natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Et aftalt opfyldelsessted kunne kun give en anden ret end sagsøgtes hjemting kompetence, hvis aftalen var indgået i den form, konventionens artikel 17 foreskriver.
Although in general such a choice could not in itself be decisive, none the less it was of crucial impor­tance in resolving the question, on which jurisdiction depended, of where the place of performance of the obligations comprising the subject-matter of the action was situated.
Dette gjaldt også, selv om den nationale lov, der skulle finde an­vendelse ved bestemmelsen af opfyldelsesstedet, anerkendte en mundtlig aftale herom, og — som eksempelvis tysk ret — endog under visse omstændigheder anså en sådan som tilstrækkelig til at begrunde et værneting (§ 29, stk. 2, i den [tyske) civilproceslov).
In view of the considerations dealt with above that question had to be answered by refer­ence to German law. Under German law — as the court had already determined — the place of performance of the disputed obligations was the place where the defendant had its seat in the Federal Republic of Germany.
Oberlandesgericht begrundede sin fortolkning af artikel 5, nr. 1, med den plads, denne regel indtager i den ved konventionen skabte kompetenceordning.
Nor could the plaintiff rely on the provision in Article 5 (5) of the Convention concern­ing jurisdiction in relation to a branch, agency or other establishment.
Denne ordning består ikke alene af hovedreglen i artikel 2, men også af artikel 17, der gør værnetingsaftalers gyldighed betinget af, at visse formkrav er opfyldt.
Under the law of the Netherlands the plaintiff could not be regarded as the defendant's agent.
Herefter nåede Oberlandesgericht under anvendelse af tysk ret frem til, at det legale op­fyldelsessted for den omtvistede forpligtelse var sagsøgtes hjemsted i Italien.
As that was also a feature of the concepts of "branch" and "other establishment", Article 5 (5) could not be relied on in order to es­tablish the jurisdiction of the court before which the matter had been brought.
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — opfyldelsesværneting (artikel 5, nr. 1) — bestemmelse af opfyldelsesstedet efter kontraktstatuttet — bestemmelse af kontrakt­statuttet — efterfølgende lovvalg underformalitetsproceduren tilladt
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction of the courts for the place of performance — The term "obligation" in Article 5 (1) — Interpretation by the Court of Justice of the Eu­ropean Communities — Determination of the place of performance — Governed by the proper law of the contract
Parterne, et nederlandsk og et tysk selskab, stod i forretningsmæssig forbindelse.
After accepting an initial delivery the defendant declared that he no longer wished to fulfil the contract.
Den nederlandske sagsøger påstod at have drevet virksomhed som handelsagent i Nederlan­dene for den tyske virksomhed, og under sagen stillede sagsøgeren krav om godtgørelse for good­will samt om skadeserstatning.
The plaintiff thereupon commenced proceedings in Luxembourg, claiming (i) an amount in respect of the value­added tax on the first delivery, and (ii) damages for breach of contract.
Som grundlag for rettens kompetence — som sagsøgte havde bestridt — henviste sagsøgte til domskonventionens artikel 5, nr. 1 og 5.
In reliance on Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention the defendant objected to the jurisdiction of the court in which the proceedings had been brought.
Retten udtalte, at den savnede kompetence.
By interlocutory judgment that court decided that it had jurisdiction.
Den anførte, at fastlæggelsen af opfyldelsesstedet for de til grund for sagen liggende for­pligtelser, hvilket sted var afgørende for spørgsmålet om værneting efter artikel 5, nr. 1, måtte ske efter den lov, som i henhold til de nederlandske lovvalgsregler fandt anven­delse på disse forpligtelser.
The Cour Supérieure de Justice held that the court of first instance had jurisdiction to entertain the action under Article 5(1) of the Convention, since the place of performance of the obligation in question was situated in Luxembourg.
Sagsøgeren havde hævdet, at parterne havde aftalt at lade tysk lov gælde for deres kontraktsforhold.
According to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 6 October 1976 in Case 14/76 De Bloosv Bouyer(supra 1­5.1.1 — A 1) "obligation" in Article 5 (1) referred to the obli­gation forming the basis of the legal proceedings.
Retten fastslog derimod, at de omstændighe­der, sagsøgeren havde anført som grundlag for et lovvalg til fordel for tysk ret, ganske vist var utilstrækkelige.
The first claim was for payment of the balance due in respect of goods delivered under a contract of sale.
