natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Af den udtalelse, Den Videnskabelige Komité afgav den 15. november 1994, fremgår det, at den med fire stemmer mod tre havde antaget, at henset til bla. de foreliggende oplysninger opfyldte betegnelsen »feta« betingelserne for at kunne registreres i henhold til grundforordningen, navnlig dennes artikel 2, stk. 3.
In its opinion of 15 November 1994, the Scientific Committee expressed the view, by four votes in favour and three against, having regard in particular to the information supplied, that the name 'Feta' met the conditions for registration under the basic regulation, more particularly Article 2(3) thereof.
Den omtvistede forordning indeholder imidlertid ingen oplysninger eller nærmere præcisering af de hensyn, som — uanset de argumenter, visse medlemsstater havde fremført, dels i forbindelse med udarbejdelsen af det i grundforordningens artikel 3, stk. 3, omhandlede forslag til en liste over artsbetegnelser, dels i forbindelse med proceduren omkring vedtagelsen af den omtvistede forordning, således som denne er nærmere reguleret i grundforordningens artikel 15 - førte til, at Kommissionen fandt, at betegnelsen »feta« ikke er en artsbetegnelse og derfor kunne registreres.
However, the contested regulation contains no indication or clarification regarding the reasons for which, notwithstanding the arguments put forward by certain Member States either in the context of preparation of the draft list of generic names provided for in Article 3(3) of the basic regulation or in the procedure for adoption of the contested regulation, as governed by Article 15 of the basic regulation, the Commission was persuaded to consider that the name 'Feta' does not constitute a generic name and can therefore be registered.
I udtalelsen konkluderede Den Videnskabelige Komité med enstemmighed, at ud fra de oplysninger, der var forelagt den, er navnet »feta« som betegnelse for græsk ost ikke blevet en artsbetegnelse som omhandlet i grandforordningens artikel 3, stk. 1.
In the same opinion, the Scientific Committee unanimously concluded, on the basis of the documentation submitted to it, that the name 'Feta' for Greek cheese was not generic within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the basic regulation.
Da det i grandforordningens artikel 15 omhandlede udvalg ikke havde afgivet udtalelse inden for den frist, der var fastsat, forelagde Kommissionen forslaget for Rådet den 6. marts 1996, således som det er fastsat i forordningens artikel 15, stk. 4.
The committee provided for in Article 15 of the basic regulation did not give a decision on that proposal within the period appointed and the Commission therefore submitted it to the Council on 6 March 1996, as provided for by the fourth paragraph of Article 15 ofthat regulation.
Det må fastslås, at Kommissionen har bagatelliseret betydningen af de faktiske forhold i andre medlemsstater end oprindelsesstaten, og at den har frakendt de nationale retsforskrifter enhver betydning under anbringende af dels, at forholdene i oprindelsesmedlemsstaten må tillægges afgørende betydning, dels, at det forhold, at betegnelsen »feta« i andre medlemsstater har kunnet anvendes med henblik på markedsføring af lovligt fremstillet ost, ikke kan begrunde, at »feta« er blevet en artsbetegnelse.
It must be observed that the Commission minimised the importance to be attached to the situation existing in the Member States other than the State of origin and considered their national legislation to be entirely irrelevant on the grounds, first, that it is appropriate to attach primary importance to the situation existing in the Member State of origin and, second, that the fact that, in other Member States, the name 'Feta' may have been used for the marketing of lawfully produced cheese is no basis for concluding that that name has become generic.
Da Rådet ikke havde truffet afgørelse vedrørende forslaget inden for den i samme bestemmelses stk. 5 fastsatte frist på tre måneder, udstedte Kommissionen selv den omtvistede forordning den 12. juni 1996.
Since the Council did not give a decision on the proposal within the period of three months laid down in the fifth paragraph of that article, the Commission finally adopted the contested regulation itself on 12 June 1996.
I henhold til sidstnævnte forordning er betegnelsen »feta« registreret som BOB i medfør af grandforordningens artikel 2, stk. 3, der omfatter traditionelle, eventuelt geografiske, betegnelser.
It is common ground that the latter regulation registered the name 'Feta' as a PDO under Article 2(3) of the basic regulation, which applies to traditional names, geographical or otherwise.
