natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Herved anførte den nederlandske ret navnlig, at den på den ene side i medfør af konventionens artikel 26 skulle anerkende den belgiske dom, men at den fremgangsmåde, som sagsøgeren havde valgt, på den anden side efter neder landsk ret var billigere for parterne end fremgangsmåden efter konventionens artikel 31 ff., hvorefter der for præsidenten for den kompetente Arrondissementsrechtbank skulle fremsætte en begæring om at forsyne den belgiske rets afgørelse med en fuldbyrdelsespåtegning.
The Kantonrechter, having heard the defendant, held that the application was admissible and gave judgment on the substance of the case in the same terms as the Belgian court. In so doing, the Dutch court took the view, on the one hand, that it was re­quired to recognize the Belgian judgment under Article 26 of the Convention but that, on the other, under the legislation of the Netherlands, the procedure chosen by the appli­cant was less expensive for the parties than the procedure under Articles 31 et seq. of the Convention would have been.
Anklagemyndigheden ved Hoge Raad indgav for samme ret begæring om kassation af den af Kantongerecht afsagte dom med den begrundelse, at sidst nævnte ret burde have afvist sagen, da fremgangsmåden i konventionens artikel 31 var sagsøgerens eneste middel til fuldbyrdelse af den belgiske rets afgørelse.
Under the latter procedure an application for an order for the enforcement of the judgment delivered by the Belgian court would have been brought before the President of the Arrondissementsrechtbank which had jurisdiction.
Hoge Raad an modede ved dom af 7. maj 1976 i det væsentlige Domstolen om at udtale, om konventionen er til hinder for, at en sagsøger, der i en kontraherende medlemsstat har opnået en
The Attorney-General of the Hoge Raad brought an appeal against the judgment of the Kantonrechter before the Hoge Raad on the ground that the Kantonrechter ought to have declared the application inadmissible, because the procedure under Article 31 of the Convention is the only means available to the applicant for the purpose of enforcing the judgment of the Belgian court. The Hoge Raad asked the Court by a judgment of
(fortsat 1) for ham gunstig afgørelse, som i henhold til konventionens artikel 31 kan forsynes med fuldbyrdelsespåtegning i en anden kontraherende stat, for en ret i denne anden stat ned lægger påstand om, at sagens anden part dømmes til noget, hvortil han allerede er dømt i den førstnævnte stat.
7 May 1976, in substance, to rule whether the Convention prevents a plaintiff who has obtained a judgment in his favour in a Contracting State, being a judgment for which an order for enforcement under Article 31 of the Convention may issue in another Contract­ing State, from making an application to a court in that other State for a judgment against the other party in the same terms as the judgment delivered in the first State.
Domstolen udtalte herom (i præmisserne 7—16):
In reply to that question the Court of Justice held as follows (paragraphs 7 to 16 of the decision):
»7 Ifølge konventionens artikel 26, stk. 1 skal 'retsafgørelser, der er truffet i en kon traherende stat, ... anerkendes i de øvrige kontraherende stater, uden at der stilles krav om anvendelse af en særlig fremgangsmåde' ;
The first paragraph of Article 26 of the Convention provides: 'A judgment given in a Contracting State shall be recognized in the other Contracting States without any special procedure being required'.
8 selv om artiklerne 27 og 28 indeholder visse undtagelser fra denne pligt til anerkendelse, bestemmes det ikke desto mindre i artikel 29, at 'den udenlandske retsafgørelse kan i intet tilfælde efterprøves med hensyn til sagens realitet'.
Although Articles 27 and 28 lay down certain exceptions to this duty of recog­nition. Article 29 nevertheless provides that 'under no circumstances may a for­eign judgment be reviewed as to its substance'.
9 Når en retssag admitteres, skal den ret, for hvilken sagen er forelagt, træffe en realitetsafgørelse, hvilket vil kunne medføre, at retten træffer afgørelse i strid med en ældre udenlandsk dom og således tilsidesætter forpligtelsen til at anerkende den ; io det ville derfor ikke kunne forenes med de nævnte bestemmelsers indhold, om et søgsmål, der har samme genstand og samme parter som en sag, som en ret i en anden kontraherende stat allerede har afgjort, tages under realitetsbehandling.
