natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
(fortsat I) begæringen til følge. Som begrundelse herfor henviste retten til, at konventionens arti­kel 38 — der giver hjemmel til udsættelse — ikke gælder for officielt bekræftede doku­menter.
The Recht­bank rejected that request on the ground that Article 38 of the Convention, which gov­erned the staying of proceedings, did not apply to authentic instruments.
Artikel 38 kan efter den definition af begrebet »ordinært retsmiddel«, .som Domstolen har opstillet i sin dom i sag 43/77 (jfr. ovenfor under 1­25.0 — A 2), ikke an­vendes analogt på en appel­ eller genoptagelsessag vedrørende fuldbyrdelse af et offi­cielt bekræftet dokument.
In view of the definition of 'ordinary appeal', as given by the Court of Justice in its judgment in Case 43/77 PVBA Industrial Diamond Supplies ν Riva (supra, 1­25.0 — A 2), that provision could not be applied by analogy to appellate proceedings concerning the enforcement of an authentic instrument.
Sager, hvorunder sådanne dokumenter anfægtes, kan efter deres karakter kun sammenlignes med ekstraordinære retsmidler, da sådanne sager principielt ikke skal anlægges inden for en bestemt frist, men kan anlægges på et hvil­ket som helst tidspunkt efter dokumentets oprettelse.
In view of their nature, proceedings for a declaration that an authentic instrument was void were comparable only to extraordinary appeals, since such proceedings did not in principle require to be brought within a specific period but could be instituted at any time after the instrument had been drawn up.
Afsnit V ­ ALMINDELIGE BESTEMMELSER (artikel 52 — artikel 53)
(Articles 52 and 53)
[en parts bopæl]
[Domicile of a party]
Almindelige bestemmelser — et selskabs hjemsted — domsstatens internationale privatret — sagsøgte havde ifølge vedtægterne hjemsted i Liberia — konventionen fandt ikke an­vendelse
General provisions — Seat of a company — Private international law of the court applied to — Registered office of defendant in Liberia — Convention not applicable
Heraf fulgte, at spørgsmålet om rettens kompetence ikke skulle afgøres efter konventionens kompetenceregler, men — i medfør af konven­tionens artikel 4 — efter nederlandsk ret.
Under that law the company's seat was the place where, according to its memorandum of associ­ation, it had its registered office, namely Liberia, which country had not acceded to the Convention, with the result that, in accordance with Article 4 of the Convention, juris­diction fell to be determined not under the jurisdiction rules of the Convention but under the law of the Netherlands.
Sagen for Arrondisse­mentsrechtbank kunne heller ikke udsættes med hjemmel i de almindelige nederland­ske retsregler, da den sag, der førtes i Frankrig, ikke kunne anses for at angå realiteten; tværtimod måtte sagen for præsidenten for Tribunal de commerce i Bordeaux sidestil­
Nor was there any ground for a stay of proceedings under ordinary Netherlands law, since the French proceedings could not be regarded as proceedings on the substance of the case. Rather the proceedings before the President of the Tribunal de commerce, Bor­deaux, should be seen as corresponding to the Netherlands kort geding [application for
(fortsat 1) les med en nederlandsk sag om foreløbige forholdsregler dér, havde ikke samme eller lignende beføjelser som den nederlandske domstol, der behandlede hovedsagen, og der fandtes derfor ikke anledning til at udsætte sagen.
(continued I) interim relief]. The French court hearing an application for interim relief did not have the same or similar powers as the Netherlands court dealing with the substance of the case ; there was therefore no cause to stay the proceedings.
På denne baggrund erklærede Ar­rondissementsrechtbank sig kompetent i medfør af den nederlandske civilproceslovs artikel 767 (om arrestværnetinget).
The court proceeded to hold that it had jurisdiction pursuant to Article 767 of the Netherlands Code of Civil Proce­dure (forum arresti).
