natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Forholdet til andre konventioner — den tysk­belgiske konvention af 30. juni 1958 —fort­sat gyldighed for sagsområder, der ikke er omfattet af konventionen — fortolkning af be­grebet »borgerlige sager, herunder handelssager« i artikel 1 i den tysk­belgiske konvention — den af retten i domsstaten anlagte fortolkning bestemmendefor anerkendelses­ og fuld­byrdelsessagen
Relationship to other conventions — German­Belgian Convention of 30 June 1958 — Continuing effect in relation to matters not covered by the Convention — Interpretation of the expression 'civil and commercial matters' in Article 1 of the German­Belgian Conven­tion — Interpretation by the court of the State in which the judgment was given is also ap­plicable in the proceedings for recognition — Enforcement
I denne sag havde Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — efter at Bundesgerichtshof havde hjemvist sagen (jfr. herom samt om sagens faktiske omstændigheder og de forudgående retsforhandlinger Bundesgerichtshofs kendelse af 26. november 1975, ovenfor under ¥—1.1 — B 3) — forelagt EF­Domstolen et spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af be­grebet »borgerlige sager, herunder handelssager« i domskonventionens artikel 1, stk. 1.
The Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, after this case had been remitted to it by the Bun­desgerichtshof (in this connection, and for an account of the previous procedure, see the order of the Bundesgerichtshof of 26 November 1975, under I­l.l — Β 3), sub­mitted to the Court of Justice of the European Communities a question on the interpre­tation of the expression 'civil and commercial matters' in the first paragraph of Article 1 of the Brussels Convention.
EF­Domstolen besvarede spørgsmålet ved dom af 14. oktober 1976 (sag 29/76; ovenfor under 1­1.1 ­ A 1).
The Court of Justice answered that question by judgment of 14 October 1976 (Case 29/76 LTU ν Eurocontrol [1976] ECR 1541; supra, I­l.l ­Al).
Spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt den af handelsretten i Bruxelles afsagte dom, hvorved rekvisitus i fuldbyrdelssagen var blevet tilpligtet at betale visse navigationsgebyrer, var eksigibel i Forbundsrepublikken, måtte derimod afgøres i henhold til den tysk­belgiske anerkendelses­ og fuldbyrdelseskon­vention af 30. juni 1958.
Instead the question whether the judgment of the Tribunal de commerce, Brussels, which ordered the respondent to pay route charges, was enforceable in Germany was governed by the German­Belgian Convention of 30 June 1958 on recognition and enforcement.
Denne konvention fandt, som EF­Domstolen havde fastslået ved dom af 14. juli 1977 (forenede sager 9 og 10/77; jfr. ovenfor under 1­56 — A 1), fortsat anvendelse på de i domskonventionens artikler 55 og 56 nærmere fastlagte be­tingelser.
That Convention remained applicable, as the Court of Justice of the European Communities had ruled by judgment of 14 July 1977 (Joined Cases 9 and 10/77 Bavaria Fluggesellschaft ν Eurocontrol [1977] ECR 1517; supra, 1­56 — A 1), on the conditions laid down in Articles 55 and 56 of the Brus­sels Convention.
Retten lagde denne dom til grund for sin afgørelse, således at en fornyet fore­læggelse af sagen for EF­Domstolen ikke var påkrævet.
The Senate would follow that judgment, with the result that it was not
Forholdet til andre konventioner — særlige retsområder — Benelux — tion — kompetenceregler — forrang for domskonventionen
Relationship to other conventions — Particular matters — Benelux — Convention on trade marks — Rules on jurisdiction — Precedence over the rules of the Brussels Conven­tion
Ved mellemdom af 25. juni 1975 var den nederlandske sagsøger i denne sag i medfør af domskonventionens artikel 20, stk. 2, blevet opfordret til at godtgøre, at det sagsøgte selskab havde haft mulighed for at modtage sagens indledende processkrift i så god tid, at det havde kunnet varetage sine interesser under sagen.
