natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Retten tog herefter stilling til, i hvilket omfang klausulen var bindende for den konkursramte sælgers rets­successor.
A further appeal by Voith GmbH was successful.
Da der i brevvekslingen mellem køberen og den nye sælger konsekvent blev henvist til ordren, som den konkursramte sælger havde accepteret, havde den nye sælger haft kenskab til de forpligtelser, der påhvilede den konkursramte sælger, og var derfor indtrådt i dennes rettigheder og forpligtelser under ét.
The Cour de cassation held that a valid agreement on jurisdiction under Article 17 of the Convention took precedence over all other grounds of jurisdiction, with the exception of the provisions conferring exclusive jurisdiction on certain courts; such an agreement therefore excluded not only the general jurisdiction under Article 2 but also the special jurisdictions provided for in Articles 5 and 6.
Den nye sælger kunne så­ledes ikke unddrage sig virkningerne af værnetingsklausulen. Tribunal de commerce erklærede sig derfor kompetent.
Since the appeal court had not held that the jurisdiction clause was not intended by the parties to cover third­party claims, its decision must be quashed as con­trary to Article 6(2) and Article 17 of the Convention.
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — værnetingsklausul i en arbejdsaftale — anvende­lighed på et søgsmål, der støttes på præceptive lovbestemmelser om vederlaget — arti­kel 17 har forrang f or den specielle kompetence i henhold til artikel 5, nr. 3
Under Article 333 of the Nouveau Code de procédure civile a third party against whom a claim is raised in the course of proceedings before a court seised of another action may not challenge the jurisdiction ratione loci of that court on the basis of an agree­ment conferring jurisdiction on another court.
(fortsat 1)
(continued 2) one and the same State.
Durament gjorde gældende, at retten savnede kompetencen, da aftalen indeholdt en klausul, hvorefter retterne i Nürnberg havde kompetencen i tvister vedrørende aftalen.
The court concluded in the light ofthat interpretation that parties were not free to choose any of the States in the Community but were limited to States in which 'one or more' of the parties was domiciled; consequently there was a definite and precise subjective connection.
Efter sagsøgerens opfattelse fandt værnetingsklausulen imidlertid ikke anvendelse, da den kun vedrørte opfyldelse af aftalen, men ikke tilsidesættelse af præceptive retsregler og almengyldige forpligtelser som i det foreliggende tilfælde (tilsidesættelse af lovbe­stemmelser om pristalsregulering af løn og præmier, feriepenge og vederlag).
Ac­cordingly, in accordance with the preamble to the Convention and in order to strike a fair balance with the requirements of the individual States, it had to be held that a juris­diction clause should be recognized as being valid and coming within the terms of the Convention only where the parties were domiciled in different States (of the Com­munity).
Tribunal de travail bemærkede, at konventionens artikel 17 fandt anvendelse på bor­gerlige sager vedrørende allerede opståede tvister eller fremtidige tvister i anledning af et bestemt retsforhold, uanset om disse sager beroede på et strafbart forhold.
On those grounds Article 17 was inapplicable.
I det fore­liggende tilfælde var arbejdsaftalen det bestemte retsforhold, og tvisten udsprang af denne aftale.
In contrast, the general rule laid down in Article 2 of the Convention, under which persons domiciled in a Contracting State were to be sued in the courts of that State, and Article 2 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure, under which the jurisdiction of the Italian courts might not be excluded, continued to be effective in this case.
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — konventionens regler — anvendelsesområde — omfatter kun aftaler, der har tilknytning til en anden kontraherende stat
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Clause in a contract by which both parties es­tablish common domicile in Italy — No jurisdiction clause
Med hensyn til spørgsmålet om Landgericht Memmingen's kompetence påberåbte sagsøgeren sig en klausul i sine kontraktsvilkår, hvorefter Neu­Ulm skulle være eneste værneting og op­fyldelsessted.
This literal interpretation is based only on the Italian rendering of Article 17 of the Conven­tion in the version in force until 1 November 1986; the English version has 'a Contracting State' in both cases.
Oberlandesgericht München stadfæstede afgørelsen, idet den bedømte spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt der som påstået af sagsøgeren var kommet en værnetingsaftale i stand, efter autonom tysk ret.
An exclusive distribution agreement was concluded between an Italian company as supplier and a Belgian company as sole distributor. Following the termination of the agreement by the supplier, the sole distributor brought proceedings in Belgium for compensation for the loss suffered by it.