Dommen blev — hovedsagelig i henhold til samme grunde — stadfæstet af Gerechts­hof Haag ved dom af 29. februar 1980 (NJ 1980, nr. 608; [1982] E.C.C. 353).
This judgment was upheld by the Gerechtshof, The Hague, on 29 February 1980 (NJ 1980, No 608; [1982] E.C.C. 353) on grounds which coincide essentially with those adopted by the lower court.
(artikel 54; tiltrædelseskonventionen 1978, artikel 34—36; tiltrædelseskonventionen 1982, artikel 12)
(Article 54; 1978 Accession Convention, Articles 34-36; 1982 Accession Convention, Article 12)
(Jfr. også 1­36 ­ A 1)
(See also 136 - A 1)
Sanicentral GmbH mod Collin (anmodning om præjudiciel afgørelse indgivet af Frankrigs Cour de cassation) Sml. 1979, s. 3423 (forslag til afgørelse fra generaladvokat F. Capotorti, s. 3431)
1-54 — A 1 Judgment of 13 November 1979,' Case 25/79 Sanicentral GmbH ν Collin [1979] ECR 3423 (Preliminary ruling requested by the Cour de cassation de France) Advocate General: F. Capotorti (p. 3431)
Overgangsbestemmelser — retssager, anlagt efter konventionens ikrafttræden — tidligere indgåede værnetingsaftaler, som måtte anses for ugyldige efter de ved indgåelsen gældende nationale lovbestemmelser — gyldige
Transitional provisions — Judicial proceedings instituted after the entry into force of the Convention — Prior clauses conferring jurisdiction which according to national rules in force at the time of the agreement were void — Held valid
I denne sag var forholdet det, at en arbejdsaftale, som var indgået den 27. oktober 1971 mellem en i Frankrig bosat arbejdstager og et tysk selskab, som havde antaget arbejdstageren til arbejde i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland, indeholdt en værnetingsklausul, hvorefter en tysk ret var kompetent.
A contract of employment which was concluded on 27 October 1971 between a worker who was resident in France and a German company which had engaged him to work in the Federal Republic of Germany contained a clause conferring jurisdiction upon a German court.
Efter at aftalen var blevet ophævet den 8. december 1971, anlagde arbejdstageren den 27. november 1973 sag mod sin tidligere arbejdsgiver ved Tribunal d'instance de Molsheim med påstand om betaling af nærmere be stemte beløb.
Following the breach of that contract of employment on 8 December 1971 the worker brought an action on 27 November 1973 in the Tribunal d'instance, Molsheim, claiming payment of certain sums from his former employer.
Det tyske firmas indsigelse om, at retten savnede stedlig kompetence, blev ikke lagt til grund, idet retten under henvisning til artikel 14 i Code civil og artikel R 517-1 i Code du travail anførte, at værnetingsaftalen var ugyldig.
The German company's plea that the French court had no jurisdiction was dismissed by that court on the ground that under Article 14 of the French Civil Code and Article R 517-1 of the Labour Code the clause conferring jurisdiction contained in the contract of employ­ment was void.
Selskabet indankede denne afgørelse for Cour d'appel de Colmar og gjorde gældende, at værnetingsaftalens gyldighed alene skulle bedømmes efter bestemmelserne i konventionen af 1968.
In its appeal against that decision, Sanicentral maintained that the va­lidity of a clause conferring jurisdiction was to be determined solely by reference to the provisions of the 1968 Convention.
Cour d'appel de Colmar stadfæstede underinstansens afgørelse ved dom af 23. september 1976 med den begrundelse, at konventionen først var trådt i kraft i Frankrig efter indgåelsen af den omtvistede arbejdskontrakt og derfor ikke fandt anvendelse.
The appeal was dismissed by the Cour d'appel,
Det ty- i) Processprog: fransk.
1 — Language of the case: French.
