natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Hoge Raad udtalte, at det i dommen med rette var lagt til grund, at den foreliggende sag ikke angik »leje eller forpagtning af fast ejendom« i artikel 16, nr. l's forstand; indsi­gelse mod nederlandske retters kompetence kunne således ikke — som påstået under kassationsanken — støttes på denne bestemmelse.
That judg­ment had correctly decided that the present case was not an action relating to "tenancies of immovable property" within the meaning of Article 16(1); therefore that provision could not be used in the appeal to deprive the courts of the Netherlands of jurisdiction.
[kompetence i sager om fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser]
[Jurisdiction in proceedings concerned with the enforcement of judgments]
Kompetence — enekompetence — sag om fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser (artikel 16, nr. 5) — kompetence for retterne i fuldbyrdelsesstaten — betingelser — fuldbyrdelsesforanstaltning i domsstaten
Jurisdiction — Exclusive Jurisdiction — Proceedings concerned with the enforcement of judgments (Article 16 (5)) — Jurisdiction of the courts of the State in which a judgment is to be enforced — Conditions — Enforcement measure in the State in which the judgment was given
Oberlandesgericht skulle tage stilling til en appel af en afgørelse vedrørende fuldbyrdelsesforanstaltninger.
The Oberlandesgericht had to give judgment in an appeal against the ordering of en­forcement measures.
I den til grund for sagen liggende tvist mellem en italiensk legetøjsfabrikant — rekvisitus — og dennes tyske eneforhandler — rekvirenten — var spørgsmålet, om og i bekræftende fald hvilke aftaler, der i Tyskland var blevet indgået direkte, dvs. uden rekvirentens mellemkomst.
The issue in the main action between an Italian manufacturer of toys — the debtor — and its exclusive distributor in Germany — the creditor — was how many sales, if any, were concluded directly in Germany, that is to say, without the credi­tor's participation.
Ved en deldom af 14. november 1973 havde Land gericht dømt rekvisitus til afregning af provisioner og til at fremlægge oplysninger om de aftaler, der var indgået i Forbundsrepublikken.
The Landgericht, in a judgment of 14 November 1973 in respect of only part of the claim, ordered the debtor to produce an account of the commission due and to supply particulars of the transactions which it had carried out in the Federal Re­public.
Da rekvisitus ikke efterkom deldom men, traf Landgericht afgørelse om forskellige fuldbyrdelsesforanstaltninger rettet mod rekvisitus.
When the debtor failed to comply with that judgment the Landgericht ordered that several enforcement measures be taken against it.
Rekvisitus appellerede denne afgørelse og gjorde gældende, at tyske retter ikke havde kompetence til at fuldbyrde tyske domme i udlandet.
The debtor appealed against that order on the ground that the German courts did not have jurisdiction to enforce German judgments outside Germany.
Oberlandesgericht stadfæstede afgørelsen, for så vidt angik truslen om tvangsbøder eller hensættelse i hæfte i henhold til ZPO, § 888.
The Oberlandesgericht dismissed the appeal in so far as it was directed against the threat of a fine or imprisonment under Article 888 of the Zivilprozessordnung [Code of Civil Procedure].
Det var uden betydning, at rekvisitus havde bopæl og forretningssted i Rom ; der forelå ikke et indgreb i udenlandske retters kom petence, da tvangen mod rekvisitus alene bestod inden for Forbundsrepublikkens grænser.
The fact that the debtor's residence and place of business was in Rome made no difference; there was no encroachment upon any foreign jurisdiction, because the order for enforcement was directed against the debtor only within the frontiers of the Federal Republic of Germany.
Oberlandesgericht gav derimod rekvisitus medhold, for så vidt angik bestemmelsen om, at en revisor i Rom på grundlag af rekvisiti bøger skulle udfærdige en oversigt over de i sagen omhandlede aftaler. Med hensyn til foranstaltninger af denne art var retterne i den kontraherende stat, hvor fuldbyrdelsen skulle finde sted, enekompetente i henhold til konventionens § 16.
