natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
4 Derimod bestemmer artikel 17 i konventionens afdeling 6 om 'aftaler om kompe tence', at den af parterne i den foreskrevne form udpegede ret er enekompetent, og artiklen udelukker således såvel de generelle kompetenceregler i konventionens artikel 2 som de specielle kompetenceregler i artikel 5 uden hensyn til en mulig objektiv sammenhæng mellem det omtvistede retsforhold og den udpegede ret.
4 By contrast, Article 17, which occurs in Section 6 of the Convention entitled 'Prorogation of jurisdiction' and which provides for the exclusive jurisdiction of the court designated by the parties in accordance with the prescribed form, puts aside both the rule of general jurisdiction — provided for in Article 2 — and the rules of special jurisdiction — provided for in Article 5 — and dispenses with any objective connection between the legal relationship in dispute and the court designated.
Heraf frem går, at opfyldelsesstedets værneting i henhold til artikel 5, nr. 1, og det aftalte værneting i henhold til artikel 17 erto forskellige begreber, og at kun værnetingsaftaler er undergivet formkravene i konventionens artikel 17.
It thus appears that the jurisdiction of the court for the place of performance (provided for in Article 5(1) and that of the selected court (provided for in Article 17) are two distinct concepts and only agreements selecting a court are subject to the requirements of form prescribed by Article 17 of the Convention.
5 Hvis altså kontrahenterne ifølge den lovgivning, der finder anvendelse, på de heri fastsatte betingelser kan udpege opfyldelsesstedet for en forpligtelse, uden at der gælder særlige formkrav, er aftalen vedrørende opfyldelsesstedet for forpligtelsen til strækkelig til at skabe et værneting på samme sted i henhold til konventionens artikel 5, nr. 1.
5 Consequently, if the parties to the contract are permitted by the law applicable to the contract, subject to any conditions imposed by that law, to specify the place of performance of an obligation without satisfying any special condition of form, an agreement on the place of performance of the obligation is sufficient to found juris diction in that place within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the Convention.
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — opfyldelsesværneting — opfyldelsesste­det for betalingsforpligtelser — skyldnerens bopæl
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction of the courts for the place of per­formance — Place of performance of pecuniary obligations — The debtor's place of bus­iness
Den udtalte, at bestemmelserne i domskonven­tionen, som efter offentliggørelsen i Frankrig i henhold til den franske forfatnings arti­kel 55 har forrang for national lovgivning, var afgørende for kompetencen.
It held that jurisdiction was governed by the provisions of the Brussels Convention, which following its publication in France, took precedence over internal laws in accordance with Article 55 of the French Constitution.
Konventio­nen, som har til formål at virkeliggøre EØF­traktatens målsætninger med hensyn til ret­ternes kompetence, kunne kun få fuld virkning, når den fortolkedes ud fra egne forud­sætninger uden hensyntagen til de særegenheder, som følger af nationale retssystemer. Under henvisning til konventionens artikel 2 og artikel 5, nr. 1, fandt Cour d'appel heref­ter, at franske retter manglede kompetence vedrørende betalingspåstanden.
The Convention, which sought to achieve the objectives of the EEC Treaty in the field of jurisdiction, could only attain its full effect if it were interpreted independently with­out consideration of the special features of the national legal systems.
Som udgangspunkt skulle betalingen tværtimod ske på skyldnerens bopæl.
On the contrary, the payment should in principle be made at the debtor's place of business.
Sagsøgeren kunne heller ikke påberåbe sig en værnetingsaftale ved fremmøde (arti­kel 18), da sagsøgte i første instans overhovedet ikke, og i anden instans, kun var mødt for at bestride franske retters kompetence.
Nor could the plaintiff argue that the defendant had submitted to the jurisdiction by en­tering an appearance (Article 18), since at first instance the defendant had not appeared at all and at second instance had appeared solely in order to contest the jurisdiction of the French courts.
(Fortsættes næste højre side)
(continued on next recto page)
(fortsat 1) tuel kompetence for retten i Strasbourg kun komme i betragtning, såfremt denne ret kunne anses for opfyldelsesværneting i henhold til domskonventionens artikel 5, nr. 1.
