natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Sagsøg­tes ordreskrivelse havde indeholdt en henvisning til almindelige forretningsbetingelser, der bl.a. bestemte, at retterne i Hamburg (Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland) skulle være kompetente.
It was stated that in this regard the first paragraph of Article 17 should be interpreted in ac­cordance with the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 14 December 1976 in Cases 24/76 and 25/76 (supra 1-17.1.2 - A 1, 2).
Sagsøgte modtog ordrebekræftelserne uden at reklamere. I øvrigt havde parterne allerede i maj 1975 ført forhandlinger om andre forretninger, hvorunder sagsøgeren bl.a. havde til­sendt sagsøgte en tysk oversættelse af sine almindelige salgs­ og leveringsbetingelser.
In its order form the Belgian firm had declared all the terms and conditions contain­ed in the offers of the German undertakings invalid, with the result that no jurisdiction agreement between the parties had come into existence.
I den følgende tid blev der indgået flere handler, for hvilke sagsøgeren havde udstedt fak­turaer, på hvis bagside de omhandlede betingelser også var optrykt. Endvidere inde­
The confirmation of the order by the first German undertaking on the basis of its general conditions of business could not create a valid jurisdiction agreement under the first paragraph of Article 17 since it
1968 ­ ARTIKEL 17, STK. 1
1968 ­ ARTICLE 17(1)
Retten erklærede sig for kompetent.
(continued 1) was not accepted in writing.
Imidlertid havde sagsøgte i forbindelse med parternes løbende forretnings­forhold haft tilstrækkelig lejlighed til at få kendskab til sagsøgerens forretningsbetingel­ser, når hensås til de talrige dokumenter, der var blevet fremsendt. Sagsøgte kunne der­med ikke længere henvise til, at disse forretningsbetingelser ikke var blevet genstand for en udtrykkelig aftale.
According to the case­law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities the fact that the Belgian firm had not objected to that confirma­tion of the order could not be treated as acceptance of the jurisdiction clause.
Sagsøgte måtte derfor — og udgangspunktet måtte være alminde­lig agtpågivenhed — stilles, som om firmaet havde haft kendskab til og godkendt værne­tingsklausulen i de almindelige betingelser.
There did not exist between the parties a continuing business relationship on the basis of the Ger­man undertaking's general conditions of business.
Sagsøgte kunne i øvrigt heller ikke påberåbe sig værnetingsklausulen til fordel for retterne i Hamburg, som var indeholdt i de almin­delige forretningsbetingelser i ordreskrivelsen.
Nor had an effective jurisdiction agreement come into being on the basis of the steps taken by the second German under­taking.
Der kunne hverken antages at være kom­met en skriftlig værnetingsaftale eller en mundtlig og af sagsøgeren senere skriftligt be­kræftet aftale i stand om denne klausul.
The Belgian firm had not accepted the latter's confirmation of the order with the above­mentioned addition.
Sagsøgte påberåbte sig en værnetingsklausul i de konnossementer, der var udstedt for varerne, i bvilke det var bestemt, at retterne i Ham­burg skulle være kompetente.
The plaintiff, a Belgian company, brought an action for damages against the French de­fendant in the Tribunal de Commerce, Charleroi, in connexion with an oral contract for the supply of blast­furnace slag.
Sagsøgeren gjorde heroverfor gældende, at værnetings­klausulen var del af bortfragterens almindelige forretningsbetingelser og ikke var en skriftlig aftale i domskonventionens forstand.
In support of the jurisdiction of the Belgian court the plaintiff relied inter alia on a jurisdiction clause which it was not disputed had been prin­ted together with other general conditions of sale on the back of all the invoices sent to the defendant and accepted by it without objection.
Retten gav sagsøgeren medhold.
The defendant's ap­peal was unsuccessful.
Den antog, at artikel 17 ikke alene krævede skriftlighed, men en udtrykkelig aftale om kompetencen, hvorved enhver tvivl vedrørende parternes forpligtelser udelukkedes.