(fortsat 1) ske selskab indankede derefter sagen for Cour de cassation (afdelingen for arbejds- og socialretlige sager), som drøftede, hvorvidt konventionens artikel 17 vedrørende værnetingsaftaler kunne finde anvendelse på arbejdskontrakter, indgået inden konven tionen, eller »om konventionens bestemmelser, i det omfang de vedrører beskyttelsen af lønmodtagere, også gælder for selve aftalernes indhold og kun bør have virkning for kontrakter indgået efter konventionens ikrafttrædelse«; Cour de cassation forelagde derfor ved dom af 10. januar 1979 Domstolen følgende spørgsmål:
Sanicentral appealed to the French Cour de cassation (Social Chamber), which considered whether Article 17 of the Convention, concerning agreements confer ring jurisdiction, applied to contracts of employment concluded before the Convention entered into force, or whether 'in so far as they concern the protection of employed workers [the provisions of the Convention] relate to the very substance of agreements and must be given effect only in relation to subsequent contracts'. By a judgment dated 10 January 1979 the Cour de cassation accordingly referred the following question to the Court of Justice:
»Må Bruxelleskonventionens artikel 17 i medfør af dennes artikel 54 fremtidig føre til, at værnetingsklausuler i en arbejdskontrakt indgået før den 1. februar 1973, og ugyldige efter den da gældende nationale lovgivning, uanset datoen for parternes aftaler eller det omstridte arbejdes udførelse, er gyldige, når retssagen er anlagt efter den 1. februar 1973?«
'Whether, in application of Article 54 of the Brussels Convention, Article 17 ofthat Convention must be interpreted to mean that, when proceedings have been com menced after 1 February 1973, clauses conferring jurisdiction inserted into a con tract of employment concluded before 1 February 1973 which would have been re garded as void by the internal legislation in force at that time must henceforward be deemed to be valid, regardless of the date of the agreements between the parties and the date of the performance of the work in question.'
Domstolen udtalte herom (i præmisserne 3—7):
In reply to that question, the Court of Justice held as follows (paragraphs 3 to 7 of the decision):
»3 Det fremgår af dette spørgsmål, at Cour de cassation med rette lægger til grund, at arbejdsretlige forhold omfattes af konventionens saglige anvendelsesområde, og at tvister i forbindelse med en arbejdskontrakt, indgået før den 1. februar 1973, falder ind under nævnte konvention, herunder dens artikel 17 om værnetingsaftaler.
'3 It follows from this question that the Cour de cassation rightly accepts that employment law comes within the substantive field of application of the Convention and that litigation arising out of a contract of employment concluded after 1 February 1973 is subject to the Convention and particularly to Article 17 thereof relating to prorogation of jurisdiction.
4 Da arbejdskontrakten blev ophævet den 8. december 1971, men retssagen først an lagt den 27. november 1973, altså efter konventionens ikrafttræden, er Cour de cas sation kommet i tvivl om rækkevidden af konventionens artikel 54, som bestemmer, at 'bestemmelserne i denne konvention finder kun anvendelse på retssager, der er anlagt ... efter konventionens ikrafttræden', og retten har derfor spurgt, om en værnetingsklausul i en arbejdskontrakt, som efter fransk lovgivning var ugyldig in den 1. februar 1973, bliver gyldig ved konventionens ikrafttrædelsestidspunkt.
4 In view of the fact that the contract of employment was broken off on 8 December 1971 and that the judicial proceedings were not commenced until 27 November 1973, that is, after the Convention had come into force, the Cour de cassation is concerned as to the meaning of Article 54 of the Convention which provides that "the provisions of this Convention shall apply only to legal proceedings instituted and to documents formally drawn up or registered as authentic instruments after its entry into force" and ask whether the clause in the contract of employment confer ring jurisdiction, which could have been regarded under French legislation prior to 1 February 1973 as being void, recovers its validity at the date of the entry into force of the Convention.
5 Dette spørgsmål kan besvares således, at dels vedrører konventionen ikke materiel retlige regler, dels er det konventionens formål at fastlægge kompetencen for de kontraherende medlemsstaters retter i borgerlige sager inden for Fællesskabet, hvorfor de herved gældende nationale retsplejeregler ophæves og erstattes af kon ventionens bestemmelser.
