natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
1984, 397) vedrørende en transport fra De Forenede Stater til Antwerpen og en værnetingsklausul »Hamburg eller Rotterdam«.
1984, 397), concerning a shipment from the United States to Antwerp and a jurisdiction clause 'Hamburg or Rotterdam'.
I denne afgørelse, som blev truffet før afsigelsen af Dom­stolens dom af 19. juni 1984 i sag 71/83 (»Tilly Russ«, jfr. ovenfor under 1­17.1.2 — A 4), støttede retten bl.a. sin fortolkning af artikel 17 på generaladvokat Slynns forslag til afgørelse i samme sag.
In that decision, which was delivered be­fore the Court of Justice delivered its judgment of 19 June 1984 in Case 71/83 Tilly Russ (supra, 1­17.1.2 — A 4), the Rechtbank van koophandel based its interpretation of Article 17 on inter alia the Opinion of Advocate General Sir Gordon Slynn in that case.
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — begrebet »parterne« i artikel 17 — parterne i en retssag, ikke de oprindelige kontraherende parter
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — The term 'the parties' in Article 17 — 77ie parties to the action and not the original contracting parties
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — formkrav — værnetingsklausul i et konnosse­ment — det negotiable originaldokument kun underskrevet af bortfragteren — afla­derens underskrift kun meddelt med henblik på overdragelse af rettighederne i henhold til dokumentet — klausulen kunne ikke gøres gældende overfor tredjemand, som var ihændehaver af konnossementet
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Formal requirements — Jurisdiction clause in a bill of lading — Negotiable original signed by the carrier only — Signature of the shipper only for the purposes of transfer of the rights arising from the document — Not possible to rely on the clause against a third party holding the bill of lading
Sagsøgeren nedlagde påstand om er­
The defendant objected that the Italian court had no jurisdiction, and relied on a jurisdiction clause, contained in the bill of
(fortsat 1) statning for det tab, der var påført selskabet som følge af, at det ved leveringen afvaren i havnen i Napoli havde modtaget en mindre mængde end aftalt i fragtaftalen mellem det nederlandske selskab og afladeren, et selskab med hjemsted i Indonesien.
(continued 1) lading, conferring jurisdiction on the Netherlands courts.
Tri­bunale di Napoli tog indsigelsen til følge.
The Tribunale, Naples, up­held the objection.
Sagsøgeren appellerede til Corte d'appello di Napoli, som stadfæstede førsteinstansens afgørelse.
Upon appeal by the plaintiff, the Corte d'appello, Naples, con­firmed the decision given at first instance.
Sagsøgeren anfægtede derefter Corte d'appello's afgørelse ved kassationsappel, og sagsøgte indgav kontraappel.
The plaintiff appealed to the Corte di cassa­zione; the defendant opposed that appeal.
Corte di cassazione fastslog indledningsvis, at Bruxelles­konventionen fandt anvendel­se i det foreliggende tilfælde, da modtageren og bortfragteren havde hjemsted i to kon­traherende stater, og da de oprindelige kontraherende parters hjemsted var uden betyd­ning.
It held, first, that the Brussels Convention applied to this case, since the respective seats of the consignee and of the shipper were located in two Contracting States and the lo­cation of the seat of the original parties to the contract was of no relevance.
Efter ordlyden af konventionens artikel 17 kræves det nemlig ikke, at parterne i tvisten har aftalt klausulen indbyrdes; den kan få virkning gennem tredjemand, som det næsten altid er tilfældet inden for søtransporten.
According to the wording of Article 17 of the Convention, it was not necessary for the parties to the action to have agreed the clause between them ; its effects could extend through the intermediary of a third party, as was almost always the case in maritime trade.
Ifølge den fortolkning, Dom­stolen har anlagt i dommen i sag 24/76 (jfr. ovenfor under 1­17.1.2 — A 1), er formkra­vene, når en værnetingsklausul indeholdes i en af kontrahenternes almindelige forret­ningsbetingelser, som er trykt på bagsiden af et aftaledokument, kun opfyldt, såfremt det af begge kontrahenter underskrevne dokument udtrykkelig henviser til de alminde­lige forretningsbetingelser. Værnetingsklausulen i de almindelige konnossementsbetin­gelser inden for søtransporten må derfor anses for ugyldig, når der ikke foreligger en sådan henvisning, eller udstederens eller afladerens underskrift mangler.
