natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Den i tilslutning til denne dom trufne afgørelse i sagen for den nationale ret er omtalt nedenfor under 1­17.1.1 — Β 13.
For the decision given in the main action following this judgment, see 1-17.1.1 — Β 13.
(Jfr. også 1­17.1.2 ­ B 21, 22; 1­17.3 ­ B 3)
(See also 1-17.1.2 -
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — væmetingsklausul i handelsagentkontrakt — ugyldig efter intern ret — senere interne bestemmelsers forrang for konventionen
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction clause in agency agreement — Void under national law — Precedence of a subsequent national provision over the Conven­tion
Sagsøgeren, tidligere agent for Schrottverwertung GmbH, havde anlagt sag med påstand om betaling af skyldige provisioner samt opsigelsesgodtgørelse.
The plaintiff, formerly an agent for Schrottverwertung GmbH, claimed arrears of com­mission and compensation for termination of his contract.
Modparten, det tyske selskab, rejste indsigelse mod rettens kompetence og påberåbte sig en klausul i kontrak­ten (der var indgået i august 1969), hvorefter en tysk ret skulle være kompetent vedrø­rende eventuelle tvistigheder.
The German undertaking en­tered an appearance and objected to the jurisdiction of the court, relying on a clause in the contract, concluded in August 1969, which provided that a German court should have jurisdiction in any disputes.
Selv om man antog, at kontraktsbestemmelsen var blevet gyldig ved ikrafttrædelsen af konventionens artikel 17, stk. 1, måtte den italienske ret alligevel anse sig for kompetent. I henhold til artikel 413 i Codice de procedura civile, som affattet ved lov nr. 533 af 11. august 1973, var bl.a. klausuler i agentkontrakter (for hvilke retten i henhold til artikel 409, nr. 3, i Codice di procedura civile var kompetent som arbejdsret), hvorved den indenlandske kompetence blev fraveget, ugyldige.
Even if it were held that the invalidity of the clause was cured by the entry into force of the first para­graph of Article 17 of the Convention, the Italian court had still to declare itself to have jurisdiction.
Denne regel gik forud for den tidligere lov nr. 804 af 21. juni 1971, hvorved konventionen rati­ficeredes, for så vidt kompetencen også på de i artikel 409 i Codice di procedura civile nævnte sagsområder i henhold til konventionen kunne fraviges ved aftale.
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.
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — væmetingsklausul i eneforhandlingsaftale — præceptive væmetingsregler i belgisk ret — konventionen tillagdes forrang
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of Jurisdiction — Jurisdielion clause in exclusive dealership agreement — Mandatory provision of Belgian law on jurisdiction — Convention takes precedence
(fortsat 1) ventionen.
< continued D
Fællesskabsretten gik forud for hvilken som helst national lov.
Community law took precedence over any form of national law.
Konventio­nen indførte et fælles og komplet retssystem inden for rammerne af fællesskabsretten, som hverken kunne udvides eller begrænses; en opretholdelse af eksorbitante værneting i national ret ville være i direkte modstrid med Fællesskabets lovgivningsmyndigheds hensigt.
The Convention established a uniform, self-contained system within the context of Community law, which could neither be added to nor subtracted from: to maintain exorbitant jurisdiction under national law would directly contradict the intention of the Community legislature.
Retten udtalte videre, at konventionens artikel 17 finder anvendelse, så snart der fore­ligger en værnetingsaftale til fordel for en konventionsstats domstole.
Article 17 was applicable whenever there was an agreement conferring jurisdiction on the court of a Contracting State.
Det forholdt sig ifølge retten kun anderledes i de i artikel 17, stk. 2, udtømmende opregnede undtagelses­tilfælde.
The only exceptions to that rule were those exhaustively enumerated in the second paragraph of Article 17.
Eneforhandlingsaftaler hører ikke til de i artikel 12, 15 og 16 nævnte retsområ­der, for hvilke prorogation er udelukket.
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.
Da gyldighedsbetingelserne (artikel 17, stk. 1) for en værnetingsaftale var opfyldt, var den af parterne udpegede ret kompetent med hensyn til enhver tvist vedrørende eneforhandlingsaftalen, herunder tvistigheder vedrø­rende dennes annullation, og enhver anden ret måtte erklære ikke at være kompetent.
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 connection with the exclusive distribu­torship agreement in question, including disputes resulting from its termination. Any other court had to decline jurisdiction.
