natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I en sag, som var indbragt for Bundesgerichtshof som appelinstans, og som førtes mellem en tysk og en italiensk virksomhed, var der uenighed mellem parterne om, hvorvidt Landgericht Köln gyldigt var aftalt som værneting i kraft af en værnetingsklausul i den tyske sagsøgers almindelige forretningsbetingelser.
In an action between a German and an Italian undertaking, which was brought to the Bundesgerichtshof by way of appeal on a point of law, the parties were in dispute over the question whether jurisdiction had been validly conferred on the Landgericht Köln by virtue of a jurisdiction clause in the German plaintiffs general conditions of sale.
Bundesgerichtshof forelagde i den ne forbindelse EF-Domstolen to spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af domskonventionens artikel 17, stk. 1.
In this regard the Bundesgerichtshof submitted two questions to the Court of Justice of the European Communities on the interpretation of the first paragraph of Article 17 of the Brussels Convention.
Indledningsvis udtalte Domstolen vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 17 i almindelig hed følgende:
The Court of Justice first made the following general remarks with regard to the inter­pretation of Article 17:
»fortolkningen af, under hvilke betingelser denne bestemmelse finder anvendelse, må ske under hensyntagen til virkningen af kompetencevedtagelsen, der både udelukker værnetinget ifølge det almindelige princip i konventionens artikel 2 og de specielle værneting, som nævnes i artiklerne 5 og 6; i betragtning af de følger, som en sådan kompetencevedtagelse kan have for kontrahenternes stilling i retssagen, må de i artikel 17 nævnte betingelser for værnetingsklausulers gyldighed fortolkes snævert; da artikel 17 som grundlag for kompetencevedtagelsen kræver en »aftale« mellem parterne, må den ret, for hvilken sagen er forelagt, først og fremmest prøve, om den bestemmelse, som tillægger retten kompetence, faktisk har været genstand for
"The way in which that provision is to be applied must be interpreted in the light of the effect of the conferment of jurisdiction by consent, which is to exclude both the jurisdiction determined by the general principle laid down in Article 2 and the spe­cial jurisdictions provided for in Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention.
Udsendelse 2/maj 1983
By making such validity subject to the existence of an 'agreement' between the par­ toi« 2/May 1983
Bundesgerichtshof havde i første spørgsmål spurgt, om kravet om skriftlighed i konventionens artikel 17, stk. 1, er opfyldt, når en værnetingsaftale indeholdes i almindelige for retningsbetingelser, som er trykt på bagsiden af et af begge parter underskrevet kon traktsdokument.
The Bundesgerichtshof had asked in the first place whether a clause conferring jurisdic tion which was included among general conditions of sale printed on the back of a con tract signed by both parties fulfilled the requirement of a writing under the first paragraph of Article 17 of the Convention.
Domstolen besvarede dette benægtende, og fastslog, at denne frem gangsmåde ikke giver nogen sikkerhed for, at medkontrahenten faktisk har tiltrådt en klausul, som fraviger de almindelige værnetingsregler.
The Court of Justice answered that question in the negative, stating that no guarantee was thereby given that the other party had really consented to the clause waiving the normal rules of jurisdiction.
Det forholdt sig anderledes, så fremt den af begge parter undertegnede kontrakt selv udtrykkeligt henviser til værnetingsklausulen i de almindelige forretningsbetingelser.
It was otherwise where the text of the contract signed by both parties itself contained an express reference to general conditions including a clause conferring jurisdiction.
Det første spørgsmål besvaredes følgelig således:
Accordingly the answer to the first question was as follows:
»Det i artikel 17, stk. 1, i konventionen ... nævnte krav om skriftlighed, er, når en værnetingsklausul indeholdes i en af kontrahenternes almindelige forretningsbetingelser, som er trykt på bagsiden af et aftaledokument, kun opfyldt, såfremt den af begge kontrahenter underskrevne kontrakt udtrykkeligt henviser til disse almindelige forretningsbetingelser.«
"Where a clause conferring jurisdiction is included among the general conditions of sale of one of the parties, printed on the back of a contract, the requirement of a writ ing under the first paragraph of Article 17 of the Convention ... is fulfilled only if the contract signed by both parties contains an express reference to those general conditions." tions."
Det andet spørgsmål drejede sig om, hvorvidt kravet om skriftlighed i konventionens ar tikel 17, stk. 1, er opfyldt, når kontrahenterne i kontraktsteksten udtrykkeligt henviser til et tidligere skriftligt tilbud, hvori der blev henvist til en værnetingsklausul i almindelige forretningsbetingelser.