Derimod havde retten ikke kompetence i medfør af Bruxelles­kon­ventionen.
The supplier objected to the jurisdiction of the Belgian courts and relied in that regard on a provision in the exclusive distribution agreement stating that the parties 'elect domicile in Milan'.
Kompetencereglerne i konventionen, herunder artikel 17, kom ikke til an­vendelse, da sagsøgte havde hjemsted i Canada og dermed ikke på en kontraherende stats område.
It regarded this as a juris­diction clause falling within Article 17 of the Convention. The Tribunal de commerce, Liège, upheld that objection at first instance.
Retten henviste til, at artikel 17's anvendelsesområde er omstridt.
Had this been the in­tention of the parties, they should have specified the court or courts which were to de­cide any existing or future disputes arising from the agreement in question.
Efter en indgående redegørelse for de forskellige opfattelser i den tyske litteratur tilsluttede retten sig den retsopfattelse, at der kun kan antages at foreligge en aftale i artikel 17's forstand, hvis de i bestemmelsen nævnte forudsætninger er opfyldt, og der herudover består en til­knytning til mindst én anden kontraherende stat, for eksempel når parter, der er hjem­mehørende i henholdsvis en kontraherende stat og en tredjestat, aftaler et værneting i en anden kontraherende stat.
Since the wishes of the parties had not been expressed in the present case, it was to be assumed that the common domicile established by them was intended merely to avoid problems over the determination of their domicile for the purposes of the application of Article 2 of the Convention.
Bestemmelsens ordlyd taler hverken for eller imod nogen af de omtvistede opfattelser.
A sale contract was concluded between two Belgian companies.
Konventionens forarbejder tyder imidlertid på, at det ikke var hensigten også at regule­re forholdet til tredjestater, som ikke er deltagere i konventionen, og deres borgere, men at det for de kontraherende stater i første række drejede sig om at fastsætte regler for deres egne anliggender med hensyn til den judicielle retsbeskyttelse.
The purchaser stated in the order form sent to the seller that the contract was to be subject to its General Terms and Conditions of Business, which contained a jurisdiction clause providing that the forum for disputes was to be the place where the purchaser company's seat was situated. The seller stated in writing its agreement to that clause.
Konventionens præambel giver også et klart fingerpeg om konventionens anvendelsesområde.
However, it subsequently went bankrupt, whereupon a French company took over the contract in its place.
Endelig er konventionens systematik heller ikke til hinder for kravet om, at der i henseende til kompetencen skal være en tilknytning til en anden kontraherende stat, hvilket bl.a. artikel 4 giver belæg for at antage.
The French com pany objected to the jurisdiction of the court seised, relying on Article 2 of the Convention.
Aftales det, at retter­ne i en kontraherende stat skal have kompetencen i forhold til en tredjestat, uden at en anden kontraherende stat er indblandet, skal spørgsmålet om retternes kompetence i enhver kontraherende stat afgøres efter dens egne love.
The plaintiff asserted, however, that the jurisdiction of the court arose from the jurisdiction agreement contained in the original contract, which continued to be applicable. cable.
Meningen med konventionen kunne kun være, at den alene skal omfatte den internationale kompetence i forholdet mellem de kontraherende stater, og dette måtte indfortolkes i artikel 17 som en uskreven faktisk betingelse.
The Tribunal de commerce upheld, first, the effectiveness of the jurisdiction agreement contained in the contract as concluded between the original parties, with regard to
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — fastlæggelse af en aftales objektive omfang — parternes vilje afgørende — mulighed for også at inddrage tvister om erstatning udenfor kontrakt
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Determination of the objective scope of an agreement — Primacy of the intentions of the parties — Possible inclusion even of disputes in tort
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — konventionens regler — forholdet til natio­nale retsforskrifter —forrang for den efter tysk kartelret gældende enekompetence for de tyske retter
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Rules of the Convention — Relationship to national legislation — Precedence over exclusive jurisdiction of German courts under the German cartel law in force
Sagsøgte, en virksomhed med hjemsted i Italien, fremstiller og sælger sportsvogne i luksusklassen.
The defendant, an undertaking whose seat was in Italy, was engaged in the manufac­ture and sale of luxury sports cars.
Sagsøgeren, som har hjemsted i Tyskland, havde igennem længere tid importeret biler fremstillet af sagsøgte og forhandlet dem i Sydtyskland.
