natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Selskabet anførte, at denne be­stemmelse gav kompetence, ikke til retten på opfyldelsesstedet for kontrakten, men til retten på opfyldelsesstedet for den forpligtelse, hvis opfyldelse man ønskede at opnå, eller hvis misligholdelse lå til grund for retssagen.
The court dismissed Freudenberg's claim that it lacked jurisdiction and, by judgment of 25 June 1982, the Cour d'appel, Brussels, upheld the international jurisdiction of the lower court on the basis of Article 5(1) of the Convention.
Men efter leverandørens opfattelse bebrejdede forhandleren ikke selskabet, at det havde afbrudt leveringerne til Frankrig, men at det havde undladt at opfylde sin forpligtelse til at fortsætte kontrakten, indtil den udløb, og kun ophæve den på de fastsatte betingelser, en forpligtelse som kun skul­le opfyldes på leverandørens hjemsted og ikke i Frankrig.
Having held that Belgian law was applicable to the contract, the Cour d'appel empha­sized that a claim for damages in lieu of notice under Article 2 of the 1961 Law was based on the obligation to give sufficient notice. Since that obligation had to be per­formed in the country where the exclusive agreement was to be carried out, that is to say in Belgium in this case, the Belgian courts had jurisdiction under Article 5(1) of the Convention to entertain that claim.
Cour de cassation stadfæstede den af Cour d'appel de Paris afsagte stadfæstende dom under henvisning til, at den forpligtelse, der skal lægges til grund for anvendelsen af arti­kel 5, nr. 1, i en sag, der drejer sig om betaling af erstatning eller ophævelse af en enefor­handlingsaftale som følge af leverandørens ensidige annullation af aftalen uden forud­gående varsel, er den forpligtelse, der påhviler leverandøren, og hvis misligholdelse på­beråbes af forhandleren som grundlag for erstatningskravet eller for kravet om kontrak­tens ophævelse.
As for the claim for additional compensation under Article 3 of the Law, the Cour d'appel conceded that such compensation differed from damages in lieu of notice, in so far as its origins lay in the unjust enrichment of the supplier and was claimable not only in the event of insufficient notice. Nevertheless, the court added that, in recognizing in its judgment of 6 October 1976 in Case 14/76 De Bloos ν Bouyer [1976] ECR 1497 (see 1­5.1.1 — A 1, supra) that it was for the national court to determine the nature of obli­gations to pay damages, the Court of Justice had not deprived the national court of the right to seek — pending Community harmonization of the law of contract — a solution which appeared to it to avoid a multiplicity of heads of jurisdiction with regard to a given contract.
Cour d'appel havde henvist til, at forhandleren bebrejdede leverandø­ren, det tyske selskab, at det havde bragt sine egne forpligtelser til ophør ved at indstille effektueringen af de ordrer, som forhandleren i Frankrig indgav til selskabet, og at denne krævede erstatning for det tab, han havde lidt ved den uberettigede afbrydelse af
Given that all the claims for compensation asserted in this case were the outcome of the failure to fulfil the obligation in question within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the Convention, the Cour d'appel considered that the place of performance of that obligation was Belgium and therefore the Belgian courts had jurisdiction to enter­tain the claim for additional compensation.
(fortsat 1) staining i forbindelse med opsigelsen — afgørende forpligtelse — forpligtelse til at beskæftige arbejdstageren, mens opsigelsesfristen løber — arbejdet opdelt på to kontrahe­rende stater — kompetence for den ret i en af disse stater, ved hvilken sagen er anlagt
(continued 1)
NV Schokbeton med hjemsted i Zwijndrecht (Nederlandene) afskedigede en arbejdsta­ger ved navn Angrevier, som var bosat i Bruxelles, under overholdelse af de i henhold til nederlandsk ret gældende forskrifter.
The Cour de cassation accepted Freudenberg's argument that there was an inconsist­ency in the reasoning of the Cour d'appel.