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — væmetingsklausul i eneforhandlingsaftale — præceptive værnetingsregler i belgisk ret — aftalen gyldig
Jurisdielion — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Jurisdielion clause in exclusive distributorship agreement — Mandatory provision of Belgian law on jurisdiction — Validity of the agree­ment upheld
Den tyske sagsøger havde overdraget den belgiske sagsøgte eneforhandlingen af sine produkter i Belgien og Luxembourg.
The German plaintiff had granted the Belgian defendant the exclusive right to sell its products in Belgium and Luxembourg.
Under den påfølgende sag, hvor sagsøgeren fik medhold i to instanser, påstod sagsøgeren sagsøgte tilpligtet at anerkende, af aftalen var ophørt ved sagsøgerens opsigelse.
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.
Under revisionsanken påstod sagsøgte afvisning på grund af tyske retters manglende internationale kompetence. Bundesgerichtshof stad­fæstede afgørelsen.
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.
Sagsøgtes indsigelse om, at tysk kompe­tence 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.
The defendant's objection that the jurisdiction of the German courts had been excluded by the Belgian law of 27 July 1961.
I øvrigt indeholdt den belgiske lov ingen værnetingsaftaler vedrørende sager anlagt af leveran­døren, hvorom den foreliggende sag drejede sig.
13 April 1971 on the unilateral termination of exclusive sales agreements for an indefinite period could not be upheld.
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.
Although that law estab­lished in favour of sole distributors an additional jurisdiction, which under Belgian law could not be excluded by agreement between the parties, it did not forbid agreements
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — værnetingsaftale, hvorefter parterne kun kan sag­søges ved retterne i deres hjemstat — gyldighed — retsvirkninger — udelukkelse af 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 own Slate — Permissible — Effects — Exclusion of a set-off connected with the legal relationship in dispute — Conditions
I denne sag havde Bundesgerichtshof forelagt EF­Domstolen to spørgsmål om fortolk­ningen af konventionens artikel 17, stk. 1, som Domstolen besvarede ved dom af 9. no­vember 1978 (sag 23/78; jfr. ovenfor under 1­17.1.1 — A 1, også vedrørende de faktiske omstændigheder og sagens hidtidige forløb).
In this case the Bundesgerichtshof had referred two questions to the Court of Justice of the European Communities on the interpretation of the first paragraph of Article 17 of the Convention. The Court of Justice answered those questions in its judgment of 9 No­vember 1978 (Case 23/78, supra 1-17.1.1 — A I, where a summary of the facts and pre­vious procedure may be found).
Bundesge­richtshof tiltrådte dette synspunkt og udtalte, at spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt der kunne fo­retages modregning under sagen, var et processuelt spørgsmål, som kun kunne bedøm­mes efter tysk procesret.
The Bundesgerichtshof confirmed that view and held that the admissibility of a set-off was a question of procedural law and as such was governed sole­ly by German law.
Ifølge denne kan modregning udelukkes ved en gyldig aftale mellem parterne.
Under German law a set-off could be excluded by a valid agreement between the parties.
Appelretten havde med føje opfattet aftalen om, at hver af de to parter kun kunne sagsøges ved retterne i deres bopælsstat, som en sådan aftale om udelukkelse af modregning.
The Oberlandesgericht had rightly seen such a contractual exclu­sion of a set-off in the agreement whereby each of the parties could be sued only in the courts of its own State.
Ifølge den præjudicielle afgørelse fra EF­Domstolen var konventionens artikel 17 ikke til hinder for en sådan værnetingsaftale; ifølge Domstolens afgørelse måtte det bero på en fortolkning af aftalen, om det også var udelukket at foretage mod­regning med en af aftalen omfattet fordring ved en anden ret end den, der havde kompe­tencen til at behandle sagen.
According to the preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice, Arti­cle 17 of the Convention permitted such a jurisdiction agreement. The question whether such an agreement prevented a set-off connected with the original claim from being pleaded was, according to the judgment of the Court of Justice, to be determined by in­terpretation of the agreement.
