natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Dette beløb (som var betalt længe forin­den) var allerede nævnt i præmisserne i dommen fra Paris, men ved en fejltagelse var der ikke taget hensyn hertil ved formuleringen af domskonklusionen.
This payment (which had been made some considerable time previously) had already been mentioned in the grounds of the judgment of the court in Paris but had mistakenly not been referred to in the operative part of that judgment.
I medfør af § 14 i den tyske gennemførelseslov kunne der ganske vist ikke fremsættes indsigelser mod kravet under appelsagen efter konventionens artikel 36, for så vidt som de allerede var opstået før afsigelsen af den dom, der skulle fuldbyrdes.
According to Paragraph 14 of the German Implementing Law, objections to a claim could not be made in the appeal procedure under Article 36 of the Convention in so far as they had arisen prior to pro­nouncement of the judgment to be enforced.
I det foreliggende tilfælde hav­de rekvirenten imidlertid efter afsigelsen af Tribunal de commerce's dom i et proces­skrift anført, at der »naturligvis ikke ville blive truffet fuldbyrdelsesforanstaltninger«, for så vidt angik det allerede betalte beløb.
In the present case, however, the creditor
(fortsat 2) i stand og samtidig en aftale, der begrænsede fuldbyrdelsen, og som der skulle tages hensyn til efter gennemførelseslovens § 14.
The debtor had had knowledge thereof and, accordingly, after pronounce­ment of the judgment a negative recognition of indebtedness and at the same time an agreement restricting enforcement had been effected between the parties which had to be taken into account within the context of Paragraph 14 of the Implementing Law.
Fuldbyrdelse — meddelelse af fuldbyrdelsespåtegning — sag indledt efter italiensk ret med henblik på anerkendelse og fuldbyrdelse af en retsafgørelse truffet i en anden kontra­herende stat — de (mindre strenge) betingelser i konventionen vedrørende anerkendelse og fuldbyrdelse fandt anvendelse
Enforcement — Issue of order for enforcement — Proceedings instituted under Italian law for an order of enforcement of a judgment delivered in another Contracting State — Applicability of the (less stringent) conditions of the Convention in respect of recognition and enforcement
Det i Tyskland hjemmehørende selskab Walter Wetzel fremsatte under en sag i medfør af artikel 796 ff. i Codice di procedura civile mod det italienske firma VES ved Corte d'appello di Napoli begæring om, at det konstateredes, at en af Landgericht Freiburg im Breisgau afsagt dom kunne anerkendes og fuldbyrdes i Italien (»dichiarazione di ef­ficacia«).
In the course of enforcement proceedings before the Corte d'appello, Naples, brought against the Italian company VES under Article 796 et seq. of the Italian Codice di procedura civile, Walter Wetzel, a company with its registered office in Germany, sought an order for the enforcement in Italy of a judgment delivered by the Landge­richt, Freiburg im Breisgau.
Sagsøgte gjorde indsigelse mod begæringen og nedlagde påstand om en for­nyet prøvelse af realiteten i medfør af artikel 798 i Codice de procedura civile. Corte d'appello tog begæringen til følge og erklærede den udenlandske dom eksigibel i Ita­lien.
The defendant argued that the application ought to be dis­missed and the matter reexamined pursuant to Article 798 of the Codice di procedura civile.
Sagsøgte iværksatte kassationsappel; sagsøgeren iværksatte kontraappel. Corte di cassazione stadfæstede Corte d'appello's afgørelse.
The defendant appealed in cassation against that decision and the applicant counter­appealed.
Corte di cassazione fastslog, at konventionen og navnlig dens bestemmelser om ekse­kvaturproceduren (artikel 31 ff.) fandt anvendelse på en begæring om »dichiarazione di efficacia« i medfør af de generelle bestemmelser (artikel 796 i Codice di procedura civile).
In its opinion, the Convention and, in particular, its provisions governing the proce­dure for the authorization of enforcement (Article 31 et seq.) were applicable to an ap­plication made under general provisions of law (Article 796 of the Codice di procedura civile) for a declaration that a judgment was enforceable.