Med hensyn til det første af disse argumenter må det først understreges, at det i grundforordningens artikel 3, stk. 1, udtrykkeligt er fastsat, at der for at fastslå, hvorvidt en betegnelse er blevet en artsbetegnelse, skal tages hensyn til alle faktorer, herunder nødvendigvis de udtrykkeligt opregnede, dvs. de faktiske forhold i den medlemsstat, hvor navnet har sin oprindelse, og i det traditionelle forbrugsområde, de faktiske forhold i andre medlemsstater samt de relevante nationale retsforskrifter eller EF-retsforskrifter.
With regard to the first of those arguments, it must be emphasised first that Article 3(1) of the basic regulation expressly requires that, in order to determine whether a name has become generic, account is to be taken of all factors, including always those expressly listed, namely the existing situation in the Member State in which the name originates and in areas of consumption, the existing situation in other Member States and the relevant national or Community laws.
For så vidt angår Kommissionens andet argument, hvorefter det i relation til grundforordningens artikel 3, stk. 1, tredje afsnit, ikke kan tillægges betydning, at der i flere andre medlemsstater end oprindelsesstaten længe har eksisteret nationale retsforskrifter, som indebærer, at betegnelsen »feta« lovligt kan anvendes, bemærkes for det første, at i henhold til grundforordningens artikel 7, stk. 4, andet led, er den omstændighed, at registreringen af en betegnelse, som en medlemsstat har ansøgt om, vil skade eksisterende produkter, som lovligt findes på markedet, en omstændighed, der kan
As regards the question whether the name 'Feta' must be regarded as a name that has become generic within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the basic regulation, the Court finds that the contested regulation confines itself to stressing, in the second recital in its preamble, that some of the names notified by the Member States to the Commission under Article 17 of the basic regulation were found to be in accordance with the provisions of that regulation and eligible to be registered and, in the third recital, to recalling that generic names are not registered.
For så vidt angår spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt betegnelsen »feta« må antages at være en betegnelse, der er blevet en artsbetegnelse som omhandlet i grandforordningens artikel 3, stk. 1, må det fastslås, at det i anden betragtning til den omtvistede forordning blot anføres, at nogle af de betegnelser, som medlemsstaterne havde fremsendt til Kommissionen i henhold til grundforordningens artikel 17, er i overensstemmelse med bestemmelserne i nævnte forordning og bør registreres, og i tredje betragtning anføres, at artsbetegnelser ikke kan registreres.
As regards the second argument, to the effect that, in the context of the third indent of Article 3(1) of the basic regulation, it is irrelevant that in several Member States other than the State of origin national rales have long existed which allow use of the name 'Feta', it must be borne in mind, first, that, under the second indent of Article 7(4) of the basic regulation, the fact that registration of a name at the request of a Member State might jeopardise the existence of products which are legally on the market constitutes a ground on which a statement of objection from another Member State may be admissible.
bevirke, at en indsigelsesmeddelelse fra en anden medlemsstat tages til følge.
products which are legally on the market and have therefore been legally marketed under that name in Member States other than the State of origin by which registration is applied for.
Ved registrering af en betegnelse for et produkt i henhold til grandforordningen skal der tages hensyn til eksisterende produkter, som lovligt findes på markedet, og som derfor har været lovligt markedsført under denne betegnelse i andre medlemsstater end oprindelsesstaten, der ansøger om registreringen.
The Commission's own submissions show that, when registering the name 'Feta', it took no account whatsoever of the fact that that name had been used for a considerable time in certain Member States other than the Hellenic Republic.
Det må fastslås, at det fremgår af Kommissionens egne argumenter, at den ved registreringen af betegnelsen »feta« ikke på nogen måde har taget hensyn til, at den pågældende betegnelse længe havde været anvendt i en række andre medlemsstater end Den Hellenske Republik
Even though Article 17(2) of the basic regulation expressly provides that Article 7 thereof is not applicable in the simplified registration procedure, a registration under that procedure also presupposes that the names conform with the substantive requirements of that regulation.