For at udelukke modregning talte også, at der i modsat fald ville opstå en dobbelt ulempe for den part, der først anlagde sag; denne part, der ifølge aftalen allerede var tvunget til at anlægge sag ved en fremmed ret, måtte, hvis modregning blev tilladt, også afværge modpartens krav ved den fremmede ret, selv om disse krav ifølge aftalen kun kunne gøres gældende ved en ret i førstnævntes bopælsstat. Endelig forekom det heller ikke sagligt korrekt i medfør af den for så vidt klare væmetingsklausul at udelukke kon­
A further argument against allowing a set-off to be pleaded was provided by the twofold disadvantage which would otherwise be inflicted on the original plaintiff: in addition to being compelled, by virtue of the agreement, to sue in a foreign court, it must also, if the defendant were allowed to plead a set-off, defend itself in the foreign court against claims made by the other party which, under the agreement, were actionable only in the courts of its own State.
(fortsat 1) trasøgsmål fra at blive behandlet ved retten i den sagsøgte parts bopælsstat, men at tilla­de, at de samme modkrav blev gjort gældende ved modregning.
CONVENTION'OF 27.9. 1968 ­ ARTICLE 17(1) continued 11 iroceedings in the defendant's State, in accordance with the clear terms of the jurisdic­ιοη clause, butto allow a set­off tobe pleaded in pursuance of the same claim.
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — overtagelse af en betalingsforpligtelse ved aftale — en væmetingsklausul aftalt mellem parterne i det underliggende forretnings­forhold fandt ikke anvendelse
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of Jurisdiction — Contract whereby one party under­takes to pay a debt owed to the other parly — No application of a jurisdiction clause agreed upon between the parties to the original transaction
Sagsøgte, et selskab med hjemsted i Frankrig, havde ved skriftlig aftale af 28. maj 1973 over for sagsøgeren påtaget sig en betalingsforpligtelse, som hidrørte fra sagsøgerens forretningsforbindelse med et andet fransk selskab, hvis direktør var den samme som direktøren for det sagsøgte selskab.
'he defendant, a French company, had undertaken with the plaintiff, in a written agree­ient of 28 May 1973, to pay it a sum of money which was owed as a result of previous 'ansactions with another French company which had the same manager as the defend­nt.
Da der ikke fandt nogen betaling sted, anlagde sag­søgeren sag ved Landgericht Frankfurt am Main under henvisning til en værnetings­klausul i sine almindelige forretningsbetingelser.
No payment took place and the plaintiff brought an action in the Landgericht rankfurt am Main in reliance on a jurisdiction clause in its general conditions of busi­ess.
Landgericht erklærede sig kompetent med den begrundelse, at sagsøgte sammen med den hidtidige skyldner hæftede for den fordring, der var blevet gjort gældende, og som følge heraf kunne sagsøges dér, hvor den hidtidige skyldner kunne have været sagsøgt.
The court held that it had jurisdiction on the ground that the defendant was jointly able with the previous debtor and could therefore be sued where the previous debtor ould have been sued.
Sagsøgerens almindelige forretnings­betingelser, hvorefter Frankfurt var værneting, var blevet en del af aftalen i forhold til den hidtidige skyldner.
The plaintiffs general conditions of business, which conferred jrisdiction on the courts in Frankfurt, had been incorporated into the contract with the revious debtor.
Bortset herfra var det utilladeligt, at sagsøgte påberåbte sig ret­tens manglende kompetence uden at have realitetsindsigelser.
Apart from that, it was held to be improper of the defendant to plead /ant of jurisdiction when it had no substantive defence.
Sagsøgte blev herefter dømt til at betale nogle nærmere bestemte beløb.
The defendant was ordered to ay certain sums of money.
Sagsøgte ankede dommen og fik medhold.
in appeal against that ¡udgment was successful.
Oberlandesgericht udtalte, at de tyske retter savnede kompetence, da sagsøgte ifølge konventionens artikel 2 skulle sagsøges i Frank­rig.
The Oberlandesgericht held that the jerman courts had no jurisdiction since the defendant must be sued in France in acc­ordance with Article 2 of the Convention.
Der var ikke kommet nogen værnetingsaftale i stand mellem parterne i artikel 17's forstand.
There was no jurisdiction agreement between ie parties within the meaning of Article 17 of the Convention.
Det var ubestrideligt, at der ikke var indgået en udtrykkelig, skriftlig værne­tingsaftale.
It was common ground iät no express agreement in writing had been entered into.
Den skriftlige aftale af 28. maj 1973 indeholdt hverken en aftale om, hvor
The written agreement of 8 May 1973 contained neither a provision stating where proceedings were to be brought ι the event of a dispute nor an express reference to the plaintiffs general conditions
Henvisningen til den manglende kompetence kunne heller ikke anses for utilladelig retsudøvelse.
