natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Over for præsidenten for Arrondissementsrechtbank Zwolle (Nederlandene) fremsatte Van Loon m.fl. derefter begæring om fuldbyrdelsespåtegning, jf. konventionens artikel 31, med henblik på fuldbyrdelse af den belgiske fredsdommers dom i Nederlandene. Ved afgørelse af 23. januar 1987 meddelte præsidenten for Arrondissementsrechtbank fuldbyrdelsespåtegning.
The first paragraph of Article 38 of the Convention could not be interpreted as meaning that the court before which the appeal was brought could take into consideration, on a decision on an application for proceedings to be stayed, submissions which had already been made before the foreign court.
Denne afgørelse blev den 2. april 1987 af Van Dalfsen m.fl. appelleret til Arrondissementsrechtbank Zwolle, jf. konventionens artikel 36. Under appelsagen for Arrondissementsrechtbank begærede Van Dalfsen m.fl. alene afgørelsen udsat, jf. konventionens artikel 38, stk. 1, under henvisning til, at de havde påanket den af fredsdommeren i Herentals afsagte dom.
The first paragraph of Article 38 of the Convention likewise could not be interpreted as meaning that the court before which the appeal was brought could take into consideration, in a decision on an application for
Ved dom af 13. april 1988 afviste Arrondissementsrechtbank Zwolle begæringen om, at afgørelsen blev udsat, med den begrundelse, at Van Dalfsen m.fl. til støtte herfor ikke havde fremført andre anbringender end dem, den uden landske dommer kunne have taget stilling til i sin afgørelse.
24 - proceedings to be stayed under that provision, submissions of which the foreign court had no notice when giving its decision by reason of the appellant's failure to put them forward on that occasion.
Hoge Raad rejste for det første spørgsmål om, hvorvidt den afsagte dom måtte anses for at være en "afgørelse, der træffes 1 appel- eller genoptagelsessagen" som omhandlet 1 konventionens artikel 37, stk. 2.
The second paragraph of Article 37 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a decision taken under Article 38 of the Convention by which a court with which an appeal has been lodged against a decision authorizing the enforcement of a judgment given in another Contracting State has refused to stay the proceedings and has ordered the party in whose favour enforcement was authorized to provide security does not constitute a "judgment given on the appeal" within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 37 of the Convention and may not, therefore, be contested by an appeal in cassation or similar form of appeal.
Såfremt spørgsmålet besvaredes benægtende, ville den af Van Dalfsen m.fl. anlagte kas sat ionsappel være at afvise.
The answer to that question is the same where the decision taken under Article 38 of the Convention and the "judgment given on the appeal" within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 37 of the Convention are in fact given in a single judgment.
Såfremt spørgsmålet derimod besvaredes bekræftende, ville appellen være at realitetsbehandle, og der ville opstå spørgsmål om omfanget af de beføjelser, konventionens artikel 38 tillægger "den ret, der behandler appel- eller genoptagelsessagen".
The first paragraph of Article 38 of the Convention must be interpreted as meaning that a court with which an appeal is lodged against a decision authorizing the enforcement of a judgment given in another Contracting State may take into consideration, in a decision concerning an application for the proceedings to be stayed under that paragraph, only such submissions as the party lodging the appeal was unable to make before the court of the State in which the judgment was given.
Spørgsmål 1 og 2
He concluded:
Den forelæggende ret rejste endvidere spørgsmål om, hvor vidt det gjorde nogen forskel for besvarelsen af dette spørgsmål, om den afgørelse, der er truffet i henhold til konventionens artikel 38 og den "afgørelse, der træffes 1 appel- eller genoptagelsessagen", jf. konventionens artikel 37, stk. 2, er indeholdt i samme retsafgørelse.
"Having regard to the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court give the following answers to the questions submitted:
Domstolen udtalte, at konventionen ikke indeholder en definition af begrebet "den afgørelse, der træffes i appel- eller genoptagelsessagen", jf. artikel 37, stk. 2.
A decision given under Article 38 of the Brussels Convention by the court before which the appeal is brought cannot be regarded as a "decision given on the appeal" within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 37 of the Brussels Convention and cannot therefore be the subject of an appeal in cassation.