Når der ikke foreligger udtrykkelige bestemmelser om det modsatte, kan der således ikke på grundlag af den forenklede fremgangsmåde ske registrering af betegnelser, som ikke opfylder de materielle betingelser for registrering efter den almindelige fremgangsmåde for registrering.
In the context of procedures for registration of a name of a product under the basic regulation, account must be taken of the existence of
Præjudiciel »Bruxelles-konventionen — artikel 17 — værnetingsaftale — indgået i en form, der er anerkendt af sædvanen inden for international handel* (Domstolens plenum)
The Court takes the view that, on a proper construction of the Convention, the contracting parties' consent to the jurisdiction clause is presumed to exist where their conduct is consistent with a usage which governs the area of international trade or commerce in which they operate and of which they are, or ought to have been, aware.
Det første spørgsmål: parternes tiltrædelse af værnetingsklausulen
The ninth, fourth, fifth and eighth questions: usage in international trade or commerce
Ved kendelse af 24. oktober 1996 har Corte suprema di cassazione forelagt fjorten spørgsmål om fortolkningen af artikel 17 i konventionen af 27. september 1968, som ændret ved konventionen af 9. oktober 1978 om Kongeriget Danmarks, Irlands og Det Forenede Kongerige Storbritannien og Nordirlands tiltrædelse (herefter »konventionen«).
By these questions, the national court seeks to ascertain the countries in which a usage must be found to exist, the process by which it comes into being, the forms in which it must be publicised, and the consequences to be drawn, as to the existence of a usage in this area, from actions challenging the validity of jurisdiction clauses inserted in bills of lading.
Med det første spørgsmål ønsker den forelæggende ret nærmere bestemt oplyst, om konventionens artikel 17, som affattet ved tiltrædelseskonventionen af 9. oktober 1978, for så vidt som der deri henvises til begrebet »sædvanen«, og udtrykket »indgået« er benyttet, nødvendigvis forudsætter en konstatering af, at parterne har tiltrådt værnetingsklausulen.
The questions were raised in proceedings for compensation for damage allegedly caused during the unloading of goods carried under a number of bills of lading from Argentina to Italy, between Trasporti Castelletti Spedizioni Internazionali SpA ('Castelletti'), having its registered office in Milan, Italy, to which the goods were delivered, and Hugo Trumpy SpA ('Trumpy"), having its registered office in Genoa, Italy, in its capacity as agent for the vessel and for the carrier Lauritzen Reefers A/S ('Lauritzen'), whose registered office is in Copenhagen.
Ifølge Domstolen formodes de kontraherende parter at have tiltrådt værnetingsklausulen, når deres handlemåde er i overensstemmelse med en sædvane, der gælder inden for det område af den internationale handel, hvor de driver virksomhed, og hvis parterne har kendskab til eller burde have kendskab til sædvanen.
It is common ground that, in the main proceedings, the contract is one forming part of international trade or commerce.
Sagen føres mellem Trasporti Castelletti Spedizioni Internationali SpA (herefter »Castelletti«), Milano (Italien), som godset blev leveret til, og Hugo Trumpy SpA (herefter »Trampy«), Genova (Italien), som skibsagent for rederiet Lauritzen Reefers A/S (herefter »Lauritzen«), København.
It is apparent from the wording of the questions submitted that the national court seeks clarification of four factors affecting the validity of a jurisdiction clause which is drawn up in a form which accords with established practices (usages) — the third case mentioned in the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 17 of the Convention.
Niende, fjerde, femte og ottende spørgsmål: begrebet sædvane inden for international handel
The existence of a usage is to be determined not by reference to the law of one of the Contracting Parties or in relation to international trade or commerce in general, but in relation to the branch of trade or commerce in which the parties to the contract operate.
Det fremgår af ordlyden af de spørgsmål, der er forelagt, at den forelæggende ret udelukkende ønsker en præcisering af følgende fire forhold, der er afgørende for gyldigheden af en værnetingsklausul, som er indgået i en form, der er anerkendt af sædvanen, hvilket er det tredje tilfælde, der nævnes i konventionens artikel 17, stk. 1, andet punktum.
It is also clear from its questions that the national court is unsure whether there are any restrictions as to the choice of court under Article 17 of the Convention (third, seventh and sixth questions).
