natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Disse spørgsmål var blevet rejst under en sag mellem to skofabrikker, hvoraf den ene, Brennero, havde hjemsted i Italien, og den anden, Wendel, i Forbundsrepublikken Tysk land.
Those questions arose in a dispute between two shoe manufacturers, Brennero and Wendel, which had their registered offices in Italy and the Federal Republic of Germany respec­tively.
Brennero opnåede den 17. juni 1983 ved Tribunale di Verona et arrestdekret mod Wendel. Dekretet, som blev erklæret eksigibel i Italien, bemyndigede Brennero til at lade foretage arrest i Wendel's løsøre og fast ejendom samt udestående fordringer for ho vedstol og renter indtil et beløb på 700000000 LIT.
On 17 June 1983 Brennero obtained a distraint order from the Tribunale, Verona, which was declared enforceable within Italian territory and which authorized it to seize the movable and immovable assets in Wendel's possession up to an amount of LIT 700 000 000 in respect of the principal amount together with interest.
Denne afgørelse søgte Brennero fuldbyrdet i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland i overensstemmelse med konventionens be stemmelser.
Brennero then sought an order for the enforcement ofthat judgment in the Federal Republic of Ger­many pursuant to the provisions of the Convention.
Formanden for IV. civile afdeling ved Landgericht Detmold bestemte ved kendelse af 7.juli 1983, at den omhandlede retsafgørelse kunne forsynes med fuldbyrdelsespåtegning og gav samtidig tilladelse til anvendelse af sikrende retsmidler over for den tyske virksomheds formuegoder.
On 7 July 1983 the President of the Fourth Civil Chamber of the Landgericht Detmold issued an order for the enforcement of the judgment in question and, at the same time, authorized the adoption of protective measures covering the assets of the German under­taking.
Wendel anfægtede den 12.juli 1983 denne afgørelse ved appel i medfør af konventionens artikel 36, stk. 1, og indgav samtidig begæring om, at der blev truffet bestemmelse om sikkerhedsstillelse i medfør af konventionens artikel 38, stk. 2.
On 12 July 1983 Wendel appealed against that decision under the first paragraph of Article 36 of the Convention and applied for an order for the provision of security, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 38 of the Convention.
Derefter gjorde Oberlandesgericht Hamm, før den traf afgørelse i appelsagen, ved
By order of 15 July 1983 the Oberlandesgericht Hamm before giv ing judgment on the appeal, made enforce­ment of the Italian judgment conditional on Brennero providing security even if enforce­ment was restricted to the adoption of protective measures.
') Processprog: Tysk.
I — Language of the Case: German.
Brennero gjorde gældende, at den ret, der behandler en appel af den afgørelse, der tillader fuldbyrdelse, ikke kan træffe bestemmelse om sikkerhedstillelse uden samtidig at træffe afgørelse i appelsagen.
It con tended that a court with which an appeal has been lodged against a decision authorizing enforcement cannot require security to be provided without at the same time giving judg ment on the appeal.
Bundesgerichtshof, hvortil den omhandlede »Rechtsbeschwerde« var indgivet, fastslog, at Oberlandesgericht ikke havde truffet afgørelse i appelsagen vedrørende den afgørelse, der tillod fuldbyrdelse, men at den snarere havde fulgt Wendel's opfordring til først at træffe bestemmelse om sikkerhedsstillelse.
The Bundesgerichtshof, before which the Rechtsbeschwerde was brought, held that the Oberlandesgericht had not given judgment on the appeal against the decision authorizing enforcement but had instead, in accordance with Wendel's suggestion, given a preliminary decision concerning the provision of security.
Da der herefter var tale om en foreløbig af gørelse fra Oberlandesgericht's side, fandt Bundesgerichtshof det ikke sikkert, at en »Rechtsbeschwerde« i anledning af denne afgørelse kunne admitteres.
