville have været det selskab, der indirekte høstede fordelene af de økonomiske resultatet af det arbejde, Muni blev tilbudt.
However, on ap­peal the Gerechtshof, 's-Hertogenbosch, held that it was clear from the terms of Article 3 that the Convention was intended to increase the legal protection of persons domiciled within the territory of the Contracting States even when they were sued by persons not domiciled in a Contracting State.
Mueller KG's adfærd og det vederlag, Muni fik udbetalt i prøvetiden, kunne bedre begrundes under hensyn til denne interesse end under hensyn til selskabets stilling som arbejdsgiver.
The court went on to hold that under the private inter­national law of the Netherlands the contract of sale was governed by Italian law.
Derfor kunne den omstændighed, at det plan­lagte arbejdsforhold (ligesom i øvrigt alle de forpligtelser, der direkte fulgte deraf) skulle udføres i Italien — for så vidt angik andre forpligtelser, der for Mueller KG even­tuelt måtte følge af selskabets stilling — ikke indebære en ændring af den almindelige grundsætning i den borgerlige lovbogs artikel 1182 om, at opfyldelsesstedet var skyldne­rens bopæl.
It estab­lished that Articles 1182 and 1510 of the Italian Civil Code and Article 19 (2) of the Uni­form Law on the International Sale of Goods (which was applicable in this case under Italian law) allowed the agreement of the parties to determine the place of performance of the defendant's obligation to deliver the goods.
Da ingen af de specielle kompetenceregler således kom på tale, fandt den al­mindelige regel i konventionens artikel 2 anvendelse.
Since that place was situated in the Netherlands (in Maastricht), the local court had jurisdiction under Article 5(1) of the Convention.
(fortsat 3)
(continued 1)
Endelig udtalte Corte di cassazione, at den italienske civilproceslovs artikel 413 (som ændret ved lov nr. 533 af 11.8.1973) ikke som hævdet af Muni kunne indebære, at kon­ventionen — i det omfang den fandt anvendelse på tvister vedrørende arbejdsaftaler — var sat ud af kraft.
The same court also had jurisdiction over the claim in tort, by virtue of Article 5 (3) of the Convention: the "harmful event", namely the delivery of defective machines, had occurred in Maastricht and it was there that the damage had arisen.
Artikel 413, der for arbejdsretlige sager opstiller en præceptiv regel om værneting ved underretten, havde ikke betydning for den international kompetence, men angik kun kompetencefordelingen mellem domstole, som forudsattes at have den internationale kompetence.
The defendant had contended further that the court in Maastricht did not have jurisdic­tion over the claim for judicial confirmation of the protective seizure of the goods (con­servatoir beslag) effected by the plaintiff in Maastricht.
Kompetence — kompetencereglernes personelle anvendelsesområde — kriterier
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Conditions of validity — Choice­of­law clause — Not a jurisdiction clause
Kompetence — opfyldelsesstedet for forpligtelsen — det sted, hvor skadetilføjelsen er foregået — påstand om,aten arrest erklæres lovlig gjort — den uniforme købelov
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction of the courts for the place of per­formance of the obligation constituting the basis of the claim — Agency contract — Ob­ligation in question — Obligation of the principal constituting the basis of the action — Place of performance — Determined by application of a clause locating the perform­ance of the contract at the seat of the principal
Maskinerne skulle leveres hos sidstnævnte firma i Arrondissements­rechtbank Maastricht's retskreds.
A company established in Ehingen (Federal Republic of Germany) had appointed a Lyon businessman as its agent in France.
Under påberåbelse af, at maskinerne var mangelfulde, anlagde Esta sag mod Bombardieri med påstand om ophævelse af aftalen og skadeser­statning.
A clause in the contract stipulated that "the present contract is governed by German law, the place of performance is Ehingen".
Desuden gjorde Esta gældende, at det havde et erstatningskrav uden for kon­trakt på grund af Bombardieri's adfærd over for Bibita; dette krav havde Bibita overdra­get til Esta. Arrondissementsrechtbank Maastricht erklærede sig kompetent til at på­dømme sagen, men udtalte, at konventionen ikke fandt anvendelse i det konkrete tilfæl­de, da Esta ikke havde hjemsted i en kontraherende stat.
Af­ter the contract had been cancelled by the German company, the agent obtained from the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Lyon, an interlocutory order authoriz­ing him to seize property and attach debts of a value sufficient to satisfy his claim for commission, expenses and compensation for the goodwill created by him.