Ifølge konventionen anerkendes den udenlandske retsafgørelse, når blot en af parterne anmoder herom, og uden at den anden part høres; sidstnævnte kan anfægte afgørelsen, der tillader fuldbyrdelse, ved appel eller genoptagelse, og dermed indlede en kontradiktorisk procedure.
Under the terms of the Con­vention, the foreign judgment could be recognized simply on request by one of the par­ties without hearing the other party, who could appeal against the authorization of en­forcement and thereby open proceedings inter partes.
Når den part, der fremsætter begæring om anerkendelse — som i det foreliggende tilfælde — går frem efter de generelle processuelle regler og i overensstemmelse hermed ikke indleder den første fase, men i stedet straks begynder med den kontradiktoriske procedure, bliver sagsøgte indirekte begunstiget, da der gives ham mulighed for på forhånd at gøre de grunde gældende, hvorpå appellen støttes.
If (as in this case), the party seek­ing recognition proceeded according to general procedural law and accordingly did not institute the first stage but instead began directly with the proceedings inter partes, that would be of indirect benefit to the defendant, who would thereby be given the op­portunity to set out in advance the reasons for his appeal.
Forholdet mellem konventionens regler og generelle procesretlige regler skal derfor forstås således, at det — når der foreligger en procedurefejl, der, som i det foreliggende tilfælde, ikke bevirker, at kravet på en kontradiktorisk procedure tilsidesættes, men tværtimod, at der tages større hensyn til det — alligevel skal sikres, at konventionen an­vendes, hvilket betyder, at anerkendelsen skal finde sted på grundlag af de i konventio­nen opstillede betingelser, som ikke er så strenge som betingelserne i den almindelige procesret.
The relationship between the law of the Convention and general procedural law was therefore to be understood as meaning that in the case of a procedural mistake which, as in the present case, did not affect the right to proceedings inter partes but on the contrary reinforced that require­ment, the application of the Convention had none the less to be guaranteed, which
(fortsat 1) anerkendelsesproceduren.
(continued I) meant that recognition had to take place on the basis of the conditions laid down in the Convention, which were not as strict as those under general procedural law.
Hertil kom, at artikel 46 og 47 — i modsætning til arti­kel 797, nr. 4, i Codice di procedura civile — bestemmer, at det af de dokumenter, der skal fremlægges med henblik på anerkendelsen, kun skal fremgå, at retsafgørelsen er eksigibel, ikke at den er retskraftig.
Furthermore, Articles 46 and 47 of the Convention provided that the documents to be produced for the pur­poses of recognition required (contrary to Article 797(4) of the Codice di procedura civile) only to show that the judgment was enforceable, not that it had become res judicata.
Fuldbyrdelse — dom til betaling »med renter efter loven« uden nærmere angivelse af rentesatsen — udfyldning foretaget af retten i fuldbyrdelsesstaten under eksekvaturproce­duren
Enforcement — Order to pay 'legal interest' without specifying the interest rate — Sup­plemented by the court of the State in which enforcement was sought in proceedings for the issue of the order of enforcement
Denne sag udgjorde fortsættelsen af den ovenfor under Β 11 gengivne tvist.
This case constituted an additional chapter in the dispute detailed in Β 11 supra.
Rekviren­ten havde i mellemtiden fremsat begæring om, at Tribunal de commerce de Saint­Omer's dom, hvorved rekvisitus var blevet dømt til at betale beløbet »med renter efter loven fra indleveringen af stævningen« (»intérêts judiciaires à compter du jour de l'as­signation«), også blev forsynet med fuldbyrdelsespåtegning for så vidt angik renterne.
The applicant had in the meantime applied for an order for the enforcement of the judg­ment of the Tribunal de commerce, Saint­Omer, which had ordered payment of the amount 'plus legal interest at the rate in force on the date when the writ was served' ('intérêts judiciaires à compter du jour de l'assignation'), in respect of the aforesaid in­terest as well.