5 It is appropriate to answer this point by stating, on the one hand, that the Convention does not affect rules of substantive law and, on the other hand, that, as the Convention seeks to determine the jurisdiction of the courts of the contracting States in the intra-Community legal order in regard to matters of civil jurisdiction, the national procedural laws applicable to the cases concerned are set aside in the matters governed by the Convention in favour of the provisions thereof.
(Jfr. også I­l.l ­Bl; 1­16.4­ B 1; 1­17.1.1 ­ B 10; 1­17.1.2 ­ B38; 1­18 ­ B2; 1­38 ­ B 10)
(See also I­l.l ­Bl; 1­16.4­ Bl; 1­17.1.1 ­ BIO; 1­17.1.2 ­ Β 38; 1­18 ­ Β 2; 1­38 ­ Β 10)
Overgangsbestemmelser — retssager anlagt før konventionens ikrafttræden — de indtil da gældende nationale bestemmelser var afgørende — konventionens betydning for fuld­byrdelsen af en afgørelse truffet efter dens ikrafttræden
Transitional provisions — Actions brought prior to the entry into force of the Convention — Applicability of national provisions in force until then — Significance of the Convention for the enforcement of a judgment given after its entry into force
Retten konstaterede følgelig, at den havde kompetence til at pådømme sagen i medfør af civil­proceslovens artikel 4, nr. 2, og den anførte endvidere, at konventionen i medfør af dens overgangsbestemmelser kunne få betydning for fuldbyrdelsen af den afgørelse, der skulle træffes; det afgørende for afgørelsens eksigibilitet var, at den ret, der traf af­gørelsen, havde været kompetent ifølge de før ikrafttrædelsen gældende regler, for så vidt de var i overensstemmelse med reglerne i konventionens afsnit II.
The Tribunale held that it had jurisdiction under Article 4(2) of the Codice di procedura civile and pointed out, further, that by virtue of the transitional provisions the Convention could become relevant in regard to the enforcement of the judgment to be delivered. The enforce­ability depended upon whether the court giving the judgment had had jurisdiction under the rules applying before the Convention came into force and whether those rules accorded with the provisions of Title II of the Convention.
Hertil bemærke­de retten, at bestemmelsen i konventionens artikel 5, nr. 1, fuldt ud svarede til reglerne i den italienske civilproceslovs artikel 4, nr. 2.
In that connection it was observed that the rule contained in Article 5(1) of the Convention was to exactly the same effect as that in Article 4(2) of the Italian Codice di procedura civile.
Overgangsbestemmelser — retssager anlagt før konventionens ikrafttræden —forkyndel­se af stævningen mod den udenlandske sagsøgte for den indenlandske statsadvokatur før
Transitional provisions — Actions brought before the entry into force of the Convention — Statement of claim in an action against a foreign defendant delivered to the local parquet
(fortsat 1)
1968 ­ ARTICLE 54
1. februar 1973 —fremsendelse af stævningen til sagsøgte efter 1. februar 1973 — konven­tionen fandt ikke anvendelse
(continued I) prior to 1 February 1973 — Transmission of the statement of claim to the defendant after 1 February 1973 — Convention not applicable
I denne sag havde kassationsindstævnte (SA Rochard) ved indkaldelse og stævning, der den 26. januar 1973 blev forkyndt for statsadvokaturen (som adressat for forkyn­delser i tilfælde, hvor sagsøgte havde bopæl i udlandet), anlagt erstatningssag mod fir­ma Michael Weinig (appellanten i kassationssagen) ved Tribunal de commerce de Bel­fort.
By a statement of claim and summons which were lodged with the local Parquet (office with which documents for service on foreign defendants must be lodged) on 26 January 1973 the respondent in the appeal (SA Rochard) had summoned the appellant (Ets Michael Weinig) to appear before the Tribunal de commerce, Belfort, on 3 April 1973 in answer to a claim for damages.