Angrevier havde indgået arbejdsaftalen med NV Schokbetons hovedsæde i Zwijndrecht, men udførte sit arbejde dels i Nederlande­ne, dels i Belgien.
The Cour de cassation observed in the first place that in the event of the termination of an exclusive distribution agreement gov­erned by the Belgian Law of 27 July 1961, payment of damages under Article 2 ofthat Law did not constitute an independent obligation but was designed to offset the loss of advantages which would have been afforded to the party concerned by the giving of reasonable notice.
En del af hans lejlighed i Bruxelles var indrettet til kontor, og til gengæld herfor betalte arbejdsgiveren ham en godtgørelse.
However, that was not true of the additional compensation provided for in Article 3 of that Law, for it was awarded to the distributor chiefly on account of the profits which continued to accrue to the supplier in any event after the termination of the contract.
Angrevier gjorde gældende, at opsigelsen var uretmæssig, og påstod NV Schokbeton tilpligtet fortsat at udbetale løn, subsidiært at betale erstatning, fordi den opsigelses­frist, der er fastsat som minimum i den belgiske lov af 3. juli 1978, ikke var overholdt.
Consequently the Cour de cassation quashed the judgment of the Cour d'appel, Brus­sels, in so far as it held that the court of first instance had jurisdiction to entertain Van Oppens' claim to the payment of additional compensation under Article 3 of the aforementioned Belgian Law.
Under hensyn til de af parterne fremlagte processkrifter fandt Arbeidsrecht­bank, at NV Schokbetons hovedsæde i Zwijndrecht måtte betragtes som beskæftigelses­sted. Desuden havde NV Schokbeton opfyldt sin forpligtelse til at udbetale lønnen i Zwijndrecht i nederlandsk valuta.
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction of the courts for the place of perform­ance — Agency contract — Action for compensation for the damage resulting from the termination of the contract by the principal — Action based on the obligation to comply with the agency contract — Jurisdiction of the courts of the Contracting State to whose territory the contract relates
Herefter var forpligtelsen til at betale erstatning en forpligtelse, som trådte i stedet for den ikke opfyldte forpligtelse til at overholde bestemmelserne om op­sigelse i loven eller aftalen.
Following the termination of the contract by the latter company, Transports et Voyages brought proceedings against it in the Tribunal de commerce, Paris, for compensation for the damage which it claimed it had suffered as a result of the unilateral and wrongful termination of the contract.
Sidstnævnte forpligtelse indebar imidlertid, at arbejdsgive­ren under opsigelsesfristen stadig skulle opfylde sin forpligtelse til at beskæftige ar­bejdstageren på det aftalte sted.
The German company argued that the French court had no jurisdiction on the basis of Article 2 and Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention.
Da denne forpligtelse i det foreliggende tilfælde dels skulle have været opfyldt i Nederlandene, dels også i Belgien, havde de belgiske retter kompetencen i henhold til konventionens artikel 5, nr. 1.
As far as Article 5(1) was concerned it argued that since obli­
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — opfyldelsesværneting — eneforhandlingsaf­tale — flere krav — godtgørelse og supplerende godtgørelse ved opsigelse — hver enkelt omtvistet forpligtelses selvstændige karakter
The Oberlandesgericht left it undecided whether an effective agreement conferring jurisdiction on the courts for the place where the plaintiff had its registered office had come into being, since those courts had jurisdiction in any event under Article 5(1) of the Convention.
Bureau Van Oppens, der havde hjemsted i Belgien, havde retten til eneforhandling i Belgien og Luxembourg af gulvbelægninger fremstillet af Carl Freudenberg KG, For­bundsrepublikken Tyskland, i Belgien og Luxembourg.
For its part, the claim for damages did not fall within the scope of the Uniform Law and was therefore to be assessed in accordance with the law applicable under German private interna­tional law.