Landgericht tog begæringen til følge og fastslog, at renterne udgjorde 9,5% fra indle­veringen af stævningen og steg til 14,5% to måneder efter, at den franske dom var ble­vet eksigibel.
The Landgericht upheld the application and ruled that the interest from the date on which the action had been brought came to 9.5% and, from a date two months after the French judgment had become enforceable, to 14.5%.
Rekvisitus kærede gennem to instanser uden at få medhold.
The two appeals brought against that decision were dismissed.
Bundesgerichtshof tiltrådte det af kæremålsinstansen anførte, hvorefter anerkendelse af et udenlandsk eksekutionsfundament i princippet har til følge, at eksekutionsfunda­mentet også i indlandet har de retsvirkninger, det har efter lovgivningen i den stat, det hidrører fra.
The Bundesgerichtshof agreed with the reasoning of the appellate court to the effect that recognition of a foreign judgment had in principle the result that the effects which it had under the law of the State in which it had been delivered also extended to Ger­many.
Hvis det udenlandske eksekutionsfundament ikke opfylder de krav, der stilles, for at der kan ske tvangsfuldbyrdelse i indlandet, nemlig at betalingsforpligtel­sens indhold og omfang er angivet, men kriterierne for fastlæggelsen af betalingsfor­pligtelsen følger af de udenlandske bestemmelser eller af lignende omstændigheder, der lige så let og sikkert kan klarlægges i indlandet, skal disse omstændigheder i princippet så vidt muligt klarlægges under eksekvaturproceduren, og der skal foretages en tilsva­rende konkretisering af det udenlandske eksekutionsfundament i afgørelsen om, hvor­vidt det kan fuldbyrdes.
If, although the foreign judgment might not satisfy the condition for enforce­ment in Germany, namely that the content and scope of the obligation in question should be indicated, the criteria for determining the obligation were evident from the foreign provisions or from similar circumstances which were equally accessible in Ger­many and capable of unambiguous identification, it was in principle necessary to make those findings, if at all possible, in the proceedings for an order of enforcement and to obtain relevant details of the foreign judgment in the proceedings regarding its enforce­ment.
(fortsat I) de på det pågældende tidspunkt 9,5 %.
(continued 1)
I medfør af lovens artikel 3 stiger renten 5 pro­centpoint to måneder efter, at rettens afgørelse er blevet eksigibel.
Article 3 of the above Law provided that the interest rate was to increase by five percentage points two months after the judg­ment had become enforceable.
(Jfr. med hensyn til artikel 34, stk. 2 og 3, de ovenfor under 1­27.1 til 4, 1­28 og 1­29 medtagne afgørelser; jfr. også 1­36 ­ B 6; 1­46 ­ B 2)
(As regards the second and third paragraphs of Article 34, see the judgments reported in 1­27.1 to 4, 1­28 and 1­29; see also 1­36 ­ Β 6; 1­46 ­ Β 2)
Fuldbyrdelse — meddelelse af fuldbyrdelsespåtegning — fremgangsmåde — krænkelse af princippet om kontradiktion — ingen sådan
Enforcement — Order for enforcement — Procedure — Not contrary to the rule audi alteram partem
Rekvisitus kunne uden videre — ved hjælp af den i konventionens artikel 36 omhandlede appel eller gen­optagelse — skaffe sig mulighed for kontradiktion.
The defendant only had to lodge an appeal under Ar­ticle 36 of the Convention in order to obtain an opportunity to put his case.
Fuldbyrdelse — meddelelse af fuldbyrdelsespåtegning — fremgangsmåde — tysk udebli­velsesdom uden angivelse af grunde — kunne fuldbyrdes
Enforcement — Order for enforcement — Procedure — Judgment in default given by a German court without a statement of reasons — Held enforceable
Corte d'appello anførte, at udeblivelsesdommens beskaffenhed — efter tysk ret var udeblivelsesdomme ikke ledsa­get afgrunde — ikke var til hinder for at meddele fuldbyrdelsespåtegning i Italien; iføl­ge konventionsbestemmelserne udelukkedes en kontradiktorisk procedure ikke, den blev kun udskudt, idet den part, mod hvem fuldbyrdelse begæredes, i medfør af arti­kel 36 kunne anfægte afgørelsen ved appel eller genoptagelse.