By an interlocutory judgment of 25 June 1975 the Netherlands plaintiff was called upon to prove, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 20 of the Conven­tion, that the defendant had been able to receive the document instituting the proceed­ings in sufficient time to enable it to arrange for its defence.
Sagsøgeren fremlagde en skriftlig erklæring fra sagsøgte, hvori denne bekræftede modtagelsen af den indkaldelse til at give møde, som var sagens indledende processkrift.
It produced a written state­ment by the defendant confirming receipt of the summons by which the proceedings were commenced.
Retten støttede sin kompetence på artikel 37 i den uniforme Benelux­lov om vare­mærker, der fandtes som bilag til Benelux­konventionen om varemærker. Benelux­konventionen var på sin side en konvention, som omhandlet i artikel 57 i domskonven­tionen af 1968.
It based its jurisdiction on Article 37 of the Benelux Uniform Law on Trade Marks an­nexed to the Benelux Convention on Trade Marks, which was a convention within the meaning of Article 57 of the Brussels Convention.
Forholdet til andre konventioner — særlige retsområder — konvention om fragtaftaler ved international godsbefordring ad landevej (CMR) — bestemmelser om værnetingsaftaler — forrang for domskonventionens artikel 17
Relationship to other conventions — Particular matters — Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR) — Rules relating to agreements on jurisdiction — Precedence over Article 17 of the Brussels Convention
I denne sag nåede Landgericht til det resultat, at den var kompetent på grundlag af en værnetingsaftale, som ikke opfyldte formkravene i domskonventionens artikel 17.
The Landgericht held that it had jurisdiction by virtue of a jurisdiction clause which did not comply with the formal requirements laid down by Article 17 of the Convention.
Af­talen var derimod gyldig i medfør af artikel 31 i konventionen om fragtaftaler ved in­ternational godsbefordring ad landevej (CMR), som ifølge domskonventionens arti­kel 57 fortsat var gældende som lex specialis i forhold til domskonventionen.
The agreement was valid under Article 31 of the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR), which continued to have effect as a lex specialis under Article 57 of the Convention.
(fortsat 1)
1968 ­ ARTICLE 57
Forholdet til andre konventioner — særlige retsområder — konvention om fragtaftaler ved international godstransport ad landevej (CMR) — bestemmelser om værnetingsaftaler — forrang for domskonventionens artikel 17
Relationship to other conventions — Particular matters — Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR) — Rules on agreements on jurisdic­tion — Precedence over Article 17 of the Brussels Convention
Et belgisk selskab anlagde, støttet på et konnossement, sag ved handelsretten i Antwer­pen mod et tysk rederi, fordi et parti skjorter fra Hongkong ved ankomsten til Antwer­pen var mangelfuldt, da den leverede mængde var for ringe. Det tyske rederi gjorde gældende, at de belgiske retter savnede kompetence, og påberåbte sig herved en værne­tingsklausul i konnossementet, der gjorde de tyske retter kompetente.
A Belgian company brought an action on a bill of lading against German shipowners in the Antwerp commercial court in which it claimed that a consignment of shirts from Hong Kong was not complete on its arrival at Antwerp.
Retten antog, at transporten til søs og transporten til lands var underkastet forskellige, selvstændige — nationale eller internationale — forskrifter.
The court took the view that the carriage by sea and the overland transportation were each subject to particular provisions, national or international.
For transporten til lands var bestemmelserne i konventionen om fragtaftaler ved international godstransport ad landevej (CMR) afgørende. Denne konventions artikel 31 bestemte, at sagsøgeren ikke alene kunne anlægge sag ved de af parterne udpegede retter, men også ved retterne i den stat, hvor varerne skulle overtages eller leveres. Ifølge CMR artikel 41 kunne den­ne bestemmelse ikke fraviges ved aftale.
The overland transportation was governed by the provisions of the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR), Article 31 of which allowed the plaintiff to take proceedings not only in the courts designated by agreement between parties, but also in the courts of the State in which the goods were to be taken over by the carrier or delivered.