According to the view ex­pressed by the Court of Justice of the European Communities in its judgment in Case 24/76 Estasis Salotti ν RÜWA (supra, 1­17.1.2 — A 1), the formal requirements were satisfied in the case of a jurisdiction clause contained in the general conditions of busi­ness of one of the parties and printed on the reverse of the contract document only where the document was signed by both parties and referred expressly to the general conditions.
Endvidere har Domstolen ved dommen i sag 71/83 (jfr. ovenfor under 1­17.1.2 — A 4) fastslået, at formkravene i artikel 17 i forhold til en tredjemand, som er ihændehaver af konnosse­mentet må anses for opfyldt, »når værnetingsklausulen anerkendes som gyldig i forhol­det mellem afladeren og bortfragteren, og den tredjemand, som er ihændehaver af kon­nossementet, i henhold til den nationale ret, der finder anvendelse, ved at erhverve konnossementet er indtrådt i afladerens rettigheder og forpligtelser«.
More­over, the Court of Justice held in its judgment in Case 71/83 Tilly Russ v Nova (supra, 1­17.1.2 — A4) that the formal requirements of Article 17 were to be regarded as satis­fied in relation to a third party holding the bill of lading 'provided that the clause has been adjudged valid as between the carrier and the shipper and provided that, by virtue of the relevant national law, the third party, upon acquiring the bill of lading, suc­ceeded to the shipper's rights and obligations'.
I det foreliggende tilfælde havde tredjemanden, som var ihændehaver af konnossemen­tet, Cantieri Metallurgici, erhvervet konnossementet ved endossement, og efter ita­liensk ret overdrages ved et endossement kun de rettigheder og forpligtelser, som kan overdrages, uden at specielle formkrav er opfyldt.
In the present case, Cantieri Metallurgici, the third party holding the bill of lading, ac­quired it by way of endorsement, and according to Italian law endorsement operates to transfer only those rights and obligations for the transfer of which no specific formal requirements are laid down.
Når endossataren derefter underskri­ver konnossementet ved modtagelsen af ladningen, accepterer han dermed ganske vist de almindelige betingelser, men klausuler, som efter national ret (artikel 1341 i Codice civile) eller efter international ret (konventionens artikel 17) kræver overholdelse af specielle formkrav, kan ikke gøres gældende over for ham.
If the endorsee subsequently signs the bill of lading on re­ceipt of the shipment, he thereby accepts the general conditions; but those clauses which are required by domestic law (Art. 1341 of the Codice civile) or international law (Art. 17 of the Convention) to comply with specific formal rules cannot be relied upon against him.
Medens værnetingsklausu­len, som den fremgik af to originaleksemplarer af konnossementet — hver især under­skrevet af en af parterne og i den andens besiddelse (artikel 463 i Codice della naviga­zione) — altså ville være gyldig mellem de oprindelige parter (i det foreliggende
Thus although the jurisdiction clause appearing in two originals of the bill of lading — each of them signed by one of the parties and held by the other (Art. 463 of the Codice della navigazione) — would be effective as between the original parties (in this case the Dutch carrier and the Indonesian shipper), it would need, vis­à­vis the third party, to appear in the negotiable original held by the shipper, which would have to be signed not only by the party issuing it (the carrier) but also by the shipper. Such signature — which in this case was not to hand — would render the jurisdiction clause
Denne underskrift — som ikke forelå i det konkrete tilfælde — ville give værnetingsklausulen virkning i for­hold til ihændehaveren; den kan ikke erstattes af underskriften i forbindelse med en­dossementet, da dette har en anden retsgrund og et andet formål, nemlig overdragelsen af rettighederne i henhold til dokumentet.
(continued 2) effective as against the third party; its absence was not made good by the signature ap­plied in connection with the endorsement, since its legal basis and purpose were differ­ent, namely the transfer of the rights arising from the document.
Fortolkning af konventionen —protokollen af 3. juni 1971 — præjudiciel forelæggelse for Domstolen — den nationale rets forelæggelsespligt (artikel 3, stk. 1) — fortolk­ningsspørgsmål, der allerede er besvaret ved en tidligere præjudiciel afgørelse
Interpretation of the Convention — Protocol of 3 June 1971 — Reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling — Obligation of the national court (Art. 3(1)) — Question to be interpreted already answered by way of an earlier reference for a pre­liminary ruling
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence —formkrav — værnetingsklausul i et konnosse­ment — mulighed for at gøre klausulen gældende over for en tredjemand, der er ihændehaver af konnossementet — betingelse — at tredjemand i henhold til national ret indtræder i afladerens rettigheder og forpligtelser — betingelsen var ikke opfyldt ef­ter belgisk ret
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Formal requirements — Jurisdiction clause in a bill of lading — Possibility of relying on it against a third party holding the bill of lading — Conditions — Succession by the third party to the rights and duties of the shipper on the basis of national law — Condition not fulfilled under Belgian law
Selskabet Precam, Antwerpen, og elleve andre ladningsinteressenter anlagde ved Rechtbank van koophandel, Gent, sag mod et schweizisk og to tyske selskaber i disses egenskab af henholdsvis reder og bortfragtere med påstand om skadeserstatning på grund af manko efter en søtransport fra Afrika til Gent med MS. »Regina«.