The second question asked whether the requirement of a writing under the first paragraph of Article 17 was fulfilled if the parties expressly referred in the contract to a prior offer in writing in which reference was made to general conditions of sale including a clause conferring jurisdiction.
Domstolen besvarede dette spørgsmål bekræftende, for så vidt angår det tilfælde, at henvisningen i tilbudet er udtrykkelig og så tydelig, at den kan efterprøves af en medkontrahent, der udviser sædvanlig omhu; det måtte yderligere kunne godtgøres, at de almindelige forretningsbetingelser indeholdende værnetings klausulen faktisk er meddelt medkontrahenten sammen med det tilbud, hvortil der hen vises.
The Court held that the requirement was fulfilled in the case of an express reference which could be checked by a party exercising reasonable care; it must also be established that the general conditions including the clause conferring jurisdiction had in fact been communicated to the other contracting party with the offer to which reference was made.
Indirekte eller stiltiende henvisninger til tidligere skrivelser var derimod ikke til strækkeligt, da der i dette tilfælde ikke var vished for, at værnetingsklausulen faktisk har været en del af selve kontrakten.
But indirect or implied references to earlier correspondence were not sufficient, for that would not yield any certainty that the clause conferring jurisdiction was in fact part of the subject-matter of the contract properly so called.
Det andet spørgsmål besvaredes følgelig således:
Accordingly, the second question was answered as follows:
»Er en kontrakt indgået under henvisning til tidligere tilbud, hvori der var refereret til en af kontrahenternes almindelige forretningsbetingelser, som indeholder en værnetingsklausul, er kravet om skriftlighed i konventionens artikel 17, stk. 1, kun opfyldt, såfremt henvisningen er udtrykkelig og således vil kunne efterprøves af en medkontrahent, der udviser almindelig opmærksomhed.«
"In the case of a contract concluded by reference to earlier offers, which were them selves made with reference to the general conditions of one of the parties including a clause conferring jurisdiction, the requirement of a writing under the first paragraph of Article 17 of the Convention is satisfied only if the reference is express and can therefore be checked by a party exercising reasonable care."
Ordrebekræftelsen fra januar 1976, der end ikke in­deholdt en udtrykkelig henvisning til de almindelige forretningsbetingelser på bagsi­den, og sagsøgtes passivitet heroverfor, kunne ikke antages at udgøre en gyldig værne­tingsaftale.
The action concerned a contract concluded in January 1976 under which the plaintiff was to supply certain goods to the defendant.
Imidlertid havde sagsøgte i forbindelse med parternes løbende forretnings­forhold haft tilstrækkelig lejlighed til at få kendskab til sagsøgerens forretningsbetingel­ser, når hensås til de talrige dokumenter, der var blevet fremsendt.
The defendant's written order referred to general conditions of sale, which contained a clause conferring jurisdiction on the courts in Hamburg (Feder­al Republic of Germany).
Sagsøgte kunne der­med ikke længere henvise til, at disse forretningsbetingelser ikke var blevet genstand for en udtrykkelig aftale.
The plaintiffs confirmation notes contained on the reverse general conditions of sale and delivery in Dutch and German; those conditions pro­vided inter alia that the courts in Amsterdam should have jurisdiction.
Sagsøgte måtte derfor — og udgangspunktet måtte være alminde­lig agtpågivenhed — stilles, som om firmaet havde haft kendskab til og godkendt værne­tingsklausulen i de almindelige betingelser.
The defendant ac­cepted the confirmation notes without objection.
Sagsøgte kunne i øvrigt heller ikke påberåbe sig værnetingsklausulen til fordel for retterne i Hamburg, som var indeholdt i de almin­delige forretningsbetingelser i ordreskrivelsen.
There had, moreover, already been ne­gotiations in May 1975 between the parties in respect of other transactions in the course of which the plaintiff had sent the defendant inter alia a German translation of its gener­al conditions of sale and delivery.
Der kunne hverken antages at være kom­met en skriftlig værnetingsaftale eller en mundtlig og af sagsøgeren senere skriftligt be­kræftet aftale i stand om denne klausul.
Subsequently several transactions were concluded, in respect of which the plaintiff had issued invoices repeating the relevant conditions on the reverse.
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — formkrav i henhold til artikel 17 — værnetings­klausul i konnossement — ikke gyldig
The court held that it had jurisdiction.
