natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Anvendelsesområde — retsforlig angående forældremyndighed og underholdspligt under skilsmissesag —fuldbyrdelse af krav på underholdsbidrag i en anden kontrahe­rende stat — konventionen fandt anvendelse på krav på underholdsbidrag
Scope — Court settlement concerning custody and maintenance during divorce proceedings — Enforcement of maintenance claims in another Contracting State — Applicability of Convention to maintenance claims affirmed
Officielt bekræftede dokumenter og retsforlig — hindringer for fuldbyrdelse — mod­strid med grundlæggende retsprincipper ¡fuldbyrdelsesstaten —forelå ikke i et tilfælde, hvor en advokat indenfor sin fuldmagt indgik et retsforlig i en skilsmissesag
Authentic instruments and court settlements — Reasons for refusing enforcement — Contrary to public policy in the State where enforcement is sought — Not so where a lawyer, acting within the terms of his mandate, agrees to a court settlement in divorce proceedings
I en ved Landgericht Frankfurt am Main verserende skilsmissesag havde mandens ad­vokat den 30. maj 1973 indgået et retsforlig, hvori bl.a. spørgsmålet om forældremyndig­heden over fællesbørnene samt om mandens underholdspligt under skilsmissesagen over for hustruen og børnene blev fastlagt.
During divorce proceedings in the Landgericht Frankfurt-am-Main, the lawyer repre­senting the husband agreed on 30 May 1973 to a settlement which governed, inter alia, the custody of the children of the marriage and the maintenance payable by the husband pending divorce.
Ægtefællerne blev skilt ved dom af 15. fe­bruar 1976.
The parties' marriage was dissolved by decree of 15 February 1976.
Efter hustruens begæring havde Tribunal de grande instance de Paris ved kendelse af 5. juli 1977 i medfør af domskonventionen givet retsforliget fuldbyrdelsespå­tegning til inddrivelse af forfaldne underholdsbidrag. Dette anfægtede manden i med­før af konventionens artikel 36.
On the application of the divorced wife, who claimed arrears of maintenance, the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Paris, by order of 5 July 1977, applied the provisions of the Brussels Convention and made an order for the enforcement of the judicial settlement.
Han gjorde bl.a. gældende, at forliget vedrørte et spørgs­mål om fysiske personers retlige status, der ikke var omfattet af konventionen, og at det i øvrigt stred mod fransk ordre public, idet han ved forligets indgåelse ikke havde været forskriftsmæssigt repræsenteret.
He contended inter alia that the settlement concerned a question of status, which was excluded from the scope of the Convention, and, moreover, that the settlement was contrary to French pu­blic policy since he had not been properly represented when it was entered into.
Han gjorde endvidere gældende, at forliget ikke læn­gere kunne fuldbyrdes, efter at skilsmissesagen var afsluttet med en retskraftig dom.
Further, after the divorce proceedings had been terminated by a final judgment the settlement was no longer enforceable.
Cour d'appel stadfæstede afgørelsen.
The appeal was refused.
Cour d'appel anførte, at retsforliget, der var eksigibelt efter tysk ret, også kunne fuldbyr­des i Frankrig i medfør af konventionens artikler 50 og 51.
The Cour d'Appel held that the judicial settlement, which was enforceable under Ger­man law, could be enforced in France under Articles 50 and 51 of the Convention.
Af artikel 5, nr. 2, fremgik, at konventionen fandt anvendelse i sager om underholdsbidrag, også selv om kravet på bi­drag — som i nærværende tilfælde — beroede på en regel om fysiske personers retlige status.
It was clear from Article 5 (2) that the Convention applied to maintenance matters, even where, as in the present case, the maintenance claim was based on provisions relating to status.
I øvrigt var forliget for så vidt ikke bortfaldet ved skilsmissesagens afslutning, idet hustruen krævede forfaldne underholdsbidrag.
Further, since the maintenance creditor was claiming arrears of maintenance the settlement had not been superseded by the termination of the divorce proceedings.
Det var heller ikke i strid med fransk ordre public at fuldbyrde forliget.
Nor was enforcement of the settlement precluded on the ground that it was contrary to French public policy.
Den i tysk ret hjemlede mulighed for indenretligt og under rettens kontrol at indgå forlig, som derpå føres til retsbogen, var ikke i strid med fransk »ordre public international« (absolut ufravigelige retsregler), når hensås til de i Frankrig gældende forskrifter.
The possibility afforded by German law of agreeing, subject to the approval of the court, to a judicial settlement which was recorded in a document signed by the judge was not contrary to French public policy in the international field, having regard to the provisions applicable in France.