The Corte d'appello ruled that the nature of a judgment in default, which under German law did not con­tain any statement of the reasons upon which it was based, did not prevent its enforce­ment in Italy; the provisions of the Convention did not preclude proceedings in which both parties could put their case; it merely postponed them since the party against whom enforcement was sought could bring an appeal under Article 36.
Fuldbyrdelse — arrestdekret afsagt af en fransk ret uden mundtlig forhandling —fuldbyr­delse i en anden kontraherende stal — indsigelser mod kravet — hensyntagen hertil ifuld­byrdelsessagen — betingelser
Enforcement — Order for the seizure of goods made by a French court without an oral hearing — Enforceability in another Contracting State — Objections against the applica­tion for a seizure order — Consideration of such objections in the enforcement proceedings — Conditions
Da banken krævede beløbet betalt, undlod han at beta­le.
When the bank claimed on the guarantee he refused to pay.
Derefter udvirkede banken, at der ved Tribunal de grande instance de Strasbourg uden mundtlig forhandling blev afsagt et arrestdekret, hvorved der blev gjort arrest hos rekvisitus for et bestemt maksimumsbeløb.
The bank applied to the Tribunal de grande instance, Strasbourg, which granted an order, without holding an oral hearing, for the seizure of property belonging to the defendant up to a certain value.
Den franske ret afsagde kendelse om forelø­big fuldbyrdelse afarresten.
The court declared the order immediately enforceable.
Kendelsen blev forkyndt for rekvisitus, og han blev under­rettet om muligheden for at rejse indsigelse.
It was served on the de­fendant with a notice advising him of the possibility of lodging an appeal.
Kendelsen blev på begæring af rekvirenten forsynet med fuldbyrdelsespåtegning af den kompetente Landgericht i Forbundsrepu­blikken Tyskland.
Upon appli­cation to the appropriate Landgericht, an order was granted for the enforcement of the French order in the Federal Republic of Germany.
Han fik imidlertid ikke medhold, heller ikke i den »Rechtsbeschwerde«, som han herefter ind­gav til Bundesgerichtshof.
The appeal was dismissed. A further appeal on a point of law was also dismissed.
Bundesgerichtshof udtalte herom, at de afgørelser, der skal anerkendes efter konventionens artikel 26, i intet tilfælde kan efterprøves med hensyn til sagens realitet, jfr. konventionens artikel 29.
The Bundesgerichtshof observed that judgments which must be recognized under Article 26 of the Convention could, according to Article 29 of the Convention, in no circumstances be reviewed as to their substance.
Ifølge § 14 i den tyske gennemførelses­lov til konventionen kunne indsigelser mod selve kravet i fuldbyrdelsessagen kun gøres gældende, for så vidt de grunde, hvorpå de støttedes, først var opstået efter, at den udenlandske retsafgørelse var truffet. At også arrestdekreter kunne erklæres eksigible i henhold til konventionen, fulgte af konventionens artikler 24 og 25 samt af §§ 34 og 35 i den tyske gennemførelseslov.
Under para­graph 14 of the German Law implementing the Convention objections against the claim could be pleaded in the enforcement proceedings only in so far as the grounds on which they were based had arisen after the pronouncement of the foreign judgment.
I tilfælde af at den franske ret ophævede arrestdekretet, kunne han i medfør af § 29 i den tyske gennemfø­relseslov opnå, at tilladelsen til tvangsfuldbyrdelse i Tyskland blev ophævet.
If the seizure order was set aside by the French court the defendant could have the order authorizing enforcement in Germany set aside pursuant to paragraph 29 of the German implementing law.