Precam, an Antwerp company, and eleven other parties having an interest in the cargo, brought an action against a Swiss company and two German companies, in their ca­pacity as shipowners and carriers respectively, before the Rechtbank van koophandel, Ghent, for compensation for shortages established following carriage by sea from Africa to Ghent on board the MS Regina.
De sagsøg­te påberåbte sig en klausul i de for transporten udstedte konnossementer, hvorefter ret­terne i Hamburg skulle være enekompetente til at træffe afgørelse i tvister.
The defendants relied on a clause in the bills of lading issued in respect of the carriage, according to which the courts of Hamburg were to have exclusive jurisdiction.
Rechtbank van koophandel var af den opfattelse, at sagsøgerne ikke var bundet af værnetingsklausulen.
The Rechtbank took the view that the plaintiffs were not bound by the jurisdiction clause.
Hof van beroep, Gent, fandt derimod, at klausulen måtte anses for gyldig i forholdet mellem afladeren og bortfragteren, og at tredjemanden, som var ihændehaver af konnossementerne, var indtrådt i afladerens rettigheder og forpligtelser ved sin erhvervelse af konnossementerne. Dermed var betingelserne i domskonventio­nens artikel 17 opfyldt, jfr. Domstolens fortolkning af bestemmelsen (dom af 19. juni 1984, sag 71/83, jfr. ovenfor under 1­17.1.2 — A4).
The Hof van beroep, Ghent, decided, however, that the clause was to be re­garded as effective as between the shipper and the carrier and that the third party, on acquiring the bill of lading, succeeded to the rights and obligations of the shipper, with the result that the conditions laid down by Article 17 of the Convention, as interpreted by the Court of Justice (judgment in Case 71/83 Tilly Russ v Nova (supra, 1­17.1.2 — A 4), were fulfilled.
Hof van cassatie ophævede afgørelsen.
The Hof van cassatie set that decision aside.
Retten udtalte indledningsvis, at det ikke var nødvendigt på ny at forelægge Domstolen det spørgsmål om fortolkningen af arti­kel 17, som opstod i sagen, da denne allerede havde taget stilling til det i den nævnte dom.
It held, first, that it did not need to refer again to the Court of Justice for a ruling on the question concerning the interpretation of Article 17 which was at issue in the present case, since a decision on that question had already been given in the said judgment.
De i sagen omhandlede konnossementer vedrørende transporten til Belgien faldt ind under artikel 91 i den belgiske Zee­ en binnenvaartwet.
The bills of lading in the present case, providing for carriage to Belgium, were subject to Article 91 of the Belgian Law on Sea and Inland Navigation.
Det fremgår af denne lov­bestemmelse, at det afgørende for rettighederne og forpligtelserne mellem bortfragteren
According to that provision, the rights and obligations existing as between the carrier and a third party holding a bill of lading were determined not by the relationship between the shipper and the carrier but by the terms of the bill of lad­
(fortsat I) og en tredjemand, der er ihændehaver af konnossementet, ikke er forholdet mellem af­laderen og bortfragteren, men vilkårene i selve konnossementet.
(continued 1) ing itself.
Da tredjemandens ret­tigheder og forpligtelser over for bortfragteren således selvstændigt reguleres i konnos­sementet, kan tredjemanden ikke siges at være indtrådt i afladerens rettigheder og for­pligtelser ved sin erhvervelse af konnossementet.
Since the rights and obligations of the third party vis­à­vis the carrier were thus laid down independently in the bill of lading, it was not the case that the third party, on acquiring the bill of lading, succeeded to the rights and obligations of the shipper.
Herefter opfyldte værnetingsklausulen om, at sag skulle anlægges ved en tysk ret, ikke gyldighedsbetingelserne i konventionens artikel 17.
Consequently, the clause conferring jurisdiction on the German courts did not satisfy the conditions for its effectiveness contained in Article 17 of the Convention.