On the other hand, the Oberlandesgericht allowed the ap­peal in so far as it was directed against the order than an auditor in Rome was to take ex­tracts relating to the transactions in question from the books of the debtor.
Rekvisitus var ved deldom af 14. no­vember 1973 i første omgang blevet dømt til afregning af provisioner og til at meddele oplysninger.
The debtor was or­dered first of all in a partial judgment of 14 November 1973 to prepare an account of the commission due and to supply certain particulars.
Anordningen af tvangsmæssige foranstaltninger til fuldbyrdelse af denne deldom havde rekvisitus appelleret, og appelsagen var blevet afgjort ved kendelsen 5. april 1974.
Its appeal against an order for measures to enforce that partial judgment was dealt with by judgment of 5 April 1974.
Efter at rekvisitus havde givet rekvirenten visse oplysninger, som denne dog anså for util­strækkelige, erhvervede rekvirenten ved Landgericht en ny dom, for at rekvisitus skulle give rekvirenten lejlighed til at efterse rekvisiti forretningsbøger og øvrige dokumenter og i stedet for ed afgive en forsikring om, at de forelagte dokumenter var korrekte.
After the debtor firm had supplied certain particulars, which however the creditor considered to be inadequate, the latter obtained a further judgment in the Landgericht ordering the debtor to permit inspection of its books and other documents and to lodge an affidavit verifying the documents it had produced.
I an­keinstansen anførte rekvisitus nu, at denne dom var stridende mod konventionens arti­kel 16, nr. 5, da alene retterne i fuldbyrdelsesstaten var kompetente i sager om fuldbyr­delse af retsafgørelser.
On appeal the debtor then submit­ted that that judgment was contrary to Article 16 (5) of the Convention on the ground that in proceedings for the enforcement of a judgment the courts of the State in which en­forcement is sought have exclusive jurisdiction.
Dommen havde primært fuldbyrdelsesretlig karakter, og dens gennemførelse kunne ikke foregå efter de kriterier, som var opstillet i dens konklusion, da tvangsfuldbyrdelsen måtte foretages i henhold til italiensk ret.
Essentially, it was argued, the judgment was in the nature of an enforcement measure and it could not be implemented in the manner laid down in its operative part, because enforcement must be effected under Ita­lian law.
Den udtalte, at der må sondres skarpt mellem retsafgørelsen og dennes fuldbyrdelse.
A clear distinction must be drawn between a judgment and its enforcement.
Afgørelsen kunne træffes, uanset at den skulle fuldbyrdes i henhold til italiensk ret.
The validity of the judgment was not affected by the fact that its enforcement was a matter for Italian law.
Den tyske sagsøger kunne ganske vist ikke umid­delbart foranledige dommen eksekveret, men blev dog ved denne sat i stand til at ind­lede en tvangsfuldbyrdelse i henhold til italiensk ret.
It was true that the German plain­tiff could not make direct use of the judgment, but it was the judgment alone which ena­bled it to embark upon enforcement under Italian law.
Afdeling 6 - AFTALER OM KOMPETENCE (artikeln — artikel 18)
Section 6 - PROROGATION OF JURISDICTION (Articles 17 and 18)
[værnetingsaftaler]
[Jurisdiction agreements]
1968 - ARTIKEL 17, STK. 1
1968 - ARTICLE 17(1)
[betingelser og virkninger]
[Conditions and effects]
(Jfr. også 154 - A 1)
(See also 154 - A 1)
1-17.1.1 — A 1 Dom af 9.11. 1978 sag 23/78, Meeth mod Soc.
Judgment of 9 November 1978, Case 23/78,
Glacetal (anmodning om præjudiciel afgørelse indgivet af Bundesgerichtshof) Sml.