When an application for a review as to substance is declared admissible, the court before which the application is heard is required to decide whether it is well founded, a situation which could lead that court to conflict with a previous for­eign judgment and, therefore, to fail in its duty to recognize the latter.
n Det følger ligeledes af konventionens artikel 21, at en sag som den, der er anlagt ved Kantongerecht i Boxmeer, ikke kan forenes med konventionens målsætning, idet artiklen bestemmer, at såfremt krav, 'der har samme genstand og hviler på samme retlige grundlag, fremsættes mellem de samme parter for retter i forskellige kontraherende stater', er enhver anden ret end den, ved hvilken sagen først er anlagt, forpligtet til at erklære sig inkompetent til fordel for denne ret;
It also results from Article 21 of the Convention, which covers cases in which proceedings 'in­volving the same cause of action and between the same parties are brought in the courts of different Contracting States' and requires that a court other than the first seised shall decline jurisdiction in favour of that court, that proceedings such as those brought before the Kantonrechter of Boxmeer are incompatible with the objectives of the Convention.
13 Endelig ville en anerkendelse af en dobbelt behandling af hovedsagen, således som det er sket i den foreliggende sag, kunne føre til, at kreditor på grundlag af en og samme fordring forsynes med to eksigible retsafgørelser.
That provision is evidence of the concern to prevent the courts of two Con­tracting States from giving judgment in the same case.
14 Denne opfattelse afkræftes ikke af det forhold, at den i konventionens artikel 31 ff nævnte fremgangsmåde i det foreliggende tilfælde på grund af de nationale retsregler, som skal finde anvendelse, kan vise sig at være dyrere end en ny sag vedrørende realiteten;
Finally, to accept the duplication of main actions such as has occurred in the present case might result in a creditor's possessing two orders for enforcement on the basis of the same debt.
15 det skal i så henseende bemærkes, at konventionen, der i henhold til sin præambel har til formål 'at tilvejebringe en forenkling af formaliteterne vedrørende gensidig anerkendelse og fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser', burde foranledige de kontraherende stater til at drage omsorg for, at omkostningerne ved den i konventionen an viste fremgangsmåde fastsættes således, at de opfylder dette hensyn til forenkling.
The fact that there may be occasions on which, according to the national law applicable, the procedure set out in Articles 3 1 el seq. of the Convention may be found to be more expensive than bringing fresh proceedings on the substance of the case does not invalidate these considerations.
16 Herefter må spørgsmålet fra Hoge Raad i Nederlandene besvares bekræftende.«
In this respect, it must be observed that the Convention, which, in the words of the preamble thereto, is intended 'to secure the simplification of formalities governing the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments of courts
Domstolen kendte herefter for ret:
Accordingly, the Court of Justice ruled as follows:
»Konventionen af 27. september 1968 om retternes kompetence og om fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser i borgerlige sager, herunder handelssager, er til hinder for, at en part, der i en kontraherende medlemsstat har opnået en for ham gunstig retsafgørel­se, som i henhold til konventionens artikel 31 kan forsynes med fuldbyrdelsespåteg­ning i en anden kontraherende stat, ved en ret i denne sidste stat nedlægger påstand om, at den anden part i sagen dømmes til noget, hvortil han allerede er dømt i den førstnævnte stat.«
"The provisions of the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judg­ments in Civil and Commercial Matters of 27 September 1968 prevent a party who has obtained a judgment in his favour in a Contracting State, being a judgment for which an order for enforcement under Article 31 of the Convention may issue in another Contracting State, from making an application to a court in that other State for a judgment against the other party in the same terms as the judgment delivered in the first State."
Den afgørelse i sagen for den nationale ret, der blev truffet i tilslutning til denne dom, er omtalt under 1­25.0 — Β 1.
For the decision given in the main proceedings following upon this judgment see 1-25.0 — Β 1, infra.
Anerkendelse og fuldbyrdelse — udsættelse af afgørelsen i tilslutning til ordinær appel eller genoptagelse i domsstaten (artiklerne 30 og 38) — begrebet »ordinær appel eller genopta­gelse« — selvstændigt begreb i konventionen — begrebsbestemmelse
Recognition and enforcement — Stay of proceedings following the lodging of an ordinary appeal in the Stale in which judgment was given (Articles 30 and 38) — Concept of "ordi­nary appeal" — Independent concept of the Convention — Meaning
In­dustrial Diamond Supplies anfægtede denne fuldbyrdelsespåtegning ved Rechtbank Antwerpen under henvisning til konventionens artikler 36 og 37. Desuden iværksatte fir­maet kassationsanke mod den i Torino afsagte dom til den italienske Corte di cassa­zione; det var ikke bestridt, at kassationsanken ikke opsatte den af retten i Torino af­sagte doms eksigibilitet.
