natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Han fik imidlertid ikke medhold, heller ikke i den »Rechtsbeschwerde«, som han herefter indgav til Bun­desgerichtshof.
The appeal was dismissed. A further appeal on a point of law was also dismissed.
Rekvisitus havde i det væsentlige anført, at da den franske afgørelse var truffet uden mundtlig forhandling, måtte han kunne fremføre alle indsigelser under anerkendelses­og fuldbyrdelsessagen.
The defendant had argued in essence that, since the French decision had been made without any oral hearing, he must be allowed to plead all objections in the recognition and enforcement proceedings.
Bundesgerichtshof udtalte herom, at de afgørelser, der skal an­erkendes efter konventionens artikel 26, i intet tilfælde kan efterprøves med hensyn til sagens realitet, jfr. konventionens artikel 29.
The Bundesgerichtshof observed that judgments which must be recognized under Article 26 of the Convention could, according to Article 29 of the Convention, in no circumstances be reviewed as to their substance.
Ifølge § 14 i den tyske gennemførelseslov til konventionen kunne indsigelser mod selve kravet i fuldbyrdelsessagen kun gøres gæl­dende, for så vidt de grande, hvorpå de støttedes, først var opstået efter, at den uden­landske retsafgørelse var truffet. At også arrestdekreter kunne erklæres eksigible i hen­hold til konventionen, fulgte af konventionens artikler 24 og 25 samt af §§ 34 og 35 i den tyske gennemførelseslov.
Under Para­graph 14 of the German Law implementing the Convention objections against the claim could be pleaded in the enforcement proceedings only in so far as the grounds on which they were based had arisen after the pronouncement of the foreign judgment.
Rekvisitus havde mulighed for at fremføre sin indsigelse om, at han havde anfægtet kautionen og således bragt den fordring, der lå til grund for arresten, til ophør, i den franske arrestsag efter at have fremsat indsigelse mod arrestdekretet.
The defendant's objection that he had contested the guarantee and thus the claim in re­spect of which the seizure was ordered could be pleaded in the French seizure proceed­ings after the lodging of an appeal.
I tilfælde af at den franske ret ophævede arrestdekretet, kunne han i medfør af § 29 i den tyske gennemfø­relseslov opnå, at tilladelsen til tvangsfuldbyrdelse i Tyskland blev ophævet.
If the seizure order was set aside by the French court the defendant could have the order authorizing enforcement in Germany set aside pursu­ant to Paragraph 29 of the German implementing law.
Der var så­ledes ikke grundlag for i fuldbyrdelsessagen at tage hensyn til en svigsindsigelse, som støttedes på grunde, der allerede var opstået, før retten i Strasbourg traf sin afgørelse.
There was therefore no justifica­tion for taking into consideration in the enforcement proceedings the objection of fraud, which was based on grounds which had arisen before the granting of the order by the Strasbourg court.
Fuldbyrdelse — meddelelse af fuldbyrdelsespåtegning — sagens behandling — indsigelser mod det krav, der er givet dom for — fremsættelse under sagens behandling i henhold til artikel 34
Enforcement — Enforcement order — Procedure — Defences to the claim being enforced — Pleading of such defences in proceedings under Article 34
Rekvisitus var ved dom afsagt af en italiensk ret den 28. marts 1978 blevet tilpligtet at betale nærmere bestemte beløb.
By a judgment dated 28 March 1978 an Italian court had ordered the defendant com­pany to pay certain sums of money to the plaintiff.
Der blev givet tilladelse til fuldbyrdelse af denne dom i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland ved afgørelse truffet af formanden for vedkommende civile afdeling ved Landgericht München den 12. juli 1979.
The enforcement of that judgment in the Federal Republic of Germany was authorized on 12 July 1979 by an order made by the President of the appropriate Civil Chamber of the Landgericht München.
På grundlag af denne afgø­relse meddelte justitssekretæren ved Landgericht fuldbyrdelsespåtegning den 6. august 1979.