Domskonventionens artikel 17, der gav de af parterne udpegede retter en eksklusiv kompetence, fandt ikke anvendelse på aftaler om transport ad landevej, da CMR som lex specialis ifølge domskonventionens artikel 57 fortrængte denne.
Article 17 of the Brussels Convention, which conferred exclusive jurisdiction upon the courts designated by agreement, did not apply to the contract for overland transportation, since by virtue of Article 57 of the Brussels Convention the CMR took precedence over the Brussels Convention as a lex specialis.
Kompetence — aftaler om kompetence i tilfælde, hvor en af parterne har bopæl eller hjemsted i Luxembourg — almindelige forretningsbetingelser
Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction agreement with a person domiciled in Luxembourg — General conditions of business
Bag på Bastins ordrebekræftelse var firmaets almindelige forretningsbe­tingelser trykt på fransk. Blandt betingelserne fandtes en klausul om, at købesummen skulle betales i Gent, og at retterne i Gent skulle være kompetente. Cogenal bestred Rechtbank van koophandels kompetence.
Printed in French on the back of the plaintiffs confirmation of the defendant's order were its conditions of business, stipulating inter alia that the buyer must perform its obligation to pay for the goods in Ghent and that the courts in Ghent were to have jurisdiction in the event of dispute.
I sine præmisser udtalte Rechtbank van koophandel, at det fulgte af artikel I i protokollen af 27. september 1968, at en sagsøgt med hjemsted i Luxembourg kunne bestride, at en domstol, for hvilken sagen var ind­bragt i medfør af konventionens artikel 5, nr. 1, havde den fornødne kompetence, med­mindre vedkommende udtrykkeligt og specielt havde accepteret en værnetingsaftale i henhold til artikel 17.
The court observed that Article I of the Protocol of 27 September 1968 allowed a defendant domiciled in Lux­embourg to refuse to submit to the jurisdiction of a court in which proceedings were commenced under Article 5(1) of the Convention, unless he had expressly and specifi­cally entered into a jurisdiction agreement within the meaning of Article 17.
En sådan accept forelå ikke, idet der af en underskrift på Coge­nals vegne på ordrebekræftelsens forside alene kunne udledes en generel accept af ordrebekræftelsen. Hverken konventionens artikel 17 eller protokollens artikel I fandt således anvendelse, men Rechtbank van koophandel henviste direkte til konventionens artikel 5, nr. 1, som et muligt grundlag for sin kompetence.
That was not so in this case: the mere fact that the order had been signed on the front on Coge­nal's behalf amounted to no more than a general acceptance of the terms printed on the order form.
Sagsøgeren forlangte betaling for leverede varer og påberåbte sig sine almindelige salgsbetingelser, som indeholdt en værnetingsaftale til fordel for retterne i Bruxelles.
In an action to recover payment for goods supplied the plaintiff relied on its general conditions of sale containing a jurisdiction clause in favour of the courts in Brussels.
Disse almindelige kontraktsbetingelser var trykt på bagsiden af den faktura, der var sendt til sagsøgte. Ifølge sagsøgeren havde sagsøgte i et brev til sagsøgeren ikke be­stridt, at Tribunal de commerce de Bruxelles var kompetent.
Those general conditions appeared on the back of the invoice sent to the defendant, which, according to the plaintiff, did not contest the jurisdiction of the Tribunal de commerce, Brussels, in a letter which it sent to the plaintiff.
Sagsøgte, et selskab med hjemsted i Luxembourg, gav ikke møde i sagen.
The defendant, a company established in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, did not enter an appearance.
Retten efter­prøvede først sin kompetence i medfør af artikel I, stk. 1, i protokollen til konventio­nen, hvorefter enhver person, der har bopæl i Luxembourg, og som i henhold til arti­kel 5, nr. 1, sagsøges ved en ret i en anden kontraherende stat, kan gøre indsigelse mod den pågældende rets kompetence, og retten, såfremt sagsøgte ikke giver møde, på em­beds vegne skal erklære sig for inkompetent.