Af det således anførte fremgik, at udtrykket "den afgørelse, der træffes i appel- eller genoptagelsessagen", som anført i konventionens artikel 37, stk. 2, må forstås således, at det alene omfatter den endelige afgørelse 1 appel- eller genoptagelsessagen til prøvelse af en fuldbyrdelsespåtegning
Where a decision under Article 38 of the Brussels Convention and the "decision given on the appeal" are contained in one and the same judgment, an appeal in cassation may be brought against that judgment
- 25 - på en retsafgørelse, der er truffet 1 en anden kontraherende stat, således at afgørelser truffet i henhold til konventionens artikel 38 må anses for ikke at være omfattet.
- 25 only to the extent to which that judgment relates to the second decision.
Heller Ikke for det tilfælde, at en afgørelse 1 henhold til konventionens artikel 38 er Indeholdt i samme retsafgørelse som afgørelsen 1 appel- eller genoptagelsessagen vedrørende fuldbyrdelsespåtegningen, kan en sådan afgørelse anses for at være "en afgørelse, der træffes 1 appel- eller genoptagelsessagen" som omhandlet 1 konventionens artikel 37, stk. 2.
The first paragraph of Article 38 of the Brussels Convention must be interpreted as meaning that the court before which the appeal 1s brought may take into consideration, in its decision on an application for proceedings to be stayed, only submissions other than those which the foreign court took into account or would have taken into account If the appellant had not failed to put them forward".
Spørgsmål 3
4 October 1991
Den nationale rets tredje præjudicielle spørgsmål angik 1 det væsentlige det forhold, om konventionens artikel 38, stk. 1, skal fortolkes således, at den ret, der behandler appel- eller genoptagelsessagen vedrørende en fuldbyrdelsespåtegning på en i en anden kontraherende stat truffen rets afgørelse, ved påkendelsen af en begæring om udsættelse af afgørelsen 1 henhold til denne bestemmelse, kun kan tillægge de anbringender betydning, som den part, der har begæret afgørelsen, ikke kunne have gjort gældende for retten 1 domsstaten, eller om retten, når den skal træffe en sådan afgørelse, ligeledes kan tage hensyn til anbringender, der allerede er blevet fremført for den udenlandske domstol, såvel som anbringender, som denne ikke havde kendskab til, da den traf sin afgørelse, som følge af, at den part, der har anlagt appel- eller genoptagelsessagen, på daværende tidspunkt havde undladt at gøre dem gældende.
(Preliminary ruling) (Worker employed on a fishing vessel flying the British flag and paid by a Belgian undertaking - accident at work on board the vessel - determination of the legislation applicable to the employment relationship for social security purposes) (Sixth Chamber)
Domstolen udtalte, at konventionens artikel 38, stk. 1, Ikke kan fortolkes således, at den ret, der behandler appel- eller genoptagelsessagen, ved sin påkendelse af en begæring om, at afgørelsen udsættes, kan tage hensyn til anbringender, der allerede er blevet gjort gældende for den udenlandske domstol.
By judgment of 18 June 1990, which was received at the Court on 28 June 1990, the Hof van Cassatie (Court of Cassation), Belgium, referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty two questions on the interpretation of Articles 48 and 51 of the EEC Treaty and Articles 3(1), 13(2)(b) and 14(2)(c) of Council Regulation No. 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their family moving within the Community (Official Journal, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p.416), as in force in February 1980 (subsequently consolidated and published in OJ 1980 L 230, p.8).
Konventionens artikel 38, stk. 1, kan heller ikke fortolkes således, at den ret, der behandler appel- eller genoptagelsessagen, ved sin påkendelse af en begæring om at udsætte afgørelsen i henhold til denne bestemmelse, kan tage hensyn til anbringender, som den udenlandske domstol ikke havde kendskab til, da den traf sin afgørelse, som følge af, at den part, der har anlagt appel- eller genoptagelsessagen, på daværende tidspunkt havde und ladt at gøre dem gældende.
The questions were raised in proceedings between the Fonds voor Arbeidsongevallen, a Belgian public institution responsible for paying compensation for injuries resulting from accidents at work, and Madeleine de Paep, concerning the Fonds' refusal to grant Mrs de Paep a life annuity in respect of the death of her son, Piet Ackx.
Domstolen besvarede de forelagte spørgsmål således:
It was apparent from the documents before the Court that at the time of the accident Piet Ackx worked, with Germain Ackx, Mrs de Paep's husband, on board the vessel "Hosanna".