I 1978 blev forbindelsen mel­lem parterne afbrudt, og Van Oppens anlagde sag mod leverandøren ved en belgisk ret med påstand om betaling af godtgørelse (»indemnité compensatoire de préavis«) og supplerende godtgørelse (»indemnité complémentaire«).
The Landgericht Trier also had international jurisdiction with regard to that claim, since, according to the judgment of the Court of Justice of 26 May 1982 in Case 133/81 Ivenel ν Schwab [1982] ECR 1891 (supra, 1­5.1.1 — A 3), the obligation to be taken into account in the case of claims based on different obligations under a contract is the obligation which characterizes the contract.
Van Oppens gjorde gælden­de, at Freudenberg KG ensidigt havde frigjort sig fra aftalen uden at give tilstrækkeligt varsel, og støttede de to krav, der gjordes gældende med søgsmålet, på den belgiske lov af 27. juli 1961, som ændret ved lov af 13. april 1971, om ensidig ophævelse af enefor­handlingsaftaler af ubestemt varighed.
In the case of a contractual relation­ship between a dealer and his supplier, the characteristic obligations were the obliga­tions under the individual contracts for the supply of goods for resale, not any claims for damages for failure to return samples provided on loan.
Retten tog ikke den af Freudenberg KG frem­satte indsigelse om manglende kompetence til følge.
The main focus of the dealer's contract was the sale of goods supplied for resale and not the samples provided free of charge, which only assisted such sales.
Cour d'appel de Bruxelles stadfæstede afgørelsen ved dom af 25. juli 1982, for så vidt angik førsteinstansens inter­nationale kompetence, der støttedes på konventionens artikel 5, nr. 1.
That was true even where, as in this case, the amount of the claim for damages exceeded the amount of the claim in respect of the purchase price.
Da alle de godtgørelseskrav, der var gjort gældende i sagen, var en følge af tilsidesættelsen af den omtvistede forpligtelse i konventionens artikel 5, nr. l's for­
Avermann, a company based in Osnabrück (Federal Republic of Germany), dismissed Mr Vriezema, a sales representative resident in the Netherlands, without notice.
(fortsat 1) han havde bopæl, og nedlagde påstand om fortsat udbetaling af lønnen. Kantongerecht Enschede og — i appelinstansen — Rechtbank Almelo anså de nederlandske retter for kompetente.
Mr Vriezema contested the legality of his dismissal before the court for his domicile, seeking the continued payment of his remuneration.
I dommen af 24. marts 1982 støttede Rechtbank Almelo denne opfattelse på konventionens artikel 5, nr. 5, da Vriezema havde fået tildelt arbejdsopgaver fra en filial af firmaet Avermann i Almelo retskreds.
In its judgment of 24 March 1982 the Arrondissementsrecht­bank, Almelo, based that view on Article 5(5) of the Convention on the ground that Mr Vriezema received directions concerning his work from a branch of Avermann located in the judicial district of Almelo.
Avermann indgav kassationsappel til Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, som ophævede den anfægtede afgørelse ved dom af 27. maj 1983 (NJ 1983, nr. 561, kommenteret af Schultsz) og henviste sagen til Ge­rechtshof Arnhem.
Avermann lodged an application for review at the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, which quashed the judgment of the lower court by judg­ment of 27 May 1983 (NJ 1983, No 561, Note: Schultsz) and remitted the case to the Gerechtshof, Arnhem.
Hoge Raad fastslog, at Rechtbank ved prøvelsen af spørgsmålet, om Avermann havde en filial, et agentur eller en lignende virksomhed i artikel 5, nr. 5's forstand i Nederlandene, med urette havde undladt at tage EF­Domstolens dom af 22. november 1978 i sag 33/78 (jfr. nedenfor under 1­5.5 — A 1) i betragtning.