Der var således ikke grundlag for i fuldbyrdelsessagen at tage hensyn til en svigsindsigelse, som støttedes på grunde, der allerede var opstået, før retten i Strasbourg traf sin afgørelse.
There was therefore no justification for taking into consideration in the enforcement proceedings the objec­tion of fraud, which was based on grounds which had arisen before the granting of the order by the Strasbourg court.
— sagens behandling — indsigelser under sagens behandling i henhold til
Enforcement — Enforcement order — Procedure — Defences to the claim being enforced — Pleading of such defences in proceedings under Article 34
På grundlag af denne afgø­relse meddelte justitssekretæren ved Landgericht fuldbyrdelsespåtegning den 6. august 1979.
Pur­suant to that order, the appropriate officer of the Landgericht issued a writ of execution on 6 August 1979.
En skrivelse fra rekvisitus af 18. juli 1979, der var indgået til Landgericht den føl­gende dag, og hvori rekvisitus påstod at have betalt visse beløb til rekvirenten i august 1978 og i marts 1979, blev ikke taget i betragtning.
A letter from the defendant of 18 July 1979, which reached the Landgericht on the following day and in which the defendant claimed to have made payments to the plaintiff in August 1978 and March 1979, was disregarded.
Appellen førte til ophævelse af afdelingsformandens afgørelse af 12. juli 1979 og den af justitssekretæren meddelte fuldbyrdelsespåtegning samt til hjemvisning af sagen til Landgericht.
As a result of the ap­peal the Oberlandesgericht München set aside the order made by the President of the Chamber of 12 July 1979 and the writ of execution issued by the court officer and re­mitted the case to the Landgericht.
Da appellen var rettet mod tilladelsen til fuldbyrdelse, der først var af­sluttet med fuldbyrdelsesklausulen, havde afdelingsformanden været berettiget til at ændre sin afgørelse, indtil der var meddelt fuldbyrdelsespåtegning.
Since the appeal was directed against the order for enforcement as completed by the appending of the writ of execution, the President of Chamber was empowered to vary his order until the issue of that writ.
For så vidt beløbene var betalt efter afsigelsen af den italienske dom, var der tale om en indsigelse om, at kravet var ophørt, som der skulle tages hensyn til ifølge § 14, stk. 1, i den tyske gennemførelseslov til konventionen.
The making of the payments after the pronouncement of the Italian judgment con­stituted a defence to the claim based on the performance of the obligation and the ex­tinction of the corresponding right; such a defence was to be taken into consideration under paragraph 14(1) of the German Law implementing the Convention.
Landgericht måtte nu, før den traf afgø­relse om, hvorvidt fuldbyrdelse skulle tillades, klarlægge, i hvilket omfang de beløb, rekvisitus havde betalt, efter at den italienske dom var afsagt, havde ført til opfyldelse.
The Landge­richt must now, before an order for enforcement could be made, clarify the question to what extent the payments made by the defendant had led to the performance of its obli­gations after the pronouncement of the Italian judgment.
Fuldbyrdelse — meddelelse af fuldbyrdelsespåtegning — grunde til nægtelse heraf frem­ført under appel­ eller genoptagelsessagen — skyldneren havde bevisbyrden
Enforcement — Order for enforcement — Grounds for refusal put forward in appellate proceedings — Burden of proof on the debtor
Ved en tysk Amtsgericht var Baeyens blevet tilpligtet at betale underholdsbidrag til sin fraskilte hustru, ved navn Ritter, og til de tidligere ægtefællers mindreårige datter.
A German Amtsgericht had given a judgment ordering Mr Baeyens to pay mainten­ance to Ms Ritter, his wife, from whom he was separated, and their minor daughter.
Efter at Rechtbank van eerste aanleg, Antwerpen, havde givet tilladelse til fuldbyrdelse af dommen i Belgien, indgav Baeyens begæring om genoptagelse under påberåbelse af konventionens artikel 27, nr. 4, og artikel 34, stk. 2.
After the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg, Antwerp, had issued an order for enforcement in Belgium, Mr Baeyens appealed pursuant to Article 27(4) and the second paragraph of Article 34 of the Convention.