I en sag vedrørende krav i henhold til en aftale om befordring af varer fra Veracruz til Antwerpen rejste sagsøgte, et selskab med hjemsted i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland, indsigelse mod rettens kompetence.
Admittedly, the confirmation of the order in Jan­uary 1976, which did not even contain an express reference to the general conditions of sale on the reverse, and the defendant's subsequent silence could not be regarded as ef­fective agreement on jurisdiction.
Sagsøgte påberåbte sig en værnetingsklausul i de konnossementer, der var udstedt for varerne, i hvilke det var bestemt, at retterne i Ham­burg skulle være kompetente.
Nevertheless, during the series of transactions be­tween the parties the defendant had had sufficient opportunity in view of the numerous documents sent to it to take cognizance of the plaintiffs conditions of sale.
Sagsøgeren gjorde heroverfor gældende, at værnetings­klausulen var del af bortfragterens almindelige forretningsbetingelser og ikke var en skriftlig aftale i domskonventionens forstand.
It could therefore no longer claim that those conditions of sale were not the subject of an express agreement.
Retten gav sagsøgeren medhold. Den antog, at artikel 17 ikke alene krævede skriftlighed, men en udtrykkelig aftale om kompetencen, hvorved enhver tvivl vedrørende parternes forpligtelser udelukkedes.
Assuming that it exercised normal care, it must be treated as having known of and approved the jurisdiction clause contained in the general conditions.
En værnetingsklausul i et konnossements almindelige betin­gelser opfyldte ikke disse betingelser.
Further, it could not rely on the jurisdiction conditions referred to in its order, for there had been no agreement either in writing or evidenced by the plaintiff in writing in respect ofthat clause.
(fortsat 1)
1968 ­ ARTICLE 17(1)
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — værnetingsklausul i almindelige forretningsbetin­gelser på bagsiden af forretningspapirer og fakturaer — gyldighed i henhold til artikel 17 — betingelser
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Formal requirements under Article 17 — Ju­risdiction clause in a bill of lading — Held invalid
Den omstændighed, at en del af forretningerne var blevet afviklet i henhold til disse betingelser viste efter sag­søgerens opfattelse, at sagsøgte havde accepteret dem.
In a dispute concerning claims under a contract for the carriage of goods from Veracruz to Antwerp the defendant, a company based in the Federal Republic of Germany, chal­lenged the jurisdiction of the court in which the action had been brought.
Det sagsøgte selskab havde for­klaret, at det ikke havde underskrevet nogen aftale, hvori den ret, ved hvilken sagen var anlagt, var udpeget som kompetent.
It relied on a ju­risdiction clause which was contained in the bills of lading issued in respect of the goods and which conferred jurisdiction on the courts in Hamburg.
Retten udtalte, at formkravene i konventionens arti­kel 17, som skal fortolkes snævert, i tilfælde, hvor værnetingsklausuler er trykt på bagsi­den af forretningspapirer eller fakturaer, kun er opfyldt, hvis klausulerne er aftalt mel­lem parterne.
In reply the plaintiffs sub­mitted that the jurisdiction clause was part of the carriers' general conditions of business and did not constitute an agreement in writing within the meaning of Article 17 of the Brussels Convention.
Dette forudsatte, at der faktisk havde været overensstemmelse mellem par­ternes vilje.
Article 17 required not merely writ­ing, but an express agreement on jurisdiction which eliminated any doubts about the ob­ligations assumed by the parties.
Trykte klausuler på forretningspapirer og fakturaer var derfor uden retsvirk­ning, når de ikke var accecpteret af modparten.
A jurisdiction clause contained in the general condi­tions of a bill of lading did not satisfy those requirements.
1979 i sagen Allkauf Verwaltungs­GmbH mod Scheepers, 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 — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Jurisdiction clause in general conditions of business on the reverse of commercial documents and invoices — Validity under Article 17 — Conditions
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. Rechtbank van koophandel, Oudenaarde, som også først var af denne opfattelse (f.eks. i dommene af 16.1. 1979 i sagen Van Poucke mod Guilmot, 6.2. 1979 i sagen NV Brouwerij Liefmans mod Koster, 27. 2. 1979 i sagen NV Samso­nite mod Grisshader, 25.9.
The court declined jurisdiction in an action brought by a Belgian undertaking against a French undertaking in order to recover payment for goods sold and delivered.
(fortsat 1) af 9.12.
That presupposed a genuine consensus ad idem.