Under denne synsvinkel var der heller ingen betænkelighed forbundet ved, at appellanten havde givet sin advokat i Forbundsrepublikken en i saglig henseende ubegrænset fuldmagt til at va­retage sine inden­ og udenretlige interesser i sagen mod hustruen.
Nor was the fact that the appellant had given his lawyer in the Federal Republic of Germany a full mandate to attend both judi­cially and extra-judicially to his interests in the proceedings against his wife objection­able from this point of view.
Appellanten havde i øvrigt ikke gjort brug af muligheden for at anfægte retsforligets gyldighed
Moreover, the appellant had not availed himself of the opportunities open to him of challenging the validity of the court settlement.
Udsendelse I/februar ¡981
Issue I/February 1981
Anvendelsesområde — omfattede retsområder — arbejdsretlige forhold 2. Kompetence — konventionens bestemmelser — forrang for national lovgivning
Scope — Areas of law encompassed — Employment law
Overgangsbestemmelser — retssager anlagt efter konventionens ikrafttræden — tid ligere indgåede værnetingsaftaler, som måtte anses for ugyldige efter de ved indgåelsen gældende nationale lovbestemmelser — gyldige
Transitional provisions — Judicial proceedings instituted after the entry into force of the Convention — Prior clauses conferring jurisdiction which according to national rules in force at the time of the agreement were void — Held valid
I denne sag var forholdet det, at en arbejdsaftale, som var indgået den 27. oktober 1971 mellem en i Frankrig bosat arbejder og et tysk selskab, som bavde antaget arbejderen til arbejde i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland, indeholdt en værnetingsklausul, hvorefter en tysk ret var kompetent.
A contract of employment which was concluded on 27 October 1971 between a worker who was resident in France and a German company which had engaged him to work in the Federal Republic of Germany contained a clause conferring jurisdiction upon a German court.
Efter at aftalen var blevet ophævet den 8. december 1971, an lagde arbejdstageren den 27. november 1973 sag mod sin tidligere arbejdsgiver med på stand om betaling af nærmere bestemte beløb.
Following the breach of that contract of employment on 8 December 1971 the worker brought an action on 27 November 1973 in a French court claiming pay­ment of certain sums from his former employer.
Det tyske firmas indsigelse om, at retten savnede stedlig kompetence, blev ikke lagt til grund, idet retten som begrundelse herfor anførte, at værnetingsaftalen ifølge fransk ret var ugyldig.
The German company's plea that the French court had no jurisdiction was dismissed by that court on the ground that under French national law the clause conferring jurisdiction contained in the Contract of em­ployment was void.
Cour de cassation, der som sidste instans skulle træffe afgørelse i kompetencetvisten, rejste det spørgsmål, om domskonventionens artikel 17 — som det tyske selskab havde påberåbt sig til støtte for, at værnetingsaftalen skulle anses for gyldig — fandt anvendelse på arbejdsaftaler, indgået før konventionens ikrafttræden.
The Cour de Cassation, which was concerned with the case as the court of last instance, raised the question whether Article 17 of the Brussels Convention, upon which provision the German undertaking had relied in regard to the validity of the clause conferring jurisdiction, applied to contracts of employment which were conclu­ded before the entry into force of the Convention.
Cour de cassation forelagde derfor EF-Domstolen spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt konventionens artikel 17 i medfør af dennes artikel 54 måtte føre til, at værnetingsklausuler i en arbejdsaftale indgået før den 1. februar 1973, og ugyldige efter den da gældende nationale lovgivning, var gyldige, når retssagen var anlagt efter den 1. februar 1973.
The Cour de Cassation thereupon asked the Court of Justice of the European Communities to rale upon the question whether, in application of Article 54 of the Brussels Convention, Article 17 of that Con­vention must be interpreted to mean that, when proceedings had been commenced after 1 February 1973, clauses conferring jurisdiction inserted into a contract of employ­ment concluded before 1 February 1973 which would have been regarded as void by the internal legislation in force at that time must henceforward be deemed to be valid.
(fortsat 1) af Cour de cassation rejste spørgsmål om rækkevidden af artikel 54 fandt Domstolen kunne besvares således, at dels vedrørte konventionen ikke materielretlige regler, dels var det konventionens formål at fastlægge kompetencen for de kontraherende medlemsstaters retter i borgerlige sager inden for Fællesskabet, hvorfor de herved gældende na tionale retsplejeregler ophævedes og erstattedes af konventionens bestemmelser.