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.
Dens opfyldelsessted skulle bestemmes efter fransk ret; da det drejede sig om en henteskyld — hvilket i øvrigt også var tilfældet efter tysk ret — var opfyldelsesstedet sagsøgtes hjemsted i Forbundsrepublikken.
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.
Sagsø­gerens kontraktmæssige pensionskrav måtte adskilles fra hans krav på arbejdsløn; i hvert fald kunne man af den påberåbte grundsætning, at arbejdsløn altid skal udbetales på stedet for arbejdsydelsen, ikke i det foreliggende tilfælde udlede, at også den kon­traktmæssige pension skulle betales på stedet for arbejdsydelsen, idet de to krav var af forskellig beskaffenhed og havde forskelligt grundlag.
This result also followed from the Law of 27 July 1961 without there being any conflict on this question with the Brussels Convention. 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.
Kompetence — værnetingsaftale — voldgifisklausul — ingen vedtagelse af, at en »ret« skal være kompetent i henhold til artikel 17, stk. I
1-5.1.2 — Β 12 Tribunal de Commerce, Brussels, Judgment of 13 June 1977, Sprl Créations Davos ν Katag Gruppe top Textil AG
(fortsat 1) for ugyldig og erklærede sig selv kompetent til at træffe afgørelse i sagen. Sagsøgte appel lerede dommen, men denne blev stadfæstet.
(continued 1) other than that provided for by law — Jurisdiction under Article 5 (1) even though the for­malities of Artie'e 17 are not fulfilled
Herefter kunne belgiske retter efter omstændighederne kun være kompetente i medfør af artikel 5, nr. 1 og 5, i konventionen.
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.
Herefter fortolkede retten begrebet »forpligtelse« i artikel 5, nr. 1, på grundlag af EF-Domstolens dom af 6. oktober 1976 i sag 14/76, De Bloos, [ovenfor under 1-5.1.1 — A 1 ] og antog, at det tilkom den ret, hvor sagen var anlagt, at udpege opfyldelsesstedet for den således definerede forpligtelse, hvorved retten skulle anvende sin nationale lov.
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.
Ved den retlige bedømmelse af affindelsessummen som et uselvstændigt surrogat for den oprindelige kontraktsforpligtelse henviste Cour d'appel til belgisk materiel ret, der i medfør af artikel 4, stk. 2, i loven af 27. juli 1961 skulle finde anvendelse.
The plaintiffs invoices also bore the words "payable in Brussels". The defendant pleaded want of jurisdiction.
Efter den dér gældende ret, nem lig artikel 6 i loven af 27. juli 1961, var den omtvistede klausul ugyldig.
The court held that it had jurisdiction.
Også værnetings aftalen 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.
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 1­17.1.2 — A 1, 2) — the formalities laid down in the first paragraph of Article 17 of the Convention had not been complied with.
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.
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.
Dette fremgik også af loven af 27. juli 1961, og der opstod ikke i dette spørgsmål nogen konflikt med domskonventionen.
Under that law the parties could agree on a place of per­formance other than that provided for by law.
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.
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 the parties had agreed upon that city as the place of payment.
Ved dom af 28. juni 1979 stadfæstede Cour de cassation dommen i henhold til de af Cour d'appel anførte grunde, Journal des tribunaux 1979, s. 625, engelsk oversættelse i [1980] European Commercial Cases 235.
An appeal in cassation against that judgment was dismissed by the Hof van Cassatie by judgment of 13 November 1981
På bestillingsformularerne og fakturaerne, som stævningen støttedes på, var sagsøgerens almindelige forretningsbetingelser aftrykt på bagsiden.
In connection with the sale of a number of shares in a French company to several Ger­man nationals domiciled in the Federal Republic the vendor sued the German purchas­ers in a French court for payment of the balance of the purchase price and further for payment of a sum which had been claimed from him as guarantor and for damages.
Disse betingelser indeholdt en bestemmelse, hvorefter retterne i Bruxelles skulle være kompetente. End videre indeholdt sagsøgerens fakturaer bemærkningen »betalbar i Bruxelles«.