Industrial Diamond Supplies appealed against the enforcement order to the Rechtbank van Eeerste Aanleg, Antwerp, in accordance with Articles 36 and 37 of the Convention.
Det stod ligeledes fast, at Industrial Diamond Supplies ikke i Italien begærede fuldbyrdelsen udsat.
It also brought be­fore the Italian Corte Suprema di Cassazione an appeal in cassation against the judg-
1968 - ARTIKEL 25-ARTIKEL 49 fortsat 1)
1968 - ARTIC LES 25 TO 49
Det belgiske firma nedlagde ved Rechtbank Antwerpen principalt påstand om udsættelse af fuldbyrdelsen af den af ankeinstansen i Torino afsagte dom, indtil der var truffet endelig afgørelse i sagen mellem parterne i Italien.
The Belgian firm primarily requested the Antwerp court to suspend the proceedings re lating to the enforcement of the judgment given by the Turin court until final judgment had been delivered between the parties in Italy.
Rechtbank Antwerpen forelagde med henblik på at kunne træffe afgørelse vedrørende denne begæring ved dom af 7. april 1977 Domstolen følgende spørgsmål:
So as to be able to reach a decision on that request, the Antwerp court referred to the Court of Justice, by a judgment of 7 April 1977, the following questions:
Domstolen udtalte herom (i præmisserne 11—42):
In reply to those questions the Court of Justice held as follows (paragraphs 1 1 to 42 of the decision):
»udisse spørgsmål går i det væsentlige ud på, om det af konventionens artikler 30 og 38 anvendte udtryk 'ordinær appel eller genoptagelse' skal forstås som en henvisning til national ret eller som et selvstændigt begreb, hvis fortolkning skal findes i konventionen selv;
"n These questions ask in substance whether the expression 'ordinary appeal' used in Articles 30 and 38 of the Convention must be understood as a reference to national law or as an independent concept, the interpretation of which must be sought within the Convention itself.
12 i sidstnævnte tilfælde drejer underrettens spørgsmål sig om, hvilken betydning dette udtryk har i konventionen.
12 In the second case, the questions submitted by the court ask what the meaning of that expression is within the context of the Convention.
13 Det har under sagen været fremført, at konventionens artikel 30 vedrørende rets afgørelsers anerkendelse, men ikke fuldbyrdelse, er uden betydning for sagen, og at den begærede fortolkning alene drejer sig om betydningen af udtrykket 'ordinær appel eller genoptagelse' i artikel 38 om fuldbyrdelse;
13 During the procedure the view was expressed that Article 30 of the Convention, which relates to the recognition and not the enforcement of judgments, is not rele vant to the proceedings and that the interpretation requested concerns only the mean ing of the expression 'ordinary appeal' within the context of Article 38, which relates to enforcement.
14 det er unødvendigt at undersøge dette spørgsmål, så meget mere som sammen hængen mellem de bestemmelser, som udgør konventionens afsnit III, kræver, at det pågældende udtryk fortolkes ens i de to nævnte artikler.
14 There is no need to examine this question, especially since the connexity of the provisions of Title 111 of the Convention make it necessary to interpret the expression in question in the two abovementioned articles in the same way.
Vedrørende udtrykket 'ordinær appel eller genoptagelse' som henvisning til national ret eller som selvstændigt begreb
The nature of the expression Ordinary appeal' as a reference to national law or as an independent concept
15 Konventionens artikel 30 lyder således: 'Gøres anerkendelse af en afgørelse, der er truffet i en kontraherende stat, gældende ved en ret i en anden kontraherende stat, kan denne udsætte sagen, såfremt afgørelsen er blevet anfægtet ved ordinær appel eller genoptagelse' ;
Under Article 30 of the Convention, 'A court of a Contracting State in which recognition is sought of a judgment given in another Contracting State may stay the proceedings if an ordinary appeal against the judgment has been lodged'.
18 ifølge lovgivningen i Den italienske Republik, som er domsstat for den pågæl­dende afgørelse, er der ingen tvivl om, at kassationsanke skal anses som et ordinært retsmiddel ;
16 Under the first paragraph of Article 38, 'The court with which the appeal under the first paragraph of Article 37 is lodged may, on the application of the appellant. stay the proceedings if an ordinary appeal has been lodged against the judgment in the State in which that judgment was given or if the time for such an appeal has not yet expired; in the latter case, the Court may specify the time within which such an appeal is to be lodged'.
