natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I dom­men, der blev afsagt som udeblivelsesdom, men betragtet som kontradiktorisk, blev ku­rators påstande fuldt ud taget til følge, men dommen blev appelleret af leverandøren, som gjorde gældende, at retten savnede stedlig kompetence.
The judgment, which was given in default but was deemed to have been given in contested proceedings, upheld the liquidator's claims in their entirety, but was appealed against by the cabinet­maker, who submitted that the court had no jurisdiction ratione loci.
Cour d'appel undersøgte først, om den indankede dom var afsagt i en konkurssag, og om sagen som følge heraf faldt ind under eller var undtaget fra konventionens anven­delsesområde i medfør af artikel 1, stk. 2, nr. 2.
The appeal court considered first of all whether the contested judgment was given in in­solvency proceedings and so excluded from the scope of the Convention by virtue of sub­paragraph (2) of the second paragraph of Article 1 thereof.
Herved henholdt Cour d'appel sig til bel­gisk ret, eftersom konventionen ikke angav, hvilket lands ret der skulle finde anvendelse
For that purpose the court had recourse to its own law since the Convention did not state by what law that question
1968 ­ ARTIKEL 1, STK. 2
1968 - ARTICLE 1 (2)
(fortsat 1) ved afgørelsen af dette spørgsmål.
(continued 1) was governed.
Ifølge belgisk ret falder en dom ind under retsområ­det konkurs, når den er afsagt i en sag, som udspringer af konkursen, og grundlaget for afgørelsen findes i bestemmelser vedrørende dette retsinstitut.
Belgian law considered that a judgment was given in insolvency proceed­ings when it was given in an action which arose out of the insolvency and when the out­come of the action depended on the provisions governing insolvency.
Da dette ikke var tilfæl­det i den konkrete sag, fandt retten, at undtagelsen vedrørende konkurs ikke gjaldt her, og at konventionens kompetenceregler herefter måtte finde anvendelse.
Since that was not the case, the court concluded that the exclusion concerning insolvency did not come in­to operation and that the jurisdiction rules of the Convention should therefore be ap­plied.
Som begrundelse for, at retten på det sted, hvor forpligtelsen var opfyldt eller skulle op­fyldes i henhold til konventionens artikel 5, nr. 1, faktisk var den pågældende underret, udtalte Cour d'appel, at udtrykket »forpligtelse« henviser til den kontraktmæssige for­pligtelse, der ligger til grund for søgsmålet, eller i dette tilfælde til den leverandøren på­hvilende forpligtelse, der svarede til den kontraktmæssige rettighed, forhandleren påbe­råbte sig som grundlag for søgsmålet.
In order to establish that the court applied to at first instance was indeed the court for the place of performance of the obligation in question within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the Convention, the appeal court stated that the term "obligation" referred to the con­tractual obligation constituting the basis for the legal action, namely, in this case, the ob­ligation upon the cabinet-maker corresponding to the contractual right relied upon by the dealer as justification for his claim.
Underretten burde derfor i medfør af konventio­nens artikel 20, stk. 1, på embeds vegne have erklæret sig inkompetent, hvad angik kra­vet om betaling af forfalden provision, eftersom opfyldelsesstedet for fordringer på penge både efter belgisk og fransk ret er skyldnerens bopæl, og sagsøgte ikke var mødt.
The first court should thus have declared of its own motion, pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 20 of the Convention, that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim for commission, since the rule both in Belgian and in French law was that money debts should be collected at the debtor's residence and since the defendant had not entered an appearance.
Derimod havde underretten kompetence til at påkende erstatningskravet.
On the other hand, the court of first instance did have jurisdiction to entertain the claim for damages.
Eftersom dette nemlig var en følge af leverandørens påståede misligholdelse af eneforhandlingsaf­talen, måtte man med henblik på anvendelsen af artikel 5, nr. 1, lægge den forpligtelse til grund, der ifølge kontrakten påhvilede leverandøren, og hvis misligholdelse enefor­handleren påberåbte sig som grundlag for sit erstatningskrav.
Since that claim was the consequence of an alleged breach by the cabinet-maker of the exclusive dealership contract, it was necessary to consider, for the purpose of applying Article 5(1), the obli­gation which the contract imposed on the cabinet-maker and the non-performance of which was relied on as justification for the dealer's claim for damages.
I det konkrete tilfælde drejede det sig om leverandørens forpligtelse til at give tre måneders varsel ved opsigel­se, og denne forpligtelse kunne kun opfyldes på eneforhandlerens hjemsted.
