natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Konventionens fortolkning — protokollen af 3. juni 1971 — forelæggelse for Domsto­len af et fortolkningsspørgsmål — rettens skøn (artikel 3, stk. 2)
Interpretation of the Convention — Protocol of 3 June 1971 — Request for interpreta­tion by the Court of Justice — Within the discretion of the court (Art. 3(2))
Sagsøgeren hav­de udlejet et hus, som han ejede i Nederlandene, til sagsøgte og påstod under sagen be­taling af leje.
The plaintiff let his house in the Netherlands to the defendants and brought proceedings against them claiming payment of the rent.
Den tyske rets kompetence støttede han på en bestemmelse i lejekontrak­ten, hvorefter tysk lov skulle gælde for retsforholdet, og hvorefter der var aftalt værne­ting i Aachen. Landgericht Aachen, hvortil sagen blev indanket, afviste sagen, fordi ne­derlandske retter var enekompetente i henhold til konventionens artikel 16, nr. 1.
His view that the German court had jurisdiction was based on a clause in the lease stating that it was governed by German law and conferring jurisdic­tion on the courts in Aachen.
Retten udtalte, at artikel 16, nr. 1, også gælder for sager, som alene vedrører betaling af leje.
The Court held that Article 16(1) also applied to actions confined to a claim for pay­ment of rent.
Med den modsatte opfattelse, som var forsvaret i den sagkyndiges beretning ved­rørende konventionen, oversås det, at bestemmelser i den nationale lejeret vedrørende genstanden for lejemålet eller forpagtningen kan være afgørende i sager om betaling af leje.
The contrary view expressed in the report on the Convention by the gov­ernment experts overlooked the fact that proceedings for payment of rent could depend on the provisions of national law concerning the property leased.
En sondring mellem sager, som udelukkende vedrører betaling af leje, og andre sa­ger ville desuden i praksis føre til vanskelige afgrænsningsspørgsmål.
Besides it was not easy in practice to draw a line between pure rent claims and other actions.
Retten forelagde ikke fortolkningsspørgsmålet for EF­Domstolen med henblik på præjudiciel afgørelse i henhold til artikel 3, stk. 2, i protokollen af 3. juni 1971. Arti­kel 3, stk. 2, overlader denne afgørelse til rettens skøn.
The court decided not to refer the question of interpretation to the Court of Justice of the European Communities for a preliminary ruling in accordance with Article 3 (2) of the Protocol of 3 June 1971 which left that decision to the discretion of the court.
Skønt de tyske lovforarbejder indeholdt en anden opfattelse end den, retten havde fremført, anså den det ikke for nødvendigt at forelægge EF­Domstolen et fortolkningsspørgsmål, idet den afvigende opfattelse ikke var nærmere begrundet.
Al­though the view expressed in the German travaux préparatoires differed from that of the court, it did not consider that reference of the question to the Court of Justice of the European Communities for interpretation was necessary, because detailed reasons were not given for the differing opinion.
Retten var ikke bekendt med retsafgørelser, som fulgte denne opfattelse og tillige begrundede den nærmere.
The court was not aware of any judicial deci­sions which followed that opinion and which gave detailed reasons for doing so.
Kompetence — enekompetence — sager om rettigheder over fast ejendom — sag om beta­ling af en konventionalbod på grund af misligholdelse af en aftale om køb af en fast ejen­dom — artikel 16, nr. 1, fandt ikke anvendelse
Jurisdiction — Exclusive jurisdiction — Proceedings concerning rights in rem in immov­able property — Action for payment of a contractual penalty for breach of a contract for the sale of land — Article 16(1) held inapplicable
Købe­ren betalte ikke og indstævnedes for sit hjemting til betaling af en konventionalbod.
The purchaser failed to pay and was sued in the court for the place where he was domiciled for a penalty under the contract.
Retten anså sig for kompetent. Sagen angik ikke ejendomsretten til den faste ejendom i Frankrig, men alene den obligationsretlige forpligtelse til betaling af en konventional­bod på grund af misligholdelse.
The court held that it had jurisdiction.