In answer to the question raised by the Cour de Cassation concern ing the scope of Article 54 it was stated, on the one hand, that the Convention did not af fect rales of substantive law and, on the other hand, that, as the Convention sought to de termine the jurisdiction of the courts of the Contracting States in the intra-Community legal order in regard to matters of civil jurisdiction, the national procedural laws applicable to the cases concerned were set aside in the matters governed by the Convention in favour of the provisions thereof.
Domstolen fastslog endvidere, at en skriftlig værnetingsklausul i en arbejdsaftale efter sin karakter er et væmetingsvalg, som er uden retsvirkning, så længe der ikke er anlagt en retssag, og som først får virkning den dag, da denne anlægges.
By its nature a clause in writing conferring jurisdiction and occurring in a contract of employment was a choice of jurisdiction ; such a choice had no legal effect for so long as no judicial proceedings had been commenced and only became of consequence at the date when judicial proceedings were set in motion.
Det er derfor dette tidspunkt som er afgørende for bedømmelsen af værnetingsaftalens rækkevidde i for hold til de retsregler, der finder anvendelse på dette tidspunkt.
That was therefore the relevant date for the purposes of an appreciation of the scope of such a clause in relation to the legal rules applying at that time.
Da retssagen blev anlagt den 27. november 1973, var det konventionen, som i medfør af artikel 54 fandt anvendelse.
The judicial proceedings had been instituted on 27 November 1973 and the Convention thus applied in pursuance of Article 54 thereof.
Det fremgår nemlig af denne artikel, at den eneste nødvendige og tilstrækkelige betingelse for, at konventionens regler finder anvendelse på tvister vedrørende retsforhold, opstået inden konventionens ikrafttræden, er, at retssagen er anlagt efter dette tidspunkt, hvilket var tilfældet her.
The effect of that article was that the only essential for the rales of the Convention to be applicable to litigation relating to legal relationships created before the date of the coming into force of the Convention was that the judicial proceedings should have been instituted subsequent to that date, which was the position in the present instance.
Domstolen besvarede følgelig det præjudicielle spørgsmål således:
The Court of Justice accordingly answered the question submitted to it for a preliminary ruling as follows:
»Artiklerne 17 og 54 i Bruxelles-konventionen... skal fortolkes således, at i retssager, som er anlagt efter konventionens ikrafttræden, skal værnetingsklausuler i arbejdskontrakter, indgået inden konventionens ikrafttræden, anses for gyldige, selv om de var ugyldige efter de ved arbejdskontraktens indgåelse gældende nationale lovbestemmelser.« stemmelser.«
"Articles 17 and 54 of the Convention ... must be interpreted to mean that, injudicial proceedings instituted after the coming into force of the Convention, clauses confer ring jurisdiction included in contracts of employment concluded prior to that date must be considered valid even in cases in which they would have been regarded as void under the national law in force at the time when the contract was entered into."
(Jfr. også I­l.l ­ 1)
(See also I­l.l ­ 1)
Overgangsbestemmelser — retssager anlagt før konventionens ikrafttræden — de indtil da gældende nationale bestemmelser var afgørende — konventionens betydning for fuldbyr­delsen af en afgørelse truffet efter dens ikrafttræden
Transitional provisions — Actions brought prior to the entry into force of the Convention — Applicability of national provisions in force until then — Significance of the Convention for the enforcement of a judgment given after its entry into force
I en kontrakt, som var indgået i Milano og skulle opfyldes i Italien, havde parterne be­stemt, at retterne i Hamburg skulle være kompetente til at påkende tvister i forbindelse med kontraktsforholdet.
In a contract which was concluded in Milan and which was to be performed in Italy the parties had agreed that the courts in Hamburg should have jurisdiction to decide dis­putes arising from the contractual relationship.
Montblanc GmbH, som trods aftalen blev sagsøgt ved en ita­liensk ret, hævdede under henvisning til konventionens artikel 17, at retten savnede kompetence.
Accordingly, when it was sued in an Italian court, Montblanc pleaded want of jurisdiction in reliance on Article 17 of the Convention.
Ret­ten konstaterede følgelig, at den havde kompetence til at pådømme sagen i medfør af ci­vilproceslovens artikel 4, nr. 2, og den anførte endvidere, at konventionen i medfør af dens overgangsbestemmelser kunne få betydning for fuldbyrdelsen af den afgørelse, der skulle træffes; det afgørende for afgørelsens eksigibilitet var, at den ret, der traf afgørel­sen, havde været kompetent ifølge de før ikrafttrædelsen gældende regler, for så vidt de var i overensstemmelse med reglerne i konventionens afsnit II.