Pursu­ant to that order, the appropriate officer of the Landgericht issued a writ of execution on 6 August 1979.
En skrivelse fra rekvisitus af 18. juli 1979, der var indgået til Landgericht den føl­gende dag, og hvori rekvisitus påstod at have betalt visse beløb til rekvirenten i august 1978 og i marts 1979, blev ikke taget i betragtning.
A letter from the defendant of 18 July 1979, which reached the Landge­richt on the following day and in which the defendant claimed to have made payments to the plaintiff in August 1978 and March 1979, was disregarded.
Rekvisitus appellerede afgørelsen om at tillade fuldbyrdelse under henvisning til sin skrivelse af 18. juli 1979 og gjorde yderligere gældende, at der var betalt endnu nogle beløb i august 1979.
In its appeal against the order authorizing enforcement the defendant referred to its let­ter of 18 July 1979 and claimed that it had made further payments in August 1979.
Rekvirenten havde kvitteret for modtagelsen af beløbene i oktober 1979.
The plaintiff had issued receipts for those payments in October 1979.
Appellen førte til ophævelse af afdelingsformandens afgørelse af 12. juli 1979 og den af justitssekretæren meddelte fuldbyrdelsespåtegning samt til hjemvisning af sagen til Landgericht.
As a result of the ap­peal the Oberlandesgericht München set aside the order made by the President of the Chamber of 12 July 1979 and the writ of execution issued by the court officer and remit­ted the case to the Landgericht.
Oberlandesgericht udtalte, at rekvisitus i begge instanser havde fremsat indsigelser som kunne fremføres, første gang ved skrivelsen af 18. juli 1979.
The Oberlandesgericht held that the defendant had at first and second instance pleaded admissible defences, initially by its letter of 18 July 1979.
Denne skrivelse var ganske vist først indgået til Landgericht efter afdelingsformandens afgørelse af 12. juli 1979.
It is true that that letter had not reached the Landgericht until after the order of 12 July 1979 had been made by the President of the Chamber.
Denne havde imidlertid fået kendskab til den den 19. juli 1979, uden at han ændrede sin afgørelse.
However, the President of the Chamber had learned of it on 19 July 1979 but had not varied his order.
Da appellen var rettet mod tilladelsen til fuldbyrdelse, der først var afsluttet med fuldbyrdelsesklausulen, havde afdelingsformanden været berettiget til at ændre sin afgørelse, indtil der var meddelt fuldbyrdelsespåtegning.
Since the appeal was directed against the order for enforcement as completed by the appending of the writ of execution, the President of Chamber was empowered to vary his order until the issue of that writ.
For så vidt beløbene var betalt efter afsigelsen af den italienske dom, var der tale om en indsigelse om, at kravet var ophørt, som der skulle tages hensyn til ifølge § 14, stk. 1, i den tyske gennemførelseslov til konventionen.
The making of the payments after the pronouncement of the Italian judgment consti­tuted a defence to the claim based on the performance of the obligation and the extinction of the corresponding right; such a defence was to be taken into consideration under Paragraph 14(1) of the German Law implementing the Convention.
Landgericht måtte nu, før den traf af­gørelse om, hvorvidt fuldbyrdelse skulle tillades, klarlægge, i hvilket omfang de beløb, rekvisitus havde betalt, efter at den italienske dom var afsagt, havde ført til opfyldelse.
The Landge­richt must now, before an order for enforcement could be made, clarify the question to what extent the payments made by the defendant had led to the performance of its obli­gations after the pronouncement of the Italian judgment.