Med disse spørgsmål ønsker den forelæggende ret nærmere bestemt oplyst, i hvilke lande det skal konstateres, at der består en sædvane, på hvilken måde en sædvane dannes, hvordan den skal bekendtgøres, og hvilke konsekvenser, med hensyn til sædvanens eksistens på det pågældende område, det har, at der anlægges sager, hvorunder det bestrides, at værnetingsaftaler i konnossementer er gyldige.
There is a usage in the branch of trade or commerce in question where in particular a certain course of conduct is generally and regularly followed by operators in that branch when concluding contracts of a particular type.
Det fremgår endvidere af spørgsmålene, at den forelæggende ret ønsker oplyst, om der i forbindelse med konventionens artikel 17 eventuelt gælder begrænsninger med hensyn til valget af den ret, der udpeges (tredje, syvende og sjette spørgsmål).
By its first question, the national court is asking essentially whether Article 17 of the Convention, as amended by the Accession Convention of 9 October 1978, in so far as it refers to the notion of 'practices' (usages) whilst using the term 'concluded' [in the Italian version], necessarily
Det står i sagen for den nationale ret fast, at kontrakten er indgået inden for international handel.
The fact that a practice is generally and regularly observed by operators in the countries which play a prominent role in the branch of international trade or commerce in question can be evidence which helps to prove that a usage exists.
Spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt der består en sædvane, skal ikke afgøres i henhold til loven i én af de kontraherende stater og heller ikke skal afgøres i forhold til den internationale handel i almindelighed, men i forhold til den handelsbranche, inden for hvilken parterne driver virksomhed.
Since Article 17 of the Convention does not contain any reference to forms of publicity, the court finds that, although any publicity which might be given in associations or specialised bodies to the standard forms on which a jurisdiction clause appears may help to prove that a practice is generally and regularly followed, such publicity cannot be a requirement for establishing the existence of a usage.
om værnetingsklausulens faktiske fremtræden, herunder det sprog, den er affattet på, og det forhold, at den findes i en på forhånd udarbejdet formular, som ikke er underskrevet af den part, der ikke har udarbejdet den, er i overensstemmelse med en form, der er anerkendt af sædvanerne.
The actual or presumed awareness of a usage on the part of the parties to a contract can be made out, in particular, by showing either that the parties had previously had commercial or trade relations between themselves or with other parties operating in the sector in question, or that, in that sector, a particular course of conduct is sufficiently well known because it is generally and regularly followed when a particular type of contract is concluded, so that it may be regarded as being an established usage.
Det trettende, fjortende og tolvte spørgsmål: parternes kendskab til sædvanen
The second, eleventh and tenth questions: form which accords with practices'
Der består en sædvane inden for den pågældende handelsbranche, bl.a. når en bestemt handlemåde almindeligt og regelmæssigt følges af de erhvervsdrivende i branchen ved indgåelse af kontrakter af en bestemt type.
Article 17 is intended to lay down itself the conditions as to form which jurisdiction clauses must meet, so as to ensure legal certainty and to ensure that the parties have given their consent.
Med disse spørgsmål ønsker den forelæggende ret nærmere bestemt oplyst, først og fremmest hvilken part, der skal have kendskab til sædvanen, og om partens nationalitet har nogen betydning i denne sammenhæng, dernæst i hvilket omfang parten skal have kendskab til sædvanen, og endelig om de fortrykte formularer, der indeholder værnetingsklausuler, skal være bekendtgjort og i givet fald i hvilken form.
Given the Convention's silence on the means by which awareness of a usage may be proved, it must be held that, although any publicity which might be given in associations or specialised bodies to the standard forms containing jurisdiction clauses would make it easier to prove awareness, it cannot be essential for this purpose.
Den omstændighed, at en praksis almindeligt og regelmæssigt følges af de erhvervsdrivende i lande, som indtager en fremtrædende stilling i den pågældende branche inden for international handel, kan være et forhold, som gør det lettere at bevise, at der består en sædvane.
The validity of a jurisdiction clause may be subject to compliance with a particular condition as to form only if that condition is linked to the requirements of Article 17.