The court first examined the question of jurisdiction in the light of the first paragraph of Article I of the Protocol to the Convention, according to which any person domiciled in Luxembourg who is sued in a court of another Contracting State pursuant to Article 5(1) may refuse to submit to the jurisdiction of that court, which must decline jurisdiction of its own motion if the defendant does not enter an appearance.
Efter at have konstateret, at sagsøgte ikke havde givet møde, behandlede retten spørgsmålet, om der mellem parterne var indgået en værnetingsaftale, der opfyldte betingelserne i artikel 17.
After establishing that the defendant had not entered an appearance, the court addressed itself to the question whether a jurisdiction agreement satisfying the re­quirements laid down by Article 17 of the Convention had been concluded between the parties.
Den nåede på grundlag af artikel 17 til det resultat, at accepten af værnetingsaftalen, der kun var stiltiende, i det foreliggende tilfælde ikke opfyldte betingelserne i denne bestemmelse, som ikke kunne undergives en udvidende fortolkning, da konventionen helt klart ville begrænse mulig­heden for at påberåbe sig sådanne aftaler.
It concluded, on the basis of Article 17 alone, that the mere tacit acceptance of the jurisdiction clause did not satisfy the requirements of that provision, which could not be given an extensive interpretation in view of the fact that the Convention had manifestly sought to limit the possibility of reliance on such clauses.
Tribunal de commerce erklærede sig på em­beds vegne inkompetent.
The court there­fore declined jurisdiction of its own motion.
Kompetence — sagsøgt med bopæl i Luxembourg, som sagsøges ved retten i en anden kontraherende stat i henhold til artikel 5, nr. 1 — sagsøgte gjorde gældende, at retten sav­nede kompetence, uden at påberåbe sig protokollens artikel ¡, stk. 1 — retten erklærede sig på embeds vegne inkompetent i medfør af denne bestemmelse
Special jurisdiction — Defendant domiciled in Luxembourg sued before a court of another Contracting State pursuant to Article 5(1) — Jurisdiction contested without reference to the first paragraph of Article I of the Protocol — Jurisdiction declined by the court of its own motion pursuant to that provision
En arbejdsaftale mellem et selskab med hjemsted i Luxembourg og en af dets ansatte, som havde bopæl i Belgien, blev opsagt af arbejdsgiveren.
A contract of employment between a company established in Luxembourg and one of its employees domiciled in Belgium was terminated by the employer.
Den ansatte anlagde erstat­ningssag ved Conseil de prud'hommes de Paris, idet han gjorde gældende, at han hav­de opfyldt arbejdsaftalen i Paris.
The employee brought an action for damages before the Conseil de prud'hommes in Paris on the ground that he had performed the contract of employment in Paris.
Cour d'appel de Paris ophævede denne afgørelse, da parterne havde aftalt, at aftalen skulle opfyldes i Paris, og da den også i det væsentlige faktisk var blevet opfyldt i Paris (konventionens artikel 5, nr. 1).
The Cour d'appel, Paris, over­turned that decision on the ground that the parties had agreed that the contract was to be, and it was in fact, principally, performed in Paris (Article 5(1) of the Convention).
Retten tog ikke den indsigelse om manglende kompetence til følge, som arbejdsgiveren havde fremsat uden dog at påberåbe sig protokollen, der er knyttet som bilag til kon­ventionen.
The objection that the court lacked jurisdiction raised by the employer, which did not, however, rely on the Protocol annexed to the Convention, was dismissed.