1-17.1.1 — A 1 Meeth ν Glacetal,
1978, s. 2133 (Forslag til afgørelse fra generaladvokat F. Capotorti, s. 2143)
[1978] ECR 2133 (Preliminary ruling requested by the Bundesgerichtshof) Advocate General: F. Caportiti (p.2144)
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — værnepligtsaftale, hvorefter parterne kun kan sagsøges ved retterne i deres hjemstat — gyldig i henhold til artikel 17, stk. 1
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Agreement under which each party may be sued only in the courts of his State of domicile — Permissible under the first para­graph of Article 17
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — værnetingsaftale, hvorefter parterne kun kan sagsøges ved retterne i deres hjemstat — hensyntagen til modregning, der står ¡forbindelse med det omtvistede retsforhold — betingelser
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Agreement under which each party may be sued only in the courts of his State of domicile — Power to take into account a set-off connected with the legal relationship in dispute — Conditions
Firma Meeth med hjemsted i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland havde indgået en kontrakt med det i Frankrig hjemmehørende selskab Glacetal, hvorefter det franske firma skulle levere glas til det tyske.
The Meeth undertaking, based in the Federal Republic of Germany, and the Glacetal undertaking, based in France, had entered into a contract under which the French un­dertaking was to supply glass to the German undertaking.
Kontrakten indeholdt bl.a. følgende passus: »Hvis firmaet Meeth sagsøger firmaet Glacetal, skal dette ske ved en fransk ret. Hvis Glacetal sagsøger firmaet Meeth, skal dette ske ved en tysk ret.« Da Meeth ikke betalte for visse leveringer fra Glacetal, anlagde det franske firma sag med påstand om betaling ved Landgericht Trier (Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland), som dømte det tyske firma til betaling.
In that contract the parties had agreed inter alia: "If Meeth sues Glacetal the French courts alone shall have jurisdic­tion.
Ved Landgericht Trier bavde Meeth gjort en fordring gældende over for Glacetal for den skade, som Meeth angav at have lidt som følge af det franske firmas forsinkede eller mangel fulde opfyldelse af sine kontraktmæssige forpligtelser.
When Meeth failed to pay for certain deliveries, the French undertaking commenced proceed­ings to recover the sums due in the Landgericht Trier (Federal Republic of Germany), which gave judgment for the plaintiff.
Landgericht tillod imidlertid ikke Meeth at modregne denne fordring i den af det franske firma krævede købesum, idet retten fandt, at Meeth ikke havde ført tilstrækkeligt bevis for kravet.
In answer to Glacetal's claim Meeth had pleaded a set-off relating to the damage which it claimed to have suffered as a result of the French undertaking's late or defective performance of its contractual obligations.
Sagen blev appelleret til Oberlandesgericht Koblenz, der principielt anerkendte det franske firmas for dring, men ikke tillod Meeth at foretage modregning, idet retten herved anførte, at den i kontrakten mellem parterne indeholdte væmetingsklausul indebar, at et sådant modregningskrav ikke kunne gøres gældende ved tyske retter.
The Landgericht, however, refused to allow that claim to be set-off against the purchase price claimed by Glacetal on the ground of insufficient proof.
Denne dom blev anket til Bundesgerichtshof, der til brug for sagen forelagde EF-Domstolen følgende spørgsmål til præjudiciel afgørelse:
The Oberlandesgericht, to which the case came on appeal, found that the French undertaking's claim was in prin­ciple entitled to succeed and rejected the set-off pleaded against that claim on the ground that the jurisdiction clause contained in the contract did not permit a set-off to
1968 - ARTIKEL 17, STK. 1
1968 - ARTICLE 17 (I)
(fortsat 1)
(continued 1) be pleaded in the German courts.
Tillader konventionens artikel 17, stk. 1, en aftale, hvorefter hver af de to par ter i en købekontrakt, som er bosiddende i forskellige stater, kun kan sagsøges ved retterne i deres bopælsstat?