Gerechtshof fandt, at købet i medfør af den nederlandske interna­tionale privatret måtte bedømmes efter italiensk ret.
Upon applica­tion by the principal, that order was set aside and replaced by an order appointing a re­ceiver and manager.
Ifølge artiklerne 1182 og 1510 i den italienske borgerlige lovbog og ifølge artikel 19, stk. 2, i den uniforme købelov, som ifølge italiensk ret fandt anvendelse på købet, var parternes aftale med hensyn til det sted, hvor Bombardieri's leveringsforpligtelse skulle opfyldes, afgørende. Eftersom dette sted var beliggende i Nederlandene (Maastricht), var det retten i Maastricht, der havde kompetence i medfør af artikel 5, nr. 1.
The agent then brought an action against his principal for payment of the sums owing to him before the Tribunal de Commerce, Lyon, which held that it had jurisdiction under Article 5(1) of the Convention, as the court for the place where the goods were ordered, delivered and paid for.
Udsendelse 2/maj 1983
Issue 2/M ay 1983
Bombardieri havde endvidere anført, at Arrondissementsrechtbank ikke havde kompe­tence til at pådømme kravet om, at den arrest, som Esta havde ladet foretage i Maas­tricht til sikring af sit krav, erklæredes lovlig gjort.
The principal appealed against that judgment to the Cour d'Appel, Lyon, which held that the choice-of-law clause did not expressly confer jurisdiction on a German court in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 17: the fact that German law was stated to govern the contract did not necessarily mean that the parties thus intended to refer to Article 29 of the German Code of Civil Procedure, which provided that actions arising out of a contract must be tried by the court for the place where the obligation in question was to be performed.
Gerechtshof tog ikke anbringendet til følge, men udtalte, at der ifølge konventionens artikler 3 og 24 fandtes værneting for henholdsvis hovedkravet og kravet om, at arresten erklæredes lovlig gjort.
It held that the principal could be sued only in the German courts in view of the contractual nature of the dispute and in view of the agreement between the parties concerning the place of performance of the obligations arising under the contract and constituting the basis of the legal action.
Ifølge arti­kel 24 havde Arrondissementsrechtbank Maastricht kompetencen til at træffe afgørelse om det sidstnævnte krav.
Finally, the Cour d'Appel held that the principal could not be said to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the French courts by having entered an appearance for the purpose of contesting the seizure and attachment order, since Article 24 of the Convention pro­vided that "application may be made to the courts of a Contracting State for such pro­visional, including protective, measures as may be available under the law ofthat State, even if, under this Convention, the courts of another contracting State have jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter".
Et selskab med hjemsted i Ehingen (Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland) havde antaget en handlende i Lyon som agent for selskabets produkter i Frankrig. Agenturaftalen inde­holdt en klausul, hvorefter »nærværende aftale er undergivet tysk lov; opfyldelsesstedet er Ehingen«.
The plaintiff, a company based in Stuttgart, and the defendant, an Italian company, en­tered into a contract in 1973 whereby the defendant undertook to distribute the plain­tiffs products in Italy under its own name and for its own account.
På agenturgiverens begæring blev arrestdekretet senere erstattet af et dekret om beskikkelse af en bestyrer.
In an action in the Landgericht Stuttgart the plaintiff claimed the balance due in respect of goods delivered in 1973 and 1974.
Agenten anlagde herefter sag mod sin med­kontrahent ved Tribunal de commerce de Lyon med påstand om betaling af sine tilgode­havender.
The parties were in dispute, primarily, about the international jurisdic-
(fortsat 1) i artikel 17; selv om det var aftalt, at tysk ret var anvendelig på kontrakten, fulgte det ikke nødvendigvis heraf, at parterne dermed havde haft til hensigt at henholde sig til arti­kel 29 i den tyske Zivilprozessordnung, hvorefter sager, der udspringer af en kontrakt, skal indbringes for retten på det sted, hvor den omtvistede forpligtelse skal opfyldes.
(continued 1) tion of the German courts and, in particular, about the existence of a jurisdiction agree­ment under Article 17 of the Convention. The appeal court left the latter question open and held that the Landgericht Stuttgart had international jurisdiction under Article 5(1) of the Convention.