Arbejdsgiveren iværksatte kassationsappel til Cour de cassation, som fandt, at Cour d'appel burde have anvendt artikel I, stk. 1, i protokollen, der er knyttet som bilag til konventionen. Ifølge denne bestemmelse kan enhver person, der har bopæl i Luxem­
The Cour de cassation, to which the employer appealed, took the view that the Cour d'appel ought to have applied the first paragraph of Article I of the Protocol annexed to the Convention, which provided that any person domiciled in Luxembourg could re­
(fortsat 1) bourg, og som i henhold til artikel 5, nr. 1, sagsøges ved en ret i en anden kontraheren­de stat, gøre indsigelse mod den pågældende rets kompetence.
(continued 1) fuse to submit to the jurisdiction of the courts of another Contracting State seised under Article 5(1).
Retten skal anvende be­stemmelsen i protokollen på embeds vegne, selv når ingen af parterne har tænkt på at påberåbe sig den.
That provision of the Protocol had to be applied of the court's own motion, even if none of the parties had thought of relying on it.
Cour de cassation ophævede derfor Cour d'appel's dom på grund af tilsidesættelse af protokollens artikel I.
The judgment of the Cour d'appel, Paris, was accordingly set aside on the ground that it breached Article I of the Protocol.
II­l — Β 4 Hof van beroep Gent, dom af 17. marts 1988, PVBA Darotex mod Heiderscheid
II­l — Β 4 Hof van beroep, Ghent, Judgment of 17 March 1988, PVBA Darotex ν Heiderscheid
Kompetence — sagsøgt med bopæl i Luxembourg — værnetingsklausul fandt kun an­vendelse, i det omfang den var udtrykkeligt og specielt accepteret
Jurisdiction — Defendant domiciled in Luxembourg — Jurisdiction clause applicable only in the case of express agreement
Kompetence — sagsøgt med bopæl i Luxembourg — retten på opfyldelsesstedet erklærede sig inkompetent
Jurisdiction — Defendant domiciled in Luxembourg — Reliance on lack of jurisdic­tion of the court for the place of performance
Et belgisk firma, Darotex, havde ved retten på sit hjemsted — Rechtbank van koop­handel, Dendermonde — anlagt sag mod fru Heiderscheid, som havde bopæl i Storher­tugdømmet Luxembourg.
The Belgian company Darotex brought proceedings before the Rechtbank van koop­handel in Dendermonde, where it had its registered office, against the defendant, who was domiciled in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
Sagsøgte rejste indsigelse mod rettens kompetence og fik medhold heri. Appelinstansen, Hof van beroep, Gent, stadfæstede dommen.
The defendant successfully argued that the Rechtbank lacked jurisdiction.
Hof van beroep fastslog indledningsvis, at sagsøgte støttede sin indsigelse om den manglende kompetence på artikel I, stk. 2, i protokollen til konventionen af 27. septem­ber 1968.
The Hof van beroep first noted that the defendant based her objection of lack of juris­diction on the second paragraph of Article I of the Protocol to the Convention of 27 September 1968.
Sagsøgte havde underskrevet bestillingssedler, hvorpå der henvistes til almin­delige forretningsbetingelser, som var trykt på bagsiden. Blandt betingelserne var også en værnetingsklausul, hvorefter sag skulle anlægges ved retten på sælgerens hjemsted.
She had signed order forms that referred to the general conditions of business printed on the reverse side and which contained, inter alia, a jurisdiction clause in favour of the court where the plaintiff had its registered office.
En sådan klausul kan i almindelighed være gyldig — jfr. EF­Domstolens praksis vedrø­rende konventionens artikel 17 — såfremt begge parter har underskrevet kontrakten, og der deri udtrykkeligt henvises til de almindelige forretningsbetingelser.
According to the case­law of the Court of Justice on Article 17, such a clause could in general be ef­fective if the contract signed by both parties referred expressly to the general conditions of business.
På trods her­af måtte det for personer med bopæl i Luxembourg tillige kræves, at værnetingsklausu­len var udtrykkeligt og specielt accepteret.
In the case of persons domiciled in Luxembourg, however, it was also necessary that the jurisdiction clause should have been expressly and specifically agreed to.