Da konventionens artikel 17 ikke indeholder oplysninger om bekendtgørelse af sædvanen, må det antages, at en eventuel bekendtgørelse af fortrykte formularer, der indeholder en νærη e t i ηgskl ausu 1, over for erhvervsorganisationer eller andre særlige institutioner ganske vist kan gøre det lettere at føre bevis for en praksis, der følges almindeligt og regelmæssigt, men at en sådan bekendtgørelse ikke kan kræves med henblik på at bevise, at der består en sædvane.
It is therefore for the national court to refer to the commercial usages in the branch of international trade or commerce concerned in order to determine whether the physical appearance of the jurisdiction clause, including the language in which it is drawn up, and its insertion in a standard form, which has not been signed by the party not involved in drawing it up, are consistent with the forms according with those usages.
Parterne må faktisk antages at have haft kendskab til sædvanen eller formodes at have haft kendskab til den, bl.a. når de tidligere har haft forretningsforbindelse indbyrdes eller med andre parter i den pågældende sektor, eller når en bestemt handlemåde er tilstrækkelig kendt inden for sektoren — fordi den almindeligt og regelmæssigt følges ved indgåelse af en bestemt type kontrakter - til at kunne betragtes som en fast brug.
By these questions, the national court seeks to ascertain whether there are, under Article 17 of the Convention, any limitations as to the choice of court. It asks whether it is necessary for the parties to choose a court having some link to the case, whether the court seised may review the validity of the clause as well as the intention of the party which inserted it, and whether the fact that the substantive provisions applicable before the chosen court tend to reduce that party's liability may affect the validity of the jurisdiction clause.
Det andet, ellevte og tiende spørgsmål: begrebet »en form, der er anerkendt*
The thirteenth, fourteenth and twelfth questions: the parties' awareness of the usage
Artikel 17 har til formål selv at fastsætte regler om værnetingsaftalers form af hensyn til retssikkerheden og for at sikre parternes samtykke.
The choice of court in a jurisdiction clause may be assessed only in the light of considerations connected with the requirements laid down by Article 17.
I mangel af oplysninger i konventionen om, hvilke bevismidler der kan benyttes til godtgørelse af, at der foreligger kendskab til en sædvane, må det antages, at en eventuel bekendtgørelse af fortrykte formularer, der indeholder en værnetingsklausul, over for erhvervsorganisationer eller andre særlige institutioner ganske vist kan gøre det lettere at føre beviset, men at dette ikke kan udgøre et nødvendigt middel hertil.
By these questions, the national court seeks to ascertain, first, which party must be aware of the usage and whether his nationality is relevant in this regard, next, what degree of awareness that party must have of the usage and, finally, whether any publicity must be given to the standard forms containing jurisdiction clauses and, if so, in what form.
Det kan kun være en betingelse for en værnetingsklausuls gyldighed, at et bestemt formkrav er overholdt, hvis betingelsen har sammenhæng med de krav, der stilles i artikel 17.
In a situation such as that in the main proceedings, any further review of the validity of the clause and of the intention of the party which inserted it must be excluded and substantive rules of liability applicable in the chosen court must not affect the validity of the jurisdiction clause.
Det må således påhvile den nationale domstol, ud fra handelssædvanerne i den pågældende branche inden for international handel, at afgøre,
Since the validity of the clause under Article 17 must be assessed by reference to the relationship between the original parties, it follows that it is those parties whose awareness of the usage must
»Artikel 17, stk 1, andet punktum, tredje tilfælde, i konventionen af 27. september 1968 om retternes kompetence og om fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser i borgerlige sager, herunder handelssager, som ændret ved konventionen af 9. oktober 1978 om Kongeriget Danmarks, Irlands og Det Forenede Kongerige Storbritannien og Nordirlands tiltrædelse, skal fortolkes således:
'The third case mentioned in the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 17 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, is to be interpreted as follows:
De kontraherende parter formodes at have tiltrådt værnetingsklausulen, når deres handlemåde er i overensstemmelse med en sædvane inden for det område af den internationale handel, hvor de driver virksomhed, og hvis parterne har kendskab til eller burde have kendskab til sædvanen.
The contracting parties' consent to the jurisdiction clause is presumed to exist where their conduct is consistent with a usage which governs the area of international trade or commerce in which they operate and of which they are, or ought to have been, aware.