Dette spørgsmål skulle ifølge det tidligere anførte be­svares efter tysk lov. I henhold hertil var — som retten detaljeret gjorde rede for — opfyl­delsesstedet for de omtvistede forpligtelser sagsøgtes hjemsted i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland.
Since the parties were in agreement that Luxembourg law applied to the legal relations in question, the place of performance of the aforesaid contractual obligation had to be determined according to that law.
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — opfyldelsesværneting — begrebet »forplig­telse« i artikel 5, nr. 1, — EF­Domstolens fortolkning —fastlæggelse af opfyldelsesstedet — kontraktstatuttet afgørende
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction of the court for the place of performance of the obligation constituting the basis of the claim — Exclusive dealership contract — Ob­ligation in question — Obligation to perform the contract replaced by the supplier's obliga­tion to pay damages — Place of performance — Contract concerning French territory — Place of performance situated in France
Sagsøgeren, en i storhertugdømmet Luxembourg bosiddende handlende, havde solgt et parti skrot til sagsøgte, en handlende i Trier (Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland). Efter at have aftaget en første levering erklærede sagsøgte, at han ikke længere agtede at opfylde aftalen.
The person engaged by a German company to distribute its products in France brought an action against that company in the Tribunal de Commerce for the district in which he resided, claiming compensation for the damage allegedly suffered as a result of the wrongful breach of contract which the company was alleged to have committed by granting to a third party distribution rights over the products previously entrusted to the plaintiff.
Sagsøgeren anlagde derpå sag i Luxembourg og påstod dels betaling af et beløb svarende til merværdiafgiften for den første levering, dels skadeserstatning for uretmæs­sig annullation af kontrakten. Sagsøgte rejste under henvisning til domskonventionens artikel 5, nr. 1, indsigelse mod rettens kompetence.
The Tribunal de Commerce upheld the defendant's objection to the court's jurisdiction based on the ground that the court for the place of performance of the obligation in question under Article 5(1) of the Convention was the German court at the place where the defendant had its registered office.
Cour superieure de justice udtalte, at retten i første instans i henhold til konventionens artikel 5, nr. 1, havde kompetence til at pådømme sagen, da opfyldelsesstedet for den omtvistede forpligtelse lå i Luxembourg.
The plaintiff appealed to the Cour d'Appel, which quashed the judgment whereby the Tribunal de Commerce had declined jurisdiction.
Ifølge EF­Domstolens dom af 6. oktober 1976 i sagen De Bloos mod Bouyer [sag 14/76; ovenfor under 1­5.1.1 — A 1] skulle ved »for­pligtelse« i artikel 5, nr. 1, forstås den forpligtelse, der lå til grund for sagen. I den første del af påstanden krævedes der betaling af restkøbesummen for varer, som var leveret i henhold til en købekontrakt.
The appeal court held that the obliga­tion referred to by Article 5(1) was the contractual obligation which constituted the ba­sis of the legal action, namely, in this case, the obligation to comply with the dealership contract which the defendant company was alleged to have broken ; that obligation was to be performed in France since, in the opinion of both parties, the contract concerned French territory.
Da parterne var enige om, at luxembourgsk lovgivning skulle finde anvendelse på retsforholdet, skulle opfyldelsesstedet for den nævnte kon­traktslige forpligtelse fastlægges efter dette lands lov. Ifølge artikel 1651 i [den luxem­bourgske] code civil havde sagsøgte — da parterne ikke havde aftalt andet — været for­pligtet til at betale varerne på leveringsstedet, dvs. i Luxembourg.
The distinction between créances quérables (debts payable at the debt­or's place of residence) and créances portables (debts payable at the creditor's place of residence) was not applicable in this case, because the principal action was an action for damages for breach of the original contractual obligation and the payment of damages in no way constituted a distinct obligation, since it merely replaced the original obliga­tion and penalized the failure to perform it, both in French law and in German law.
Da samme principper var afgørende, for så vidt sagsøgeren herudover krævede ska­deserstatning for uretmæssig annullation — som bestod i, at sagsøgte nægtede at betale den aftalte købesum.
The court went on the state that it was not necessary to ascertain the proper law of the contract in order to determine the place of performance of the disputed obligation, since the place of performance was clear from the agreement between the parties.
Eneforhandleren i Frankrig for et tysk selskab havde anlagt sag mod selskabet ved Tri­bunal de commerce i den retskreds, hvor han havde bopæl, med påstand om erstatning for det tab, han påstod at have lidt på grund af et uberettiget brud på aftalen, som selska­bet havde gjort sig skyldig i ved at tildele en tredjemand den ret til at forhandle selska­bets produkter, som det havde overladt sagsøgeren.