Since, in those circumstances, the decision given by the Oberlandesgericht was an interim order, it was uncertain whether it could be contested by a Rechtsbeschwerde.
Efter tysk civil procesret er der nemlig ikke adgang til at anvende et sådant retsmiddel, hvis det er rettet mod en foreløbig kendelse afsagt af en Oberlandesgericht ; Bundesgerichtshof ville der for kun kunne foretage en prøvelse, hvis konventionen foreskriver et sådant retsmiddel.
Under the German law of civil procedure, an appeal ofthat kind was inadmissible if its purpose was to challenge an interim order issued by an Oberlandesgericht. It could therefore be reviewed by the Bundesgerichtshof only if the Convention provided for such an appeal.
Kan den Oberlandesgericht, der i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland behandler skyldnerens appel i henhold til konventionens artikler 36 og 37 af den afgørelse, der tillader fuldbyrdelse, kun træffe bestemmelse om, at fuldbyrdelsen i medfør af konventionens artikel 38, stk. 2, gøres betinget af, at der stilles sikkerhed, som et led i sin endelige afgørelse i appelsagen, eller kan den også træffe en sådan be stemmelse som en foreløbig forholdsregel under behandlingen af appelsagen ?
May the Oberlandesgericht in the Federal Republic of Germany with which an appeal against a decision authorizing enforcement has been lodged by a debtor under Articles 36 and 37 of the Convention issue an order under the second paragraph of Article 38 of the Convention making enforcement conditional on the provision of security only as part of its final judgment on the appeal or may it also issue the order as an interim measure during the appeal proceedings?
Kan der ved direkte eller analog anvendelse af konventionens artikel 37, stk. 2, indgives »Rechtsbeschwerde« til Bundesgerichtshof, når Oberlandesgericht under henvisning til konventionens artikel 38, stk. 2, som en foreløbig for holdsregel under behandlingen af appelsagen har truffet bestemmelse om, at der skal stilles sikkerhed?«
May a Rechtsbeschwerde (appeal on a point of law) be lodged with the Bundesgerichtshof either directly under the second paragraph of Article 37 of the Convention, or by analogy therewith, against an order concerning the provision of security issued by the Oberlandesgericht on the basis of the second paragraph of Article 38 of the Convention as an interim measure during the appeal proceed ings?"
Domstolen udtalte herom (i præmisserne 7—17):
In reply to those questions, the Court of Justice held as follows (Paragraphs? to 17 of the decision):
»Det første spørgsmål (artikel 38)
"First question (Article38)
7 Brennero, den italienske regering og Kommissionen for De europæiske Fællesskaber er af den opfattelse, at konventionens artikel 38 ikke tillader den ret, der be handler appellen af en afgørelse om meddelelse af fuldbyrdelse, at træffe en foreløbig afgørelse, hvorefter der skal stilles sikkerhed, uden at den træffer afgørelse i appelsagen.
Brennero, the Italian Government and the Commission of the European Communities considered that under Article 38 of the Convention a court with which an appeal has been lodged against a decision authorizing enforcement could not make an interim order requiring security to be provided without giving judgment on the appeal.
Beføjelsen til at træffe en sådan afgørelse er udelukket efter selve ordlyden af artikel 38, hvorefter den ret, der behandler appel- eller genoptagelsessagen, kan
The power to make an order ofthat kind was excluded by the wording of Article 38 which stated that the court with which the appeal was lodged could make 'en forcement' conditional on the provision of security, such enforcement being possi-
Det er desuden i strid med et af konventionens formål, at den pågældende ret træffer bestemmelse om sikkerhedsstillelse ved en foreløbig afgørelse, idet konventionen netop har til formål at gøre fuld byrdelsen af en retsafgørelse, der er afsagt i en anden kontraherende stat, så enkel og hurtig som mulig.