The Hoge Raad held that, in considering whether Avermann had a branch, agency or other establishment within the meaning of Article 5(5) in the Netherlands, the Arrondissementsrechtbank had wrongly failed to take account of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 22 November 1978 in Case 33/78 Somafer ν Saar­Ferngas [1978] ECR 2188 (infra, 1­5.5 — A 1).
Recht­bank havde nemlig ikke taget stilling til, om der i det foreliggende tilfælde kunne være tale om en filial i den betydning, der er forudsat i den nævnte bestemmelse i konventio­nen, og den havde, uden at anvende de i den nævnte dom fra EF­Domstolen opstillede kriterier, fastslået, at der i hvert fald var tale om »en lignende virksomhed«.
The Arrondissementsrechtbank had left the question open as to whether a branch within the meaning of Article 5(5) was in­volved in this instance and had held, without applying the criteria set out in the judg­ment of the Court of Justice, that in any event there was an 'other establishment'.
I henvisningsdommen bemærkede Hoge Raad endvidere, at de nederlandske retters kompetence efter Vriezemas opfattelse også fulgte af konventionens artikel 5, nr. 1, og at den dom, Domstolen i mellemtiden havde afsagt den 26. maj 1982 i sag 133/81 (jfr. ovenfor under 1­5.1.1 — A 3), kunne være af betydning for bedømmelsen af dette an­bringende.
The Hoge Raad further observed that in Mr Vriezema's view the Netherlands courts also had jurisdiction under Article 5(1). In addition, the judgment which the Court of Justice had delivered in the mean time on 26 May 1982 in Case 133/81 Ivenel ν Schwab [1982] ECR 1891 (supra, 1­5.1.1 ­ A 3) might be relevant.
Gerechtshof Arnhems afgørelse gik ud på, at de nederlandske retter faktisk havde kompetencen til at påkende sagen; desuden trafretten afgørelse vedrørende rea­liteten.
The Gerechtshof, Arnhem, to which the case was remitted, held that the courts in the Netherlands did in fact have jurisdiction, and decided on the substance.
Gerechtshof undersøgte først, hvilket lands lov der var gældende for arbejdsaftalen mellem parterne, og nåede frem til, at dette var nederlandsk lov, da arbejdet udeluk­kende var blevet udført i Nederlandene.
The Gerechtshof first considered the law applicable to the contract of employment be­tween the parties, reaching the conclusion that Netherlands law was applicable, since the work had invariably been carried out in that country alone.
Herefter fastslog Gerechtshof under henvis­ning til præmis 15 i Domstolens sidstnævnte dom, at det i en sag, som kun støttedes på én forpligtelse i henhold til en arbejdsaftale, var berettiget at træffe samme afgørelse, som Domstolen havde gjort med hensyn til indbyrdes forskellige forpligtelser i henhold til en sådan aftale.
The Gerechtshof then quoted paragraph 15 of the judgment in lvanel ν Schwab and held that it was appropri­ate to decide a case which was based on a single obligation under a contract of employ­ment in the same way as the Court of Justice had decided with regard to different obli­gations arising under such a contract.
Dette var der efter Gerechtshofs opfattelse så meget desto mere an­ledning til, som den af Vriezema anlagte sag hang sammen med en uvarslet afskedigel­se, dvs. — på baggrund af de præceptive bestemmelser i nederlandsk ret — med den måde, hvorpå sagsøgeren havde udført sit arbejde.
The Gerechtshof considered that there was all the more reason to take such an approach because Mr Vriezema's claim related to dismis­sal without notice and hence, in the light of mandatory provisions of Netherlands law, to the way in which he had carried out his work.
Gerechtshof kom til det resultat, at de nederlandske retter havde kompetence til at på­kende kravet om fortsat udbetaling af løn, da Vriezemas forpligtelse til at udføre arbej­det skulle opfyldes i Nederlandene, og nederlansk ret fandt anvendelse på aftalen.
The Gerechtshof concluded that the courts in the Netherlands had jurisdiction to enter­tain the claim to continued payment of remuneration, since Mr Vriezema's obligation to carry out work had had to be performed in the Netherlands and Netherlands law was applicable to the contract.