Cour d'appel ophævede imidlertid afgørelsen og afviste sagen på grundlag af artikel 5, nr. 1, idet den henviste til, at agenturgiveren kun kunne sagsøges ved de tyske domstole på grund af sagens karakter og parternes aftale om opfyldelsesstedet for forpligtelser, som var affødt af kontrakten, og som dannede grundlag for søgsmålet.
The Bundesgerichtshof upheld that judgment and held that in order to determine the court for the place of performance it was necessary to look at the obligation constituting the basis of the action, namely, in this case, the defendant's obligation to pay for the goods.
Ifølge Cour d'appel var det derfor med urette, at retten i første instans havde anset det sted, hvor va­rerne var leveret og fakturaerne betalt, for opfyldelsessted for forpligtelsen; den burde i stedet have lagt vægt på opfyldelsesstedet for den kontraktsmæssige forpligtelse til at be­tale provision, omkostninger og godtgørelse, som var sagens genstand.
The question where that obligation was to be performed fell to be determined in accordance with the law which was applicable under the conflict rules of the lexfori. In the present case that was German law, including the provisions of the Uniform Law on the International Sale of Goods, which was applicable to the contracts of sale out of which the plaintiffs claim arose.
Ligeledes på grundlag af artikel 24 udtalte Cour d'appel endvidere, at den om­stændighed, at de tyske retter skulle træffe afgørelse på grundlag af den sagkyndiges er­klæring, der var anordnet at de franske retter, heller ikke kunne få indflydelse på kompe­tencen for retten på agenturgiverens hjemsted.
The place of performance for the purposes of Article 5 (1) of the Convention was sim­ilarly determined by reference to Article 59 of the Uniform Law on the International Sale of Goods in a judgment of the Oberlandesgericht Hamm of 3 October 1979 (Case No 20 U 98/79, RIW/AWD - Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft 1980, p. 662).
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — opfyldelsesværneting — bestemmelse af op­fyldelsesstedet efter kontraktstatuttet — opfyldelsesstedet i tilfælde, hvor den uniforme lov om internationale løsørekøb finder anvendelse
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction of the courts for the place of performance — Dismissed employee's action for damages — Jurisdiction of the courts for the place of employment
Sagsøgeren, som var hjemmehørende i Stuttgart, indgik i 1973 en aftale med den ita­lienske sagsøgte, hvori denne forpligtede sig til i eget navn og for egen regning at afsætte sagsøgerens produkter i Italien.
The court declined jurisdiction in an action between a worker residing in Belgium and a Netherlands company by which he had been employed and from which he was claim­ing inter alia damages in lieu of notice and holiday pay following the termination of his contract of employment.
I en sag anlagt ved Landgericht Stuttgart gjorde sagsø­geren krav på et resttilgodehavende for leveringer, der var foretaget i 1973 og 1974.
Under Articles 2 and 53 of the Convention, the courts of the Netherlands had jurisdiction in principle.
Tvi­sten mellem parterne angik først og fremmest de tyske retters internationale kompe­tence og især spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt der var indgået en værnetingsaftale i henhold til konventionens artikel 17.
However, the Arbeidsrechtbank might also have jurisdiction under Article 5 (1), in so far as the obligations arising under the con­tract of employment were or should have been performed in the district of that court.
Appelretten lod dette spørgsmål stå åbent og fastslog, at Land­gericht Stuttgart havde den internationale kompetence i medfør af konventionens arti­kel 5, nr. 1.
Notwithstanding the retention of his residence in Brussels, the plaintiff had performed
Bundesgerichtshof stadfæstede dommen og udtalte, at det afgørende for bestemmelsen af opfyldelsesværnetinget var den forpligtelse, der var sagens genstand, i det forelig­gende tilfælde sagsøgerens krav på købesummen.
(continued 1) his duties under the contract of employment principally at the defendant's seat in the Netherlands.
Hvor kravet skulle opfyldes, skulle be­stemmes efter den lov, der var afgørende ifølge kollisionsnormerne i lex fori.
There was nothing to indicate that he had or should have performed any such duty in Belgium.
I dette til­fælde var det tysk lov, herunder også bestemmelserne i den uniforme lov om internatio­nale løsørekøb, som fandt anvendelse på de købekontrakter, som den omtvistede for­dring hidrørte fra.
The general jurisdiction rule contained in Article 2 was therefore applicable.
Sagsøgeren havde hovedsagelig opfyldt sine forpligtelser i henhold til arbejdsaftalen på sagsøgtes hjemsted i Nederlandene, selv om han havde be­varet sin bopæl i Bruxelles.