(continued 2) ble only after the dismissal of the appeal. Moreover, in their view, the exercise by the court with which the appeal had been lodged of the power to make an interim order requiring security to be provided was contrary to one of the objectives of the Conven tion which was intended precisely to render the procedure for the enforcement of a judgment given in another Contracting State as straightforward and as rapid as possi ble.
8 Den tyske regering er af den opfattelse, at en beføjelse for den ret, som behandler appelsagen, til at træffe bestemmelse om sikkerhedsstillelse som en foreløbig for holdsregel under appelsagen, kan forskåne skyldneren for de risici, som usikkerheden om sagens udfald i domsstaten medfører, da artikel 38 kun vedrører det tilfælde, at den afgørelse, der skal fuldbyrdes, endnu ikke har fået retskraft i domsstaten.
The German Government considered that the power of the court with which the appeal had been lodged to make an order for the provision of security during the appeal proceedings was such as to prevent the debtor from being exposed to risks in herent in the uncertainty surrounding the outcome of the proceedings in the State in which the original judgment was given, since Article 38 applied only where the judg ment to be enforced did not yet have the force of res judicata in the State in which it was given.
9 Under retsmødet har firmaet Wendel støttet dette synspunkt, idet det navnlig har gjort gældende, at mens artikel 38 omhandler det tilfælde, at den retsafgørelse, der skal fuldbyrdes, stadig kan anfægtes ved appel eller genoptagelse i domsstaten, finder artikel 39, som tillader anvendelsen af sikrende retsmidler som en foreløbig for holdsregel, kun anvendelse i de tilfælde, hvor denne retsafgørelse er blevet endelig efter domsstatens ret.
At the hearing, Wendel expressed its agreement with that view particularly on the ground that although Article 38 applied to cases where the judgment to be enforced could still be contested by an appeal in the State in which that judgment was given, Article 39, which authorized the adoption of interim protective measures, applied only in cases where that judgment had become final under the law of the State in which it was given.
I et tilfælde som det foreliggende er det derfor kun artikel 38, der kan finde anvendelse, og det er udelukket at anvende artikel 39.
In cases such as the present, therefore, only Article 38 was relevant whilst Article 39 was inapplicable.
io Det bemærkes først, at konventionen har til formål at begrænse de krav, der kan stilles ved fuldbyrdelsen af en retsafgørelse i en anden kontraherende stat.
It is appropriate to recall in the first place that the purpose of the Convention is to limit the number of requirements to which the enforcement of a judgment may be subjected in another Contracting State.
Med hen blik herpå fastsætter den en meget summarisk procedure for opnåelsen af fuldbyrdelsespåtegning, men giver dog samtidig den part, mod hvem fuldbyrdelsen begæres, mulighed for at anfægte afgørelsen ved appel eller genoptagelse.
The Convention accordingly provides for a very simple enforcement procedure whilst giving the party against whom enforce ment is sought an opportunity to lodge an appeal.
I modsætning til den indledende procedure med henblik på at opnå tilladelsen til fuldbyrdelse, er pro ceduren for den ret, der behandler appel- eller genoptagelsessagen, kontradiktorisk.
Unlike the initial proceedings concerning the decision authorizing enforcement, the proceedings on the appeal are adversary proceedings.
n Konventionens artikel 39 regulerer rettighederne for den part, som har opnået den tilladelse til fuldbyrdelse, der er genstand for appel.
Article 39 of the Convention governs the rights of the party who obtained the dec ision authorizing enforcement which is contested by the appeal.
Indtil der er truffet afgørelse i appelsagen, kan der af denne part ifølge bestemmelsen »kun anvendes sikrende retsmidler vedrørende den parts formuegoder, mod hvem fuldbyrdelsen begæres«.
Until judgment is given on that appeal, that party may, according to that provision, take only 'protective measures... against the property of the party against whom enforcement is sought.'
Heraf følger, at der ikke kan tages noget fuldbyrdelsesskridt, så længe den ret, der behandler appelsagen, endnu ikke har truffet afgørelse.