In the view of the appeal court, the court of first instance had ju­risdiction as a result of a valid agreement under Article 17 of the Brussels Convention.
En værnetingsklausul i et konnossements almindelige betin­gelser opfyldte ikke disse betingelser.
Although it was true that the content of an obligation must be known in order for the consent of the party concerned to extend to it, that did not prevent the acceptance of the invoice without objection from being regarded as evidence that the agreement of the par­ties extended to all the conditions of the contract contained in the invoice.
Vedrørende spørgsmålet om gyldigheden af værnetingsklausuler i konnossementer, jfr. tillige ovenfor under 1­17.1.2 — B 7, samt 1­17.1.1 — B 5 og 9.
In this regard it was irrelevant whether the other party learnt of those conditions long before the in­voice was sent or only a short time before.
1968 ­ ARTIKEL 17, STK. 2
The conditions of Article 17 of the Conven­tion were accordingly fulfilled.
[ingen gyldig aftale i tilfælde, hvor der gælder præceptive kompetenceregler]
On the back of the relevant invoices, which were for amounts expressed in German currency, it was stated that the courts in Turnhout should have jurisdiction.
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — ingen fravigelse ved aftale af præceptive kompe­tenceregler eller regler om enekompetence (artikel 17, stk. 2) — aftale om køb af en fast ejendom i ikke­konventionsstat — kompetenceaftale til fordel for retterne i en konventions­stat — ikke gyldig
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Reference to general conditions of sale con­taining a jurisdiction clause when placing an order — Confirmation of order with conflict­ing jurisdiction clause on the reverse — Series of transactions on the basis of the general conditions of the party placing the order — Effective agreement on the jurisdiction clause contained therein
Sagsøgeren, et selskab med hjemsted i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland, havde indstæv­net et selskab med hjemsted i Spanien for Arrondissementsrechtbank Rotterdam til op­fyldelse af en aftale om køb af en fast ejendom i Spanien.
A company incorporated in the Netherlands brought an action against a German com­pany in the Arrondissementsrechtbank, Amsterdam, relying on a jurisdiction clause under the first paragraph of Article 17 of the Brussels Convention.
Over for sagsøgtes anbrin­gende om, at retten manglede kompetence, påberåbte sagsøgeren sig en bestemmelse i købekontrakten, ifølge hvilken nederlandsk lov »skal finde anvendelse ved opfyldelsen af denne aftale«, og hvori det videre hed: »værneting for begge parter i Rotterdam«.
The defendant's written order referred to general condi­tions of sale, which contained a clause conferring jurisdiction on the courts in Hamburg (Federal Republic of Germany). The plaintiffs confirmation notes contained on the re­verse general conditions of sale and delivery in Dutch and German ; those conditions provided inter alia that the courts in Amsterdam should have jurisdiction.
Ret­ten anså sig ikke for kompetent.
The defen­dant accepted the confirmation notes without objection.
Den udtalte, at der ikke i nederlandsk ret var grundlag for nederlandske retters interna­tionale kompetence i et tilfælde som det foreliggende.
The court held that it had jurisdiction. Admittedly, the confirmation of the order in January 1976, which did not even contain an express reference to the general conditions of sale on the reverse, and the defendant's subsequent silence could not be regarded as effective agreement on jurisdiction.
Herefter kunne rettens kompe­tence ikke begrundes i værnetingsklausulen i købekontrakten.
It could therefore no longer claim that those conditions of sale were not the subject of an express agreement.
Kompetence kunne hel­ler ikke støttes på denne klausul, selv om det antoges, at sagsøgeren med rette havde kun­net påberåbe sig domskonventionen — der ikke gjaldt for Spanien.
Assuming that it exercised normal care, it must be treated as having known of and approved the jurisdiction clause contained in the general conditions.
