natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
(fortsat 1) denne status flydende formueretlige og andre følger. Dette princip skulle fortolkes og nærmere bestemmes ud fra de på dette område indgåede internationale konventioner.
(continued 1) that the declaration of paternity upon which the order to pay maintenance proceeded was made on the basis of evidence which would have been inadmissible in Italy on grounds of public policy.
Hertil hørte New York­konventionen af 20. juni 1956 om inddrivelse af underholdsbi­drag i udlandet, Haag­konventionen af 24. oktober 1956 om den lov, der skal anvendes på underholdspligt over for børn, Haag­konventionen af 15. april 1958 om anerken­delse og fuldbyrdelse af afgørelser vedrørende underholdspligten over for børn samt domskonventionen af 27. september 1968.
Amongst these were the New York Convention of 20 June 1956 on the recovery abroad of maintenance, the Hague Convention of 24 October 1956 on the law applicable to maintenance obligations towards children, the Hague Convention of 15 April 1958 on the recognition and enforcement of decisions relating to mainte­nance obligations towards children and the Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968.
Disse konventioner tilsigtede alle at lette afsi­gelse og fuldbyrdelse af afgørelser om underholdspligt.
These conventions were all intended to facilitate the making and enforcement of main­tenance orders.
Retten anførte, at konventio­nerne hvad anerkendelsen og fuldbyrdelsen angik muliggjorde — eller lettede — en ad­skillelse af afgørelsen vedrørende underholdspligten fra konstateringen af en familieret­lig status samt en adskillelse af den pågældende del af dommen fra spørgsmålet om afgø­relsens forskriftsmæssighed og de af den udenlandske ret godkendte bevismidler.
For the purpose of recognition and enforcement, they enabled — or made easier — the separation of the order to pay maintenance from the decision declar­ing the existence of a status in family law and the separation of the relevant portion of the operative part of the judgment from questions relating to the soundness of the judg­ment and the evidence admitted by the foreign court.
Dette betød dog ikke, at italiensk ordre public aldrig kunne udelukke en anerkendelse og fuld­byrdelse af afgørelsen i Italien.
However, that did not mean that Italian public policy could never prevent recognition and enforcement of a judgment in Italy.
Imidlertid kunne en efterprøvelse foretaget af en ita­liensk ret i henhold til artikel 797 i den [italienske] Codice di procedura civile for så vidt kun omfatte den udenlandske afgørelses materielle indhold, men ikke de bevismidler, som den udenlandske ret havde anvendt som grundlag for afgørelsen.
In that regard, however, by virtue of Article 797 of the Italian Codice di Procedura Civile [Code of Civil Procedure], only the substantive content of the foreign judgment and not the evidence upon which the foreign court based that judgment could be examin­ed by an Italian court.
Udsendelse l/februar 1981
Issue ¡/February 1981
Afsnit VII - FORHOLDET TIL ANDRE KONVENTIONER
Title VII ­ RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER CONVENTIONS
1977, forenede sager 9 og 10/77, Bavaria Fluggesellschaft Schwabe & Co. KG og Germanair Bedarfsluftfahrt GmbH & Co. KG mod Eurocontrol (anmodning om præjudiciel afgørelse indgivet af Bundesgerichtshof) Sml. 1977, s. 1517 (Forslag til afgørelse fra generaladvokat H. Mayras, s. 1527) /.
1­56 — A 1 Judgment of 14 July 1977, Joined Cases 9 and 10/77, Bavaria Fluggesellschaft Schwabe & Co. KG and Germanair Bedarfsluftfahrt GmbH & Co. KG ν Eurocontrol [1977] ECR 1517 (Preliminary ruling requested by Bundesgerichtshof) Advocate General: H. Mayras (p. 1527) 1.