It follows that no enforcement measures may be taken until the court with which the appeal has been lodged gives judgment thereon.
12 Det er under denne synsvinkel, at konventionens artikel 38, stk. 2, må ses.
That is the context in which the second paragraph of Article 38 of the Conven tion, under which the court with which the appeal has been lodged may 'make en forcement conditional on the provision of such security as it shall determine', must be set.
Ifølge denne bestemmelse kan den ret, der behandler appel- eller genoptagelsessagen, »gøre fuldbyrdelsen betinget af, at der stilles en sikkerhed, som fastsættes af retten«.
The whole significance of that provision lies in the fact that, as soon as the court gives judgment on the appeal, the restrictions provided for by Article 39 cease to be applicable.
Denne bestemmelse stilles i relief af den omstændighed, at de begrænsninger, der er fastsat i artikel 39, ikke længere finder anvendelse fra det tidspunkt, hvor retten træffer afgørelse i appel- eller genoptagelsessagen ; der kan derfor tages fuldbyrdelsesskridt, når den afgørelse, der er truffet, stadig kan anfægtes ved en kassationsappel eller en »Rechtsbeschwerde« i henhold til artikel 37, stk. 2, og endog når den afgørelse, der er truffet i domsstaten, stadig kan appelleres, en situation, der udtrykkeligt er omhandlet i artikel 38.
Enforcement measures may therefore be taken while that judgment can still be contested by an appeal in cassation or by a Rechtsbeschwerde, in ac cordance with the second paragraph of Article 37, and while even the original judg ment given in the first State can still be contested by an appeal, which is a possibility
1968 - ARTIKEL 38 fortsat 3)
1968 - ARTICLE 38 continued 3) expressly provided for by Article 38.
13 Heraf følger, at konventionens artikel 38, stk. 2, skal fortolkes således, at en ret, der behandler en appel af den afgørelse, der tillader fuldbyrdelse, og som er truffet i medfør af konventionen, først kan gøre fuldbyrdelsen betinget af, at der stilles sikkerhed, når den træffer afgørelse i appelsagen.
3 It follows that the second paragraph of Article 38 of the Convention must be in terpreted as meaning that a court with which an appeal has been lodged against a decision authorizing enforcement, given pursuant to the Convention, may make en forcement conditional on the provision of security only when it gives judgment on the appeal.
Det andet spørgsmål (artikel 37)
Second question (Article 37)
14 Firmaet Brennero har anført, at den ensartede fortolkning af konventionen ville blive bragt i fare, hvis en foreløbig eller midlertidig afgørelse truffet af den ret, der behandler appel- eller genoptagelsessagen, ikke kunne anfægtes ved en kassationsappel eller en »Rechtsbeschwerde«.
4 Brennero observed that the uniform interpretation of the Convention would be jeopardized if an interim or interlocutory order issued by the court with which the appeal has been lodged could not be contested by an appeal in cassation or by a Rechtsbesehwerde.
Efter Kommissionens og den tyske regerings op fattelse er konventionens artikel 37, stk. 2, derimod entydig i den forstand, at der ifølge bestemmelsen kun kan indgives »Rechtsbeschwerde« i andledning af den en delige afgørelse i appel- eller genoptagelsessagen.
However, according to the Commission and the German Govern ment, the second paragraph of Article 37 of the Convention stated categorically that a Rechtsbesehwerde could be lodged only against the final judgment given on the appeal. peal.
15 Ifølge artikel 37, stk. 2, kan afgørelsen i appel- eller genoptagelsessagen kun an fægtes ved en kassationsappel og i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland ved en »Rechtsbeschwerde«.
5 The second paragraph of Article 37 provides that the judgment given on the appeal may be contested only by an appeal in cassation and, in the Federal Republic of Germany, by a Rechlsbeschwerde.