Afdeling 3 - FÆLLES BESTEMMELSER (artikel 46 — artikel 49)
Section 3 - COMMON PROVISIONS (Articles 46 to 49)
[fremlæggelse af en genpart af den udenlandske afgørelse ; særligt bevis for forkyndelsen eller meddelelsen i forbindelse med udeblivelsesdomme]
[Production of a copy of the foreign judgment; special proof of service in the case of judgments in default]
(Jfr. også 1­27.3 ­ B 2)
(See also 1­27.3 ­ Β 2)
Anerkendelse og fuldbyrdelse — dom til betaling af skadeserstatning under straffesag — »retsafgørelse« i domskonventionens artikel 25's forstand — retsafgørelse truffet i udebli­velsessag — bevis for forkyndelsen eller meddelelsen (artikel 46, nr.2) — konstatering af forkyndelsen eller meddelelsen i dommen — bekræftet genpart af dommen — indirekte do­kumentbevis for forkyndelsen eller meddelelsen — ikke tilstrækkeligt
Recognition and enforcement — Compensation order in criminal proceedings — "Judg­ment" within the meaning of Article 25 of the Brussels Convention — Judgment in default — Proof of service (Article 46 (2)) — Statement in the judgment that service had been effected — Certified copy of the judgment — Indirect documentary evidence of service — Not sufficient
I denne sag var rekvisitus, som havde bopæl i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland, af Tribu­nal de grande instance de Versailles som udeblevet blevet idømt en straf og var desuden blevet tilpligtet at betale erstatning til den civile part i adhæsionssagen (partie civile).
As a result of a prosecution in the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Versailles, the respond­ent, who was resident in the Federal Republic of Germany, in addition to being sen­tenced to a criminal penalty, had been ordered in her absence to pay compensation to the "partie civile" [civil party claiming compensation in a criminal prosecution].
1­46 — B 2 Cour d'appel d'Aix­en­Provence, dom af 16. marts 1977, Christiansen mod Fioretti
1-46 — Β 2 Cour d'Appel, Aix­en­Provence, Judgment of 16 March 1977, Christiansen ν Fioretti
Fuldbyrdelse — italiensk udeblivelsesdom over en sagsøgt med bopæl i Schweiz —fuldbyr­delse i Frankrig — betingelser — dokumentation i henhold til artikel 46, nr. 2, af, at det ind­ledende processkrift i sagen er blevet forkyndt i Schweiz
Enforcement — Italian judgment given in default against defendant domiciled in Switzer­land — Enforcement in France — Conditions — Proof of service in Switzerland of the docu­ment instituting the proceedings as required by Article 46 (2)
Efter begæring fra sagsøgeren blev denne dom forsynet med fuldbyrdelses­påtegning i Frankrig ved kendelse afsagt af præsidenten for Tribunal de grande in­stance de Nice den 4. februar 1976.
On application by the plaintiff an order for the enforcement of that judgment in France was made by the President of the Tribunal de Grande In­stance, Nice, on 4 February 1976.
Udsendelse 2/maj 1983
The judgment debtor appealed against that order un­ tone 2/May 1983
1968 ­ ARTIKEL 46 fortsat 1) konventionens artikel 36 og gjorde herved i det væsentlige gældende ikke at have kun­net varetage sine interesser i sagen ved den italienske ret, samt at rekvirenten ikke, som foreskrevet i artikel 46, nr. 2, havde godtgjort, at de indledende processkrift i sagen var blevet forkyndt eller meddelt.
(continued 1) der Article 36 of the Convention and submitted, in essence, that she had not been able properly to arrange for her defence in the proceedings before the Italian court and, fur­ther, that the applicant had not adduced the proof required by Article 46 (2) that the doc­ument instituting the proceeedings had been properly served on her.
Cour d'appel fastslog, at det indledende processkrift i sagen var blevet meddelt såvel sag­søgte på bopælen i Schweiz som den schweiziske advokat, der havde fuldmagt til at mod­tage forkyndelser ved anbefalede breve af 30. august 1974.
The Cour d'Appel found that the document initiating the proceedings had been served on the defendant at her Swiss address and on her lawyer, who was authorized to accept service, by means of registered letters dated 30 August 1974.
Den 17. december 1974 afsagde den italienske ret udeblivelsesdom, hvori den erklærede sig kompetent i henhold til artiklerne 2 og 4 i den italienske civilpro­ceslov og dømte sagsøgte til betaling.