Konventionens fortolkning — protokollen af 3. juni 1971 — Domstolens afgørelser — virkninger
Interpretation of the Convention — Protocol of 3 June 1971 — Judgments of the Court of Justice — Effects
Forholdet til andre konventioner — den tysk-belgiske konvention af 30. juni 1958 — fortsat gyldighed (artikel 56) — fortolkning — den nationale rets opgave — afgrænsning i forhold til domskonventionen — Domstolens fortolkning — identiske begreber i konventionen og i fortsat gældende konventioner — forskellig fortolkning tænkelig
Relationship to other Conventions — Convention of 30 June 1958 between Germany and Belgium — Continuing effect (Article 56) — Interpretation — A matter for the national court — Scope of the Brussels Convention — Interpretation by the Court of Justice — Use of the same terms in the Convention and in other agreements which con­tinue to have effect — Different interpretation conceivable
I denne sag havde Bundesgerichtshof forelagt EF-Domstolen et spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af Bruxelles-konventionens artikel 56. Spørgsmålet var opstået under to sager vedrørende fuldbyrdelse i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland af domme afsagt af Tribunal de commerce de Bruxelles.
In this case the Bundesgerichtshof had referred to the Court of Justice of the European Communities a question on the interpretation of Article 56 of the Brussels Convention which arose in the context of two actions concerning the enforcement in the Federal Re­public of Germany of judgments of the Tribunal de Commerce, Brussels.
Dommene angik krav på betaling af visse gebyrer, som Den europæiske Organisation til sikring af Luftfarten — Eurocontrol — havde fremsat over for to luftfartsselskaber for benyttelse af Eurocontrol's anlæg og tjenesteydelser.
The judgments concerned claims against two airlines for charges due in respect of the use of the equip­ment and services of the European Organization for the Safety of Air Navigation (Euro­control).
I en lignende sag havde EF-Domstolen forud herfor ved dom af 14. oktober 1976 (sag 29/76, jfr. ovenfor under I-l.l — A 1) — efter forelæggelse af et præjudicielt spørgsmål fra Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — statueret, at »en afgørelse, der er af sagt i en tvist mellem en offentlig myndighed og en privatperson, hvor den offentlige myndighed har udøvet en offentligretlig beføjelse, falder uden for konventionens anvendelsesområde«. delsesområde«.
In a similar case the Court of Justice of the European Communities had al­ready ruled by a judgment of 14 October 1976 (Case 29/76 LTU ν Eurocontrol [1976] ECR 1541, supra I­l.l — A 1) in answer to a question referred by the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf that "a judgment given in an action between a public authority and a person
(fortsat 1) gørelser, voldgiftskendelser og officielt bekræftede dokumenter, rejste der sig især det spørgsmål for Bundesgerichtsbof, hvorvidt og i hvilket omfang Domstolens fortolkning af de retlige begreber i konventionen var bindende for de nationale retter, når disse stod over for at skulle anvende en bilateral konvention som den ovennævnte på sagsområder, som var udelukket fra konventionens anvendelsesområde.
When Eurocontrol subsequently sought to rely on the Convention of 30 June 1958 between Germany and Belgium on the Mutual Recognition and Enforcement of Judg ments, Arbitration Awards and Authentic Instruments in Civil and Commercial Matters, the Bundesgerichtshof had to deal in particular with the question whether and how far the legal concepts laid down by the Court of Justice in relation to the Brussels Con vention were binding on national courts in respect of the application of a bilateral agree ment such as the one mentioned above to matters excluded from the scope of the Brussels Convention.
Herom anførte Domstolen, at den i den nævnte dom af 14. oktober 1976 havde afgrænset konventionens anvendelsesområde ved at fortolke begrebet »borgerlige sager, herunder handelssager« som et selvstændigt begreb og ikke som en henvisning til national ret i nogen af de berørte stater.
In that regard the Court of Justice pointed out in the first place that in the aforesaid judg ment of 14 October 1976 it had determined the scope of the Brussels Convention by inter preting "civil and commercial matters" as an independent concept and not as a reference to the internal law of one or other of the States concerned.