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction of the courts for the place of performance — Claim based on unjust enrichment — Place of performance determined in accordance with the proper law of the contract
Tribunal de commerce gav leverandøren, det tyske selskab, medhold i, at retten savnede kompetence.
In an action commenced in the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main and continued in the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main a German company sought judgment against a French company for the repayment of part of the purchase price of goods delivered.
Cour d'appel udtalte dernæst, at det ikke var nødvendigt at finde frem til, hvilken lov der fandt anvendelse på kontrakten, for at bestemme opfyldelsesstedet for den omtvi­stede forpligtelse, eftersom opfyldelsesstedet klart fremgik af aftalen mellem parterne; samtidig fastslog den dog for fuldstændighedens skyld, at den lov, der fandt anvendelse, var fransk lov på grund af det stiltiende, men klare lovvalg, parterne havde truffet, og under hensyn til, at alle kontraktens tilknytningsmomenter viste hen til fransk område.
According to French law, which did not treat unjust enrichment as an independent legal category, the defendant's obligation to pay compensation could be derived from Articles 1235, 1376 and 1377 of the French Civil Code, since the plaintiff had pleaded the absence of a con­tract, in respect of the goods which it denied having ordered, and had contended, in re­spect of the other goods, that the price stipulated in the contract had been exceeded. In the absence of agreement between the parties payment should be made at the defend-
(fortsat 1)
1968 - ARTICLE 5(1)
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — opfyldelsesværneting — berigelseskrav — be­stemmelse af opfyldelsesstedet efter kontraktstatuttet
Jurisdiction — Place of performance of the obligation in question — Contract of sale — Obligation to pay by cheque — Place where the cheque is made payable
Sagsøgeren hævdede, at en del af de betalte varer ikke havde været bestilt, og at prisen for andre varer ikke var blevet beregnet på det grundlag, der var aftalt.
The liquidator of a insolvent company established in the Netherlands claimed payment of the balance due on the account of a customer established in Belgium.
Artikel 5, nr. 1, forudsatte, at sa­gens genstand var en kontrakt eller krav hidrørende fra kontraktsforhold.
In his submission, the Netherlands court for the place where the insolvent company had its seat therefore lacked jurisdiction.
Denne forud­sætning måtte ses og behandles i sammenhæng med det yderligere kriterium, som opstil­ledes i bestemmelsen, nemlig opfyldelsesstedet.
The court held that it was necessary to establish, in accordance with the law on cheques, where the obligation must be performed and that, since the purchase and delivery had taken place in the Netherlands, Netherlands law governed the legal relationship between the parties.
Opfyldelsesstedet for forpligtelsen skulle bestemmes efter kollisionsnormerne i lex fori.
Under the Netherlands law on cheques the place of payment was the place where the cheques were made payable.
Sagsøgeren gjorde berigelseskrav gældende, som — i det omfang tilbagesøgningskravet støttedes på, at der var præsteret en ydelse — var undergivet det lands lov, som fandt anvendelse på det kontraktsforhold mellem parterne, hvorpå ydelsen beroede.
The branch of the buyer's bank where the cheques were made payable and the head office of that bank were both situated in Belgium; the Belgian courts therefore had jurisdiction and the Netherlands courts did not.
Kurator i et nederlandsk selskab under konkurs havde i denne sag nedlagt påstand om betaling af den resterende del af købesummen over for en belgisk køber.
On appeal by the buyer, the Cour d'Appel held that in order to determine which court had jurisdiction to entertain the action between the two parties it was necessary to have recourse not to the provisions of internal law but to those of the Convention, which took precedence over French law.
Køberen hæv­dede imidlertid, at den forpligtelse, der krævedes opfyldt, skulle opfyldes i Belgien, da parterne havde aftalt, at betaling skulle ske ved checks i belgiske francs og betalbare i Belgien.
The court found that, according to the invoices, the pay­ment of the price of the goods, the balance of which was being claimed by the seller, was to take place, and had indeed taken place as regards the part of the price already paid, at a financial establishment in Milan, that is to say in Italy, and that the goods had been de­livered by the seller "franco domicile" in Italy as stipulated in the contract.
Efter køberens opfattelse savnede den nederlandske domstol på det konkurs­ramte selskabs hjemsted derfor kompetence.