Nor could the plea of want of jurisdiction be regarded as an improper exercise of a right.
Det kunne ikke sluttes, at der var tale om retsmisbrug, alene af den kends­gerning, at en sagsøgt påberåbte sig rettens manglende kompetence uden selv at frem­føre holdbare indvendinger mod kravet.
The mere fact that the defendant objected to the jurisdiction of the court without plead­ing any valid defence to the substantive claim could not justify the inference that it was abusing its right.
I øvrigt måtte betingelserne for at kunne tale om retsmisbrug i det foreliggende tilfælde være så meget strengere, som det ikke drejede sig om en anden rets stedlige kompetence, men om en udenlandsk rets kompetence.
Moreover, the requirements which determined when it might be said that a right was being abused must be interpreted particularly strictly in the present case, since it was not the jurisdiction of another domestic court which was postulated, but that of a foreign court.
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — manglende skriftlig accept af værnetings klausu­len fra sagsøgtes side — sagsøgte ikke bundet, selv om selskabet var indtrådt i kontraktsfor­holdet mellem sagsøgeren og en tredjemand
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — No written acceptance of the jurisdiction clause by lhe defendant — Defendant not bound, despite its succession to the contractual relationship between the plaintiff and a third party
En i 1976 mellem firmaet Poly Roermond BV og det belgiske selskab Bouwkantoor V. Teerlinck indgået aftale indeholdt følgende væmetingsklausul : »I tilfælde af tvister skal nederlandsk ret finde anvendelse; Rechtbank Maastricht har kompetencen.« Poly Roermond anlagde sag mod Tisos Belgium ved Rechtbank Maastricht og anførte, at sagsøgte var indtrådt i aftalen af 1976 og følgelig bundet af værnetingsaftalen.
A contract entered into in 1976 between Poly Roermond BV and the Belgian company Bouwkantoor V. Teerlinck contained the following jurisdiction clause: "In the event of dispute between the parties the law of the Netherlands shall be applicable; the Recht­bank, Maastricht, shall have jurisdiction to hear any such dispute." Poly Roermond brought proceedings before that court against Tisos Belgium, arguing that the defendant had succeeded to the rights and obligations of the other party under the 1976 contract and was thus bound by the agreement on jurisdiction.
Sagsøgte anså Rechtbank Maastricht for inkompetent, da værnetingsaftalen ikke var indgået ud­trykkeligt og skriftligt mellem dette selskab og sagsøgeren, selv om aftalen mellem de oprindelige parter i aftalen ville opfylde kravene i konventionens artikel 17.
The defendant argued that the court seised had no jurisdiction on the ground that the jurisdiction clause had not been agreed in writing between it and the plaintiff, even assuming that the requirements of Article 17 of the Convention had been fulfilled at the time of the agreement between the original parties to the contract.
Retten fastslog, at dens kompetence udelukkende kunne følge af konventionens artikel 17.1 den konkrete sag var betingelserne i artikel 17, der skal fortolkes snævert, ikke op­fyldt, da aftalen ikke indeholdt nogen viljeserklæring fra sagsøgtes side, og denne heller ikke på anden måde skriftligt havde bekræftet, at værnetingsklausulen gjaldt i forholdet mellem sagsøgte og sagsøgeren.
The court held that in the circumstances it could derive jurisdiction only from Article 17 of the Convention.
Det ville heller ikke ændre noget, hvis sagsøgte med sag­søgerens samtykke var indrådt i det omtvistede kontraktforhold mellem sagsøgeren og Teerlinck. Selv om en sådan indtræden retligt set ville være mulig, betød dette ikke, at
The conditions for the application of Article 17 must be interpreted strictly, and in this case they were not fulfilled, since the contract contained no expres­sion of intention on the part of the defendant and the defendant had not acknowledged in writing the validity of the jurisdiction clause in relations between it and the plaintiff.
1­17.1.1 ­ Β 15 fortsat 1) den indtrædende part også ville være bundet af værnetingsklausulen, da det jo ikke kunne forudsættes, at denne herved stiltiende havde givet afkald på fordelen ved, at sagen blev indbragt for den ret, der var kompetent i henhold til konventionen. Dette ville stride mod konventionens formål.