Efter konventionens almindelige opbygning, og på baggrund af, at et af dens væsentligste formål er at forenkle proceduren i fuldbyrdelsesstaten, kan denne bestemmelse ikke udstrækkes, således at den også tillader et retsmiddel mod en anden afgørelse end den endelige afgørelse i appel- eller genoptagelsessagen, som f.eks. et retsmiddel mod en procesledende eller foreløbig afgørelse om, at der skal foretages bevisførelse.
Under the general scheme of the Convention, and in the light of one of its principal objectives which is to simplify procedures in the State in which enforcement is sought, that provision cannot be extended so as to enable an appeal in cassation to be lodged against a judgment other than that given on the appeal, for instance against a preliminary or interlocutory order requiring preliminary inquiries to be made.
16 Det andet spørgsmål må derfor besvares med, at konventionens artikel 37, stk. 2, skal fortolkes således, at den kun tillader kassationsappel og i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland »Rechtsbeschwerde«, for så vidt angår afgørelsen i appelsagen.
6 Therefore, the answer to the second question must be that the second paragraph of Article 37 of the Convention must be interpreted as meaning that an appeal in cassation and, in the Federal Republic of Germany, a Rechtsbesehwerde may be lodged only against the judgment given on the appeal.
17 Hvis det svar, der er givet pá det andet spørgsmål, i den foreliggende sag kan føre Bundesgerichtshof til at afvise den »Rechtsbeschwerde«, der er indgivet i anledning af Oberlandesgericht's afgørelse, skønt denne afgørelse må anses for ulovlig i lyset af det svar, der er givet på det første spørgsmål, må Oberlandesgericht imidlertid, når den på ny behandler sagen, ophæve den foreløbige afgørelse, for så vidt som der herved er truffet bestemmelse om sikkerhedsstillelse, uden at der er truffet afgørelse i appelsagen.«
7 If, in the present case, the answer to the second question should lead the Bundesgerichtshof to declare the Rechtsbesehwerde lodged against the Oberlandesgericht's order inadmissible, while the order should be regarded as unlawful in the light of the answer to the first question, it is for the Oberlandesgericht, when the case again comes before it, to revoke the interim order in so far as it required security to be pro vided without giving judgment on the appeal." accordingly, the Court of Justice ruled as follows:
Artikel 37, stk. 2, i konventionen af 27. september 1968 skal fortolkes således,
The second paragraph of Article 38 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters must be interpreted as meaning that a court with which an appeal has
138 - Al fortsat 4) at den kun tillader kassationsappel og i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland »Rechtsbeschwerde«, for så vidt angår afgørelsen i appelsagen.«
The second paragraph of Article 37 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 must be interpreted as meaning that an appeal in cassation and, in the Federal Republic of Germany, a Rechtsbesehwerde may be lodged only against the judg ment given on the appeal."
Efter afsigelsen af denne dom blev hovedsagen for Bundesgerichtshof hævet, idet den omtalte »Rechtsbeschwerde« blev trukket tilbage.
Following this ruling the Rechtsbesehwerde before the Bundesgerichtshof was with drawn.
Oberlandesgericht Hamm ophævede på sin side i tilslutning til Domstolens dom ved kendelse af 11. december 1984 sin ken delse af 15. juni 1983 om, at Brennero skulle stille sikkerhed, og tillod ved kendelse af 27. december 1984 i medfør af § 23, stk. 1, i den tyske gennemførelseslov til konventionen Wendel at afværge fuldbyrdelsen ved at stille sikkerhed.
The Oberlandesgericht Hamm, for its part, by order of 11 December 1984, set aside its order of 15 July 1983 on the provision of security by Brennero and by an order of 27 December 1984 authorized Wendel under Paragraph 23 (1) of the German Law im plementing the Convention to avoid enforcement by providing security.