On 17 December 1974, in a judgment given in default and dealing with the substance of the action, the Pretore declared that he had jurisdiction pursuant to Articles 2 and 4 of the Italian code of civil procedure and ordered the de­fendant to pay the sums in question.
Heraf fulgte, at sagsøgte fuldt ud havde kunnet varetage sine interesser under sagen i Ita­lien.
It was clear from those findings that the defendant could properly have arranged for her defence in the proceedings in Italy.
Meddelelsen af fuldbyrdelsespåtegning i Frankrig var derfor korrekt.
Thus the order for enforcement in France was prop­erly granted.
1­46 ­ Β 3 fortsat 1) fuldbyrdelse var rettet til, i sin kendelse havde udtrykt, at »alle retlige betingelser for at tillade fuldbyrdelse ... var opfyldt«, indeholdt ikke noget bevis for, at det i artikel 46, nr. 2, omtalte dokument eller et tilsvarende var blevet fremlagt i første instans.
The court observed that it was not apparent from any of the documents put in evidence that the document whereby the plaintiff commenced the proceedings in the Landgericht Hamburg was served on the defendant, that the original judgment contained no infor­mation on that point and that the finding expressed in general terms in the order granted by the President of the Tribunal d'Arrondissement "that all the legal requirements for the enforcement of the judgment are satisfied" did not prove that the document referred to in Article 46 (2) or an equivalent document had been produced in the proceedings at first instance.
Da der heller ikke forelå andre holdepunkter for at anse sagen for tilstrækkeligt oplyst til at ret­ten kunne fritage for kravet om fremlæggelse af dokumentet, og da den part, som havde fremsat begæringen, ikke anmodede om en frist til at tilvejebringe dokumentet, kunne begæringen om fuldbyrdelse ikke imødekommes på det foreliggende grundlag.
Since, moreover, the court did not possess any other item of evidence ena­bling it to satisfy itself in that regard and to dispense with production of the document in question, and since the plaintiff had not requested time in which to produce it, the court held the application for enforcement inadmissible in its present form.
Fuldbyrdelse — meddelelse af fuldbyrdelsespåtegning — bevis for, at retsafgørelsen er eksigibel efter domsstatens lovgivning (artikel 47, nr. 1) — dom til betaling af underholdsbi­drag i henhold til en endnu ikke retskraftig skilsmissedom — uklarhed om, hvorvidt dom­mens foreløbige eksigibilitet også gælder kravet på underholdsbidrag —fortolkning ved ret­ten ¡fuldbyrdelsesstaten.
Enforcement — Order for enforcement issued — Proof that the judgment is enforceable un­der the law of the State in which it has been given (Article 47 (1)) — Order to pay mainte­nance in a divorce judgment which is not yet final — Not clear whether provisional enforce­ability of the judgment extends to the claim for maintenance — Interpretation by the court in which enforcement is sought
Dommen angik foruden skilsmissen også forældremyndigheden og samkvemsretten, og den indeholdt en bestemmelse om, at ægtemanden skulle betale underholdsbidrag til hustruen. Desuden var dommen gjort fo­reløbig eksigibel. Efter begæring fra hustruen havde Landgericht Stuttgart i henhold til domskonventionens artikler 31 ff. og artikel 42 erklæret dommen for eksigibel i For­bundsrepublikken, for så vidt angik kravet om underholdsbidrag.
In addition to the divorce decree the judgment dealt with custody of, and access to, the children of the marriage and ordered the husband to pay maintenance to the wife.
Herfor talte, at dommens foreløbige eksigibilitet m.h.t. underholdskravet var meddelt i sammenhæng med afgørelsen om forældremyndighe­den og samkvemsretten.
That view was supported by the fact that the order for the provisional enforceability of the maintenance award was made in conjunction with the ruling on cus­tody and rights of access.
Ifølge de af ægtemanden citerede domme fra de øverste franske retsinstanser måtte dommen, for så vidt den vedrørte hustruens krav på under­holdsbidrag, desuden principielt ikke erklæres for eksigibel, før skilsmisseafgørelsen fik retskraft.