Domstolen anførte endvidere: »til grund for denne fortolkning ligger ønsket om inden for fællesskabsretten at sikre ligheden og ensartetheden af de rettigheder og forpligtelser, der følger af konventionen for de kontraherende stater og de personer, som er berørt deraf; det retssikkerhedsprincip, der gælder i Fællesskabets retsorden, og de mål, der forfølges med konventionen i henhold til traktatens arti kel 220, hvorpå konventionen hviler, kræver, at de begreber og retlige kvalifikationer, som er udviklet af Domstolen med hensyn til konventionen, anvendes ens i alle med lemsstaterne«.
The Court of Justice continued : "this interpretation is based on the desire to ensure in relation to Commun ity law that the Contracting States and parties concerned have equal and uniform rights and duties under the Brussels Convention. The principle of legal certainty in the Community legal system and the objectives of the Brussels Convention in accordance with Article 220 of the EEC Treaty, which is at its origin, require in all Member States a uniform application of the legal concepts and legal classifications developed by the Court in the context of the Brussels Convention".
Heraf fulgte, at den nationale ret ikke måtte anvende konventionen til at sikre anerkendelsen og fuldbyrdelsen af retsafgørelser, der efter Domstolens fortolkning var udelukket fra dens anvendelsesområde; dette afskar dog ikke den nationale ret fra på de samme retsafgørelser at anvende nogen af de særlige konventioner, som var nævnt i Bru-xelles-konventionens artikel 55, såsom den tysk-belgiske konvention. Da der ved protokollen af 3. juni 1971 var tillagt Domstolen kompetence til at fortolke konventionen og protokollen, tilkom det udelukkende de nationale retter at tage stilling til rækkevidden af den tysk-belgiske konvention, der ifølge Bruxelles-konventionens artikel 56, stk. 1, be varede sin gyldighed i relation til retsafgørelser, som var udelukket fra Bruxelles-konventionens anvendelsesområde.
From that it followed that a national court must not apply the Brussels Convention so as to recognize or enforce judgments which were excluded from its scope as determined by the Court of Justice. On the other hand it was not prevented from applying to the same judgments one of the special agreements referred to in Article 55 of the Brussels Convention, such as the Convention between Germany and Belgium.
Dette resultat kunne føre til forskellige fortolkninger af det samme udtryk i den europæiske konvention og i en bilateral konvention, men dette skyldtes, at de ordninger, hvori udtrykket »borgerlige sager, herunder handelssager«, anvendtes, var forskellige.
Although that result might lead to the same expression in the Brussels Convention and in a bilateral agreement being interpreted differently, that was due to the different systems in which the concept "civil and commercial matters" was used.
Inden for en bilateral konventions område kunne nationale retters anerkendelse af en retlig kvalifikation, som var foretaget af den ret, der først havde truffet afgørelse, føre til et hensigtsmæssigt resultat.
In relation to a bilateral agreement the acceptance of a classification made by the court first giving judg ment by the courts of another State could lead to an appropriate result.
Modsat ville en sådan frem gangsmåde medføre uønskede uoverensstemmelser i en ordning, som indført ved den europæiske konvention, hvis fortolkning var betroet én og samme domstol, der var fælles for alle parter.
On the other hand if that occurred in the system such as the Brussels Convention, the interpretation of which was entrusted to a court common to all parties, it would lead to undesirable divergencies.
Domstolen besvarede derfor spørgsmålet således:
Accordingly, the Court answered the question as follows:
»Artikel 56, stk. 1, i konventionen... er ikke til hinder for, at en bilateral konvention som den tysk-belgiske konvention, der er nævnt i artikel 55, nr. 5, bevarer sin gyldig hed for retsafgørelser, der, uden at falde ind under artikel 1, stk. 2, i konventionen, er udelukket fra dennes anvendelsesområde.«
"The first paragraph of Article 56 of the Convention ... does not prevent a bilateral agreement such as the German-Belgian Convention, which is the fifth to be listed in
Den afgørelse i sagen for den nationale ret, som blev truffet i tilslutning til denne dom, er omtalt under 1­56 — Β 1.
Note: For the decision given in the main action after this judgment see 1-56 — Β 1 infra.