Konventionens artikel 38, stk. 1, skal fortolkes således, at den ret, der behandler appel- eller genoptagelsessagen vedrørende en fuldbyrdelsespåtegning på en 1 en anden kontraherende stat truffen retsafgørelse, ved påkendelsen af en begæring om udsættelse af sagen 1 henhold til denne bestemmelse kun kan tillægge de anbringender betydning, som den part, der har indgivet begæringen, ikke kunne have gjort gældende for retten i domsstaten."
Relying on the fact that the vessel "Hosanna" had been declared unseaworthy, the Hof van Cassatie concluded that, pursuant to Belgian legislation, Piet Ackx was not bound by a contract of employment at the time of the accident. However, it raised the question whether, for the purposes of applying Articles 13(2)(b) and 14(2)(c) of Regulation No. 1408/71, the validity of a contract of employment or the existence of an employment relationship between a seafarer and the undertaking paying him had to be assessed under the legislation of the country where that company had its registered office.
Generaladvokat Walter Van Gerven fremsatte forslag til afgere!se i retsmodet (Slette Afdelino) den 11. iuli 1991.
Secondly, the Hof van Cassatie, taking account of the fact that at the time of the accident the vessel in question was flying the United Kingdom flag, concluded that Belgian Law on accidents at work could not apply.
"På grundlag af det således anførte skal jeg foreslå Domstolen at besvare de præjudicielle spørgsmål således:
The Court stated that it was sufficient to observe that it was apparent from Article 4(1) of Regulation No. 1408/71 that the latter applied to the legislation of the Member States in relation to the various branches of social security.
En afgørelse i henhold til Bruxelles-konventionens artikel 38, der træffes af den ret, der behandler appel- eller genoptagelsessagen, kan Ikke anses for at være en "afgørelse, der træffes i appel- eller genoptagelsessagen" som omhandlet i artikel 37, stk. 2, 1 Bruxelleskonventionen, og den kan således ikke anfægtes ved en kassationsappel.
The second question submitted by the National Court had to be understood as seeking to determine whether Article 14(2)(c) of Regulation No. 1408/71, as in force in February 1988, had to be interpreted as rendering unenforceable against the persons covered by it or to their successors (a) a clause of the applicable legislation of a Member State under which admission to a prescribed social security scheme is subject to the condition that the vessel on which the worker is employed must fly the flag of that Member State, and (b) any clause in the legislation of that Member State which provides that an employment contract is void to the extent to which it prevents the conflict rule laid down in that provision from taking full effect.
Når en afgørelse 1 henhold til Bruxelles-konventionens artikel 38, og en "afgørelse, der træffes 1 appel- eller genoptagelsessagen" er Indeholdt 1 samme retsafgørelse, er der alene adgang til ved en kassati onsappel at anfægte sidstnævnte afgørelse.
Article 14(2)(c) of Regulation No. 1408/71 would be deprived of all useful effect if the condition of membership relating to the flag flown by the vessel, imposed by the legislation of the Member State in whose territory the undertaking paying the worker had its registered office, was enforceable against the persons covered by Article 14(2)(c).
Ved dom af 18. juni 1990, indgået til Domstolen den 28. juni s.a., havde Belgiens Hof van Cassatie i medfør af EØF-Traktatens artikel 177 forelagt to præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af EØF-Traktatens artikel 48 og artikel 51 samt af artikel 3, stk. 1, artikel 13, stk. 2, litra b), og artikel 14, stk. 2, litra c), i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71 af 14. juni 1971 om anvendelse af de sociale sikringsordninger på arbejdstagere og deres familiemedlemmer, der flytter inden for Fællesskabet (EFT 1971 II, s. 366), 1 den i februar 1980 gældende affattelse (senere kodificeret og offentliggjort i EFT 1980 C 138, s. 1).
Regulation (EEC) No. 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and members of their families moving within the Community does not contain any rules of conflict concerning the legislation applicable to the relationship between employer and employee.
Spørgsmålene var blevet rejst under en sag mellem den offentlige belgiske institution Fonds voor Arbeidsongevallen, der har til formål at yde erstatning for arbejdsulykker, og Madeleine De Paep vedrørende Fonds' afgørelse om ikke at yde De Paep en livrente til erstatning for hendes tab som følge af sønnen Piet Ackx' død.