At the time when the action was commenced another case was pending before the same court in which the plaintiff in the present proceedings was being sued by a French bank and was for his part claiming on a guarantee against one of the present defendants.
Sagsøgte rejste indsigelse mod rettens kompetence.
The defendants objected to the jurisdiction of the court, relying on the jurisdiction rules of the Brussels Convention.
Retten erklærede sig for kompetent. 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 EF-Domstolen (domme af 14. 12.
However, the court held that it had jurisdiction, essentially be­cause of the close factual connection between the first action, in which its jurisdiction was not disputed, and the present action.
Da konventionen i øvrigt ikke in deholdt 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.
Therefore, within the scope of the Convention those rules of French law which established jurisdiction on the basis of a factual connection had been superseded.
Den udtrykkelige bemærkning i sagsøgerens fakturaer, »betalbar i Bruxelles«, der var almindelig i handelsforhold og ikke blev bestridt af sagsøgte, var bevis for, at par terne havde aftalt denne by som betalingssted. Efter konventionens artikel 5, nr. 1, var det derfor retterne på dette sted, der var kompetente.
The court went on to hold that, as the defendants were domiciled in the Federal Repub­lic, the French courts could assume jurisdiction only under Article 5 of the Convention.
Også i to andre belgiske afgørelser antages der at være mulighed for — uden at overholde formkravene i artikel 17 — at skabe værneting ifølge artikel 5, nr. 1, ved at aftale et andet opfyldelsessted end det legale; i de to tilfælde blev aftalen dog underkendt af faktiske
But those courts did not acquire jurisdiction in the action for the purchase price under Article 5(1), since both under French law (Article 1247 of the Code Civil) and under Ger­man law (Article 269 of the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch) the place of performance of that obligation, in the absence of a contractual agreement to the contrary, was the debtors'
1981 (Rechtskundig Weekbland 1983, spalte2408) under henvisning til EF­Domstolens dom af 17.1.
The fact that previous payments had been made in France did not affect jurisdiction under the Convention.
1980 i sag 56/79 (jfr. ovenfor under 1­5.1.2 — A 2). Hof van Cassatie udtalte i øvrigt, at det under hensyn til EF­Domstolens dom ikke var nød­vendigt at forelægge sagen for Domstolen i medfør af artikel 3 i protokollen af 3. juni 1971.
Nor did the French courts have jurisdiction in regard to the other claims put forward in the action: the second claim ad­vanced was also of a contractual nature and was to be satisfied in the Federal Republic; the claim for damages advanced in the third place stemmed from the conduct of the deb­tors in connection with the performance of their contractual obligations and therefore it too had to be enforced at the place of performance in the Federal Republic.
Kompetence — sagsøgte har bopæl i en anden kontraherende stat — opfyldelses­sted (artikel 5, nr. 1) for forpligtelsen på sagsøgtes bopæl efter begge de implicerede retssystemer — lovvalget ikke afgjort
Judgment of 6 July 1977, Manheim & Zoon BV ν Tasselli Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction of the courts for the place of performance (Article 5 (1)) — Place of performance determined by construing the contract of sale con­cluded between the parties — Note on the invoice to the contrary effect irrelevant
I forbindelse med salg af et større antal aktier i et fransk selskab med hjemsted i Frankrig til flere tyske statsborgere med bopæl i Forbundsrepublikken havde sælgeren anlagt sag mod de tyske købere ved en fransk ret med påstand om betaling af restkøbesummen, end­videre om betaling af et beløb, sælgeren som kautionist var blevet påstævnt, samt om skadeserstatning. På tidspunktet for sagsanlægget verserede der en anden retssag for samme ret, under hvilken sagsøgeren i den her refererede sag sagsøgtes af en fransk bank og selv havde rejst regreskrav mod en af de i den her refererede sag omhandlede sagsøgte.
It based its decision on the fact that it was not disputed by the parties that the goods or­dered through the defendant's Amsterdam agents had been transported to Amsterdam by a carrier engaged by the defendant and that after the plaintiff had informed the de­fendant that it no longer felt bound by the contract the goods had been delivered not to the plaintiff, but to another firm.