Det måtte nemlig al­lerede på grundlag af konventionens artikel 16, nr. 1, jfr. artikel 17, stk. 2, antages, at ret­terne i den konventionsstat, i hvilken den faste ejendom er beliggende, var enekompe­tente i det foreliggende tilfælde.
Further, it could not rely on the jurisdiction conditions referred to in its order, for there had been no agreement either in writing or evidenced by the plaintiff in writing in respect of that clause.
STK. 3
(1­17.2 ­ B, end)
[aftale til fordel for én af parterne]
[Agreement for the benefit of only one of the parties]
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — aftale til fordel for én af parterne (artikel 17, stk. 3) — begreb
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Agreement concluded for the benefit of only one of the parties (third paragraph of Article 17) — Concept
Sagsøgeren, et fransk finansieringsselskab, havde anlagt sag ved Landgericht Trier med påstand om tilbagebetaling af et lån.
The plaintiff, a French finance company, brought an action in the Landgericht Trier, for repayment of a loan.
Sagsøgte, som på tidspunktet for aftalens indgåelse havde haft bopæl i Frankrig, rejste indsigelse mod rettens kompetence under henvisning til, at parterne på grundlag of sagsøgerens almindelige forretningsbetingelser havde vedtaget Strasbourg som værneting.
The defendant, who had been domiciled in France when the contract was concluded, contended that the court had no jurisdiction because the parties had agreed, on the basis of the plaintiffs general conditions of business, that the courts in Strasbourg should have jurisdiction.
Landgericht udtalte i en mellemdom, at den havde stedlig kompetence.
In an interlocutory judgment the Landgericht held that it had territorial jurisdiction.
I henhold til arti­kel 14, stk. 2, havde retten på låntagerens bopæl kompetence.
Under the second paragraph of Article 14 the courts for the place of the borrower's do­micile had jurisdiction.
Ganske vist havde par­terne truffet en værnetingsaftale, hvilket kunne ske i henhold til artikel 15, men sagsøge­ren kunne alligevel anlægge sag ved sagsøgtes hjemting, da der forelå en værnetingsaf­tale til fordel for én af parterne i artikel 17, stk. 3's forstand.
Although the parties had concluded a jurisdiction agreement which was permissible under Article 15, the plaintiff could still commence proceedings in the courts for the defendant's place of domicile since the agreement involved was a ju­risdiction agreement concluded for the benefit of only one of the parties within the mea­ning of the third paragraph of Article 17.
Allerede af det forhold, at sagsøgte havde måttet indgå på aftalen for at opnå lånet, talte for, at værnetingsklausu­len ikke var optaget i aftalen i hans interesse.
The very fact that the defendant had to accede to the jurisdiction agreement in order to obtain the loan suggested that it was not inclu­ded in the contract for his benefit.
Det kunne ganske vist være i begge parters interesse, at franske retter blev tillagt kompetence, navnlig hvis vanskelige juridiske spørgsmål skulle afgøres, men det fremgik ikke, at dette havde været formålet med par­ternes værnetingsaftale.
Admittedly, it could be in the interests of both parties for the French courts to adjudicate, particularly if difficult questions of law had to be determined, but no such purpose was disclosed by the jurisdiction agreement concluded between the parties.
Formålet havde tværtimod været, at retstvister skulle afgøres ved finansieringsinstituttets hjemting i Strasbourg og ikke f. eks. ved medkontrahentens hjemting.
Rather, its purpose was to ensure that litigation should take place in Strasbourg, where the finance company had its offices, and not, for instance, at the place where the borrower had his domicile.
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — aftale til fordel for én af parterne (artikel 17, stk. 3) — begreb
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Agreement for the benefit of only one of the parties (third paragraph of Article 17) — Concept.
1968 ­ ARTIKEL 17, STK. 3
1968 - ARTICLE 17 (3)
(fortsat 1) tid, anlagde sagsøgeren sag ved Landgericht Mainz efter vekselprocesreglerne.