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence i almindelige forretningsbetingelser — formkrav — opfyldelsesstedet for forpligtelsen var i Nederlandene, men ikke i den pågældende domstols retskreds — den uniforme købelov
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 v Möbus Möbelvertrieb GmbH.
Arrondissementsrecht­bank udtalte imidlertid, at en værnetingsklausul i almindelige forretningsbetingelser kun kunne anses for at være indgået som et led i en mundtlig købsaftale, hvis den var skriftligt bekræftet af sælgeren og accepteret af køberen.
In a judgment of 9 March 1979 (SPRL Cykiert & Fils ν Rubertex) the Tribunal de Commerce, Liège, upheld the validity of a clause conferring jurisdiction on an Ital­ian court, where the clause was contained in general conditions of business on the back of order forms which the Belgian plaintiff had filled in without challenging those conditions. < ©
I det konkrete tilfælde fandtes sælgeren ikke at have bekræftet værnetingsklausulen skriftligt, og spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt køberen havde accepteret den, blev således ikke aktuelt.
1­17.1.2 — Β 16 Gerechtshof, Amsterdam, Judgment of 31 January 1979, Allpac Holdings BV y Carl Friedrich Maier am Tor, Nederlandse Jurisprudentie 1980, No 46
Ankeinstansen, Gerechtshof, fandt, at de få leverancer, Allpac Holding havde foretaget til sagsøgte inden for rammerne af et begyndende kontraktsforhold mellem parterne, som endnu ikke var fastlagt i alle detaljer, rent faktisk ikke kunne betragtes som sket
Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction clause contained in general conditions — Requirements — Place of performance of the obligation elsewhere in the Netherlands — Uniform law on the International Sale of Goods
(fortsat 1) inden for rammerne af et »løbende forretningsforhold«, således som det ifølge EF­Domstolens dom i sag 25/76 (præmis 11, andet afsnit) må kræves, når der ikke fore­ligger en skriftlig værnetingsaftale eller en mundtlig aftale, der er skriftligt bekræftet.
By judgment of 8 March 1978 the Arrondissementsrechtbank, Amsterdam, declined ju­risdiction in an action which Allpac, a company established in Sliedrecht (Arrondisse­ment Dordrecht, Netherlands), had brought against a German company, Maier, on the ground that it had failed to perform properly its obligations as buyer under a contract of sale entered into by the parties.
Ge­rechtshof udtalte, at den omstændighed, at Allpac Holding, mens der førtes forhandlin­ger, tilsendte C. F. Maier sine almindelige forretningsbetingelser samt fakturaer, på hvilke de almindelige betingelser var trykt på tysk, samt at Maier derefter betalte faktu­rabeløbene minus 3 % rabat, ikke kunne indebære, at Maier skriftligt havde bekræftet værnetingsklausulen i de almindelige betingelsers artikel 9 eller betingelserne som hel­hed.
It was established that the parties had not entered into an agreement in writing or an oral agreement evidenced in writing with regard to the choice of forum contained in Allpac's general conditions of business.
I stævningen havde Allpac imidlertid tillige henvist til konventionens artikel 5, nr. 1, til støtte for, at sagen var anlagt ved rette værneting.
On that point Allpac cited the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 14 December 1976 in Case 25/76 [supra 1-17.1.2 — A 2].
Herom udtalte Gerechtshof, at Allpac Holding's almindelige forretningsbetingelser i artikel 9 også indeholdt et lovvalg til for­del for nederlandsk ret, og at der med hensyn til, om en lovvalgsaftale var kommet i stand, måtte stilles lempeligere krav end til en værnetingsaftale.
The Arrondisse­mentsrechtbank held, however, that a forum clause contained in general conditions of business formed part of an oral contract of sale only if it was confirmed in writing by the seller and accepted by the buyer.
Man måtte lægge til grund, at C. F. Maier havde taget de almindelige forretningsbetingelser, som var frem­sendt, til efterretning, og da der ikke var rejst indsigelse mod lovvalget, måtte C. F. Maier acceptere at blive stillet, som om dette var tiltrådt.
In this case there was no suggestion of any written con­firmation of the forum clause by the seller, so the question of its acceptance by the buyer did not arise.
Da nederlandsk ret fandt anvendelse på kontraktsforholdet, var den uniforme lov om internationale løsørekøb gældende, eftersom betingelserne i lovens artikel 1 var opfyldt.