The plaintiff, domiciled in Germany, had for a long time been importing the defendant's cars and distributed them in the south of Ger­many.
Forhandlings­aftalen, som var affattet på italiensk, indeholdt bl.a. følgende bestemmelse: »Retten i Modena er enekompetent til at træffe afgørelse i tilfælde af tvister, som alligevel måtte opstå i forbindelse med den foreliggende aftale«.
The distribution contract was written in Italian and contained inter alia the fol­lowing provision: 'The courts of Modena shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine disputes arising in connection with this contract'.
Oberlandesgericht fastslog først, at den af parterne indgående værnetingsaftale også omfattede det erstatningskrav, der var gjort gældende i medfør af GWB, og som måtte kvalificeres som et erstatningskrav uden for kontrakt. Aftalens objektive omfang skal fastlægges i overensstemmelse med parternes vilje.
It asserted that it had been unfairly restrained by the defendant, in breach of the prohibition against discrimination contained in Paragraph 26(2) of the German Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen (GWB) [Law against Restrictions on Competition], in that the defendant, in terminating the contract, had not given it a reasonable period
(fortsat 1)
(continued 1) of notice in which to adapt to the change of circumstances.
Oberlandesgericht tog derefter stilling til sagsøgerens anbringende om, at de tyske ret­ter med henblik på GWB § 98, stk. 2, har enekompetence, for så vidt angår krav i hen­hold til tysk kartelret, og at dette også gælder, for så vidt som kravene har tilknytning til udlandet.
The Oberlandesgericht next examined the plaintiffs plea that the German courts had sole jurisdiction, having regard to Paragraph 98(2) of the GWB, to hear claims in Ger­man cartel law, even where those claims had a foreign connection.
Oberlandesgericht udtalte, at dette ganske vist i princippet var rigtigt, såle­des at der i almindelighed ikke kan indgås en aftale om, at udenlandske retter skal have kompetencen i kartelsager, der skal bedømmes efter tysk ret, idet parterne ellers blot ved en aftale ville kunne unddrage sig de offentligretlige regler i den tyske kartelret.
Certainly, this was fundamentally correct, i.e. an agreement conferring jurisdiction on a foreign court in respect of cartel matters to be determined pursuant to German law was as a general rule precluded, since otherwise it would be open to the parties to evade, by mere agreement, the German public law rules relating to cartels.
Den foreliggende værnetingsaftale til fordel for en italiensk ret og den heri liggende derogatoriske virkning for de tyske retter er imidlertid undergivet bestemmelserne i Bruxelles­konventionens artikel 17.
However, the prorogation in the present case in favour of an Italian court, and the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the German courts inherent therein, was subject to Article 17 of the Brussels Convention.
Denne bestemmelse indeholder en udtømmende retlig regulering af grænseoverskridende værnetingsaftaler, som ikke kan korrigeres el­ler suppleres ved hjælp af nationale kompetenceregler.
That pro­vision constituted a self­contained set of rules governing the law on cross­border juris­diction agreements which was not open to rectification or amendment by any national laws relating to jurisdiction.
Inden for sit anvendelsesområ­de fortrænger artikel 17 national ret.
Within its field of application Article 17 supplanted na­tional law.
Hvis en aftale indgået i medfør af artikel 17, hvor­efter en bestemt ret skal have den stedlige og internationale kompetence, indebærer, at en eksklusiv kompetenceregel i national procesret tilsidesættes, skal den nationale kompetenceregel vige.
In the event, therefore, that there was a conflict between, on the one hand, the specific conferment by agreement of local and international jurisdiction on a given court in accordance with Article 17 and, on the other hand, the conferment of exclusive jurisdiction pursuant to national rules of procedure, the former must prevail over the national rules on jurisdiction.
Dette følger nødvendigvis af fællesskabsrettens forrang.
As a result, the primacy of Community law was manda­torily imposed.
Bruxel­les­konventionen er ganske vist ikke et resultat af et EF­organs umiddelbare rets­fastsættelse, men har dog rang af primær fællesskabsret.
Although the Brussels Convention was not the product of a direct legis­lative act on the part of an organ of the European Community, it ranked as primary Community law.
Dermed måtte den i forhandlingsaftalen mellem parterne indgåede aftale om, at retten i Modena skulle have stedlig og international kompetence, trods derogationsforbuddet i tysk kartelret også være gældende for det erstatningskrav, der var fremsat i det forelig­gende tilfælde.