Han gjorde gældende, at den tyske retsinstans havde lagt til grund for sin afgørelse, at hans fraskilte hustru var tysk stats­borger — selv om hun ved ægteskabets indgåelse var blevet belgisk statsborger — og at retten i konsekvens heraf havde fastsat underholdsbidraget efter de tyske retningslinjer, som førte til, at der skulle betales større bidrag end dem, der ville være blevet fastsat i Belgien.
He argued that the German court had assumed, when reaching its decision, that Ms Ritter was a German national, whereas she had in fact ac­quired Belgian nationality upon marriage. The Amtsgericht had for that reason as­sessed maintenance in accordance with the criteria laid down by German law, which had resulted in a higher amount than would have been the case if the assessment had been made in Belgium.
I sin afgørelse i genoptagelsessagen udtalte Rechtbank van eerste aanleg, at Baeyens' fraskilte hustru under genoptagelsessagen kun havde anført, at Baeyens ikke havde ført bevis for sine påstande, og retten fandt som følge heraf, at kravet om genoptagelse ikke var blevet alvorligt, konkret og præcist bestridt.
In its subsequent judgment, the Rechtbank took the view that the respondent had con­fined her submissions to the argument that the appellant had adduced no evidence in support of his assertions, whereupon it came to the conclusion that there were no seri­ous, specific and detailed arguments against the appeal.
Retten tog begæringen om genoptagel­se til følge og ophævede den dom, hvorved fuldbyrdelsestilladelsen var givet.
The Rechtbank accordingly upheld the appeal and set aside the decision issuing the order for enforcement.
Denne afgørelse blev indanket til Hof van cassatie, som gav appellanten medhold.
The sub­sequent appeal in cassation against that judgment was successful.
Under kassationsankesagen gjorde appellanten bl.a. gældende, at det ikke fremgik klart af den indankede dom, i hvilken henseende den tyske retsinstans havde tilsidesat en belgisk international­privatretlig regel.
The appellant in cassation submitted, inter alia, that the contested judgment did not make it clear how the German court was alleged to have breached Belgian private inter­national law.
Ved dommen var der dermed anlagt en fejl­agtig fortolkning af konventionens artikel 27, nr. 4.
The Rechtbank, she argued, had thus been wrong in its interpretation of Article 27(4) of the Convention.
Hof van cassatie ophævede dommen som stridende mod konventionens artikel 27, nr. 4, og artikel 34.
The Hof van cassatie set the judgment aside on the ground that it breached Articles 27(4) and 34 of the Convention.
Hofvan cassatie udtalte, at der efter konventionens systematik nor­malt gives tilladelse til fuldbyrdelse, og at den part, over for hvem fuldbyrdelse begæres, kun af de i artikel 27 og 28 nævnte grunde kan opnå, at fuldbyrdelse nægtes, jfr. Domstolens dom i sag 49/84 (jfr. ovenfor under 1­27.2 — A 3).
It held that, under the system of the Convention, the order for enforcement should in principle be issued and that a debtor could request that the application be rejected only on one of the grounds set out in Articles 27 and 28, as held by the Court of Justice in its judgment in Case 49/84 Debaecker and Plouvier ν Bouwman (supra, 1­27.2 — A 3).
I det konkrete tilfælde havde Rechtbank van eerste aanleg afslået at tillade fuldbyrdelse, ikke fordi den part, der begærede genoptagelse, havde godtgjort, at en af de i artikel 27 og 28 nævnte grunde forelå, men fordi modpartens anbringender fandtes at være for summa­riske.
In the present case, the Rechtbank had refused to issue the enforcement order, not because Mr Baeyens had demonstrated the existence of one of the exceptions contained in Articles 27 and 28, but because Ms Ritter's submissions had been inadequately substantiated.
Retten havde dermed byttet om på hovedreglen og undtagelsen.
In doing so, the Rechtbank had reversed the rela­tionship between the rule and the exceptions to it.