Does the first paragraph of Article 17 of the Convention permit an agreement under which the two parties to a contract of sale, who are domiciled in different States, can be sued only in the courts of their respective States?
Udelukker en efter konventionens artikel 17, stk. 1, gyldig aftale med det i spørgsmål 1 angivne indhold nødvendigvis enhver modregning, som den ene af talepart søger gennemført, med en af aftalen omfattet fordring under et af den anden part anlagt søgsmål ved den for dette søgsmål kompetente ret?«
Where an agreement permitted by the first paragraph of Article 17 of the Con vention contains the clause mentioned in Question 1, does it automatically rale out any set-off which one of the parties to the contract wishes to propose in pur suance of a claim arising under the said agreement in answer to the claim made by the other party in the court having jurisdiction to hear the latter claim ?"
Dette gælder i særdeleshed, såfremt parterne ved en sådan klausul gensidigt har vedtaget, at de i den almindelige bestemmelse i kon ventionens artikel 2 udpegede retter skal være kompetente.
That applied particularly where the parties had by such an agreement reciprocally conferred jurisdiction on the courts specified in the general rale laid down by Article 2 of the Convention.
Til det andet spørgsmål anførte Domstolen, at spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt en ret, som en sag er blevet indbragt for i medfør af en sådan gensidig værnetingsaftale, som forelå i nærværende sag, har kompetence til at træffe afgørelse vedrørende en fordring, som en af parterne kræver modregnet i den omtvistede forpligtelse, skal afgøres såvel ud fra hensynet til privatautonomien som ud fra de procesøkonomiske hensyn, der ligger til grund for hele konventionen.
In answer to the second question the Court of Justice ruled that the question of the extent to which a court before which a case was brought pursuant to a reciprocal jurisdiction clause, such as that appearing in the contract between the parties, had jurisdiction to de cide on a set-off claimed by one of the parties on the basis of the disputed contractual obligation must be determined with regard both to the need to respect individuals' rights of independence and the need to avoid superfluous procedure, which formed the basis of the Convention as a whole.
I lyset af denne dobbelte målsætning kunne artikel 17 ikke fortolkes således, at den forhindrer den ret, som en sag er blevet indbragt for i medfør af en værnetingsaftale som den foreliggende, i at tage hensyn til en modregning med en fordring, der står i forbindelse med det omtvistede retsforhold, når retten skønner dette foreneligt med ordlyden af og meningen med værnetingsaftalen.
In the light of both of those objectives, it was held, Article 17 could not be interpreted as preventing a court before which proceedings had been instituted pursuant to a clause conferring jurisdiction of the type described above from taking into account a set-off connected with legal relationship in dispute if such court considered that course to be compatible with the letter and spirit of the clause conferring jurisdiction.
Domstolen besvarede spørgsmålene fra Bundesgerichtshof ved at kende for ret:
Accordingly, the Court of Justice gave the following answers to the questions referred to it by the Bundesgerichtshof:
Artikel 17, stk. 1, i konventionen... kan ikke fortolkes således, at den udelukker, at den ret, som en tvist er blevet indbragt for i medfør af en værnetingsaftale af den i svaret til det første spørgsmål beskrevne art, kan tage hensyn til modregning med en fordring, der står i forbindelse med det omtvistede retsforhold.«
Where there is a clause conferring jurisdiction such as that described in the reply to the first question the first paragraph of Article 17 of the Convention of
1968 ­ ARTIKEL 17, STK. 1
1968 - ARTICLE 17(1)
Sagsøgeren, tidligere agent for Schrottverwertung GmbH, havde anlagt sag med påstand om betaling af skyldige provisioner samt opsigelsesgodtgørelse.
27 September 1968 cannot be interpreted as prohibiting the court before which a dispute has been brought in pursuance of such a clause from taking into account a set-off connected with the legal relationship in dispute."