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — opfyldelsesværneting — flere forpligtelser, der ligger til grund for sagen — hovedforpligtelsen afgørende — bestemmelse af opfyldel­sesstedet i en betalingsklausul, som parterne havde aftalt og rettede sig efter
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction of the courts for the place of perform­ance — Several obligations constituting the subject­matter of the action — Account to be taken of the main obligation — Designation of the place of performance in a payment clause agreed and observed by the parties
Et fransk selskab købte proteser og ortopædiske hjælpemidler hos et belgisk selskab.
A French company had purchased prostheses and orthopaedic aids from a Belgian company.
Efter at førstnævnte selskab havde undladt at betale for en række leverancer, blev der anlagt sag mod det i Belgien med påstand om betaling af fakturabeløbene med tillæg af renter og en konventionalbod.
After the French company had failed to pay for several deliveries, proceed­ings were instituted against it in Belgium for payment of bills plus interest and a con­tractual penalty.
Under appelsagen gjorde det franske selskab gældende, at de belgiske retter savnede kompetence, da sagsøgte i medfør af konventionens arti­kel 2 skulle sagsøges ved retterne i den stat, hvor han havde bopæl.
On appeal the French company argued that the Belgian courts lacked jurisdiction as Article 2 of the Convention provided that the defendant had to be sued in the courts of the State in which it was domiciled.
Det belgiske selskab påberåbte sig heroverfor konventionens artikel 5, nr. 1, hvorefter det i sager om kon­traktforhold er retten på det sted, hvor den pågældende forpligtelse er opfyldt eller skal opfyldes, der har kompetencen, i det foreliggende tilfælde altså de belgiske retter.
Against this, the respondent Bel­gian company pointed to Article 5(1) of the Convention, according to which the courts with jurisdiction in actions based on contract were those for the place of performance of the obligation in question and, therefore, in the present case, the Belgian courts.
Ved afgørelsen af tvisten tog Cour d'appel de principper i anvendelse, som Domstolen har opstillet i forbindelse med kontraktlige forpligtelser.
For the purpose of resolving the dispute, the Cour d'appel applied the principles laid down by the European Court of Justice with regard to contractual obligations.
Den fastslog for det første, at ifølge Domstolens praksis er den forpligtelse, hvis opfyldelsessted er afgørende for kompetencen, den forpligtelse, som ligger til grund for søgsmålet (dom af 6. oktober 1976 i sag 14/76, jfr. ovenfor under 1­5.1.1 — A 1).
It first established that, according to the case­law of the Court of Justice, the obligation, the place of performance of which determined jurisdiction, was that which formed the basis of the legal proceedings (judgment of 6 October 1976 in Case 14/76 De Bloos ν Bouyer, supra, 1­5.1.1 — A 1).
I det foreliggende tilfælde lå flere forpligtelser til grund for sagen: forpligtelsen til at betale fakturabeløbene, renterne og konventionalboden.
There were in the present case several obligations which formed the basis of the legal proceedings — the obligation to pay the bills, the interest and the contractual penalty.
For at løse problemet henviste Cour d'appel til det af Domstolen opstillede princip, hvorefter kompetencen, når der er tale om flere forpligtelser, retter sig efter hovedforpligtelsen (dom af 15. januar 1987 i sag 266/85, jfr. ovenfor under 1­5.1.1 — A 5).
In order to solve this problem, the Cour d'appel referred to the principle developed by the Court of Justice to the effect that in the case of several obligations, jurisdiction is determined by the main obligation (judgment of 15 January 1987 in Case 266/85 Shenavai ν Kreischer, supra, 1­5.1.1 — A 5).
Hovedforpligtelsen var i det foreliggende tilfælde forpligtelsen til at be­tale købesummen for varerne, mens forpligtelsen til at betale renter og konventional­bod var accessoriske forpligtelser.