The obligation in question was the cabinet-maker's obligation to give three months' notice, which could be performed only at the dealer's registered office.
På grund af konneksiteten mellem de to krav fandt Cour d'appel dog, at underretten med føje havde erklæret sig kompetent til at påkende hele sagen, så meget mere som det på intet tidspunkt var blevet gjort gældende, at den burde have erklæret sig inkompetent på grundlag af artikel 21, stk. 1, fordi de nævnte krav forinden var blevet indbragt for en fransk domstol.
However, by virtue of the fact that the two claims were related, the appeal court con­sidered that the first court had correctly decided that it had jurisdiction to entertain the entire action, the more so as it had never been argued that the court should have declined jurisdiction under the first paragraph of Article 21 on the ground that an action had al­ready been brought in a French court over the same claim.
Anvendelsesområde — ikke­omfattede retsområder — konkurs — modkrav fra kurators side
Scope — Matters excluded — Insolvency — Counterclaim pleaded by the liquidator
Mellem et nederlandsk yachtværft, der var beliggende i Leeuwarden retskreds, og fru Drettmann, der havde bopæl i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland, var der indgået en aftale om, at fru Drettmann skulle virke som agent for værftet; aftalen omfattede bl.a. en klausul om, at Osterholz­Scharmbeck (i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland) var vedtaget som værneting.
A yacht-building company based in Leeuwarden (Netherlands) entered into a represen­tation agreement with Mrs Drettmann, who resided in the Federal Republic of Ger­many. The agreement conferred jurisdiction on the courts in Osterholz-Scharmbeck (Federal Republic of Germany).
Efter at værftet var gået konkurs stillede Drettmann over for kurator krav om betaling af forskellige beløb under en sag om prøvelse af fordringerne for Ar­
When the yacht-building company became insolvent Mrs Drettmann claimed various sums from the liquidator by virtue ofthat agreement. The court's jurisdiction to deal with that claim was not disputed.
(fortsat 1) rondissementsrechtbank.
(continued 1)
Som modkrav krævede kurator udlevering af en yacht (en såkaldt Shetland­krydser) og betaling af et pengebeløb.
The liquidator counterclaimed for delivery of a yacht (known as a Shetland cruiser) and a sum of money.
Retten anså sig for kompetent til at tage stilling til kravet i med­før af konventionens artikel 6, stk. 3, idet kravene udsprang af den samme kontrakt.
The court held that it had jurisdiction over that counterclaim on the basis of Article 6 (3) of the Convention since the claims arose from the same contract.
For­holdet fandt ikke ind under undtagelsen i konventionens artikel 1, stk. 2, nr. 2; kurators krav fulgte ikke direkte af konkursen, eftersom værftet selv kunne have gjort det gælden­de, hvis det ikke var gået konkurs.
The exception laid down in subparagraph (2) of the second paragraph of Article 1 of the Convention did not apply: the liquidator's claim did not flow directly from the insolven­cy, because the company could have pursued that claim itself if it had not been declared insolvent.
Drettmann havde ikke påberåbt sig værnetingsklausulen i aftalen, og ifølge konventio­nens artikel 18 kunne klausulen derfor ikke medføre, at retten savnede kompetence.
Mrs Drettmann did not rely on the jurisdiction clause in the agreement; so that clause did not deprive the court of jurisdiction in view of the terms of Article 18 of the Con­vention.
Anvendelsesområde — ikke­omfattede retsområder — »konkurs, akkord og andre lignende ordninger« — begreb — søgsmål med påstand om ophævelse af en kontrakt anlagt forud for meddelelsen om det sagsøgende selskabs betalingsstandsning — kon­ventionen fandt ikke anvendelse
Scope — Matters excluded — "Bankruptcy, proceedings relating to the winding­up of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial arrangements, compositions and analogous proceedings" — Concept — Action for the rescission of a contract entered into before the plaintiff company was granted leave to suspend payments — Excluded
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — retten på opfyldelsesstedet for den for­pligtelse, der ligger til grund for kravet — eneforhandlingsaftale — den relevante for­pligtelse — leverandørens forpligtelse til at levere til eneforhandleren — bestemmelse af opfyldelsesstedet ved anvendelse af en aftale om lovvalget
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Court for the place of performance of the obli­gation constituting the basis of the claim — Exclusive dealership contract — Obligation in question — Manufacturer's obligation to supply goods to his exclusive dealer — Place of performance determined by reference to a choice­of­law clause
Kurator og den midlertidige bestyrer i et fransk selskabs konkursbo havde ved Tribunal de commerce på selskabets hjemsted anlagt sag mod et tysk selskab, for hvilket det var eneforhandler, med påstand om ophævelse af eneforhandlingsaftalen som følge af leverandørens misligholdelse samt om betaling af erstatning.
