natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Kompetence — opfyldelsesvæmeting (artikel 5, nr. 1) — tysk-italiensk købekontrakt — søgsmål vedrørende ophævelse af kontrakten ved en italiensk ret — bestemmelse af opfyldelsesstedet efter de materielle regler i lex fori
Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction of the courts for the place of performance (Article 5 (¡)) — Ger­man­Italian contract of sale — Action for rescission of the contract in an Italian court — Determination of the place of performance in accordance with the substantive principles of the lex fori.
I forbindelse med en købekontrakt, ifølge hvilken en tysk virksomhed havde leveret et parti stof til et italiensk firma, opstod der tvist om varens kvalitet.
In connexion with a contract of sale under which a German undertaking had delivered a consignment of cloth to an Italian undertaking a dispute arose over the quality of the goods.
Køberen anlagde sag ved retten ved sit hjemsted i Italien mod den tyske sælger med påstand om ophævelse af kontrakten og skadeserstatning.
The buyer brought an action in the court at its seat in Italy against the German seller for rescission of the contract and for damages.
Sagsøgte gav møde under sagen og rejste principalt indsigelse mod den italienske rets kompetence. Retten erklærede, at den ikke var kom petent og anførte, at dens kompetence i det foreliggende tilfælde alene kunne være hjemlet i domskonventionens artikel 5, nr. 1.
The defendant entered an ap­pearance and raised a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the Italian court.
For så vidt det dér omhandlede værneting var retten på opfyldelsesstedet for den omtvistede forpligtelse, svarede denne bestemmelse til forskriften i den [italienske] Codice di procedura civile, der udpegede opfyldelsesstedets værneting som fakultativt værneting.
In so far as it established that the court having jurisdiction was that of the place of performance of the obligation in question, that provision accorded with Article 20 of the Italian Codice di Procedura Civile according to which the jurisdiction of the forum destinatae solutionis was available as an option.
Det måtte herefter på grundlag af italiensk ret undersøges, hvor opfyldelsesstedet for den omtvistede forpligtelse var beliggende.
It was therefore necessary to determine on the basis of Ita­lian law where the place of performance of the obligation in question was situated.
Ret ten antog, at tvistens genstand var forpligtelsen til at overgive varen, da påstanden om ophævelse af kontrakten og om skadeserstatning støttedes på sagsøgtes levering af en mangelfuld vare.
The obligation to deliver the goods formed the subject­matter of the dispute since the claim for rescission of the contract and for damages was based on the defectiveness of the goods delivered, for which the defendant must answer.
Ifølge artikel 1510 i den [italienske] Codice civile blev sælgeren frigjort
Under Article 1510 of the Italian Codice Civile the seller was released from his obligation by delivery of the goods to a freight forwarder or carrier; therefore the place of performance for the relevant obliga­tion of the seller was the place ofthat delivery, and in the present case the goods were de­livered to an Italian carrier at the seller's seat in the Federal Republic of Germany ; there­fore, in accordance with the Italian case­law jurisdiction was established at that place.
Sagsøgte, et fransk firma, havde hos sagsøgeren, et tysk tekstilfirma, bestilt varer på en af sagsøgeren udfærdiget bestillingsformular, der var affattet på fransk.
The defendant, a French firm, ordered goods from the plaintiff, a German undertaking in the clothing industry, using the plaintiffs order form drafted in French.
På forsiden af formularen var anført, at »den tyske konfektionsindustris almindelige betingelser« skulle være gældende, og endvidere fandtes følgende bestemmelse: »Tribunal d'arbitra­ge: Gelsenkirchen­Buer«.
The front of the form contained the statement that the "general conditions of the German outer-gar­ment industry" were to apply, together with the note "Tribunal d'arbitrage: Gelsenkir-chen-Buer".
I § 1 i de almindelige betingelser, som var blevet udleveret til sagsøgte, udpegedes sælgerens forretningssted som opfyldelsessted for alle ydelser efter kontrakten, og i § 2 udpegedes retten ved sagsøgerens forretningssted eller ved stedet for sagsøgerens kartelmyndighed som kompetent.
Paragraph 1 of the general conditions, which had been delivered to the de­fendant, stated that the place of performance of all obligations under the contract of sale should be the seller's place of business and paragraph 2 conferred jurisdiction upon the courts for the place where the plaintiff carried on business or where its relevant trade or monopolies office had its seat.
Efter § 12 skulle tvister efter kontrakten afgøres af de almindelige domstole eller ved voldgift, således at den ret, hvor sagen først var blevet anlagt, skulle være kompetent, såfremt voldgiftsretten ikke ved aftale havde fået tillagt enekompetence.