According to the decisions of the highest French courts, cited by the husband, the judgment, in so far as it related to the wife's entitlement to maintenance, could not in principle become en­forceable until the divorce decree became final.
Landgericht havde i sin afgørelse desuden taget stilling til og svaret bekræftende på spørgsmålet, om fuldbyrdelse af et af en skilsmisse flydende krav, nemlig den fraskilte hustrus krav på underholdsbidrag, kunne tillades i Forbundsrepublikken, inden den
In its order the Landgericht had also examined the question whether a matter ancillary to a divorce, namely the divorced wife's entitlement to maintenance, was enforceable in the Federal Republic before the appropriate Landesjustizverwaltung [regional de­ tone 2/May 1983
1968 ­ ARTIKEL 47 fortsat I) kompetente Landesjustizverwaltung efter den særlige fremgangsmåde i henhold til arti­kel 7, § 1, i Familienrechtsänderungsgesetz af 11. august 1969 havde fastslået, at betingel­serne for at anerkende skilsmissedommen i Forbundsrepublikken var opfyldt.
(continued 1) partment of justice] had established by way of the special procedure under Article 7 (1) of the Familienrechtsänderungsgesetz [statute amending family law] of 11 August 1961 that the conditions for the recognition of the divorce judgment in the Federal Republic were satisfied. The Landgericht answered the question in the affirmative.
Anerkendelse og fuldbyrdelse —fælles bestemmelser — bevis for, at den eksigible retsafgø­relse er forkyndt eller meddelt (artikel 47, nr. 1) — afhjælpning i appelinstansen — betingel­
Recognition and enforcement — Common provisions — Proof of service of an enforceable judgment (Article 47 (1)) — No service until appeal was pending — Conditions
Et fransk firma havde ved en fransk ret erhvervet udeblivelsesdom over den tyske sag­søgte.
A French firm obtained judgment in default in a French court against a German defendant and the appropriate German court made an order for the enforcement ofthat judgment.
En tysk ret havde forsynet dommen med fuldbyrdelsespåtegning.
The appeal against that order was dismissed by the Oberlandesgericht Stutt­gart as unfounded.
Oberlandesgericht anførte bl.a., at ganske vist havde det franske firma ikke for første instans ført det i konventionens artikel 47, nr. 1, omhand­lede bevis for, at den franske dom var blevet forskriftsmæssigt forkyndt eller meddelt, men i mellemtiden havde den tyske sagsøgte fået dommen — og en oversættelse — for­meligt forkyndt sammen med kendelsen fra underinstansen om at meddele fuldbyrdel­sespåtegning. Under henvisning til rapporten vedrørende konventionen anførte retten, at dommens forkyndelse skal gøre det muligt for skyldneren at efterkomme den frivil­ligt.
The Oberlandesgericht found that although at first instance the French firm had not produced documents establishing that the French judgment had been properly served as required by Article 47 ( 1 ) of the Convention, nonetheless, in the meantime that judgment and a translation thereof had been formally served on the Ger­man defendant together with the order for enforcement made by the court of first in­stance.
Under hensyn til, at dette var formålet, var afhjælpning under alle omstændigheder mulig, når skyldneren — som i det foreliggende tilfælde — tilkendegav, at han ikke ag­tede at betale frivilligt, hvorfor sagen heller ikke ville være blevet overflødig, selv om dommen var blevet rettidigt forkyndt.
It was not inconsistent with that objective to permit service to be effected at a later stage, at least when the debtor, as in the present case, let it be understood that he was unwilling to comply, so that even if the judgment had been served at the proper time the proceedings would not have been rendered superfluous.
1­47 — Β 3 Præsidenten for Arrondissementsrechtbank Breda, kendelse af 24. august 1979, PVBA Deurne Taxi mod Gilbert Quintelier
1­47 — Β 3 President of the Arrondissementsrechtbank, Breda, Decision of 24 August 1979, PVBA Deurne Taxi ν Gilbert Quintelier
I denne sag blev en begæring om fuldbyrdelsespåtegning på en belgisk udeblivelsesdom, der den 10. oktober 1978 var afsagt over en sagsøgt, G. Quintelier, der nu boede i Neder­landene, afslået.