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — formkrav — værnetingsklausul i omfattende al­mindeligeforretningsbetingelser trykt med småt på bagsiden af ordreformularen — skrift­lig anerkendelse af betingelserne — værnetingsklausulen ikke typografisk fremhævet — klausulen var ikke gyldig
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Formal requirements — Jurisdiction clause contained in the small type of voluminous general conditions of business on the back of the order form — Written acknowledgement of the terms — Absence of typographical high­lighting of the jurisdiction clause — Invalid
Sagsøgte, som havde bopæl i Benfeld (Frankrig), bestilte hos sagsøgeren, der havde hjemsted i Freudenstadt (Tyskland), døre og vinduer, der skulle fremstilles og leveres samt monteres i en bygning, der skulle opføres.
The defendant, resident in Benfeld (France), placed an order with the plaintiff, having its seat in Freudenstadt (Germany), for the manufacture, delivery and assembly of doors and windows for a building that was to be constructed.
Ved ordreafgivelsen på sagsøgtes bopæl blev der anvendt en af sagsøgerens formularer, på hvis bagside der med småt var trykt omfattende leverings­ og betalingsvilkår, herunder en værnetingsklausul, hvorefter der skulle være værneting på sagsøgerens hjemsted.
At the time when the order was placed, in the defendant's home, a form produced by the plaintiff was used, on the reverse of which were printed in small type voluminous terms and conditions re­lating to delivery and payment, including a jurisdiction clause conferring jurisdiction on the courts of the place where the plaintiffs seat was situated.
På forsiden af formularen over parter­nes underskrifter var der en anmærkning om, at ordregiver accepterede betingelserne på bagsiden.
On the front of the form, above the parties' signatures, there was a statement to the effect that the order was to be carried out on the basis of acknowledgment of the terms and conditions printed on the reverse.
Efter at det var kommet til uoverensstemmelser mellem parterne om ekstraomkostninger i forbindelse med sagsøgtes ønsker om ændringer, og sagsøgte til sidst havde nægtet at modtage de færdige døre og vinduer, anlagde sagsøgeren sag ved Amtsgericht Rottweil med påstand om betaling af købesummen med fradrag af det, virksomheden havde sparet.
The parties subsequently disagreed about the additional costs arising from changes in what the defendant wanted, and the latter ultimately refused to accept delivery of the finished doors and windows; the plaintiff then brought proceed­ings before the Amtsgericht Rottweil for payment of the purchase price less mitigated expenditure.
Sagen blev afvist i appelinstansen.
The action was dismissed on appeal as inadmissible.
Oberlandesgericht anså værnetingsaftalen i sagsøgerens almindelige forretningsbetin­gelser for ugyldig, fordi den var trykt med småt.
The Oberlandesgericht regarded the jurisdiction agreement contained in the plaintiffs general terms and conditions of business as ineffective by reason of its being set out in small print.
En aftale efter konventionens arti­kel 17 skal faktisk være accepteret af den part, den er til ulempe for, hvilket ikke er tilfældet, når den er skjult blandt andre vilkår og er vanskelig at læse.
Under Article 17 of the Convention, an agreement must be such that the party against whom it is invoked should have actually consented to the clause; there is no such consent if the clause is inconspicuously hidden away and difficult to read.
Hvis der i almin­delige forretningsbetingelser findes en værnetingsklausul, skal kontrahenten efter Domstolens praksis kunne få kendskab til den ved at udvise almindelig opmærksom­hed.
Ac­cording to the case­law of the European Court of Justice, where an agreement is con­tained in general terms and conditions of business the party concluding the contract must be able, exercising normal care, to acquire knowledge of the clause.
Dette var der ikke sikkerhed for, således som sagsøgerens forretningsbetingelser var udformet.
The form taken by the plaintiffs conditions of business was not such as to vouchsafe such knowl­edge.
Betingelserne strakte sig over to spalter med over 120 linjer trykt med småt.
The conditions extended over 120 lines of small print contained in two columns.
Der var tværtimod tale om en bestemmelse blandt mange andre, som ikke var fremhævet i forhold til disse. Selv om overskriften til klausulen var trykt
The jurisdiction clause was not immediately conspicuous to someone exercising a nor­
I et obiter dictum henviste Oberlandesgericht desuden til, at det også fulgte af konven­tionens artikel 13, stk. 1, nr. 3, artikel 14, stk. 2, og artikel 15 som affattet ved tiltrædel­seskonventionen af 1978, at retterne på sagsøgerens hjemsted savnede kompetence.