Paragraph 12 provided that disputes arising out of the contract should be decided by the normal court or an agreed arbitration tribunal but that if the matter were brought first before the court it should have jurisdiction unless it had been agreed that the arbitration tribunal should have exclusive jurisdiction.
Efter at sagsøgte havde afvist varerne under henvisning til, at levering var sket for sent, anlagde sagsøgeren sag ved sit hjemting i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland med påstand om betaling af købesummen og modtagelse af varerne.
After the defendant had refused to accept goods which were alleged to have been de­livered too late the plaintiff brought an action in the court for the place where it has its seat in the Federal Republic of Germany for payment of the purchase price and an order that the goods should be accepted.
Sagsøgeren fik medhold i første instans, men i appelinstansen blev sagen afvist på grund af manglende international kompetence.
The action was successful at first instance, but an ap­peal was dismissed for want of international jurisdiction.
Oberlandesgericht anførte, at da sagsøgte havde hjemsted i Frankrig, ville sag kunne an­lægges i Forbundsrepublikken på grundlag af domskonventionens afdelinger 2 — 6.
The Oberlandesgericht held that the defendant was established in France and could be sued in the Federal Republic of Germany only on the basis of Sections 2 to 6 of the Brus­sels Convention.
Der var ikke indgået nogen gyldig værnetingsaftale efter konventionens artikel 17.
The object of the formal conditions laid down by Article 17, which was to prevent the surreptitious insertion of jurisdiction clauses, was not sufficiently served by the delivery of often comprehensive conditions of sale.
Be­mærkningen »Tribunal d'arbitrage Gelsenkirchen­Buer« på bestillingsformularen ved­rørte kun en voldgiftsret, som man imidlertid ikke havde udpeget. Værnetinget kunne i
It was doubtful whether written confirmation by one of the parties that the conditions applied was sufficient, but in any case there was no such confirmation.
Om en skriftlig bekræftelse fra en af parterne om, at be­tingelserne skulle finde anvendelse, var tilstrækkelig, var tvivlsomt. Imidlertid forelå en sådan bekræftelse ikke.
(continued 2) nevertheless the same formal requirements applied to an agreement on a place of perfor­mance as to an agreement on jurisdiction if jurisdiction was to be based on the agreed place of performance.
Denne forudsætning lagde retten til grund, da § 1 i de almindelige betingelser netop ikke udpegede det faktiske opfyldelsessted.
The court held that that was the objective from the fact that para­graph 1 of the general conditions was not intended to determine the actual place of per­formance.
Sagsøgte havde hverken skullet overtage varerne eller betale i Gelsenkirchen.
The defendant was neither to take delivery nor to pay for the goods in Gelsen­kirchen.
Ifølge be­tingelsernes § 1 var det derfor også den almindelige regel i tysk ret, der skulle finde an­vendelse på disse forpligtelser (§ 269 i Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch), i medfør af hvilken sag­søgtes hjemsted i Frankrig var opfyldelsessted.
Notwithstanding paragraph 1 of the conditions those obligations continued to be governed by the general rule of German law (Article 269 of the Bürgerliches Gesetz­buch), according to which the place of performance was the defendant's domicile in France.
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — opfyldelsesvæmeting (artikel 5, nr. 1) — op­fyldelsesstedet udpeges efter den lov, der efter lovvalgsregleme i lex fori er bestemmende for den omtvistede forpligtelse
Jurisdiction — Special Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction of the courts for the place of performance (Article 5 (])) — Determination of the place of performance according to the law which under the conflict rules of the lex fori governs the obligation in question
Landgericht Hanau (Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland) havde erklæret sig kompetent til at påkende en sag om ophævelse af en aftale om sagsøgtes, det i Italien hjemmehørende firma Tessili's, levering af skidragter.
The Landgericht Hanau (Federal Republic of Germany) had ruled that it had jurisdic­tion to entertain a claim to set aside a contract for the delivery of ski suits by the Italian firm Tessili, the defendant in the action.