The Tribunale held that it had jurisdiction under Article 4 (2) of the Codice di Procedura Civile and pointed out, further, that by virtue of the transitional provisions the Convention could become relevant in regard to the enforcement of the judgment to be delivered. The enforceability depended upon whether the court giving the judgment had had jurisdiction under the rules applying before the Convention came into force and whether those rules accorded with the provisions of Title II of the Convention.
Hertil bemærkede ret­ten, at bestemmelsen i konventionens artikel 5, nr. 1, fuldt ud svarede til reglerne i den italienske civilproceslovs artikel 4, nr. 2.
In that connexion it was observed that the rule contained in Article 5 (1) of the Convention was to exactly the same effect as that in Article 4 (2) of the Italian Codice di Procedura Civile.
(fortsat 1) chael Weinig (appellanten i kassationssagen) ved Tribunal de commerce de Belfort.
(continued 1)
Første tægtedag var i indkaldelsen fastsat til den 3. april 1973.
By a statement of claim and summons which were lodged with the local Parquet (office with which documents for service on foreign defendants must be lodged) on 26 January 1973 the respondent in the appeal (S.A. Rochard) had summoned the appellant (Firma Michael Weinig) to appear before the Tribunal de Commerce, Belfort, on 3 April 1973 in answer to a claim for damages.
Stævningsmanden videre­sendte ikke det indledende processkrift i sagen ved anbefalet brev, og genparten, der fremsendtes ad diplomatisk vej, nåede frem til modtageren den 27. marts 1973.
The official responsible for service omitted to send a copy of the document instituting the proceedings by registered letter and the copy for­warded through diplomatic channels reached the addressee on 27 March 1973.
Sidst­nævnte gjorde gældende, at forkyndelsen af indkaldelsen og stævningen for statsadvo­katuren var uden retsvirkning, da stævningsmanden ikke havde bragt den til kundskab ved anbefalet brev, og da indkaldelsen den 27. marts 1973, som sagsøgte modtog den, ikke var foretaget i overensstemmelse med domskonventionen ; sagsøgte gjorde derfor gældende, at den franske ret savnede kompetence.
The ad­dressee, Firma Michael Weinig, contended that the lodging of the summons with the Parquet was of no effect because the official responsible for service had failed to bring the summons to the firm's notice by sending it by registered letter and the summons which it, the appellant and defendant, had received on 27 March 1973 had not been ef­fected in accordance with the Brussels Convention. The defendant accordingly pleaded that the French court had no jurisdiction.
Sagsøgte indbragte derpå sagen for Cour d'appel de Besançon, hvis dom blev appelleret til Cour de cassation, som imidlertid stadfæstede afgørelsen.
The Cour de Cassation dismissed the appeal in cassation brought against a judgment de­livered by the Cour d'Appel, Besançon, in respect of the defendant's preliminary plea.
Cour d'appel havde stad­fæstet dommen fra Tribunal de commerce, hvori sidstnævnte havde erklæret sig kompe­tent.
The Cour d'Appel had upheld the judgment by which the Tribunal de Commerce had held that it had jurisdiction.
Cour de cassation begrundede sin dom med, at den tyske sagsøgte (appellanten i kassationsanken) ikke havde lidt skade, idet sagsøgte i retsmødet den 3. april 1973 havde opnået en udsættelse af sagen til et senere tidspunkt (3.6. 1973).
The Cour de Cassation found support for its decision in the fact that the German defendant (the appellant) had suffered no prejudice since at the hearing on 3 April 1973 it had been granted an adjournment until a later date (3 July 1973).
Da forkyndelsen af det indledende processkrift i sagen ikke var ugyldig, var den franske ret, for hvilken sagen blev anlagt før den 1. februar 1973, i medfør af artiklerne 14 og 15 i code civil kom­petent til at påkende tvister mellem franske og tyske statsborgere.
As the document instituting proceedings had been validly served, the French court, before which proceedings were brought prior to 1 February 1973, had jurisdiction to entertain actions between French and German nationals by virtue of Articles 14 and 15 of the Code Civil.
Overgangsbestemmelser — retssager anlagt før konventionens ikrafttræden — konventio­nen fandt ikke anvendelse
Transitional provisions — Actions brought before the entry into force of the Convention — Convention not applicable
I denne sag nåede Corte di cassazione under en særskilt behandling af spørgsmålet om kompetencen i medfør af artikel 41 i Codice di procedura civile (efter begæring fra SpA CAV) frem til, at de italienske retter var kompetente til at pådømme sagen mod det franske firma Francexpa.
In an application submitted by Compagnia Allevatori Vitelli in accordance with Arti­cle 41 of the Italian Codice di Procedura Civile [Code of Civil Procedure] to determine a preliminary question of jurisdiction the Corte di Cassazione held that the Italian courts had jurisdiction over a French company, Francexpa.