Consequently, the agreement contained in the distribution contract, whereby the par­ties conferred local and international jurisdiction on the Modena court, was effective, notwithstanding the prohibition against the exclusion of the jurisdiction of German
Det var ikke nødvendigt at tage stilling til, om en ret i Tyskland ville have en subsidiær kompetence, hvis de italienske retter skulle frifinde sagsøgte for er­statningskravet, allerede fordi de ikke anvendte tysk kartelret.
It was unnecessary to consider the question whether the domestic courts would have jurisdiction to award damages if the Italian courts were to reject the claim for damages on the ground that, a priori, they did not apply German cartel law.
(Jfr. også de under 1­17.1.1 medtagne afgørelser samt 1­3 — B 2; 1­5.1.1 ­ B 12, 23, 28, 31 ; 1­5.1.2 ­ B 8, 12, 15, 21, 23, 37, 40, 41, 49; 1­18 ­ B 1, 3; 1­21 ­ B 4; 1­57 ­ B 2, 3, 5, 9)
(See also the decisions reported in 1­17.1.1 and 1­3 — Β 2; 1­5.1.1 ­ Β 12, 23, 28, 31; 1­5.1.2 ­ Β 8, 12, 15, 21, 23, 37, 40, 41, 49; 1­18 ­ Β 1, 3; 1­21 ­ Β 4; 1­57 ­ Β 2, 3, 5, 9)
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — værnetingsklausul i en faktura modtaget uden reklamation — ikke gyldig i henhold lil artikel 17
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Jurisdiction clause in an invoice — Invoice accepted without protest — Not effective under Article 17
Rechtbank van koophandel Kortrijk, som behandlede en sag, hvorunder en belgisk virksomhed havde indstævnet tyske sagsøgte til betaling for levering af varer, erklære­de at mangle stedlig kompetence.
A Belgian undertaking brought an action in the Rechtbank van koophandel, Kortrijk, against the German defendant for payment for goods delivered. The court held that it did not have jurisdiction ratione loci.
Sagsøgeren havde påberåbt sig en værnetingsklausul i sine fakturaer. Retten fandt, at værnetingsklausulen var ugyldig, og den begrundede dette med en henvisning til domskonventionen, der fandt anvendelse på en sag, der var anlagt efter dens ikrafttræden, også selv om sagen angik forpligtelser, der var opstået før dette tidspunkt.
The plaintiff had relied on a jurisdiction clause contained in its invoices.
Manglende reklamation ved modtagelsen af fakturaer, som blandt de almin­delige forretningsbetingelser indeholdt en værnetingsklausul, kunne ikke anses for en stiltiende accept af denne klausul til skade for en statsborger i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland.
The fact that no protest was made against invoices which contained a jurisdiction clause in the general conditions of business could not be treated as an effective tacit ac­ceptance of that jurisdiction clause as against a national of the Federal Republic of Germany.
Det var netop formålet med formkravene i artikel 17 at gøre en ende på de misbrug, som havde været resultatet af, at værnetingsklausuler blev indføjet som vilkår i fakturaer.
The very purpose of the formal requirements laid down by Article 17 was to put a stop to abuses which had arisen from the insertion of jurisdiction clauses in con­ditions printed on invoices.
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — værnetingsklausul »ordrebekræftelse« — ikke gyldig i henhold til artikel 17 købesummen
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Jurisdiction clause in an unsigned 'con­firmation of order' — Not effective under Article 17
Kompetence — visse former for kreditkøb og lån (artikel 13) — køb, hvor skal betales i rater
Jurisdiction — Instalment sales (Art. 13) — Sales on instalment credit terms — Concept
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — opfyldelsesværneting (artikel 5, nr. 1) — opfyldelsessted for en aftale om levering og opstilling af en maskine
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction of the courts for the place of per­formance (Art. 5(1)) — Place of performance of a contract to supply and install a machine
Det tyske firma Wiest, der var blevet sagsøgt på grund af manglende opfyldelse af fir­maets forpligtelse til levering af salgsgenstanden, havde rejst indsigelse mod den ita­lienske rets kompetence og havde ifølge artikel 41 i Codice di procedura civile anmodet de forenede civilafdelinger ved Corte di cassazione om en afgørelse af kompetence­spørgsmålet.
The German undertaking Wiest, which had been sued in an Italian court for its failure to supply goods under a contract of sale, objected to the jurisdiction of the court and requested a decision on jurisdiction from the Corte di cassazione under Article 41 of the Codice di procedura civile.