Therefore, pursuant to Article 5 (1) of the Convention, the action for payment of the price could be brought only in the Italian court for the place where the contract required performance of the obligation which the seller was attempting to enforce against the buyer.
Arrondissementsrechtbank udtalte, at det skulle afgøres efter de checkretlige regler, hvor forpligtelsen skulle opfyldes, og at det var nederlandsk ret, der var gældende for retsforholdet mellem parterne, eftersom købet og leveringen i den konkrete sag havde fundet sted i Nederlandene. Efter de nederlandske checkretlige regler er betalingsstedet det sted, hvor checkene angives at være betalbare.
The court went on to hold that Article 17 of the Convention was inapplicable.
Da den afdeling af købers bank, hvor checkene var betalbare, lå i Belgien, og da bankens hovedkontor også befandt sig i Bel­gien, var det den belgiske domstol og ikke Arrondissementsrechtbank, der havde kom­petencen.
The mere fact that the buyer had previously paid invoices containing a jurisdiction clause without expressing any protest or reservation in that regard could not be deemed to constitute agreement to such a jurisdiction clause in later contracts concluded without reference to that clause.
Køberen indbragte dommen for Cour d'appel, som udtalte, at afgørelsen af, hvilken ret der var kompetent til at påkende tvisten mellem parterne, skulle træffes, ikke efter reg­lerne i national ret, men efter konventionens bestemmelser, som har forrang for disse.
A French company which had sold wine to a German company brought an action against that company for payment of the price in the Tribunal de Commerce, Bourg­en­Bresse, in which district its registered office was situated.
Cour d'appel fastslog, at købesummen — hvoraf sælgeren gjorde krav på et restbeløb — ifølge fakturaerne skulle betales og allerede delvis var blevet betalt i et pengeinstitut i Mi­lano, dvs. i Italien, hvor også leveringen af varerne skulle ske og faktisk skete »franco« køberens hjemsted. Følgelig kunne kravet om betaling af købesummen i henhold til arti­kel 5, nr. 1, kun indbringes for den italienske domstol på det sted, hvor den betalingsfor­pligtelse, som sælgeren søgte at få køberen tilpligtet at opfylde, ifølge kontrakten skulle opfyldes.
The court held that it had juris­diction and the defendant appealed against that judgment to the Cour d'Appel, Lyon, on the ground that the obligation determining jurisdiction was not its obligation to pay in France the price of the wine delivered, as the Tribunal de Commerce had held on the basis of Article 5 (1) of the Convention, and that there was therefore no reason in this case to displace the basic rule contained in Article 2, which conferred jurisdiction on the courts of the defendant's State. The appeal was dismissed.
Cour d'appel udtalte dernæst, at artikel 17 ikke fandt anvendelse; gentagelsen af ordene »aftale« og »skriftlig« i denne artikel understregede klart det ufravigelige krav om en udtrykkelig og skriftlig tilkendegivelse — i alt fald fra den part, over for hvem den gøres gældende — af, at der var truffet en aftale mellem den pågældende og sagsøgeren.
Determining the applicable law, for the purpose of establishing the place of performance of the obligation to pay the price, the Cour d'Appel observed that the sale in question was governed by French law as the internal law of the country in which the seller had his habitual residence at the time when he received the order, as laid down, in the absence of a choice of law by the parties, in Article 3 of the Hague Convention on the law appli­cable to international sales of goods.
Den omstændighed, at køberen tidligere havde betalt faturaer, som indeholdt en værnetings­klausul, uden i den anledning at have fremsat indsigelser eller taget forbehold, kunne ikke i sig selv betragtes som en accept af en sådan værnetingsaftale i forbindelse med se­nere kontrakter, der var indgået uden henvisning til denne klausul.
Therefore, since the payment of a sum of money must, according to Article 1247 (1) of the French Civil Code, take place at the place de­signated by the agreement of the parties, the clause contained in the general conditions of sale, which was enforceable against the defendant since it had knowledge thereof and had accepted it by making payments in France pursuant to previous contracts, con­ferred jurisdiction on the Tribunal de Commerce, Bourg­en­Bresse, inasmuch as it stipu­lated that payment was to take place at the seller's premises.