(Jfr. også 1­1.2 ­ B 5)
(See also 1-1.2 - Β 5)
Zivilsenat, kendelse af 10.10. 1977, sag VIII ZB 44/75 [afgørelse truffet i tilslutning til præjudiciel afgørelse fra EF­Domstolen]
Zivilsenat, Order of 10 October 1977, Case No: VIII ZB 44/75 [Decision following a preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Communities]
I denne sag havde Bundesgerichtshof forelagt EF­Domstolen et spørgsmål til præjudi­ciel afgørelse, som denne besvarede ved dom af 14. juli 1977 (forenede sager 9 og 10/77 ; jfr. ovenfor under 1­56 — A 1).
In this case the Bundesgerichtshof had referred to the Court of Justice of the European Communities a question for a preliminary ruling. The Court of Justice answered that question in its judgment of 14 June 1977 (Joined cases 9 and 10/77 Bavaria Fluggesell­schaft ν Eurocontrol [1977] ECR 1517 supra 1-56 — A 1).
I sin afgørelse vedrørende det tyske luftfartsselskabs an­fægtelse af tilladelsen til ifølge domskonventionen at fuldbyrde den dom, Eurocontrol havde opnået i Belgien, tog Bundesgerichtshof herefter stilling til, om den belgiske dom måtte erklæres eksigibel i henhold til den tysk­belgiske anerkendelses­ og fuldbyrdelses­konvention af 30. juni 1958, idet en fuldbyrdelsespåtegning i medfør af domskonventio­nen ifølge EF­Domstolens dom af 14. oktober 1976 [sag 29/76; jfr. ovenfor under I­l.l — A 1] var udelukket, medens den tysk­belgiske konvention ifølge dommen for så vidt fort­sat var i kraft.
In its decision on the German airline's appeal against an order issued under the Brussels Convention for the enforce­ment of the judgment which Eurocontrol had obtained in Belgium the Bundesgerichts­hof considered the question whether the Belgian judgment was enforceable under the German-Belgian Convention of 30June 1958 on recognition and enforcement, since, on the one hand, it was clear from the judgment of the European Court of Justice of HOctober 1976 (Case 29/76 LTU\ Eurocontrol[\976] ECR 1541 supra I-l.l - A 1) that no order for enforcement could be made under the Brussels Convention, whilst, on the other hand, according to the judgment of 14 July 1977, the German-Belgian Convention continued to have effect.
Med hensyn til det i denne sammenhæng afgørende spørgsmål, nemlig om den belgiske dom var afsagt i en borgerlig sag, herunder en handelssag, i den i artikel 1 i den tysk­belgiske konvention forudsatte betydning, lagde Bundesgerichtshof den belgiske rets fortolkning af dette begreb til grund.
In dealing with the decisive question in that regard, namely whether the Belgian judg­ment was given in a civil or commercial matter within the meaning of Article 1 of the German-Belgian Convention, the Bundesgerichtshof proceeded on the basis of the Bel­gian court's interpretation of that term.
I modsætning til, hvad der gjaldt på domskonven­tionens område, var det afgørende for, om en retssag måtte betragtes som en borgerlig sag, herunder en handelssag, i den tysk­belgiske konventions forstand ikke tysk ret (som fuldbyrdelsesstatens ret), men derimod domsstatens ret.
Unlike in the context of the Brussels Conven­tion, the question whether a dispute should be regarded as a civil or commercial matter within the meaning of the German-Belgian Convention was governed not by German law, as the law of the enforcing State, but by the law of the State in which the judgment was given.
Den af den belgiske ret fore­tagne retlige kvalifikation af den foreliggende sag som en handelssag efter belgisk ret måtte også lægges til grund under anerkendelses­ og fuldbyrdelsessagen ifølge den tysk­belgiske konvention.
The Belgian court's classification of the present dispute as a commercial mat­ter under Belgian law had to be followed in the proceedings for recognition and enforce­ment under the German-Belgian Convention.