Corte di cassazione anførte i sin afgørelse, at aftalen om, at en fransk ret skulle være enekompetent, var uden retsvirkning, idet den var i strid med princippet i civilproceslovens artikel 2 om, at det ikke kunne aftales, at de italienske ret­ter ikke skulle være kompetente.
The decision stated that the clause in the parties' agreement conferring sole jurisdiction on a French court was invalid be­cause it was contrary to the principle contained in Article 2 of the Codice di Procedura Civile that the jurisdiction of the Italian courts could not be excluded by agreement.
Det kunne heller ikke af den fransk­italienske konven­tion af 1930 udledes, at aftalen skulle være gyldig, idet denne konvention — med undta­gelse af artiklerne 19 og 30 — ikke indeholdt bestemmelser om kompetencen, som såle­des fortsat måtte bestemmes efter de to staters nationale retsregler.
The clause was not rendered valid by the Convention between France and Italy of 1930 since,
Overgangsbestemmelser — retssager anlagt før konventionens ikrafttræden — konventio­nens kompetenceregler fandt anvendelse
Transitional provisions — Actions raised before the entry into force of the Convention — Rules on jurisdiction in the Convention applicable
I en retssag, som firmaet Voccia i 1976 anlagde mod firmaet Lamberti, og som angik et erstatningskrav på grund af manglende opfyldelse af en kontrakt, havde sagsøgte givet det hollandske selskab Begro procesunderretning.
In proceedings instituted in 1967 by Voccia against Lamberti for damages for failure to perform a contract the defendant issue a thirdparty notice against Begro, a company in the Netherlands.
Begro indtrådte i sagen og rejste bl.a. indsigelse om, at den italienske ret ikke havde international kompetence til at påkende sagen.
Begro entered an appearance and pleaded inter alia that the Italian court did not have jurisdiction.
Såvel i første som anden instans forkastedes indsigelsen.
That plea was rejected by both the court of first instance and the court of second instance.
I sin afgørelse nåede Corte di cassazione til det resultat, at den italienske ret var kom­petent til at pådømme sagen over for det hollandske selskab. I modsætning til første og anden instans støttede Corte di cassazione dog ikke resultatet på bestemmelserne i den italienske civilproceslov, men udelukkende på domskonventionens bestemmelser, sær­lig artikel 6, nr. 2.
In its judgment the Corte di Cassazione decided that the Italian court had jurisdiction over the Dutch company not, as held by the courts of first and second instance, by virtue of the provisions of the Italian Codice di Procedura Civile [Code of Civil Procedure] but solely by virtue of the provisions of the Convention, in particular Article 6 (2).
Konventionen gjaldt som »jus superveniens« også for retssager, som var anlagt på ikrafttrædelsestidspunktet, idet dens komptencebestemmelser på grund af deres offentligretlige karakter fandt anvendelse umiddelbart.
The Convention, as ius superveniens, applied also to proceedings pending at the time of its entry into force since the provisions relating to jurisdiction were in the nature of public law and were therefore immediately applicable.
Overgangsbestemmelser —fuldbyrdelse af en tysk dom om underholdsbidrag, afsagt inden konventionens ikrafttræden — fuldbyrdelse begrænset til selve betalingsforpligtelsen — præjudiciel konstatering af en familieretlig status udelukker ikke fuldbyrdelse — hensyn til principper i domskonventionen og andre konventioner om fuldbyrdelse af afgørelser vedrø­rende underholdsbidrag
Transitional provisions — Enforcement of a German maintenance order made before the entry into force of the Convention — Enforcement confined to pecuniary obligations — En­forcement not prevented by the existence of an incidental finding that the relationship was governed by family law — Regard to be had to the principles contained in the Brussels Con­vention and other conventions relating to the enforcement of maintenance orders
Denne afgørelse vedrørte en tysk dom om underholdsbidrag, som var afsagt inden kon­ventionens ikrafttræden, og hvis gyldighed (efficacia) skulle konstateres i Italien med henblik på fuldbyrdelse.
This decision is concerned with a German maintenance order which was made before the Convention came into force. With a view to its enforcement, proceedings were brought to establish its validity (efficacia) in Italy.
Instansen før Corte di cassazione havde forkastet påstanden herom under henvisning til, at den fastslåelse af faderskabet, der lå til grund for idøm­melsen af underholdsbidraget, var sket på grundlag af bevismidler, der var i strid med italiensk ordre public.
The Corte di Cassazione quashed the judgment of the lower court, which had declined to find the order valid on the ground