On appeal the Gerechtshof, Amsterdam, came to the conclusion that the isolated deliv­eries which Allpac had made to Maier in the context of an inchoate contractual relation­ship, of which not all the details had been agreed upon, could not in fact be described as having taken place "within the framework of a continuing trading relationship", in ac­cordance with the requirement laid down by the Court of Justice of the European Com­munities in Case 25/76 (paragraph 11, 2nd part) in the absence of a written jurisdiction agreement or an oral agreement evidenced in writing.
Ifølge lovens artikel 59, stk. 1, skulle C. F. Maier betale på Allpac's forretningssted. Da Allpac ikke havde forretningssted i Arrondissementsrechtbank Amsterdam's retskreds, men i Arrondissementsrechtbank Dordrecht's retskreds, var det retten i Dordrecht, der havde kompetencen.
However, in its statement of claim Allpac had also purported to found jurisdiction on Article 5(1) of the Convention.
Gerechtshof henviste i medfør af den nederlandske civilproceslovs artikel 157 a sagen til retten i Dordrecht.
A choice-of-law agreement was subject to less stringent requirements than a jurisdiction agreement.
Ved udstedelsen af konnossementer i forbindelse med en aftale om søtransport af automobiler vedtog parterne — det franske Compagnie Maritime des Chargeurs Réunis og den italienske automobilfabrik Alfa Romeo — at eventuelle tvister vedrø­rende aftalen skulle indbringes for Tribunal de commerce i Le Havre. I klausulen
Since Allpac's place of business was located, not in Amsterdam, but in Dordrecht, the action fell within the jurisdiction of the Arrondissementsrechtbank, Dordrecht.
(fortsat I) hed det bl.a., at »bortfragteren og modtageren erklærer med virkning for sig selv og deres successorer udtrykkeligt, at de er indforstået med, at den nævnet domstol er enekompetent«.
(continued 2) case to the last­mentioned court under Article 157 A of the Netherlands Code of Civil Procedure.
Anmærkning: Jfr. også 1­17.1.2 ­ B 3, 7, 14.
In a judgment given in default SAGITAL was ordered to pay dam­ages.
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — tilfælde, hvor det ville stride mod god forretnings­skik at gøre gældende, at en værnetingsaftale var ugyldig på grund af formmangler — be­tingelser — løbende forretningsforhold på grundlag af almindelige forretningsbetingelser med værnetingsklausul
The Corte d'Appello, Genoa, upheld that objection. In the opinion ofthat court, the ju­risdiction clause in question was fully valid and effective under Article 17 of the Conven­tion; it had been included in the bills of lading which the parties, both resident in Con­tracting States, had signed without reservation.
(fortsat 1) stilte sagsøgte varer hos sagsøgeren pr. telex.
In March 1977 the defendant ordered goods from the plaintiff by telex.
Sagsøgerens accept indeholdt en henvis­ning til de nævnte betingelser.
The plaintiffs reply accepting the order contained a reference to the aforesaid conditions.
Sagsøgte gjorde nu gældende, at retten i første instans sav­nede international kompetence, og begrundede dette med, at der ikke var kommet en værnetingsaftale i stand.
The defendant now objected to the international jurisdiction of the court of first instance on the ground that no jurisdic­tion agreement had been entered into.
Oberlandesgericht udtalte, at retten i første instans havde international kompetence.
On appeal the Oberlandesgericht held that the lower court had international jurisdiction.
Ganske vist havde parterne ikke indgået en skriftlig værnetingsaftale i konventionens artikel 17's forstand, men det var i strid med god forretningsskik, at sagsøgte benægtede, at der eksisterede en værnetingsaftale.
It was true that the parties had not concluded a written jurisdiction agreement within the meaning of Article 17 of the Convention ; however, the defendant was acting in breach of good faith by denying the existence of a jurisdiction agreement.
Det måtte på baggrund af hele retsforholdet mellem parterne konstateres, at den foreliggende aftale indgik i det løbende forret­ningsforhold mellem parterne.
Viewed as a whole, the legal relations between the parties led inevitably to a finding that the present contract formed part of a continuous trading relationship between the parties.
Dette forretningsforhold var i sin helhed undergivet sag­søgerens salgs­ og leveringsbetingelser, altså også den værnetingsaftale, der var inde­holdt deri. Dermed kunne sagen på afgørende punkter sammenlignes med den sag, der var afgjort af EF­Domstolen ved dom af 14. december 1976, sag 25/76 (jfr. ovenfor under 1­17.1.2 — A 2).
That trading relationship was subject in its entirety to the plaintiffs conditions of sale and delivery, including the jurisdiction clause.