The Italian transport undertaking "Eurosped", a limited liability company which was in the course of being wound up, contested an order requiring it to pay insurance con­tributions to INAM (Istituto Nazionale Assicurazione contro le Malattie — National Sickness Insurance Institution).
Det var derfor den almindelige kompetenceregel i artikel 2, der var afgørende.
GmbH, of Frankfurt am Main, which had undertaken, in a written con­tract entered into with Eurosped, to pay the latter's debts. Upon entering an appear-
(fortsat 1)
(continued 1) ance, Presser objected to the jurisdiction of the Italian courts.
Retten udtalte, at klausulen i aftalen om, at nederlandsk ret skulle anvendes, ikke havde til følge, at de nederlandske retter var kompetente.
Being of a pecuniary nature, that obligation required to be performed, pursu­ant to Article 1182(3) of the Italian Civil Code, at the creditor's place of residence.
De belgiske retter var imidlertid ikke kompetente i medfør af artikel 635 i Code judiciaire (den belgiske retsplejelov) eller ifølge artiklerne 3 og 5 i konventionen af 1968, da aftalen var indgået i Zaire og i overensstemmelse med det aftalte var blevet op­fyldt dér.
Therefore, under Article 5(1) of the Convention, jurisdiction belonged to the Italian courts as the courts for the place of performance of the obligation in question.
Den omstændighed, at en del af vederlaget var blevet indbetalt på en bank­konto i Bruxelles i belgiske francs, berettigede ikke til at antage, at aftalen var blevet op­fyldt i Bruxelles.
The Ital­ian courts also had jurisdiction in the present case under Article 6 (2) of the Convention because, as the Corte d'Appello had established, Presser was being sued on a guarantee and the proceedings had not been instituted with the object of removing it from the juris­diction of the court which would normally be competent.
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — retten på det sted, hvor forpligtelsen er opfyldt eller skal opfyldes — opfyldelsesstedet for pengeforpligtelser — kreditors bopæl
Jurisdiction — Method by which the court must determine whether it has jurisdic­tion — Determination solely on the basis of the statement of claim
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — adcitation af en tredjemand — kompe­tencen for den ret, hvor den oprindelige sag er anlagt (artikel 6, nr. 2) — betingelser — ingen aftale mellem parterne med det formål at unddrage tredjemand hans almindelige værneting
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction of the courts for the place of performance of the obligation in question (Article 5 (1)) — Jurisdiction determined on the basis of the state­ment of claim
For kassationsinstansen krævede det tyske selskab appelinstansens dom ophævet på grund af, at domskonventionens artikel 5, nr. 1, og artikel 6, nr. 2, var anvendt urigtigt.
Convectio SpA, a company based in Rho (Milan), brought an action in which it claimed, in addition to damages, the rescission of contracts entered into with three German un­dertakings for the supply of radiators.
Efter det tyske selskabs opfattelse var der tale om en forsikringssag (konventionens arti­kel 7); endvidere var selskabet i medfør af kontrakten med Eurosped trådt i Eurosped's sted som forsikringstager i forhold til I NAM.
The defendants objected to the jurisdiction of the Italian courts; they maintained that the contracts on which the Italian company based its action had never been concluded and that in view of the resulting absence of any con­tractual relationship it was not possible to rely on the connecting factor referred to in Ar­ticle 5(1) of the Convention.
Infolge konventionens artikel 11 kunne forsikringsgiveren [INAM] derfor »kun anlægge sag ved retterne i den kontraherende stat, på hvis område sagsøgte [her Presser & Co. i stedet for Eurosped] har bopæl«. Corte di cassazione tog ikke dette anbringende til følge.
The Tribunale di Milano held that it had jurisdiction, but when it subsequently came to try the substance of the case it found that there had indeed been no agreement between the parties.
Kontraktsforholdet mellem parterne kunne under ingen omstændigheder betragtes som en forsikringsaftale.
Convectio SpA appealed against that judgment and the German undertak­ings maintained their preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the Italian courts.
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — retten på det sted, hvor forpligtelsen er opfyldt eller skal opfyldes (artikel 5, nr. 1) — bestemmelse af kompetencen foretaget af den ret, ved hvilken sagen er anlagt — sagsøgerens sagsfremstilling er afgørende
Therefore the court must decline jurisdiction only where it was clear from the face of the claim, as formulated by the plaintiff, that the court lacked jurisdiction.