Første tægtedag var i indkaldelsen fastsat til den 3. april 1973. Stævningsmanden videresendte ikke det indledende processkrift i sagen ved anbefalet brev, og genparten, der fremsendtes ad diplomatisk vej, nåede frem til modtageren den 27. marts 1973.
The official responsible for service omitted to send a copy of the document instituting the proceedings by registered letter and the copy for­warded through diplomatic channels reached the addressee on 27 March 1973.
Sidstnævnte gjorde gældende, at forkyndelsen af indkaldelsen og stævningen for stats­advokaturen var uden retsvirkning, da stævningsmanden ikke havde bragt den til kundskab ved anbefalet brev, og da indkaldelsen den 27. marts 1973, som sagsøgte modtog den, ikke var foretaget i overensstemmelse med domskonventionen; sagsøgte gjorde derfor gældende, at den franske ret savnede kompetence.
The ad­dressee, Ets Michael Weinig, contended that the lodging of the summons with the Parquet was of no effect because the official responsible for service had failed to bring the summons to the firm's notice by sending it by registered letter and the summons which it, the appellant and defendant, had received on 27 March 1973 had not been ef­fected in accordance with the Brussels Convention. The defendant accordingly pleaded that the French court had no jurisdiction.
Sagsøgte indbragte derpå sagen for Cour d'appel de Besançon, hvis dom blev appelle­ret til Cour de cassation, som imidlertid stadfæstede afgørelsen.
The Cour de cassation dismissed the appeal in cassation brought against a judgment delivered by the Cour d'appel, Besançon, in respect of the defendant's preliminary plea.
Cour d'appel havde stadfæstet dommen fra Tribunal de commerce, hvori sidstnævnte havde erklæret sig kompetent.
The Cour d'appel had upheld the judgment by which the Tribunal de commerce had held that it had jurisdiction.
Cour de cassation begrundede sin dom med, at den tyske sagsøgte (appel­lanten i kassationsanken) ikke havde lidt skade, idet sagsøgte i retsmødet den 3. april 1973 havde opnået en udsættelse af sagen til et senere tidspunkt (3. juni 1973).
The Cour de cassation found support for its decision in the fact that the German defendant (the appellant) had suffered no prejudice since at the hearing on 3 April 1973 it had been granted an adjournment until a later date (3 July 1973).
Da for­kyndelsen af det indledende processkrift i sagen ikke var ugyldig, var den franske ret, for hvilken sagen blev anlagt før den 1. februar 1973, i medfør af artiklerne 14 og 15 i Code civil kompetent til at påkende tvister mellem franske og tyske statsborgere.
As the document instituting proceedings had been validly served, the French court, before which proceedings were brought prior to 1 February 1973, had jurisdiction to entertain actions between French and German nationals by virtue of Ar­ticles 14 and 15 of the Code civil.
I denne sag nåede Corte di cassazione under en særskilt behandling af spørgsmålet om kompetencen i medfør af artikel 41 i Codice di procedura civile (efter begæring fra S.p.a.
In an application submitted by Compagnia Allevatori Vitelli in accordance with Arti­cle 41 of the Italian Codice di procedura civile [Code of Civil Procedure] to determine a preliminary question of jurisdiction the Corte di cassazione held that the Italian courts had jurisdiction over a French company, Francexpa.
Anerkendelse og fuldbyrdelse — grunde til nægtelse heraf — modstrid med grundlæggende retsprincipper i fuldbyrdelsesstaten (artikel 27, nr. 1) — begrebet grundlæggende retsprincipper
Recognition and enforcement — Grounds for refusal — Contrary to public policy in the State in which enforcement is sought (Art. 27(1)) — Concept of public policy
Ved disse domme var kassationsappel­lanten blevet dømt til at betale forskellige beløb til kassationsindstævnte i form af pro­vision og godtgørelse af forskellig art i forbindelse med et arbejdsforhold og dettes ophævelse; arbejdsforholdet var kommet i stand mellem kassationsindstævnte (som ar­bejdstager) og kassationsappellanten via en proforma­befuldmægtiget for kassations­appellanten.