1­16.1 — Β 3 Hoge Raad, dom af 31. marts 1978, Sanders mod Van der Putte (afgørelse truffet i tilslutning til præjudiciel afgørelse fra EF­Domstolen)
1­16.1 — Β 3 Hoge Raad, Judgment of 31 March 1978, Sanders ν Van der Putte (Decision following a preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Communities)
Kompetence — enekompetence — sag om leje eller forpagtning affasi ejendom — for­pagtning af en forretning — ikke »leje ellerforpagtning« i artikel 16, nr. 1 's forstand
Jurisdiction — Exclusive jurisdiction — Proceedings relating to tenancies of immovable property — Lease of a shop — Not a 'tenancy' within the meaning of Article 16(1)
Denne afgørelse afsluttede den sag, i hvilken EF­Domstolen på Hoge Raad's anmod­ning afsagde dom af 14. december 1977 (sag 73/77, ovenfor under 1­16.1 — A 1, hvortil tillige henvises med hensyn til sagens omstændigheder og de forudgående retsforhand­linger). På grundlag af denne dom stadfæstede Hoge Raad Gerechtshof Arnhems dom. Hoge Raad udtalte, at det i dommen med rette var lagt til grund, at den foreliggende sag ikke angik »leje eller forpagtning af fast ejendom« i artikel 16, nr. l's forstand; ind­sigelse mod nederlandske retters kompetence kunne således ikke — som påstået under kassationsanken — støttes på denne bestemmelse.
This decision concluded the proceedings in which the Court of Justice of the European Communities delivered its judgment of 14 December 1977 at the request of the Hoge Raad (Case 73/77 Sanders ν Van der Putte, supra, 1­16.1 — A 1, to which reference should be made for the facts and previous procedure).
Kompetence — enekompetence — sager om leje eller forpagtning af fast ejendom — sag om erstatning udenfor kontrakt i forbindelse med kortvarig udlejning af feriebo­liger — artikel 16, nr. 1, fandt anvendelse
Jurisdiction — Exclusive jurisdiction — Proceedings relating to tenancies of immov­able property — Action based on claims in delict on account of short lets of holiday homes — Applicability of Article 16(1) affirmed
Fortolkning af konventionen — protokol af 3. juni 1971 — forelæggelse af et fortolk­ningsspørgsmålfor Domstolen — rettens skøn (artikel 3, stk. 2) — rækkevidde
Interpretation of the Convention — Protocol of 3 June 1971 — Submission of a re­quest to the Court of Justice on a question of interpretation — Discretion of the court (Art. 3(2)) ­ Scope
Sagsøgeren, som havde bopæl i Tyskland, havde af de sagsøgte, som også var tyskere, lejet to »appartements« i et hus på Sardinien for et tidsrum af tre uger.
The plaintiff, a German resident, rented two 'apartments' in a house in Sardinia from the defendant, who was also German, for three weeks.
Sagsøgeren ned­lagde påstand om tilbagebetaling af lejen, fordi der kun havde været tale om møblerede værelser uden sanitetsinstallationer.
The plaintiff sued for the re­covery of the rent on the ground that the rented accommodation consisted merely of furnished rooms without sanitary facilities.
Sagsøgeren støttede påstanden efter reglerne om erstatning uden for kontrakt, idet de sagsøgte havde vildledt hende med hensyn til fe­rieboligernes udstyr.
The action was based on delict, namely on the claim that the defendant had deceived the plaintiff as to the facilities provided in the rented property.
Den Amtsgericht, ved hvilken sagen først blev anlagt, erklærede sig kompetent i medfør af § 32 i den tyske Zivilprozeßordnung og tilkendte sagsøgeren erstatning efter reglerne om erstatning uden for kontrakt.
The case was initially brought in the Amtsgericht, which held that it had jurisdiction by virtue of paragraph 32 of the German Code of Civil Procedure and awarded the plaintiff damages in delict.
De sagsøgte indbragte afgø­relsen for Landgericht, som afviste sagen med den begrundelse, at de italienske retter var enekompetente.
On an appeal brought by the defendant the action was dismissed on the ground that the Italian courts had exclusive juris­diction.
Landgericht fulgte ganske vist Amtsgericht, for så vidt som den indtalte fordring ikke alene kunne støttes på reglerne om erstatning i kontrakt, men også på reglerne om er­statning uden for kontrakt.
The Landgericht concurred with the Amtsgericht in so far as the action could be based not only on contract but also on delict.
Dette bevirkede imidlertid ikke, at sagen faldt uden for arti­kel 16, nr. l's anvendelsesområde.
However, that did not take the action outside the ambit of Article 16(1) of the Convention.
Denne bestemmelse omfatter nemlig alle krav, som efter de faktiske omstændigheder er direkte begrundet i leje­ eller forpagtningsforhol­det, og som ikke kan afgøres isoleret fra dette.
Article 16(1) covered all actions which in view of their facts were directly based on a tenancy and could not be decided in isola­tion from the tenancy.
I den forbindelse har det ingen betyd­ning, på hvilket retligt grundlag kravet gøres gældende.
The question did not depend on the legal nature of the claim on which the action was based.
EF­Domstolens afgørelser var ikke til hinder for denne vide fortolkning.
The decided cases of the Court of Justice did not preclude that broad interpretation.