19 denne opfattelse støttes af Det forenede Kongeriges regering og af Kommissio­nen, som samstemmende finder, at arten af et retsmiddel i forhold til artiklerne 30 og 38 skal fastlægges ved henvisning til lovgivningen i den kontraherende stat, hvor den oprindelige afgørelse er truffet;
17 According to Industrial Diamond Supplies, it is necessary to classify any appeal considered to be an ordinary appeal in the Contracting State in which the judgment the recognition or enforcement of which is sought was given as an Ordinary appeal' within the meaning of the abovementioned provisions.
21 endelig skal det bemærkes, at regeringen for Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland har anført, at udtrykket 'ordinær appel eller genoptagelse' i artiklerne 30 og 38 skal for­tolkes ud fra konventionen selv, uden hensyn til disse retsmidlers betegnelse i doms­statens ret.
19 This view has been supported by the Government of the United Kingdom and by the Commission, which both agree that the nature of an appeal for the purposes of Articles 30 and 38 must be determined by reference to the national law of the Con tracting State in which the original judgment was given.
22 Det fremgår af en sammenligning af retsordenerne i Fællesskabets forskellige medlemsstater, at mens sondringen mellem 'ordinære' og 'ekstraordinære' retsmidler i nogle stater beror på selve lovgivningen, mens der i andre retssystemer er tale om en i det væsentlige eller endog udelukkende retsteoretisk sondring, og denne sond­ring overhovedet ikke findes i en tredje gruppe stater ;
20 Mr Riva, without contesting the fact that in Italy an appeal in cassation is considered to be an ordinary appeal, takes the view that in any case a judgment which is enforceable in Italy must also be considered as enforceable in Belgium so long as the enforceability of that judgment has not been suspended in the State in which the judgment was given.
23 det er desuden fastslået, et i de retsordener, som i lovgivning eller teori sondrer mellem 'ordinære' og 'ekstraordinære' retsmidler, inddeles de forskellige retsmidler forskelligt i forhold til denne sondring ;
21 Finally, it is necessary to note that the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany expressed the opinion that the expression 'ordinary appeal' used in Articles 30 and 38 must be interpreted within the context of the Convention itself, regard less of the classification of appeals by the national law of the State in which the judg ment was given.
24 en fortolkning af begrebet 'ordinær appel eller genoptagelse' gennem en henvis­ning til en national retsorden — hvad enten der er tale om domsstatens eller anerken­delses­ eller fuldbyrdelsesstatens retsorden — gør det således i visse tilfælde umuligt at bestemme et givet retsmiddel med den ønskede sikkerhed i forhold til konventio­nens artikler 30 og 38 ;
22 It follows from a comparison of the legal concepts of the various Member States of the Community that although in some States the distinction between Ordinary' and 'extraordinary' appeals is based on the law itself, in other legal systems the classification is made primarily or even purely in the works of learned authors while in a third group of States this distinction is completely unknown.
25 desuden ville en henvisning til den ene eller den anden nationale retsorden for­pligte det ret, som har fået en sag forelagt i henhold til konventionens artikler 30 og 38, til eventuelt at kvalificere retsmidler af samme art forskelligt, alt efter om de til­hører retsordenen i den ene eller den anden af de kontraherende stater;
23 It is established moreover that in the legal systems in which the distinction be tween 'ordinary' and 'extraordinary' appeals is acknowledged by legislation or by learned authors, the classification of the various appeals for the purposes ofthat dis tinction gives rise to varying classifications.
26 dette fortolkningskriterium ville således medføre en retsuvished, som forstærkes ved, at artikel 38 kræver, at den ret, der behandler fuldbyrdelsessagen, ikke alene skal tage hensyn til allerede udnyttede retsmidler, men også retsmidler, som kan an­vendes inden for bestemte frister;
24 It seems therefore that if the concept of 'ordinary appeal' were interpreted by reference to a national legal system, whether the legal system of the State in which the judgment was given or that of the State in which enforcement or recognition is sought, it would in certain cases be impossible to classify a specific appeal with the required degree of certainty for the purposes of Articles 30 and 38 of the Convention.
27 heraf følger, at en brugbar fortolkning af begrebet 'ordinær appel eller genoptagelse' alene kan søges i konventionen selv;
:7 It follows from these considerations that the interpretation of the concept of 'or­dinary appeal' may only be usefully sought within the framework of the Convention itself.