Afgørelsen gik imidlertid andrageren imod, idet Corte di cassazione anførte følgende begrundelse: Den værnetingsaftale til fordel for en tysk ret, som andrageren påberåbte sig, opfyldte ikke betingelserne i konventionens artikel 17, da klausulen, som var inde­holdt i en »ordrebekræftelse«, hverken var underskrevet af parterne eller bekræftet ved en brev­ eller telegramveksling.
The Corte di cassazione dismissed the application for the following reasons. The agree­ment conferring jurisdiction on a German court, on which the applicant relied, did not satisfy the requirements of Article 17 of the Convention since the clause in question, which was contained in a 'confirmation of order', was neither signed by the parties nor confirmed by means of an exchange of letters or telegrams.
Den italienske rets kompetence vedrørende sagen, som drejede sig om annullation af en købeaftale, fulgte af konventionens artikel 5, nr. 1.1 den tilgrundliggende aftale hav­de den tyske sælger forpligtet sig til at opstille den solgte maskine i den italienske kø­bers virksomhed; i dette tilfælde måtte opfyldelsesstedet for forpligtelsen til levering af salgsgenstanden anses for at være det sted, hvor opstillingsarbejdet skulle have været udført, og ikke det sted, hvor maskinen blev overgivet til fragtføreren til forsendelse.
The Italian court's jurisdiction to entertain the action for the rescission of a contract of sale was derived from Article 5(1) of the Convention. In the contract the German seller had undertaken to install the machine in the buyer's factory in Italy; in that case the place of performance of the obligation to supply the goods sold was the place where the installation should have been carried out and not the place where the machine was handed over to the carrier for delivery.
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — opfyldelsesværneting (artikel 5, nr. 1) — bestemmelse af opfyldelsesstedet efter den lov, som gælder for aftalen
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction of the courts for the place of per­formance (Art. 5(1)) — Place of performance determined under the proper law of the contract
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — værnetingsklausul i konnossementsbetingel­ser — manglende bekræftelse fra den anden part
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Jurisdiction clause in conditions con­tained in bill of lading — Absence of any statement by the other party
I en i anden instans verserende sag mellem en tysk speditionsvirksomhed og en belgisk virksomhed vedrørende skadeserstatning for manglende opfyldelse af en fragtaftale
It was held on appeal that the German courts had jurisdiction to entertain an action be­tween a German transport company and a Belgian undertaking for damages for failure to perform a contract of affreightment. Jurisdiction was derived from Article 5(1) of the
ARTIKEL 17, STK. 1
1968 ­ ARTICLE 17, first para.
I en dom afsagt af Hof van beroep, Antwerpen, den 25. april 1979 i sagen Allkauf Ver­ waltungs­GmbH mod Curatoren in het faillissement van Simons­Latour, samt i domme afsagt af Rechtbank van koophandel, Oudenaarde, den 6. november 1979 i sagen PVBA Little David mod Taalman, og den 18. december 1979 i sagen PVBA Santens mod SA Indimaco, blev værnetingsklausuler i fakturaer ligeledes anset for ugyldige på grundlag af artikel 17.
Jurisdiction clauses in invoices were also held invalid under Article 17 of the Conven­tion in a judgment of the Hof van beroep, Antwerp, of 25 April 1979 (Allkauf Verwal­ tungs­GmbH ν Curatoren in het faillissement van Simons­Latour) and in judgments of the Rechtbank van koophandel, Oudenaarde, of 6 November 1979 (PVBA Little David ν Taalman) and 18 December 1979 (PVBA Santens ν SA Indimaco).
Belgiske handelsretter har derimod i andre domme anset sådanne klausuler for gyldige med den begrundelse, at den sagsøgte part havde accepteret klausulerne ved at mod­tage fakturaerne uden reklamation: således Tournai den 5. april 1979 i sagen SA Nord­vex mod SA Patrymat, samt Brügge den 27. september 1979 i sagen Riemaecker mod Möbus Möbelvertrieb GmbH, hvor forretningsforbindelserne havde bestået i længere tid.
However, such clauses have been held valid in other judgments of Belgian commercial courts on the ground that their acceptance by the defendant could be inferred from the fact that the invoices had been accepted without objection : see for example Tournai, 5 April 1979, SA Nordvex ν SA Patrymat, and — in a case of long­standing business re­lations — Bruges, 27 September 1979, Riemaecker ν Möbus Möbelvertrieb GmbH.