The result would not be altered if it were held that the defendant had succeeded to the contractual relationship between the plaintiff and Teerlinck with the plaintiffs consent; assuming such a succession in interest to be possible in law, it would not mean that the new party was also bound by the jurisdiction clause, since it could not be assumed tacit­ly to have renounced its right to be heard by the court which would otherwise have juris­diction under the Convention.
Retten erklærede sig inkompetent til at træffe afgørelse i den af Poly Roermond anlagte sag.
The court held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the action brought by Poly Roermond.
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — væmetingsklausul i konnossement — gyl­dighed — den kompetente ret ikke tilstrækkeligt klart angivet — ordningen efter belgisk ret (sølovens artikel 91)
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Jurisdiction clause in bill of lading — Effect — No clear determination of the court declared to have jurisdiction — Applica­tion of Belgian law (Article 91 of the Shipping Law)
Et parti malt var blevet afskibet fra Antwerpen til Cameroun med fragtskibet »Hans Ol­dendorff«, og der var blevet udstedt et konnossement i den havn, hvor godset var blevet indlastet.
A consignment of malt was shipped from Antwerp to Cameroon on board the vessel "Hans Oldendorff' under a bill of lading issued in the port of loading.
Ifølge konnossementets § 3 skulle retterne på det sted, hvor bortfragteren havde sin hovedvirksomhed, være kompetente.
Article 3 of the bill of lading conferred jurisdiction on the courts of the main place of business of the carrier.
Efter skibets ankomst til Douala's havn (Cameroun) i juni 1975 blev der konstateret mangler ved og skader på ladningen, på grund af hvilke ladningsejerne gjorde krav gældende over for bortfragteren.
When the ship arrived in Douala (Cameroon) in June 1975 deficiencies and damage to the cargo were discovered, and the persons having an interest in the cargo claimed against the carrier.
Som sagsø­gere ved retten i Antwerpen optrådte det engelske forsikringsselskab The Atlas Insur­ance Company Ltd. og seks andre forsikringsgivere med hjemsted i forskellige lande inden for og uden for Fællesskabet, som havde udbetalt erstatning til deres forsikringsta­gere, samt to camerounske selskaber, nemlig indehaveren af konnossementet og lad­ningsejeren, som varerne var bestemt for.
Proceedings were brought before the court in Antwerp by the English insurance company, Atlas Insurance Co. Ltd, by six other insurers estab­lished in various countries both within and outside the EEC and by two companies in­corporated under the Law of Cameroon, namely the holder of the bill of lading and the consignee.
De sagsøgte var et rederi i København og to i Lübeck (Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland).
The defendants were three shipping companies, one established in Copenha­gen and two in Lübeck (Federal Republic of Germany).
De sagsøgte rederier anså Rechtbank for inkompetent på grundlag af konnossementet §3, hvorefter retterne i København havde kompetencen, da København var det sted, hvor bortfragteren havde sin hovedvirksomhed. Denne væmetingsklausul var bindende i henhold til konventionens artikel 17.
The defendants argued that the Rechtbank had no jurisdiction under Article 3 of the bill of lading, which conferred jurisdiction on the courts of Copenhagen, as the main place of business of the carrier.
Sagsøgerne anså klausulen for ugyldig, da den var i strid med den belgiske sølovs artikel 91, der var en del af belgisk ordre public; desuden var det ikke tilstrækkeligt klart angivet, hvilken ret der var kompetent, og kon­ventionens artikel 17 fandt ikke anvendelse, fordi Danmark på dette tidspunkt endnu ikke havde tiltrådt konventionen og heller ikke siden har ratificeret den.
The plaintiffs argued that the clause was void, since it was con­trary to Article 91 of the Belgian Shipping Law, the application of which was a matter of public policy.
(fortsat I) var erklæret kompetent, ville anvende den belgiske sølovs artikel 91 i overensstemmelse med belgisk retspraksis og teori.
Secondly, it had not been proved that the court declared to have jurisdiction in this case would apply Article91 of the Belgian Shipping Law in accordance with Belgian case­law and legal theory.
For så vidt det for det tredje i den foreliggende sag var muligt at påberåbe sig konventionens artikel 17, fandt denne »dog ikke anvendelse på konnossementer, fordi disse ikke opfylder de formkrav, der er opstillet i konventionen for aftaler, der falder ind under dennes bestemmelser«.
Thirdly, in so far as it was possible to rely on Article 17 of the Convention in this case, that article was in any event not applicable to bills of lading, since they did not fulfil the formal require­ments laid down in the Convention for the agreements to which it applied.