(continued 1)
Sagsøgte rejste indsigelse mod rettens kompetence under henvisning til aftalens §21.
Clause 21 of that contract stated : "Jurisdiction in respect of both parties is conferred upon the courts in Genoa, Italy."
Retten erklærede sig kompetent i henhold til den tyske civilproceslovs § 603 om værne­ting i vekselsager.
The court declared that it had jurisdiction under Article 603 of the German Zivilprozes­sordnung [Code of Civil Procedure], which deals with jurisdiction in actions on bills of exchange.
Det forhold, at der i kontrakten fra 1974 var truffet en aftale, som afveg fra lovens værnetingsregler, var ikke til hinder herfor. Det kunne ikke udledes af bestemmelsen i kontraktens § 21, at denne skulle gælde for alle krav, altså også for vek­selkrav.
The position was not affected by the fact that the contract made in 1974 con­tained an agreement conferring jurisdiction on another court.
Ganske vist kunne der som udgangspunkt også træffes værnetingsaftaler for vekselsager, men en sådan aftale kunne dog ikke antages at foreligge allerede på grund af ordlyden af § 21, når henses til dennes almindeligt holdte udformning.
Although, in principle, jurisdiction agreements in relation to actions on bills of exchange were possible, such an agreement could not be demonstra­ted in the wording of clause 21 of the contract in view of its generality.
Ganske vist havde parterne truffet en gyldig aftale i henhold til konventionens artikel 17, stk. 1, hvorved der var fastlagt en enekompetence for en italiensk ret.
It was true that the parties had concluded an agreement which was valid under the first paragraph of Article 17 of the Convention and which gave exclusive jurisdiction to an Italian court.
Dermed var det dog ikke udelukket, at aftalen alene angik et fakultativt værneting.
However, that did not preclude agreement on a purely optional jurisdiction.
Dette var forudsat i konventionens arti­kel 17, stk. 3, som bestemmer, at i tilfælde, hvor værnetingsaftalen er indgået til fordel for én af parterne, bevarer denne part retten til at anlægge sag ved enhver anden ret, der var kompetent efter konventionen.
The third paragraph of Article 17 of the Convention took account of that by providing that if the agreement conferring jurisdiction was concluded for the benefit of only one of the par­ties, that party should retain the right to bring proceedings in any other court which had jurisdiction by virtue of the Convention.
Den af parterne i kontraktens §21 trufne aftale var for så vidt til fordel for sagsøgeren, som denne kunne anlægge sag ved en italiensk ret i tvister i forbindelse med en løbende leverings­ og eneimportaftale, som skulle opfyldes i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland.
The provision made by the parties in clause 21 of the contract was advantageous to the plaintiff in so far as it was able to bring procee­dings in an Italian court in respect of disputes connected with a long-term contract for the supply and sole import of goods which was to be performed in the Federal Republic of Germany.
Allerede derfor måtte sagsøgeren kunne gøre brug af den mulighed, som konventionens artikel 17, stk. 3, åbnede.
On that ground alone the plaintiff must remain free to make use of the op­tion conferred upon it by the third paragraph of Article 17 of the Convention.
I øvrigt var en vekselsag ikke en egentlig sag om kontraktsforhold i konventionens artikel 5, nr. l's forstand.
Moreo­ver, an action on a bill of exchange was not really a matter relating to a contract within the meaning of Article 5 ( 1 ) of the Convention.
Når sagsøgte accepterede vekslen, men ikke drog omsorg for dens betaling, måtte sagsøgte på forhånd indstille sig på også at blive sagsøgt efter vekselprocesreglerne i Forbundsre­publikken for de vekselforpligtelser, som skulle opfyldes dér.
When the defendant accepted the bill of exchange but failed to ensure that it was honoured, it must have been prepared from the outset to be sued under the procedure for actions on bills of exchange in the Federal Republic in respect of the obligations which had to be performed there under the bill of exchange.