Under sin videre efterprøvelse bekræftede Bundesgerichtshof, at det principielt var muligt at tillade tvangsfuldbyrdelse af den belgiske dom, og at dette under ingen om­stændigheder var i strid med ordre public i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland, når hensås til Eurocontrol's særlige folkeretlige retsstilling, som også Forbundsrepublikken Tysk­land havde været med til at etablere grundlaget for. Bundesgerichtshof hjemviste derfor
The Bundesgerichtshof went on to confirm that the making of an order for the enforce­ment of the Belgian judgment was possible in principle and in view of the special legal si­tuation of Eurocontrol, which was established under public international law with the participation of the Federal Republic of Germany, was in no way contrary to public pol-
(fortsat 1) sagen til retten i første instans, idet underinstanserne havde behandlet sagen på grundlag af domskonventionen og ikke på grundlag af den tysk­belgiske konvention.
It then remitted the case to the court of first in­stance for further consideration since the lower courts had dealt with the matter under the Brussels Convention instead of under the German­Belgian Convention.
I den parallelle sag, hvorunder Bundesgerichtshof ligeledes havde anmodet EF­Dom­stolen om en præjudiciel afgørelse (jfr­ ovenfor under 1­56 — A 1), afsagde Bundesge­richtshof samme dag en ligelydende kendelse (sag VIII ZB 10/76).
In the parallel case in which the Bundesgerichtshof had likewise requested a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Communities (see 1­56 — A 1 supra) it issued a similar order on the same day (Case No: VIII ZB 10/76).
1976 (sag 29/76; ovenfor under I­l.l — A 1).
The Court of Justice answered that question by judgment of 14 October 1976 (Case 29/76 LTUv Eurocontrol [1976] ECR 1541 supra I­1.1 ­ A 1).
På grundlag af EF­Domstolens dom fastslog Oberlandesgericht, at domskonventionen ikke fandt anvendelse på det foreliggende tilfælde.
On the basis of that judgment the Oberlandesgericht found that the Brussels Convention was not applicable to the present case.
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.
Begrebet »borgerlige sager, herunder handelssager«, som også i den tysk­belgiske kon­vention anvendtes til afgrænsning af anvendelsesområdet, skulle ifølge Bundesgerichts­hofs afgørelse fortolkes ud fra domsstatens lov. Da handelsretten i Bruxelles udtrykke­ligt havde betegnet retssagen som en »handelssag«, fandt konventionen anvendelse.
That Convention remained applicable, as the Court of Justice of the European Communities had ruled by judgment of 14 July 1977 (Joined Cases 9 & 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. The Senate would follow that judgment, with the result that it was not necessary to refer the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Communities again for a rul­ing on the same question of law. Issue 1/February 1981
Oberlandesgericht hjemviste følgelig sagen til underinstansen, idet denne havde be­handlet sagen på grundlag af domskonventionen og ikke på grundlag af den tysk­bel­giske konvention.
The Oberlandesgericht thereupon remitted the case to the court of first instance for further consideration, since that court had proceeded under the Brussels Convention instead of the German-Belgian Convention.
[konventioner vedrørende særlige retsområder]
[Conventions relating to particular matters]
(Jfr. også 1­31 ­ B 1,2 og 4)
(See also 131 - Β 1,2, 4)
Forholdet til andre konventioner — Benelux — varemærkekonvention — kompetenceregler — forrang for domskonventionen
Relationship to other conventions — 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 fortsatte derpå sin be­handling af sagen.
The court then allowed the proceedings to continue.
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 37 of the Brussels Convention.
Forholdet til andre konventioner — konvention om fragtaftaler ved international godsbe­fordring ad landevej (CMR) — bestemmelser om værnetingsaftaler — forrang for doms­konventionens artikel 17
Relationship to other conventions — 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. 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 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.
(fortsat 1) ventionen kunne parterne uden særlige formkrav bestemme, at retterne i de kontrahe­rende stater skulle være kompetente.
(continued 1) the courts of Contracting States should have jurisdiction without any special require­ments of form.
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.
Klausulen hævdedes at være gyldig efter domskonventionens artikel 17.
It was argued that the clause was valid under Article 17 of the Brussels Convention.