28 herefter skal den nationale rets spørgsmål besvares med, at udtrykket 'ordinær appel eller genoptagelse' i konventionens artikler 30 og 38 skal fastlægges alene i medfør af konventionen og hverken efter lovgivningen i den stat, hvori retsafgørelsen er truffet, eller i den stat, hvori retsafgørelsen begæres anerkendt eller fuldbyrdet. det.
is It is therefore necessary to reply to the national court that the expression 'ordi­nary appeal' within the meaning of Articles 30 and 38 of the Convention must be de­termined solely within the framework of the system of the Convention itself and not according to the law either of the State in which the judgment was given or of the State in which the recognition or enforcement of that judgment is sought.
Vedrørende betydningen af udtrykket 'ordinær appel eller genoptagelse' i konventionen
The meaning of the expression 'ordinary appeal' within the framework of the Convention
29 Betydningen af udtrykket 'ordinær appel eller genoptagelse' kan udledes af selve opbygningen af artiklerne 30 og 38 og disses funktion i konventionen;
19 The meaning of the expression 'ordinary appeal' may be deduced from the actual structure of Articles 30 and 38 and from their function in the system of the Conven­tion.
30 selv om konventionen i sin helhed har til formål at sikre en hurtig fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser med et minimum af formaliteter, når disse kan fuldbyrdes i domsstaten, har artiklerne 30 og 38 til særligt formål at hindre, at retsafgørelser obligatorisk anerkendes og fuldbyrdes i andre kontraherende stater på et tidspunkt, hvor der stadig er mulighed for, at de ophæves eller ændres i domsstaten ;
o Although, as a whole, the Convention is intended to ensure the rapid enforce­ment of judgments with a minimum of formalities when those judgments are en­forceable in the State in which they were given, the specific purpose of Articles 30 and 38 is to prevent the compulsory recognition or enforcement of judgments in other Contracting States when the possibility that they might be annulled or amended in the State in which they were given still exists.
31 det er med dette formål for øje, at artiklerne 30 og 38 blandt andet giver den ret, som har fået forelagt en begæring om anerkendelse respektive en appel mod eller om begæring om genoptagelse af en retsafgørelse, som tillader fuldbyrdelse, mulighed for at udsætte sin afgørelse, når retsafgørelsen i domsstaten er anfægtet eller vil kunne anfægtes inden for bestemte frister;
n For this purpose Articles 30 and 38 reserve to the court before which a request for recognition or an appeal against a decision authorizing enforcement has been brought in particular the possibility of staying the proceedings where, in the State in which the judgment was given, the judgment is being contested or may be contested within specific periods.
32 der er ifølge konventionen ikke tale om en pligt for den ret, som behandler anerkendelses- eller fuldbyrdelsesspørgsmålet, til at udsætte sin afgørelse, men blot om en mulighed herfor;
12 According to the Convention, the Court before which recognition or enforcement is sought is not under a duty to stay the proceedings but merely has the power to do so.
33 dette forhold forudsætter en så vid fortolkning af begrebet 'ordinær appel eller genoptagelse', at den pågældende ret kan udsætte sin afgørelse, når der kan opstå rimelig tvivl om den endelige afgørelse af den i domsstaten trufne afgørelse ;
13 This fact presupposes a sufficiently broad interpretation of the concept of 'ordi­nary appeal' to enable that court to stay the proceedings whenever reasonable doubt arises with regard to the fate of the decision in the State in which it was given.
37 ud fra dette synspunkt skal udtrykket 'ordinær appel eller genoptagelse' fortolkes som en betegnelse for ethvert retsmiddel, som er et led i en retssags normale forløb, og som i denne egenskab udgør en processuel udvikling, som parterne med rimelig hed kan påregne ;
34 It is possible by applying this criterion alone to decide the outcome of a request for recognition or enforcement based on a judgment which, in the State in which the judgment was given, is at present the subject of an appeal which may lead to the an nulment or amendment of the judgment in question.
38 som en sådan udvikling skal anses ethvert retsmiddel, som af loven er bundet til en bestemt frist, og som finder anvendelse i henhold til selve den retsafgørelse, som begæres fuldbyrdet;
35 A court may be required to make a more difficult appraisal whenever a request for a stay of the proceedings is lodged before it under Article 38 of the Convention when the periods for lodging appeals have not yet expired in the State in which the judgment was given.