Heller ikke den omstændighed, at den ret, ved hvilken vekselsagen var anlagt, også var kompetent vedrørende justifikationssagen, i hvilken indsigelser vedrørende det under­liggende retsforhold kunne gøres gældende, kunne føre til en anden bedømmelse af kompetencespørgsmålet.
The question of jurisdiction was not affected by the fact that a court in which an action had been commenced under the procedure for actions on bills of exchange would conti­nue to have jurisdiction in subsequent proceedings (Nachverfahren), in which objections arising from the underlying transaction could be raised.
Om en særlig væmetingsregel for justifikationssagen, som det under alle omstændigheder ville være lovgivningsmagtens anliggende at indføre, ville være hensigtsmæssig, var tvivlsomt, dels på grund af konventionens artikel 17, stk. 3, dels fordi det syntes mindre hensigtsmæssigt at fortsætte en sag vedrørende spørgsmålet om mangler og sagsøgtes heraf flydende rettigheder i Italien.
The advisability of adopting a special provision on jurisdiction with regard to the Nachverfahren, which was in any case a matter for the legislature, had particular doubt cast upon it by, on the one hand, the third paragraph of Article 17 of the Convention and, on the other hand, the fact that there seemed little point in pursuing in Italy a dispute concerning the existence of de-
(fortsat 2) tente i henhold til domskonventionens artikel 2.
The jurisdiction of the German courts was established under Article 2 of the Brussels Convention.
En gyldig værnetingsaftale i henhold til konventionens artikel 17 til fordel for en italiensk ret var ikke kommet i stand, da sag­søgte alene havde afgivet mundtlig accept af, at sagsøgerens forretningsbetingelser skulle være del af købekontrakten.
No valid jurisdiction agreement under Article 17 of the Convention in fa­vour of an Italian court had come into existence, since the defendant had agreed only orally to the incorporation of the plaintiffs conditions of business in the contract of sale.
I øvrigt kunne sagsøgte selv i tilfælde af, at der var indgået en gyldig værnetingsaftale, ikke påberåbe sig, at tyske retter savnede kompeten­ce, da den trufne aftale i dette tilfælde kun var indgået til fordel for sagsøgeren, således at denne i henhold til konventionens artikel 17, stk. 3, bevarede retten til at anlægge sag ved enhver anden ret, der var kompetent i medfør af konventionen.
Moreover, even if there were a valid jurisdiction agreement the defendant could not object to the jurisdiction of the German courts, since in this case the special stipula­tion was for the benefit of the plaintiff alone, with the result that under the third para­graph of Article 17 of the Convention the plaintiff retained the right to bring procee­dings in any other court which had jurisdiction by virtue of the Convention.
Afdeling 7 ­ PRØVELSE AF KOMPETENCEN OG AF SAGENS ANTAGELSE TIL PÅKENDELSE (artikel 19 — artikel 20)
Section 7 ­ EXAMINATION AS TO JURISDICTION AND ADMISSIBILITY (Articles 19 and 20)
[prøvelse af kompetencen og den rettidige forkyndelse]
[Examination as to jurisdiction and service of process in sufficient time]
Kompetence — prøvelse af kompetencen og af sagens antagelse til påkendelse — udsættelse af afgørelsen, når sagsøgte ikke giver møde (artikel 20, stk. 2) — tvangsfuldbyrdelse af af­giftskrav — udlæg i fordringer — proceduren vedrørende realisation af fordringer efter nederlandsk ret (verklaringsprocedure) — meddelelse om udlægget til skyldneren — »sa­gens indledendeprocesskrift« processkrift«
Jurisdiction — Examination as to jurisdiction and admissibility — Stay of proceedings where defendant does not enter appearance (second paragraph of Article 20) — Enforce­ment of a tax assessment — Attachment of a debt — Attachment procedure under Nether­lands law (verklaringsprocedure) — Service of attachment order on garnishee — "Docu­ment instituting the proceedings"
Den nederlandske finansförvaltning havde udstedt en række — efter nederlandsk ret umiddelbart eksigible — afgiftsansættelser (dwangbevelen) mod en tysk virksomhed med hjemsted i Forbundsrepublikken, som havde afviklet forretninger i Nederlandene.