De sagsøgte fremsatte indsigelse imod rettens kompetence under henvisning til domskonventionens kompetenceregler.
It was apparent from those circumstances that the par­ties had agreed on Amsterdam as the place of performance within the meaning of Arti­cle 5 (1) of the Convention.
Retten erklærede sig imidlertid kompetent og begrundede i det væsentlige dette med den snævre saglige sammenhæng, som bestod mellem den første sag — for hvilken den ubestridt var kompetent — og den her refere­rede sag.
The note on the invoices to the effect that the goods were to be delivered "franco frontiera italiana" was therefore irrelevant.
Cour d'appel de Paris udtalte først, at værnetinget i den foreliggende sag alene skulle bestemmes efter domskonventionen, som ifølge forskriftsmæssig ratifikation og offent­liggørelse havde forrang for nationale love i henhold til artikel 55 i den franske forfat­
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction of the courts for the place of performance (Articles (1)) — Place of performance determined under the proper law of the contract — Effective agreement between the parties on aplace of performance other than that provided
(fortsat 1) ning af 1958.
(continued 1) for by law — No basis for jurisdiction under Article 5 (1) where the formalities required by Article 17 are not satisfied
Inden for konventionens gyldighedsområde fortrængtes således de regler i fransk ret, hvorefter et værneting kunne udpeges på grundlag af konneksitet.
He main­tained, further, that he had agreed with the defendant — also orally — that Munich should likewise be the place of performance of all the defendant's obligations in respect of the loan.
Retten anførte derpå, at da de sagsøgte havde bopæl i Forbundsrepublikken, kunne en kompetence for franske retter kun støttes på konventionens artikel 5.
It held that jurisdiction in the present dispute was not acquired under Article 5 (1) of the Convention, which was the only provision on which jurisdiction could have been based.
For det under sagen rejste krav på købesummen bestod der dog ikke en sådan kompetence efter arti­kel 5, nr. 1, da opfyldelsesstedet for denne forpligtelse både efter fransk ret (artikel 1247 i code civil) og efter tysk ret (§ 269 i Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch) i mangel af modstående af­tale var skyldnernes bopæl i Forbundsrepublikken.
Admittedly, the place of performance within the meaning of that provision fell to be determined in accordance with the law which, according to the conflict rules of the court dealing with the dispute, governed the obligation in question (judgment of 6 October 1976, Case 12/76 Tessili ν Dunlop [1976] ECR 1473; supra 1­5.1.2 ­ A 1).
Den omstændighed, at tidligere betalinger var blevet erlagt i Frankrig, bragte ikke kompetencen efter konventionen til ophør.
However, the place of performance could only be the place provided for by that law.
Heller ikke med hensyn til de øvrige under sagen rejste krav var de franske retter kompetente: det andet af de rejste krav var også af kontraktmæssig art og skulle opfyl­des i Forbundsrepublikken; det tredje krav om skadeserstatning hidrørte fra skyldner­nes adfærd i forbindelse med opfyldelsen af deres kontraktsmæssige forpligtelser og måtte derfor ligeledes gøres gældende på opfyldelsesstedet i Forbundsrepublikken.
A court other than the court for the defendant's place of domicile could acquire interna­tional jurisdiction on the basis of an agreement on the place of performance only if the agreement was in the form required by Article 17 of the Convention.
1­5.1.2 — B14 Arrondissementsrechtbank Amsterdam, dom af 6. juli 1977, Manheim & Zoon BV mod Tasselli Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — opfyldelsesværneting (artikel 5, nr. 1) — be­stemmelse af opfyldelsesstedet ved fortolkning af den mellem parterne afsluttede købekon­trakt — hermed stridende påtegning på fakturaen uden betydning
That was so even where the national law governing the determination of the place of performance re­garded an oral agreement on the place of performance as effective and, as did for exam­ple German law, allowed such an agreement, subject to certain conditions, to be the ba­sis of jurisdiction (the second paragraph of Article 29 of the Zivilprozessordnung).