Article 14(2)(c) of Regulation No. 1408/71, as in force in February 1980, must be interpreted as having the effect or rendering Inoperative vis-a-vis the persons to which it refers or to those claiming under them (a) a clause in the applicable legislation of a Member State under which admission to the social security scheme provided for is made conditional upon the vessel on board which the worker is employed flying the flag of that Member State and (b) any clause in the legislation of that Member State providing that a contract of employment is to be void in so far as it prevents the rule of conflict laid down in that provision from producing its full effects."
Det fremgik af sagen, at Piet Ackx på ulykkestidspunktet var beskæftiget om bord på fartøjet "Hosanna" sammen med De Paep's ægtefælle, Germain Ackx.
Mr Advocate General Giuseppe Tesauro delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Sixth Chamber on 9 July 1991
Fartøjet tilhørte selskabet De Pax, Knokke-Heist (Belglen), som De Paep var direktør for.
"In the light of the foregoing considerations, I suggest that the Court reply as follows to the questions submitted by the Hof van Cassatie, Belgium:
Den 29. januar 1980 blev fartøjet solgt til det britiske selskab Minerva Fisheries Ltd., som lod det registrere i Det Forenede Kongerige.
Determination of the legislation applicable to the employment relationship between a worker and the undertaking paying him falls outside the scope of Regulation No. 1408/71;
På ulykkestidspunktet blev Piet Ackx endnu aflønnet af selskabet De Pax.
Case C-159/90 The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children Ireland Ltd ν S. Grogan and Others 4 October 1991
Under henvisning til, at fartøjet "Hosanna" var erklæret usødygtigt, fastslog Hof van Cassatie, at Plet Ackx i henhold til belgisk lov ikke var bundet af en arbejdsaftale på ulykkestidspunktet.
(Preliminary ruling (Freedom to provide services - Prohibition on the distribution of information on clinics carrying out voluntary terminations of pregnancy in
- 28 - skal bedømmes på grundlag af lovgivningen i det land, hvor virksombeden har hjemsted, jf. artikel 13, stk. 2, litra b), og artikel 14, stk. 2, litra c), 1 forordning nr. 1408/71.
- 28 other Member States) (Full Court)
Herefter fastslog Hof van Cassatie under henvisning til, at fartøjet på ulykkestidspunktet sejlede under britisk flag, at den belgiske lov om arbejdsulykker ikke kunne anvendes.
By order dated 5 March 1990, which was received at the Court on 23 May 1990, the High Court of Ireland referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty three questions on the interpretation of Community law, in particular Article 60 of the EEC Treaty.
Hof van Cassatie var imidlertid i tvivl om, hvorvidt forordning nr. 1408/71 skulle anvendes, idet den pågældende sømand var aflønnet af en virksomhed med hjemsted i Belgien.
The questions arose in proceedings brought by the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children Ireland Ltd ("S.P.U.C") against Stephen Grogan and fourteen other officers of students associations in connexion with the distribution in Ireland of specific information relating to the identity and location of clinics in another Member State where medical termination of pregnancy is carried out.
Første spørgsmål
Jurisdiction of the Court
Domstolen bemærkede blot, at det fremgår af artikel 4, stk. 1, 1 forordning nr. 1408/71, at forordningen finder anvendelse på medlemsstaternes lovgivninger vedrørende en række sociale sikringsgrene. Lovvalgsreglerne 1 afsnit II, som omfatter artiklerne 13 og 14, vedrører således udelukkende disse lovgivninger.
In its written observations, the Commission stated that it was not clear whether the order referring the questions for a preliminary ruling was delivered in the context of the main action or in that of the proceedings for the grant of the injunction.
Domstolen fastslog, at denne fortolkning også gælder nationale lovbestemmelser vedrørende en arbejdsaftales ugyldighed.
In this regard, it was sufficient to observe that the circumstances referred to by S.P.U.C. went to the substance of the national court's questions.
Det hedder 1 domskonklusionen:
First question
Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71 af 14. juni 1971 om anvendelse af de sociale sikringsordninger på arbejdstagere og deres familiemedlemmer, der flytter inden for Fællesskabet, Indeholder ikke lovvalgsregler for arbejdsforholdet mellem arbejdstager og arbejdsgiver.
In its first question, the national court essentially sought to establish whether medical termination of pregnancy, performed in accordance with the law of the State where it was carried out, constituted a service within the meaning of Article 60 of the EEC Treaty.