1­5.1.2 — Β10 Cour d'appel de Colmar, dom af 24.3. 1977, Gutbrod Werke mod Streiff
1-5.1.2 — Β 10 Cour d'Appel, Colmar, Judgment of 24 March 1977, Gutbrod Werke ν Raymond Streiff
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — opfyldelsesvæmeting (artikel 5, nr. I) — krav på firmapension ifølge arbejdsaftale med en tysk virksomhed — arbejdsydelsen først præsteret i Tyskland, derefter i Frankrig i den tyske virksomheds datterselskaber — intet værneting i Frankrig for søgsmål mod den tyske virksomhed
Jurisdiction — Special Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction of the courts for the place of performance (Article 5 (1)) — Claim for a company pension resulting from a contract of employment with a German undertaking — Work performed first in Germany and then in France with subsi­diaries of the German undertaking — French courts had no jurisdiction to entertain an action against the German undertaking
Sagsøgeren i denne sag havde i 1950 i henhold til en arbejdsaftale, som han havde ind­gået med et tysk selskab i Forbundsrepublikken, fået tilsagn om en firmapension ved det fyldte 65. år.
Under a contract of employment concluded with a German company in the Federal Republic of Germany in 1950 the plaintiff was to receive a pension at the age of 65.
Arbejdsydelsen i henhold til arbejdsaftalen præsterede han indtil 1952 i Forbundsrepublikken.
He performed his obligations under the contract of employment in the Federal Republic of Germany until 1952.
Fra 1952, og indtil han fyldte 65 år, arbejdede han — sidst i Stras­bourg — efter pålæg fra den tyske virksomhed for forskellige franske selskaber, der ind­gik i den tyske koncern.
From 1952 onwards until he reached the age of 65 he worked, ulti­mately in Strasbourg, at the direction of the German undertaking, for various French companies which belonged to the German company's group of undertakings.
Arbejdslønnen modtog han i denne periode fra de pågældende franske selskaber.
During that period he received his salary from the French companies concerned.
Da sagsøgeren efter at være fyldt 65 år ikke fik udbetalt den aftalte pension, anlagde han sag mod den tyske virksomhed ved Conseil de Prud'hommes i Strasbourg.
When the plaintiff was not paid the agreed pension after reaching the age of 65 he brought an action against the German undertaking in the Conseil de Prud'hommes, Strasbourg.
Retten er­klærede sig kompetent.
The Court found that it had jurisdiction.
Efter sagsøgtes appel af denne afgørelse ophævede Cour d'appel de Colmar den i første instans afsagte dom og afviste sagen under henvisning til Conseil de Prud'hommes' manglende kompetence.
The defendant subsequently lodged an appeal, as a result of which the Cour d'Appel, Colmar, quashed the judgment at first instance and dismissed the action on the ground that the Conseil de Prud'hommes had no jurisdiction.
Cour d'appel de Colmar anførte herved, at eftersom sagsøgtes hjemsted var i Forbunds­republikken Tyskland, og sagsøgte heller ikke ville kunne sagsøges ved de koncernen til­hørende selskabers hjemsted i Frankrig, hvor sagsøgeren havde arbejdet, kunne en even­
The court held that since the defendant's seat was in the Federal Republic of Germany and the defendant as such could not also be sued at the seat of the companies belonging to its group in France, for which the plaintiff had worked, the Strasbourg court could only acquire jurisdiction as the court for the place of performance under Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention.
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — opfyldelsesvæmeting (artikel 5, nr. 1) — begrebet »forpligtelse« i artikel 5, nr. 1 — EF-Domstolens fortolkning — bestemmelse af opfyldelsesstedet — loven ved den domstol, hvor sagen er anlagt — præceptive regler i denne lovgivning — herfra afvigende aftale om opfyldelsesstedet ugyldig
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction of the courts for the place of per­formance (Article 5 (])) — The term "obligation " in Article 5 (1) — Interpretation by the Court of Justice of the European Communities — Determination of the place of perfor­mance — Lex fori — Mandatory provisions ofthat law — Ineffectiveness of an agree­ment on the place of performance by the parties contrary to those provisions
Kompetence — værnetingsaftale — voldgiftsklausul — ingen vedtagelse af, at en »ret« skal være kompetent i henhold til artikel 17, stk. 1
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Arbitration clause — No agreement on jurisdiction of a "court" within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 17
I denne appelsag ved Cour d'appel de Liège havde en tysk automobilfabrikants belgiske forhandler nedlagt påstand om erstatning og en godtgørelse for good-will på grund af ensidig annullation af to forhandleraftaler.
An appeal pending before the Cour d'Appel, Liège, concerned a claim by a Belgian agent of a German motor manufacturer for damages and compensation from the Ger­man undertaking for the unilateral termination of two agency agreements.
I disse aftaler, hvis stedlige gyldighedsområde omfattede visse belgiske provinser samt storhetugdømmet Luxembourg, var det be stemt, at Neckarsulm, sagsøgtes hjemsted, skulle være opfyldelsessted, samt at tysk ret skulle finde anvendelse (artikel 15).