The Netherlands tax authority had issued several tax assessments (dwangberelen) against a German undertaking based in the Federal Republic of Germany which had carried out transactions in the Netherlands.
An­sættelserne var også blevet forkyndt for den tyske virksomhed.
Those assessments, which under Netherlands law were immediately enforceable, were served on the undertaking.
Under tvangsfuldbyrdel­sen lod forvaltningen gennem vedkommende nederlandske fogedret foretage udlæg i fordringer, som den tyske virksomhed havde mod det nederlandske televæsen.
In the course of enforcing the assessments the tax authority directed the responsible Netherlands enforcement officers to attach debts owed to the German undertaking by a third party, the Netherlands tele­communications authority.
Medde­lelsen om dette udlæg blev forkyndt for den tyske afgiftsskyldner i henhold til neder­landsk ret ; denne ytrede sig ikke hertil.
Notice of the attachment was served on the German tax­payer in accordance with the law of the Netherlands; no communication was received from the taxpayer.
Under den sag, som påfulgte udlægget — den såkaldte »verklaringsprocedure« — ned­lagde finansförvaltningen påstand om, at televæsenet, som havde anerkendt, at fordrin­gen bestod, skulle dømmes til at erlægge til sig.
In the proceedings relating to the attachment — (verklaringsprocedure) — the tax authority sought an order requiring the third­party debtor, which had admitted the existance of the debt, to pay the amount due to the authority.
Retten udsatte sagen og udtalte, at den ifølge domskonventionens artikel 20, stk. 2, var forpligtet hertil, indtil det var fastslået, at det havde været muligt for afgiftsskyldneren at modtage det processkrift, som lå til grund for udlægget, i så god tid, at denne havde kunnet varetage sine interesser under sa­gen, eller at alle hertil fornødne foranstaltninger var blevet truffet.
The court staved proceed­ings and declared that it was obliged to do so under the second paragraph of Article 20 of the Brussels Convention so long as it was not shown that the taxpayer had been able to receive the document instituting the attachment proceedings in sufficient time to en­able it to arrange for its defence, or that all necessary steps had been taken to that end.
Retten begrundede dette med, at udlægget kunne efterprøves [efter nederlandsk ret kan skyldneren begære afgørelsen prøvet ved »verzet«, jfr. Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechts­vordering, artikel 477], samt at udlægsfundamentet (beslagexploit) således måtte ligestiI­
The court based its decision on the fact that the attachment could give rise to appeal proceedings [under Netherlands law the debtor has a right of appeal against the attach­ lssue 1/February 1981
(fortsat 1) les med »sagens indledende proceskrift« (konventionens artikel 20, stk. 2).
(continued 1) ment of a debt; see Article 477 of the Netherlands Code of Civil Procedure], and there fore the document effecting the attachment (beslagexploit) should be treated as a "document instituting the proceedings" (second paragraph of Article 20 of the Convention).
Fordringsha­veren måtte derfor godtgøre, at skyldneren havde modtaget dette processkrift rettidigt.
Consequently the tax authority had to show that the taxpayer had received the document in sufficient time.
Udsendelse l/februar
Issue 1/February 1981
Afdeling 8 ­ LITISPENDENS OG INDBYRDES SAMMENHÆGENDE KRAV (artikel 21 — artikel 23)
Section 8 — LIS PENDENS - RELATED ACTIONS (Articles 21 to 23)
(Jfr. også 1­5.3 ­ B 5; 1­17.1.2 ­ B 11)
(See also 1-5.3 - Β5; 1-17.1.2 - Bil)