The receiver (syndic) and the manager (administrateur provisoire) of a French company which was undergoing a judicial arrangement (règlement judiciaire) had brought an ac­tion in the Tribunal de Commerce for the place where the company had its registered of­fice against a German company for which it was the exclusive dealer.
Retten, som fandt, at søgs­målets genstand var en forpligtelse til at betale erstatning på grund af ensidig annula­tion af aftalen, udledte heraf, at den var inkompetent, fordi opfyldelsesstedet for denne forpligtelse, jfr. konventionens artikel 5, nr. 1, var Tyskland, da en forpligtelse til at be­tale et pengebeløb skulle opfyldes på debitors bopæl.
Considering that the subject­matter of the action was the obligation to pay damages for the unilateral repudiation of the contract, the court declined jurisdic­tion on the ground that the place of performance ofthat obligation, within the meaning of Article 5 ( 1 ) of the Convention, was situated in Germany, since the obligation to pay a sum of money should be performed at the debtor's residence.
(fortsat 1) kom retten på opfyldelsesstedet, dvs. retten på det sted, hvor eneforhandleren havde sit hjemsted, at tage stilling til tilsidesættelsen af den hovedforpligtelse, der påhviler en leverandør, nemlig levering af den vare, der er aftalens genstand.
The appel­lants also contended that, under the terms of Article 5 ( 1 ) of the Convention, the breach of the German company's main obligation, namely to supply the goods mentioned in the contract, was a matter for the courts at the place of performance, namely the courts at the place where the French company had its registered office.
Cour d'appel fandt, at den ret, der behandlede konkursen, ikke i medfør af anordnin­gens artikel 112 var kompetent til at påkende eneforhandlerens krav, som udsprang af den ensidige annullation af eneforhandlingsaftalen forud for meddelelsen om betalings­standsningen og ikke vedrørte konkursen som sådan, navnlig for så vidt denne var afgø­rende for, hvordan den samlede afvikling af selskabets gæld skulle ske.
The Cour d'Appel held that Article 112 of the abovementioned Decree did not give the court engaged upon the judicial arrangement jurisdiction to entertain the French com­pany's claim, which had its origin in the unilateral repudiation of the dealership con­tract prior to the commencement of insolvency proceedings and did not concern the ju­dicial arrangement as such, particularly in so far as those proceedings determined the manner in which the company's liabilities were to be collectively discharged.
Følgelig kunne reglen i konventionens artikel 1, stk. 2, nr. 2, om udelukkelse af konkurs, akkord og andre lignende ordninger fra konventionens anvendelsesområde ikke finde anvendelse.
Therefore subparagraph (2) of the second paragraph of Article 1 of the Convention, whereby bank­ruptcy, winding-up proceedings, judicial arrangements, compositions and analogous proceedings were excluded from the scope of the Convention, was not applicable.
Med hensyn til artikel 5, nr. 1, udtalte Cour d'appel, at hovedspørgsmålet i sagen var leverandørens tilsidesættelse af forpligtelsen til at forbeholde eneforhandleren salget af alle de produkter, det fremstillede, i form af en angiveligt uberettiget annullation af kontrakten.
With regard to Article 5 (1) of the Convention, the Cour d'Appel observed that the es­sential subject-matter of the action was the German company's breach, through the al­legedly wrongful repudiation of the contract, of its obligation to reserve the sale of all the products which it manufactured to its dealer.
Men ifølge § 269 i den tyske Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, som fandt anvendelse på kontrakten i medfør af en lovvalgsaftale, hvorefter tysk ret skulle finde anvendelse, forblev opfyldelsesstedet for leveringsforpligtelsen hos sælgeren, og sagen skulle således indbringes for retten på leverandørens hjemsted.
According to Article 269 of the Ger­man Civil Code, which was applicable to the contract by virtue of a choice-of-law clause in favour of German law, the place of performance of the obligation to supply the goods in question was the seller's premises: the action should therefore be brought in the courts at the place where the German company had its registered office.