The court dismissed an application for the enforcement of a Belgian judgment given in default on 10 October 1978 against a defendant (Mr Quintelier) who was now resident in the Netherlands.
Arrondissementsrechtbank's præsident fastslog, at Quintelier ifølge folkeregisterattester fra de belgiske kommuner Wommelgem og Borgerhout boede i Bor­gerhout indtil den 5. december 1978 og derefter i Wommelgem indtil den 28. december.
The court observed that, according to the extracts from the popula­tion registers of the Belgian towns of Wommelgem and Borgerhout, the defendant had resided in Borgerhout until 5 December 1978 and from then until 28 December 1978 in Wommelgem.
Dommen var blevet forkyndt den 23. november 1978 i medfør af artikel 37 i den bel­giske retsplejelov (Gerechtelijk Wetboek), men i stævningsmandens forkyndelsespåteg­ning var sagsøgtes adresse anført som Wommelgem. Derfor var der ikke foretaget eller
The judgment was served on 23 November 1978 in accordance with Arti­cle 37 of the Civil Code; however, in the bailiffs copy of the judgment the defendant's
I­47­B3 fortsat 1) forsøgt foretaget en forkyndelse på G. Quintelier's rette bopæl i overensstemmelse med artiklerne 33—37 i Gerechtelijk Wetboek, og betingelserne i konventionens artikel 47 var således ikke opfyldt.
(continued 1) address was stated to be in Wommelgem. Therefore there had been no service or at­tempted service at the defendant's actual residence in accordance with Articles 33 to 37 of the Civil Code, with the result that the requirements of Article 47 of the Convention had not been satisfied.
Det samme gjaldt artikel 46, nr. 2, idet en ufuldstændigt udfyldt genpart af et ikke underskrevet påkrav og en indstævning (aanmaning­dagvaarding) ikke kunne betragtes som tilstrækkeligt bevis for forkyndelsen eller meddelelsen af det indledende processkrift i sagen.
Nor had the requirements of Article 46(2) been satisfied: an in­completely filled-in copy of an unsigned writ was insufficient proof of service of the document which instituted the proceedings.
Efter belgisk ret skal forkyndelse af en stævning eller en dom ske for den pågældende personlig (Gerechtelijk Wetboek, artikel 33).
Under Belgian law service of a writ or judgment must be effected in person (Article 33 of the Civil Code).
Såfremt dette ikke er muligt, skal forkyn­delsen ske på den pågældendes bopæl (eller, såfremt en sådan ikke findes, på hans opholdssted), og i så fald skal en genpart af dokumentet udleveres til bestemte personer (artikel 35).
If that is not possible service must be effected at the person's residence (or, in the absence of a permanent residence, at his place of abode), in which case a copy of the document must be delivered to certain persons (Article 35 of the Civil Code).
Er det heller ikke muligt at foretage forkyndelsen på denne måde, udleveres genparten til myndighederne på bopæls­ eller opholdsstedet, og en skriftlig meddelelse sendes til vedkommendes adresse (artikel 37).
If service in that way is not possible either, a copy must be delivered to the authorities at the place of residence or place of abode and the person in question must be notified in writing at his address (Article 37 of the Civil Code).
1­47 — Β 4 Præsidenten for Arrondissementsrechtbank Breda, kendelse af 21. september 1979, Pohl & Co. mod G.J. Bullens Fuldbyrdelse — »Mahnbescheid« og »Vollstreckungsbescheid« —forkyndelse —fremsen­delse pr. post utilstrækkelig — afvisning
147 — Β 4 President of the Arrondissementsrechtbank, Breda, Decision of 21 September 1979, Pohl & Co. ν G.J. Bullens Enforcement — Summary judgment and order for its enforcement — Service — Service by post insufficient — Application for enforcement inadmissible