I det konkrete tilfælde havde sagsøgeren ik­ke godtgjort, at der forelå en sådan accept, da medkontrahentens underskrift på kon­trakten som helhed ikke var tilstrækkelig hertil, og medkontrahenten ikke underskrevet værnetingsklausulen og derved accepteret den.
The plaintiff in the present case had failed to demonstrate that there had been such agreement, since the signing of the full contract by the defendant was not sufficient and the defendant's acceptance of jurisdiction had not been intended by her to constitute agreement.
Sagsøgte havde endvidere påberåbt sig protokollens artikel I, stk. 1, til støtte for, at den belgiske retsinstans heller ikke havde kompetence i henhold til konventionens artikel 5, nr. 1.
The defendant also relied on the first paragraph of Article I of the abovementioned Protocol and argued that the Belgian court equally lacked jurisdiction under Article 5(1) of the Convention.
Herom bemærkede Hof van beroep, at sagsøgeren ganske vist havde anført, at påberåbelsen af artikel I, stk. 1, ikke var i overensstemmelse med konventionens arti­kel 18, men at dette ikke kunne tiltrædes.
The plaintiffs argument that this objection was incompatible with Article 18 of the Convention was incorrect.
Sagsøgte havde allerede i sin første stillingta­gen i sagen principalt gjort gældende, at retten savnede kompetence, og kun subsidiært påstået frifindelse.
The defendant had already in her first appearance argued primarily that the Rechtbank lacked jurisdiction and requested only in the alternative that the action be dismissed as unfounded.
Påberåbelsen af rettens manglende kompetence var således i over­ensstemmelse med EF­Domstolens praksis.
The objection of lack of jurisdiction was compatible with the Court of Justice's interpretation of Article 18.
[fremsendelse af inden­ og udenretslige dokumenter]
[Transmission of judicial and extra­judicial documents]
(Jfr. også 1­27.2 ­ B 4, 25)
(See also 1­27.2 — Β 4, 25)
Fremsendelse af inden­ og udenretslige dokumenter — forkyndelse af en dom for en per­son, der befinder sig i en anden kontraherende stat — fremsendelse fra en offentligt god­kendt person til en offentligt godkendt person — udlevering til modtageren efter retsregler­ne i modtagerstaten — formmangler — fastlæggelse af retsvirkningerne efter samme stats retsregler
Transmission of judicial and extra­judicial documents — Service of a judgment on a person present in another Contracting State — Transmission from one court officer to an­other court officer — Handing over to the addressee in accordance with the law of the country of destination — Formal defects — Consequences to be determined under the same law
Rechtbank van koophandel, Veurne, havde ved dom tilpligtet en i Frankrig bosat per­son, Franquet, at betale et pengebeløb.
The Rechtbank van koophandel, Veurne, had ordered the debtor, who was resident in France, to pay a sum of money.
Dommen blev forkyndt for Franquet af en fransk stævningsmand efter anmodning fra en belgisk stævningsmand.
The judgment was served on him by a French court of­ficer at the request of a Belgian court officer.
Forkyndelsen skete ved udlevering til en person, der var ansat hos Franquet. To år senere indankede Franquet dommen for Hofvan beroep, Gent.
Service was effected by simply handing over the document to an employee of the debtor.
Efter at indstævnte havde rejst indsigelse om, at anke var iværksat efter ankefristens udløb, gjorde Franquet gældende, at erklæringen om forkyndelsen var ugyldig, da den i strid med fransk ret (art. 680 i Nou­veau code de procédure civile), som fandt anvendelse i henhold til Haagerkonventio­nen af 15. november 1965 om forkyndelse, ikke indeholdt oplysning om muligheden for at anke dommen.
Following an objection by the creditor that the appeal was time­barred, the debtor argued that the writ of service was void on the ground that, contrary to the relevant French law based on the Hague Con­vention on Service of 15 November 1965 (Art. 680 of the Nouveau Code de procédure civile), it contained no reference to the possibility of appealing against the judgment.