Sagsøgeren, et selskab med hjemsted i Nederlandene, havde anlagt sag mod et selskab med hjemsted i Italien ved Arrondissement Rechtbank Amsterdam på grund af forsinket og mangelfuld levering af varer og havde påstået ophævelse af kontrakten samt ska­deserstatning.
The Oberlandesgericht based its interpretation of Article 5 (1) on the position which that provision occupied in the jurisdictional system created by the Convention.
Sagsøgte fremsatte indledningsvis indsigelse imod rettens kompetence, fordi fakturaen for varerne var påtegnet »franco frontiera italiana«. Retten erklærede sig for kompetent.
An essential part of that system, in addition to the principle laid down by Article 2, was Article 17, making the effectiveness of agreements on jurisdiction subject to the observance of cer­tain formal conditions.
Som begrundelse herfor anførte retten, at der mellem parterne var enighed om, at varer­ne, der var blevet bestilt via sagsøgtes agent i Amsterdam, var befordret til Amsterdam af en fragtfører, der var antaget af sagsøgte, og at varerne i Amsterdam blev leveret, ikke til sagsøgeren, men til et andet firma, efter at sagsøgeren havde meddelt sagsøgte, at man ikke længere følte sig bundet af kontrakten.
If, in determining which court had jurisdiction under Article 5 (1) as the court for the place of performance Article 17 were to be disregarded, then the formal requirements of an agreement on jurisdiction could always be circumvented by an informal agreement on the place of performance in so far as contracts and claims aris­ing under contracts were concerned and the law relating to contracts allowed an infor­mal agreement on the place of performance.
Retten sluttede heraf, at parterne havde aftalt Amsterdam som opfyldelsessted, jfr. konventionens artikel 5, nr. 1.
But in view of the principle embodied in Ar­ticle 2 and the system of rules on jurisdiction that could not have been the intention of the Contracting States.
Påteg­ningen på fakturaen, hvorefter levering skulle ske »franco frontiera italiana«, var der­for uden betydning.
Applying German law the court then came to the conclusion that by law the place of per­formance of the obligation in question was the defendant's place of domicile in Italy.
Sagsøgeren, en tysk handlende, havde anlagt sag ved Landgericht München mod den i Italien bosatte sagsøgte til betaling af restsummen på et lån.
A business relationship had existed between the parties who were a company incorpo­rated in the Netherlands and a German company.
Med hensyn til kompeten­cespørgsmålet anførte sagsøgeren, at han mundtligt med sagsøgte havde aftalt værne­ting i München for alle spørgsmål.
The Netherlands plaintiff maintained that it had acted as agent for the German undertaking in the Netherlands; it claimed compensation and damages for termination of the business relationship by the defend­ant.
Desuden havde han — ligeledes mundtligt — aftalt med sagsøgte, at München også skulle være opfyldelsessted for sagsøgtes forpligtelser i henhold til låneaftalen.
In support of the jurisdiction of the court before which the matter was brought — disputed by the defendant — the plaintiff relied on Article 5 (1) and (5) of the Brussels Convention.
Landgericht afviste sagen med den begrundelse, at den ikke havde international kompetence.
The court held that it had no jurisdiction.
Opfyldelsesstedet i denne bestemmelses forstand bestemtes ganske vist efter den lov, der efter de lovvalgsregler, der gjaldt for den ret, hvor sagen var anlagt, skulle finde anvendelse (EF­Domstolen, dom af 6. 10.
The plaintiff had argued that the parties had subjected their con­tractual relations to German law.
Som opfyldelsessted var det imidlertid principielt kun det legale opfyldelsessted ifølge den lov, der herefter skulle finde anven­delse, der kunne lægges til grund.
Since, however, on the one hand the plaintiff relied on German law and the defendant had not challenged that in the context of the preliminary issue of jurisdiction, and, on the other hand, the facts of the case (already fully investigated by the court) did not display any predominant con­nection either with the territory subject to Netherlands law or the territory subject to Ger­man law, it was possible to speak of a limited "subsequent choice of law".