Artikel 14, stk. 2, litra c), i forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71 i den pr. februar 1980 gældende affattelse, skal fortolkes således, at den Indebærer, at følgende bestemmelser ikke kan påberåbes over for de af forordningsbestemmelsen omfattede personer eller deres retssuccessorer: a) en bestemmelse i den pågældende lovgivning i en medlemsstat, hvorefter adgangen til at være omfattet af den deri regulerede socialsikringsordning er betinget af, at det fartøj, arbejdstageren er beskæftiget på, fører medlemsstatens flag, og b) enhver bestemmelse 1 denne medlemsstats lovgivning, hvorefter en arbejdsaftale er ugyldig, for så vidt bestemmelsen er til hinder for, at lovkonfliktreglen i forordningsbestemmelsen får fuld retsvirkning."
The Court considered that termination of pregnancy, as lawfully practised in several Member States, was a medical activity which was normally provided for remuneration and might be carried out as part of a professional activity. In any event, the Court had already held that medical activities fell within the scope of Article 60 of the Treaty.
Generaladvokat Giuseppe Tesauro fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 9. iuli 1991 under retsmødet i Sjette Afdeling.
S.P.U.C, however, maintained that the provision of abortion could not be regarded as being a service, on the ground that it was grossly immoral.
Generaladvokaten foreslog at besvare de præjudicielle spørgsmål således:
It was not for the Court to substitute its assessment for that of the legislature in those Member States where the activities in question were practised legally.
Fastlæggelsen af den lovgivning, der finder anvendelse på arbejdsfor holdet mellem en arbejdstager og den virksomhed, som aflønner ham, er ikke omfattet af forordning nr. 1408/71.
Having regard to the facts of the case, it was apparent that, in its second and third questions, the national court sought essentially to establish whether it was contrary to Community law for a Member State in which medical termination of pregnancy was forbidden to prohibit students associations from distributing information about the identity and location of clinics in another Member State where medical termination of pregnancy was lawfully carried out and the means of communicating with those clinics, where the clinics in question had no involvement in the distribution of the said information.
Bestemmelserne i afsnit II i forordning nr. 1408/71, herunder navnlig artikel 13, stk. 2, litra b) (nu litra c), og artikel 14, stk. 2, litra c) (nu artikel 14 b, stk. 4), indebærer, at en national bestemmelse, hvorefter adgangen til at være omfattet af en social sikringsordning direkte eller indirekte er betinget af, at arbejdstageren er beskæftiget om bord på et fartøj, der sejler under den pågældende medlemsstats flag, ikke kan påberåbes over de af forordningsbestemmelserne omfattede personer eller deres retssuccessorer."
The information to which the national court's questions referred was not distributed on behalf of an economic operator established in another Member State. On the contrary, the information constituted a manifestation of freedom of expression and of the freedom to impart and receive information which is independent of the economic activity carried on by clinics established in another Member State.
Ved kendelse af 5. marts 1990, indgået til Domstolen den 23. maj s.a., havde High Court Dublin i henhold til EØF-Traktatens artikel 177 forelagt tre præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af fællesskabsretten, herunder navnlig EØF-Traktatens artikel 60.
Thirdly, the defendants in the main proceedings maintained that fundamental rights and especially freedom of expression and the freedom to receive and impart information, enshrined in particular in Article 10 (1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, precluded a prohibuition of the kind at issue in the main proceedings.
Spørgsmålene var blevet rejst under en retssag mellem Society for the Protection of Unborn Children Ireland Limited (herefter benævnt "SPUC*) og Stephen Grogan og fjorten andre repræsentanter for studenterorganisationer vedrørende udbredelsen i Irland af konkrete oplysninger om navn og adresse på klinikker i en anden medlemsstat, hvor der blev foretaget lægelig afbrydelse af svangerskaber.
It was important to bear in mind that where national legislation fell within the field of application of Community law the Court, when requested to give a preliminary ruling, must provide the national court with all the elements of interpretation necessary in order to enable it to assess the compatibility of that legislation with the fundamental rights - as laid down in particular in the European Convention on Human Rights - the observance of which the Court ensures.
I sine skriftlige indlæg havde Kommissionen anført, at det var uklart, om forelæggelseskendelsen var blevet afsagt i forbindelse med behandlingen af hovedsagen eller i forbindelse med behandlingen af begæringen om nedlæggelse af forbud mod udbredelsen af oplysningerne.
Medical termi nati on of pregnancy, performed in accordance with the law of the State in which it is carried out, constitutes a service within the meaning of Article 60 of the Treaty.