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — værnetingsklausul i eneforhandlingsaftale — præceptive værnetingsregler i belgisk ret — aftalen gyldig
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Jurisdiction clause in agency agreement — Void under national law — Precedence of a subsequent national provision over the Conven­tion
Den tyske sagsøger havde overdraget den belgiske sagsøgte eneforhandlingen af sine produkter i Belgien og Luxembourg.
The plaintiff, formerly an agent for Schrottverwertung GmbH, claimed arrears of com­mission and compensation for termination of his contract.
Sagsøgtes indsigelse om, at tysk kompe tence var udelukket som følge af den belgiske lov af 27. juli 1961/13. april 1971 om ensidig ophævelse af eneforhandlingsaftaler af ubestemt varighed, kunne ikke lægges til grund.
Article 413 of the Codice di Procedura Civile, as amended by Law No 533 of 11 August 1973, provided inter alia that in agency agreements (over which the Pretore had jurisdiction in his capacity as judge in labour disputes under Article 409 (3) of the Codice di Procedura Civile) terms purporting to exclude the jurisdiction of the Italian courts were void.
Selv om denne lov havde givet eneforhandlere mulighed for at anlægge sag ved yderligere et værneting, som i henhold til belgisk ret ikke kunne fraviges ved aftale, havde loven dog ikke forbudt værnetingsaftaler for det område, den omfattede.
That provision took precedence over Law No 804 of 21 June 1971 rati­fying the Convention, in so far as it was possible under the Convention to exclude the jurisdiction of the Italian courts by agreement in the matters indicated in Article 409 of the Codice di Procedura Civile.
Spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt en eneforhandler, når hensås til konventionens artikel 17, stadig kunne anlægge sag i Belgien på grundlag af den belgiske lov og i strid med en gyldig truffet værnetingsaftale, kunne kun opstå for den belgisk ret, som havde fået sagen forelagt på grundlag af den belgiske lov.
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Jurisdiction clause in exclusive dealership agreement — Mandatory provision of Belgian law on jurisdiction — Convention takes precedence
I en for retten i Leeuwarden verserende sag mellem et i Hongkong hjemmehørende selskab og indehaveren af et nederlandsk handelsselskab vedrørende forpligtelser i hen hold til en købekontrakt havde sagsøgte på sin side rejst et regreskrav mod en virksomhed med hjemsted i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland.
Exclusive distributorship agreements were not one of the fields of law mentioned in Articles 12,15 and 16 in which agreements on jurisdiction were precluded.
Den tyske virksomhed rejste indsigelse mod den nederlandske rets kompetence og påberåbte sig en værnetingsklausul i sine almindelige forretningsbetingelser, hvorefter »værneting for alle krav« skulle være Braunschweig (Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland).
As the conditions governing the validity of a jurisdiction agreement (first paragraph of Article 17) were satisfied, the court named by the parties had exclusive jurisdiction in all disputes arising in connexion with the exclusive distribu­torship agreement in question, including disputes resulting from its termination.
Retten afviste regreskravet.
Any other court had to decline jurisdiction.
Retten undersøgte derefter rækkevidden af værnetingsklausulen i regresskyldnerens al mindelige forretningsbetingelser og udtalte, at denne i henhold til sin ordlyd også gjaldt for regressøgsmål.
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction clause in exclusive distributorship agreement — Mandatory provision of Belgian law on jurisdiction — Validity of the agree­ment upheld
Retten bedømte derpå spørgsmålet om værnetingsaftalens gyldighed efter tysk ret, som var afgørende for det samlede kontraktsforhold.
The German plaintiff had granted the Belgian defendant the exclusive right to sell its products in Belgium and Luxembourg.
I henhold hertil var en værnetingsaftale mellem »handlende« (»Vollkaufleuten«) — som parterne — som udgangspunkt gyldig.
In the action pending, which had succeeded in two courts, the plaintiff asked for a declaration that the agreement had been terminated as a result of its being given notice.