The Oberlandesgericht further pointed out, in an obiter dictum, that the courts of the place where the plaintiffs seat was located also lacked jurisdiction by reason of sub­paragraph (3) of the first paragraph of Article 13, the second paragraph of Article 14 and Article 15 of the Convention, in the version resulting from the 1978 Accession Convention.
Disse bestemmelser fandt dog som følge af overgangsbestemmelserne ikke anvendelse i den foreliggende sag.
However, those provisions were not yet applicable to the present case under the transitional arrangements.
Den omstændighed, at kontrakten blev indgået i sagsøgtes lokaler, og uden at de rele­vante bestemmelser om forbrugerbeskyttelse, herunder også et forbud mod værnetings­aftaler, var overholdt, førte i Frankrig til en straffesag mod sagsøgerens driftsleder og salgsdirektør, hvorunder de blev dømt for overtrædelse af lov af 22. december 1972 (Tribunal de grande instance de Strasbourg, dom af 10. september 1987; IPRax 1989, 47, kommenteret af Lüderitz, 25).
The fact that the contract was concluded in the defendant's premises and without re­gard to the relevant rules for the protection of consumers, which also include a prohibi­tion against agreements on jurisdiction, led in France to the criminal conviction of the manager and the sales director of the plaintiff for an offence against the Law of 22 De­cember 1972 (Tribunal de grande instance, Strasbourg, judgment of 10 September 1987; IPRax 1989, 47, Note Lüderitz, 25).
I afgørelsen blev de tiltalte bl.a. dømt til at erstatte de udgifter, der var påført sagsøgte i forbindelse med den sag, sagsøgeren havde anlagt mod ham i Tyskland.
In that decision the accused were ordered inter alia to pay compensation for the costs incurred by the defendant in contesting the proceedings brought against him by the plaintiff in the· German courts.
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence —formkrav — værnetingsklausul i et konnosse­ment, der kun var underskrevet af bortfragteren — klausulen var i betragtning af inter­nationale sædvaner inden for søtransporten gyldig i forhold til tredjemand, som var ihændehaver af konnossementet
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Formal requirements — Jurisdiction clause in a bill of lading signed only by the shipper — Effectiveness as against third parties holding the bill of lading in the light of international commercial usage in mari­time trade
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — sagsøgtes fremmøde for den ret, ved hvilken sagen er anlagt (artikel 18) —fremmøde i forbindelse med isoleret bevisoptagelse — bevirkede ikke, at retten fik kompetence i hovedsagen
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Appearance entered by defendant in pro­ceedings before the court seised (Art. 18) — Appearance entered in the procedure for the preservation of evidence — Not having the effect of establishing jurisdiction in the main proceedings
Sant'Unione begærede isoleret bevisoptagelse med henblik på afhol­delse af syn og skøn over den modtagne vare, og anlagde derefter sag mod S.r.l. Siamar, som var bortfragterens korresponderende reder i Genova, med påstand om er­statning for det tab, selskabet havde lidt som følge af den forringelse af varen, som var indtrådt under transporten fra Bangkok til Genova.
Sant'Unione thereupon instituted proceedings for the preservation of evidence in order to assess the state of the goods received and then brought an action for compensation in Genoa against the Siamar company, the shipping company's representative, in respect
(fortsat 1)
(continued 1) of the damage occasioned through the deterioration of the goods during transport from Bangkok to Genoa.
Tribunale di Genova tog den af sagsøgte fremsatte indsigelse til følge og erklærede sig inkompetent.
The Tribunale di Genoa upheld the defendant's objection and declined jurisdiction.
Retten fastslog først, at konventionens artikel 17 fandt anvendelse i det foreliggende tilfælde, da den eneste betingelse herfor var, at en af parterne havde bopæl på en kontraherende stats område.
It first ruled that Article 17 of the Convention was applicable to the case, since the only condition governing its applicability was that one of the parties was domiciled in a Contracting State.
Med hensyn til formkravene i artikel 17 fastslog Tribunale, at en værnetingsklausul i al­mindelige betingelser, som er trykt på bagsiden af et konnossement, også er gyldig i forhold til en tredjemand, som er ihændehaver af konnossementet, men hvis under­skrift ikke findes på forsiden af dokumentet.
With regard to the formal requirements of Article 17, the Tribunale held that a jurisdic­tion clause contained in the general conditions printed on the reverse side of a bill of lading was effective even as regards third parties holding the bill of lading, whose sig­nature did not feature on the front page of the document.