The main obligation in the present case, according to the Cour d'appel, was the obligation to pay the price of the goods purchased, whereas the obligations to pay the interest and contractual penalty were ancillary in nature.
Rent faktisk havde appellanten altid erlagt betalin­gen i Bruxelles, hvilket selskabet i øvrigt var forpligtet til ifølge en klausul i de alminde­lige forretningsbetingelser på bagsiden af de af indstævnte udstedte fakturaer.
It then went on to establish that the appellant had in practice always made its payments in Brussels, as it had in any event been obliged to do by a clause contained in the general conditions set out on the reverse side of the in­voices issued by the respondent.
Af den omstændighed, at appellanten havde betalt disse — utallige — fakturaer, fulgte, at sel­skabet havde været indforstået med klausulen.
The fact that the appellant had paid those invoices (of which there had been a large number) demonstrated that it had accepted that clause.
Efter Cour d'appel's opfattelse var der i kraft af denne klausul gyldigt skabt værneting i Bruxelles. Der var nemlig her tale om anvendelse af det princip, Domstolen opstillede i sin dom af 17. januar 1980 i sag 56/79 (jfr. nedenfor under 1­5.1.2 ­ A 2).
In the opinion of the Cour d'appel, that clause effectively designated the Brussels courts as having jurisdiction in the matter, a solution which, in its view, amounted to an appli­cation of the principle laid down by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 17 January 1980 in Case 56/79 Zeiger ν Salinitri (infra, 1­5.1.2 — A 2).
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — opfyldelsesværneting — agent­ og enefor­handlingsaftale — opsagt af leverandøren — flere erstatningskrav — det på opsigelsen støttede krav behandlet som hovedkrav — den tilgrundliggende forpligtelse — levering af varer til den stat, hvor eneforhandleren havde hjemsted — kompetencen for retterne i den­ne stat udvidet til også at omfatte accessoriske krav
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction of the courts for the place of perform­ance — Contract relating to commercial representation and exclusive distribution — Ter­mination by the supplier — Plurality of claims — Claim based on the termination treated as the main claim — Underlying obligation — Supply of goods into the State in which the exclusive distributor has its seat — Jurisdiction ofthat State extended to cover the second­ary claims
Efter at den tyske leverandør havde opsagt en agent­ og eneforhandlingsaftale, anlagde den franske eneforhandler sag ved de franske retter og fremsatte fem forskellige krav om erstatning og andre pengeydelser.
Following the termination by the German supplier of a contract relating to commercial representation and exclusive distribution, the French exclusive distributor brought pro­ceedings before the French courts in which it introduced five separate claims for com­pensation and other payments.
Den for retten i første instans fremsatte indsigelse om, at retten savnede kompetence, blev ikke taget til følge.
The objection of lack of jurisdiction made before the court of first instance was dismissed.
Efter at sagsøgte havde kæret afgørelsen, fastslog Cour d'appel, at det franske selskab i henhold til den omhandlede aftale havde hvervet kunder, taget imod ordrer på værktøjsmaskiner for det tyske selskab og modtaget provision herfor (mandat); samti­dig havde det købt maskiner med ret til eneforhandling i Frankrig og pligt til ikke at sælge konkurrerende maskiner (eneforhandlingsret). Efter Cour d'appel's opfattelse udgjorde de to krav om erstatning for opsigelsen af dette dobbelte kontraktforhold ho­vedkravet. Den forpligtelse, som lå til grund for dette krav, var forpligtelsen til at levere varerne med henblik på at sælge dem. Denne forpligtelse skulle opfyldes i Frankrig.
On appeal by the defendant, the Cour d'appel established that the French company had acquired clients under the contract in question, received orders for tool machines on behalf of the German company and had been paid commission (agency); at the same time, it had purchased machines with the exclusive right to sell them in France and with the obligation not to sell any competing machinery (exclusive distribution right).