Køberen indbragte afgørelsen vedrørende kompetencespørgsmålet for Cour d'appel de Lyon og gjorde gældende, at den forpligtelse, der var afgørende for kompe­tencen ifølge artikel 5, nr. 1, ikke var selskabets forpligtelse til at betale prisen for den le­
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction clause contained in a draft contract not signed by the parties — Subsequent written statement not capable of manifesting the parties' intention to accept the clause — Not valid under Article 17
I forbindelse med afgørelsen af, hvilken lov der fandt anvendelse med henblik på fast­læggelsen af opfyldelsesstedet for forpligtelsen til at betale købesummen udtalte Cour d'appel, at købet i det foreliggende tilfælde var underlagt fransk lov som den interne lov i det land, hvor sælgeren havde bopæl på det tidspunkt, hvor han modtog bestillingen.
Mr Muni, an Italian national, was to have undertaken the duties of managing director of the subsidiary which the German company E. Müller KG, of Winnenden, intended to establish in Italy.
Dette fremgik af artikel 3 i Haag­konventionen om, hvilken lov der skal anvendes på in­ternationale løsørekøb, som gælder i de tilfælde, hvor parterne — som i det foreliggende tilfælde — ikke har vedtaget, hvilken lov der skal finde anvendelse.
In the draft contract, which was not however signed by the parties, Mr Muni's employer was stated to be "Società Müller Italia"; the employment was to be governed by Italian law and jurisdiction in the event of any disputes that might arise was conferred upon the courts of Milan.
Ifølge artikel 1247, stk. 1, i den franske Code civil skal pengeskyld betales på det sted, der er udpeget ved parternes aftale; ifølge sælgerens almindelige salgsbetingelser skulle betalingen finde sted på dennes hjemsted.
Mr Muni refused that offer and, following the unilateral termination of his employment by the company, he brought an action against it before the Pretore di Milano as the court for the place in which the contract had been concluded.
Denne klausul kunne gøres gældende over for køberen, da denne havde kendskab til den og havde accepteret den ved i henhold til tidligere kon­trakter at have betalt i Frankrig. Tribunal de commerce de Bourg­en­Bresse var derfor kompetent.
He stated that according to Ital­ian law the dismissal was, if considered in relation to the probationary period, arbitrary and therefore void, whereas, if it was regarded as an ordinary dismissal, a reasonable pe­riod of notice should have been given.
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — værnetingsklausul i et kontraktsudkast, der ikke er underskrevet af parterne — senere skriftlig erklæring, der ikke er udtryk for en parts vilje til at accpetere klausulen — ugyldig i artikel 17's forstand
The Corte di Cassazione observed in the first place that the jurisdiction clause — which was contained in the draft contract not signed by the parties — could not be enforced because it was not concluded or confirmed in writing, as expressly required by Article 17 of the Convention.
(fortsat 1)
(continued 2)
Det tyske firma E. Mueller KG, Winnenden, havde til hensigt at åbne en afdeling i Ita­lien. En italiensk statsborger ved navn Muni skulle ansættes som direktør, og i et kon­traktsudkast — som ikke blev underskrevet af parterne — var selskabet Mueller Italia anført som Muni's arbejdsgiver.
(ii) Under Article 5 (5), because the action concerned the operations of a branch, agency or other establishment situated in Italy.
Da den ita­lienske afdeling endnu ikke var oprettet (den blev heller ikke oprettet senere), tilbød Mueller KG Muni en ny arbejdsaftale, som skulle være undergivet tysk ret. Dette tilbud afslog Muni imidlertid.
With regard to the first point, the court held that the "obligation in question" consisted, according to the criteria laid down by the Court of Justice of the European Communities [supra, 1­5.1.1 — A 1], in the company's reinstating Mr Muni and subsequently giving effect to the employment relationship.
Da det tyske selskab derefter ophævede aftalen, anlagde Muni sag mod det ved Pretore di Milano, dvs. ved retten på det sted, hvor aftalen var indgået. Sagsøgeren, Muni, gjorde gældende, at afskedigelsen ifølge italiensk ret var vilkårlig og dermed ugyldig, hvis den stod i forbindelse med ansættelsen på prøve; hvis den der­imod blev betragtet som en normal opsigelse, skulle der have været givet et rimeligt var­sel.
(a) That under the employment relationship which was to have been given effect in Italy (and the resumption of which was being requested by Mr Muni on the sup­position that the contract whereby he was engaged [more correctly, the draft con­tract] as managing director of the Italian subsidiary continued to exist and was valid) the employer was not E. Müller KG but Società Müller Italia; and
Under sagen for denne ret faldt afgørelsen ud til, at den italienske domstol var kompetent.
(b) The company did not undertake a direct obligation towards Mr Muni to set up the Italian subsidiary.