The judgments ordered Rocca­plast to pay various amounts to Mr Fetas by way of commission and compensation under various heads as a result of the performance and the termination of an employ­ment contract which had been brought into being between Mr Fetas (as employee) and Roccaplast through a presumed representative of the latter.
Efter kassationsappellantens op­fattelse måtte de omhandlede sager, som ganske vist var indledt i Frankrig før Bruxel­les­konventionens ikrafttræden, men afsluttet efter dens ikrafttræden, falde ind under den konvention mellem Frankrig og Italien om fuldbyrdelse af domme i civile og kom­mercielle sager, som var indgået den 3. juni 1930.
It took the view that the actions in question, which had been instituted in France before the Convention had entered into force but decided after it entered into force, should have been governed by the Conven­tion between France and Italy on the enforcement of judgments in civil and commer­cial matters of 3 June 1930.
Corte di cassazione fastslog, at sådanne domme efter den klare ordlyd af Bruxelles­konventionens artikel 54 skal anerkendes og fuldbyrdes efter konventionens bestem­melser, såfremt de anvendte kompetenceregler er i overensstemmelse med de regler, der er fastsat i afsnit II eller en konvention, der, da sagen blev anlagt, var gældende mellem domsstaten og den stat, som begæringen er rettet til, dvs. at det kriterium, der er afgørende for kompetencen, enten må fastlægges i overensstemmelse med princip­perne i den nye eller den gamle konvention.
The Corte di cassazione noted that according to the clear wording of Article 54 of the Brussels Convention such judgments were to be recognized and enforced in accordance with the provisions ofthat Convention if jurisdiction was founded upon rules which ac­corded with those provided for either in Title II of the Convention or in a convention concluded between the State of origin and the State addressed which was in force when the proceedings were instituted. The criterion governing jurisdiction had thus to be determined in accordance either with the principles of the new Convention or with those of the previous Convention.
I den foreliggende sag var den italienske kassationsappellant blevet sagsøgt i Frankrig ved »retten på det sted, hvor den forplig­telse, der ligger til grund for sagen, er opfyldt eller skal opfyldes«, jfr. Bruxelles­kon­ventionens artikel 5, nr. 1.
In the present case Roccaplast had duly been sued before the 'court for the place of performance of the obligation in question' in accord­ance with Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention.
Til trods for det af kassationsappellanten anførte var sagen nemlig ubestridt en sag om kontraktsforhold, da søgsmålsgrundlaget var et arbejdsforhold.
Contrary to Roccaplast's submis­sions, it was indisputable that the case concerned a claim in contract, since the causa petendi was based on an employment relationship.
For så vidt var det ikke afgørende at få fastslået, om de krav, der var tilkendt kassationsindstævnte, ud fra den franske rets opfattelse, hvorefter der var tale om en proforma­fuldmagt, var af kon­traktmæssig eller anden karakter, da dette spørgsmål vedrørte fortolkningen af selve afgørelsen, men på ingen måde havde indvirkning på, hvordan sagsanlægget skulle ka­rakteriseres, eller hvilket kriterium der var afgørende for kompetencen.
It was irrelevant whether, on the basis of the French court's finding that this was a case of apparent agency, the claims to which Mr Fetas was entitled were of a contractual nature or otherwise: that question re­lated to the interpretation of the decision on the merits but had no effect at all on the characterization of the action or on the criterion governing jurisdiction.
Corte di cassazione tog heller ikke den af kassationsappellanten fremsatte indsigelse om, at der savnedes bevis for retskraften af de franske domme, som begæredes fuldbyr­det i Italien, til følge.
The Corte di cassazione also rejected Roccaplast's submission that there was no proof that the French judgments of which enforcement was sought in Italy had become res judicata.