Da der mellem regresskyldneren og den virksomhed, som den regresberettigede var succederet i, i årevis løbende var blevet afviklet forretninger på grundlag af regresskyldnerens almindelige forretningsbetingelser — som der normalt var henvist til i dennes fakturaer — måtte den regresberettigede antages at være bundet af værnetingsklausulen.
Appealing on a point of law the defendant asked for the action to be dismissed on the ground that the German courts did not have interna­tional jurisdiction.
Jfr. vedrørende spørgsmålet om forholdet mellem konventionens artikel 17 og artikel 6, nr. 2, afgørelse i samme retning fra Cour d'appel Rouen af 25. juli 1974, Soc. Fusion Rubbermaid mod SARL Devianne Duquesnoy, Recueil Dalloz-Sirey 1975, Jur., s. 341.
The agreement, contained in the contract between the parties, conferring jurisdiction on a German court was valid under the first paragraph of Article 17 of the Convention.
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — værnetingsklausul i konnossement — gyldighed — forskrifter i belgisk ret (sølovens art. 91) — forskrifter i domskonventionen (art. 17) — indbyrdes forhold
1­17.1.1 — Β 4 Arrondissementsrechtbank, Leeuwarden, Judgment of 2 September 1976, Islanders Canning Corporation Ltd ν Hoekstra; Hoekstra ν Schmalbach­Lubeca­Werke AG
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — begrebet »parterne« i artikel 17 — retssagens parter
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — "any disputes... which may arise in connexion with a particular legal relationship" (first paragraph of Article 17) — "action on a warranty or guarantee or in any other third party proceedings" (Article 6 (2)) — "Dispute" within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 17 — The court seised of the original proceedings does not have jurisdiction if an agreement to the contrary exists between the defendant in that action and the third party
Den belgiske indehaver af konnossementet og dennes forsikringsselskab anlagde derpå erstatningssag ved Rechtbank van koophandel i Antwerpen mod bortfragteren og konnossementudstederen, et i Tyskland hjemmehørende selskab. Dette rejste indsigelse mod den belgiske rets kompetence og påberåbte sig herved bl.a. en bestemmelse i konnossementsbetingelserne, hvorefter »all disputes are to be decided according to German law and are exclusively to be put before the Hamburg Courts«.
The defendant claimed an indemnity against her supplier, a German undertaking with a registered office in the Federal Republic.
Sagen appelleredes derpå til Hofvan beroep, som stadfæstede afgørelsen.
The court dismissed the claim for an indemnity.
Formkravene i artikel 17, der måtte fortolkes snævert, skulle skabe sikkerhed for, at parterne i retssagen faktisk havde været enige om værnetingsaftalen. Dette var netop ikke tilfældet, når det var tredje-
The court went on to consider the scope of the forum clause contained in the general conditions of business of the third party and decided that in view of its wording it was also applicable to claims for an in­demnity.
Udsendelse I/februar 1981
The court then considered the validity of the jurisdiction agreement under Ger­ lssue 1/February 1981
1968 - ARTIKEL 17, STK. I
1968 - ARTICLE 17(1)
(fortsat 1) mand, der var konnossementsindehaver.
(continued 1) man law, by which the entire contractual relationship was governed.
I øvrigt udgjorde konnossementet selv i forholdet mellem aflader og bortfragter ikke en skriftlig aftale i konventionens forstand. Dette skyldtes konnossementets særlige karakter, idet konnossementet i første række måtte be tragtes som modtagelsesbevis for de varer, der skulle fragtes.
Under that law a jurisdiction agreement between "Vollkaufleuten" [persons who have the full status of merchants under German law], such as the parties, was in principle valid.
I praksis undertegnedes konnossementer oftest kun af kaptajnen eller rederens agent og indeholdt rederens al mindelige betingelser, som var fastsat på forhånd.
On the question of the relationship between Article 17 and Article 6 (2) of the Conven­tion see also the decision to the same effect of the Cour d'Appel, Rouen, of 25 June 1974, Soc.