Den i sagen nedlagte påstand om godtgørelse, der i henhold til artikel 3 i den nævnte bel­giske lov skulle opgøres på grundlag af virksomhedens goodwill, eneforhandlerens udlæg samt andre omstændigheder, udgjorde en selvstændig kontraktsforpligtelse«, der skulle udgøre en kompensation for den berigelse, leverandøren havde opnået på grundlag af kontrakten.
— A 1), which was given in the context of a dispute between an exclusive distributor and his supplier. The court held further that the place of performance of the obligation at issue in the action must be determined according to the law applicable to the contract, therefore, in the present case, according to Belgian law.
Da der her var tale om henteskyld, skulle denne forpligtelse ganske vist opfyldes på sagsøgtes hjemsted i Frankrig, hvorfor en retssag i dette øjemed skulle have været anlagt i Frankrig. Dette krav havde imidlertid sammenhæng med de øvrige krav, der var gjort gældende under sagen, hvorfor det, når hensås til konventio­nens artikel 22 måtte være korrekt, at de blev behandlet og påkendt af samme ret.
Thus that claim to compensation was not an independent con­tractual obligation but took the place of the obligation to give a period of notice.
Derimod var der ikke værneting i Belgien i medfør af konventionens artikel 5, nr. 5, da det af parternes oplysninger fremgik, at eneforhandleren hverken var undergivet leve­randørens tilsyn eller ledelse, hvorfor betingelserne for at antage, at der forelå en filial, et agentur eller lignende virksomhed — i overensstemmelse med den af EF­Domstolen givne fortolkning — ikke var opfyldt.
Since under Belgian law that obligation was to be per­formed in Belgium, Belgian courts had jurisdiction to entertain the action under Arti­cle 5(1).
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — erstatningssøgsmål — kravets kontraktuelle eller deliktuelle karakter — prøves, før det antages, at kompetence efter artikel 5 er tilstede
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Court for the place of performance of the obligation constituting the basis of the claim — Exclusive dealership contract — Obligation in ques­tion — Manufacturer's obligation to supply his exclusive dealer — Determination of the place of performance
Et fransk selskab havde ført forhandlinger med et firma i Hamburg med det formål at blive eneforhandler i Frankrig af visse produkter fra et japansk firma, som selskabet i Hamburg repræsenterede i Europa. Senere anlagde det franske selskab sag mod det tyske selskab ved Tribunal de commerce de Paris med påstand om erstatning for det tab, det påstod at have lidt derved, at aftalerne mellem de to selskaber var blevet misligholdt, fordi eneforhandlingsretten var blevet overdraget til et andet firma.
The person appointed exclusive dealer for France in products manufactured by a Ger­man company had brought an action against that company in the Tribunal de Com­merce, Paris, for the rescission of the dealership contract and damages, on the ground that the German company had unilaterally terminated the contractual relationship in breach of the clause in the contract requiring notice to be given.
Under sagen gjorde det tyske firma gældende, at den franske ret savnede kompetence, og det henviste herved til konventionens artikel 2.
The manufacturer appealed against the judgment whereby the court had accepted juris­diction on the basis of Article 5 (1) of the Convention.
Det tyske selskab appellerede denne afgørelse til kassation og fik medhold.
It argued that that provision gave jurisdiction not to the court for the place of performance of the contract but to the court
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — opfyldelsesværneting (artikel 5, nr. 1) — be­grebet »forpligtelse« i artikel 5, nr. 1 — EF­Domstolens fortolkning — den kontraktlige for­pligtelse og opfyldelsesstedet bestemmes efter kontraktstatuttet
According to the manufacturer, the dealer was proceeding against it not on the ground that it had ceased to make deliver­ies in France but on the ground that it had failed to fulfil its obligation to continue to per­form the contract until its expiry and to terminate it only on the terms stipulated, an obli­gation which was to be performed at the place where the manufacturer had its registered office, rather than in France.
En belgisk eneforhandler havde sagsøgt sin tyske leverandør til betaling af den i den bel­giske lov af 27. juli 1961 fastsatte godtgørelse for uvarslet opsigelse af eneforhandlingsaf­talen; yderligere havde han stillet krav om godtgørelse for goodwill.
It held that in an action for damages or for the rescission of an exclusive dealership contract on the ground of the manufacturer's unilateral breach without notice the obligation to which reference must be made for the purposes of Article 5(1) was the obligation imposed on the manufacturer the non­per­formance of which was pleaded as the foundation of the dealer's claim for damages or for the rescission of the contract.