Those agree­ments, the territorial scope of which extended to certain Belgian provinces and to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, stipulated that the place of performance was to be Nek­karsulm, where the defendant had its registered office, and that German law was to apply (Article 15); further, Article 16 of the contracts contained an arbitration clause.
Endvidere indeholdt artikel 16 i de omhandlede af taler en voldgiftsklausul.
Accordingly, the claims made by the Belgian company in the alternative in the arbitration proceedings were rejected.
Før sagsøgeren i september 1973 anlagde sag i Belgien, havde sagsøgte i maj 1973 under henvisning til kontrakternes artikel 16 henvendt sig til en voldgiftsret i Zürich, der den 30. marts 1974 erklærede sig for kompetent og i en afgørelse af 6. december 1975 statuerede, at de omtvistede kontraktforbindelser mellem parterne var udløbet den 31. december 1973, og at det belgiske selskab ikke kunne gøre rettigheder gældende over for det tyske firma, i særdeleshed ikke krav på erstatning eller godtgørelse for goodwill.
Before the final decision of the arbitration tribunal the court of first instance in Belgium, the Tribunal de Commerce, Liège, had refused by a judgment dated 17 March 1975 to recognize the deci­sion on jurisdiction of the Zürich arbitration tribunal of 30 March 1974, declared the ar­bitration clause contained in the agency agreements to be invalid and held that it had ju­risdiction to decide the substantive issues. The defendant's appeal against that decision was dismissed.
Heller ikke det belgiske selskabs subsidiære påstande blev taget til følge under voldgiftssagen.
According­ly, the Belgian courts could acquire jurisdiction in the present case only under Articles (1) and (5).
Allerede før voldgiftsrettens endelige afgørelse forelå, havde underinstansen i Belgien, Tribunal de commerce de Liège, ved dom af 17. marts 1975 nægtet at anerkende voldgiftsrettens afgørelse af 30. marts 1974 om kompetence-
The court then interpreted the term "obligation" in Article 5 (1) in the light of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 6 October 1976 in Case 14/76 De Bloos(supra 1­5.1.1 — Al) and went on to state that the determination of the place of performance of the obligation so defined was a matter for the court be­fore which the matter was brought and that it had to apply its national law. It concluded
Cour d'appel kom herved til det resultat, at både erstatningskravet som følge af utilstrækkeligt opsigelsesvarsel ved ensidig annullation af forhandlerkontrakten og den herved forfaldne affindelsessum skulle erlægges i Belgien, der var det land, hvor forhandlerkontrakten havde haft sine virkninger.
(continued 1) that both the damages for failing to give sufficient notice of the unilateral termination of the agency agreement and the additional compensation due in the event of such termina­tion were payable in Belgium as the country in which the agency agreement took effect.
Ved den retlige bedømmelse af affindelsessummen som et uselvstændigt surrogat for den oprindelige kontraktsforpligtelse henviste Cour d'appel til materiel belgisk ret, der i medfør af artikel 4, stk. 2, i loven af 27. juli 1961 skulle finde anvendelse.
As regards the legal classification of the claim for additional compensation as being ancillary to and in place of the original contractual obligation the Cour d'Appel refer­red to Belgian substantive law, the application of which was prescribed by the second paragraph of Article 4 of the Law of 27 July 1961.
Den bestemmelse i kontrakten, hvorefter opfyldelsesstedet skulle være det tyske firmas hjemsted, var i strid med aftalens stedlige tilknytning, idet de af aftalens virkninger, der var omtvistede, kun havde kunnet indtræde i Belgien.
The term of the contract to the effect that the place of performance should be the place where the German undertaking had its registered office was in conflict with the geo­graphical reality of the agreement, which, in so far as it was in dispute, could have taken effect only in Belgium.
Efter den dér gældende ret, nem lig artikel 6 i loven af 27. juli 1961, var den omtvistede klausul ugyldig.
According to the law applicable there, namely Article 6 of the Law of 27 July 1961, the clause in question was invalid.
Også værnetingsaftalen i samme kontrakt, der udpegede en tysk ret, var ugyldig, idet kontraktforbindelserne i henhold til de ufravigelige bestemmelser i loven af 27. juli 1961 var omfattet af belgisk ret. Herefter var belgiske retter kompetente i henhold til konventionens artikel 5, nr. 1.
The choice of German law con­tained in the same clause of the contract was also invalid, since the contractual relations were subject to Belgian law under the mandatory provisions of the Law of 27 July 1961.