Ved kendelse af 19. juli 1985 (sag 20 W 39/83, RIW/AWD — Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft 1985, s. 973) stadfæstede Oberlandesgericht den af Wendel i medfør af kon ventionens artikel 36 påkærede afgørelse om tilladelse til fuldbyrdelse af Tribunale di Verona's arrestdekret af 17. juni 1983, men gjorde samtidig fuldbyrdelsen betinget af, at Brennero stillede sikkerhed.
In an order of 19 July 1985 in Case No 20 W 39/83 (RIW/AWD - Recht der Interna tionalen Wirtschaft 1985, p. 973), the Oberlandesgericht dismissed the appeal lodged by Wendel under Article 36 of the Convention against the order for the enforcement of the distraint order made by the Tribunale, Verona, on 17 June 1983, but at the same time made enforcement conditional on the provision of security by Brennero.
Oberlandesgericht støttede bestemmelsen om sikkerhedsstillelse på konventionens artikel 38, stk. 2, og anførte, at den sag om stadfæstelse af ar restdekretet af 17. juni 1983, der var iværksat i Italien i medfør af artikel 681 i den italienske Codice di procedura civile, og som stadig verserede, måtte sidestilles med ordinær appel, jfr. konventionens artikel 38, stk. 1.
The Oberlandesgericht based the order for the provision of security on the second paragraph of Article 38 of the Convention and held that proceedings instituted and still pending in Italy under Article 681 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure for the confirmation of the dis traint order of 17 June 1983 were to be regarded as an ordinary appeal within the mean ing of the second paragraph of Article 38 of the Convention.
Fuldbyrdelse — anfægtelse af fuldbyrdelsespåtegningen ved appel eller begæring om genoptagelse — den ret, der behandler appellen eller begæringen om genoptagelse kan kun kræve sikkerh steds s tilléis e (artikel 38, stk. 2), h vis der er indgivet ordinær appel eller begæring om genoptagelse af retsafgørelsen i domsstaten — kassationsanke i fransk ret er ikke ordi­nær appel eller begæring om genoptagelse
Enforcement — Appeal against the issue of an order for enforcement — Order for the provision of security by the court dealing with the appeal (second paragraph of Article 38) only if an ordinary appeal has been lodged against the judgment in the State in which thai judgment was given — Appeal in cassation in France is not an "ordinary" appeal
Ober­landesgericht stadfæstede afgørelsen om meddelelsen af fuldbyrdelsespåtegning, fordi dommen fra Cour d'appel efter fransk ret både var »retskraftig og eksigibel«.
The Oberlandesgericht dismissed the defend­ant's appeal against the order for enforcement because under French law the judgment of the Cour d'Appel was "final and enforceable".
Fuldbyrdelse — anfægtelse af fuldbyrdelsespåtegningen ved appel eller genoptagelse — sikkerhedsstillelse (artikel 38, stk. 2) — betingelser — udsættelse af afgørelsen (artikel 38, stk. 1) — betingelser
Enforcement — Appeal against order for enforcement — Provision of security (second paragraph of A rlicle 38) — Conditions — Stay of proceedings (first paragraph of A rlicle 38/ — Conditions
Dette appellerede det tyske firma til Oberlandesgericht Köln, hvor det gjorde gældende, at det i mellemtiden havde appelleret dommen fra den italienske dom­stol til Corte d'appello di Brescia.
The German company appealed against the order to the Oberlandesgericht Köln, stating that it had in the meantime appealed against the judgment of the Italian court of first instance to the Corte d'Appello di Brescia.
Derimod afviste Oberlandesgericht at udsætte sin afgørelse og anførte, at en udsættelse — under hensyn til reglen i konventionens artikel 39 — ville have den virkning, at der alene kunne anvendes sikrende retsmidler, men ikke gennemføres en eksekution.
The court dismissed the wider application for a stay of proceedings, holding that in view if Article 39 of the Convention the result of such a stay would be that in the meantime 10 enforcement measures could be taken other than protective measures.