I de foregående in­stanser var det blevet statueret, at belgiske retter havde kompetence til at påkende sagen. Den tyske leverandør ankede sagen til kassation, men fik ikke medhold.
Thus, having found that the dealer was complaining that the manufacturer had terminated its own obligations by ceasing to perform in France the orders which he submitted to it and that he was claiming compensation for the damage which he had sustained as a result of the unexpected cessation of supplies, the Cour d'Appel was entitled to conclude that there had been a breach of an obligation which required to be performed in France; it had therefore given adequate legal grounds for dismissing the plea of want of jurisdiction.
Vedrørende fortolkningen af begrebet »forpligtelse« henholdt kassationsret­ten sig til EF­Domstolens dom af 6. oktober 1976 i sag 14/76 [ovenfor under 1­5.1.1 — A 1], som var afsagt under en sag mellem en eneforhandler og dennes leverandør.
Jurisdiction — Special Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction of the courts for the place of per­formance — Dishonouring of a cheque drawn on a foreign bank — No contractual rela­tionship between the holder of the cheque and a domestic branch of the bank
I henhold til reglerne i loven af 27. juli 1961 skulle der i tilfælde af eneforhandlingsafta­lens opsigelse fra en af parternes side indrømmes et rimeligt opsigelsesvarsel ; kun i til­fælde af, at der ikke indrømmedes et sådant varsel, opstod der et erstatningskrav, som skulle opveje de med det manglende opsigelsesvarsel forbundne ulemper.
The plaintiff company was the holder of three cheques which a Belgian undertaking had drawn on the Belgian branch of the defendant bank.
Dette erstat­ningskrav var således ingen selvstændig kontraktslig forpligtelse, men trådte i stedet for forpligtelsen til at give et opsigelsesvarsel.
The plaintiff gave one of the cheques to bank X in Cologne for collection at the defendant's premises in Belgium.
Den sidstnævnte forpligtelse skulle forstås som en fortsættelse af leverandørens kontraktsmæssige hovedforpligtelse til at respek­tere agentens eneret i agenturområdet.
The defendant refused to honour the cheque in spite of the fact that there were adequate funds in the account of the drawer, which later became insolvent.
Da denne forpligtelse i henhold til belgisk ret skulle opfyldes i Belgien, havde belgiske retter i henhold til artikel 5, nr. 1, kompetence til at påkende sagen.
The plaintiff presented the other two cheques to the defendant's Cologne branch for payment into the giro ac­count which it kept there.
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — retten på opfyldelsesstedet for den forpligtelse der ligger til grund for kravet — eneforhandlingsaftale — den relevante forpligtelse — leverandørens forpligtelse til at levere til eneforhandleren — bestemmelse af opfyldelsesste­det
In the action which it brought in the Landgericht Köln the plaintiff claimed compensation for the damage which it had al­legedly suffered as a result of the failure to inform it promptly of the dishonouring of the first cheque and as a result of the breach of the giro contract existing between the parties in connection with the collection of the other two cheques. The action was dismissed.
Eneforhandleren for Frankrig af et tysk selskabs produkter havde anlagt sag mod leverandøren ved Tribunal de commerce de Paris med påstand om ophævelse af enefor­handlingsaftalen og om erstatning.
The court held that it had no international jurisdiction in so far as the action concerned the first of the cheques.
Til støtte herfor havde eneforhandleren anført, at det tyske selskab ensidigt havde bragt kontraktsforholdet til ophør i strid med kontrak­tens bestemmelser om opsigelse.
There existed between the parties no contractual relationship on which to found the jurisdiction of the courts for the place of performance under Article 5(1) of the Convention; the plaintiff had submitted the cheque to the defendant's Belgian branch via bank X in Cologne.
Leverandøren, det tyske selskab, ankede dommen, hvori retten havde erklæret sig kom­petent på grundlag af konventionens artikel 5, nr. 1.
Nor did the court acquire jurisdiction under Ar­ticle 5 (5) of the Convention as the court for the place in which a branch, agency or other establishment was situated.
Selskabet anførte, at denne bestem­melse gav kompetence, ikke til retten på opfyldelsesstedet for kontrakten, men til retten på opfyldelsesstedet for den forpligtelse, hvis opfyldelse man ønskede at opnå, eller hvis misligholdelse lå til grund for retssagen.
The presentation of the cheque had no connection with the operations of the defendant's Cologne branch, which had in no way participated in the attempted cashing of the cheque.