Cour d'appel erklærede også den i kontraktens artikel 16 indeholdte voldgiftsklausul for ugyldig, idet sagsøgeren ikke før aftalens udløb gyldigt havde kunnet råde over sine krav, og voldgiftsklausulen udgjorde en sådan råden.
The Cour d'Appel thereupon declared the arbitration clause contained in Article 16 of the agreement also to be invalid since the plaintiff could not effectively avail itself of its claims before the expiry of the contract, although the arbitration clause was to that effect.
Dette fremgik også af loven af 27. juli 1961, og der opstod ikke i dette spørgsmål nogen konflikt med domskonventionen.
This result also followed from the Law of 27 July 1961 without there being any conflict on this question with the Brussels Convention.
Ganske vist var værnetingsaftaler mulige efter artikel 17, stk. 1, men voldgiftsretter var — således som det udtrykkeligt fremgik af konventionens artikel 1, stk. 2, nr. 4 — undtaget herfra.
Although the first paragraph of Article 17 of the Convention allowed agreements on jurisdiction, subparagraph (4) of the second paragraph of Article 1 of the Convention expressly excepted arbitration.
Et belgisk selskab havde anlagt sag ved Tribunal de commerce de Bruxelles mod et selskab med hjemsted i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland med påstand om betaling for leverede varer.
A Belgian company sued a company based in the Federal Republic of Germany before the Tribunal de Commerce, Brussels, for payment in respect of goods delivered.
På bestillingsformularerne og fakturaerne, som stævningen støttedes på, var sagsøgerens almindelige forretningsbetingelser aftrykt på bagsiden. Disse betingelser indeholdt en bestemmelse, hvorefter retterne i Bruxelles skulle være kompetente.
Printed on the back of the order forms and invoices on which the action was based were the plaintiffs general conditions of business containing a clause conferring jurisdiction on the courts in Brussels.
End­videre indeholdt sagsøgerens fakturaer bemærkningen »betalbar i Bruxelles«.
The plaintiffs invoices also bore the words "payable in Brussels".
Sagsøgte rejste indsigelse mod rettens kompetence.
The defendant pleaded want of jurisdiction.
Retten erklærede sig for kompetent.
The court held that it had jurisdiction.
Parterne havde ganske vist ikke indgået en gyldig værnetingsaftale, idet formkravene i konventionens artikel 17, stk. 1, ikke var opfyldt, hvorved retten henviste til retspraksis fra EF­Domstolen (domme af 14.12. 1976 i sa­gerne 24/76 og 25/76; jfr. nedenfor under 1­17.1.2 — A 1 og 2). Imidlertid var retten kompetent i henhold til konventionens artikel 5, nr. 1.
Admittedly there had been no valid agreement between the parties as to jurisdiction, since — as the court decided, citing decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Communities (judgments of 14 December 1976 in Case 24/76 Estasis Salotti and Case 25/76 Galeries Segoura; infra 1-17.1.2 — A 1, 2) — the formalities laid down in the first paragraph of Article 17 of the Convention had not been complied with.
Artikel 17, stk. 1, var ikke afgø­rende for det dér omhandlede opfyldelsesvæmeting.
With regard to the jurisdiction of the courts for the place of performance refer­red to in that provision the first paragraph of Article 17 was not applicable.
Da konventionen i øvrigt ikke in­deholdt regler om, hvilke formkrav der måtte stilles til en aftale om opfyldelsesstedet, var det den lov, der skulle anvendes på kontrakten — in casu belgisk lovgivning — der var afgørende.
Further, since the Convention did not prescribe any formalities for a contractual agreement on the place of performance, the matter was governed by the law applicable to the contract, in the present case Belgian law.
Parterne kunne ifølge belgisk ret aftale et andet opfyldelsessted end det legale.
Under that law the parties could agree on a place of per­formance other than that provided for by law.
Den udtrykkelige bemærkning i sagsøgerens fakturaer, »betalbar i Bruxelles«, der var almindelig i handelsforhold og ikke blev bestridt af sagsøgte, var bevis for, at par­terne havde aftalt denne by som betalingssted.
The express notice on the plaintiffs invoi­ces "payable in Brussels", which was customary in the trade and was not objected to by the defendant, was evidence that city the parties had agreed upon that city as the place of payment.
Efter konventionens artikel 5, nr. 1, var det derfor retterne på dette sted, der var kompetente.
Thus the courts for that place had jurisdiction under Article 5 (1) of the Convention.