Såvel i dommen af 14. december 1977 (sag 73/77, jfr. ovenfor under 1­16.1 — A 1) som i dommen af 15. januar 1985 (sag 241/83, jfr. ovenfor under 1­16.1 — A 2) var der kun tale om kontraktlige krav, som ikke havde givet Domstolen lejlighed til at udtale sig om det spørgsmål, der var afgørende i det fo­religgende tilfælde.
Both the judgment of 14 December 1977 in Case 73/77 San­ders ν Van der Putte (supra, 1­16.1 — A 1) and the judgment of 15 January 1985 in Case 241/83 Rosier ν Rottwinkel (supra, 1­16.1 — A 2) were concerned only with contractual claims, which meant that the Court of Justice had had no opportunity to pronounce on the question on which this case turned.
I øvrigt kunne det ikke af forarbejder­ne til konventionen udledes, at det kun var krav af specifik kontraktsmæssig karakter, konventionens forfattere ville bringe uden for den særlige kompetence i artikel 5, nr. 1.
In any event, the Court had made it plain that it was not relying primarily on the legal basis of the claim asserted, since the claims which were held in the judgment in Rosier ν Rottwinkel not to fall within the exclusive juris­diction conferred by Article 16(1) (loss of holiday enjoyment, etc.) were also contrac­tual in nature.
Ved hjælp af reglen i artikel 16, nr. 1. I Jenard­Rapporten henvises der tværtimod til de
That also accorded with the rationale of Article 16(1): as the Court of Justice had made clear, the courts of the State in which the property was situated were in a better position to obtain knowledge of the facts for the purpose of assessing the situation and tenancies were closely bound up with often mandatory provisions gov­
(fortsat 1) nationale procesretlige regler om enekompetence på dette område.
On the contrary, the Jenard Report referred to the special rules on jurisdiction included in this respect in the laws of all the Member States.
Med hensyn til den tilsvarende bestemmelse i § 29 a i den tyske Zivilprozeßordnung er det den fremher­skende opfattelse, at det afgørende ikke er kvalifikationen af grundlaget for det krav, der gøres gældende, men at det er i overensstemmelse med formålet med de eksklusive kompetenceregler at anskue sagsgenstanden ud fra alle de retlige synspunkter, der kommer i betragtning.
However, the view predominantly taken with regard to the corresponding provi­sion of paragraph 29a of the German Code of Civil Procedure was that it did not hinge on the legal nature of the claim forming the basis of the action, but accorded with the aim of exclusive jurisdiction of covering the relevant subject­matter of proceedings from all relevant legal angles.
Hvis man med EF­Domstolens dom af 1985 lagde vægt på, om sagen direkte eller kun indirekte står i forbindelse med den lejede ejendom, måtte den foreliggende sag være omfattet af enekompetencen i henhold til artikel 16, nr. 1. Når det kommer til stykket, var der nemlig tale om, at lejekontrakten ikke var opfyldt eller ikke var rigtigt opfyldt.
If the test laid down in the judgment in Rosier ν Rottwinkel — namely was the dispute directly, or only indirectly, related to the property let — was applied, the action in this case had to fall within the exclusive jurisdiction conferred by Article 16(1), since it was concerned with the breach or defective performance of a tenancy agreement.
Om udlejeren i den forbindelse endog havde handlet svigagtigt og dermed samtidig havde udsat sig for et krav om erstatning uden for kontrakt, kunne ikke afgøres isoleret fra det i lejekontrakten aftalte.
The ques­tion whether the landlord had indeed acted fraudulently and thereby at the same time laid himself open to a claim in delict could not be divorced from what was agreed in the tenancy.
Endelig var det heller ikke til hinder for anvendelsen af artikel 16, nr. 1, at lejeforholdet var indgået for et kortvarigt ferieophold.
Lastly, the application of Article 16(1) was not thwarted because the ten­ancy was only for a short holiday let.
Domstolens afgørelser, der i den henseende er entydige, skal følges uanset de betænkeligheder, der er blevet fremført.
The case­law of the Court of Justice was unequi­vocal in this regard and should be followed despite the reservations which had been ex­pressed about it.
For så vidt som disse betænkeligheder går ud på, at der ikke er no­gen tilknytning mellem parternes fælles bopælsland og den lejede ejendom, der eventu­elt ligger langt væk, måtte der henvises til, at de sagsøgte — som det fremgik af deres formularmæssige forretningsbetingelser — absolut ville have interesse i, at sagen blev afgjort ved retterne på det sted, hvor den faste ejendom var beliggende, da de admini­strerede ejendommen på stedet.
In so far as those reservations were based on the parties' having a common domicile while the property let might be far away, it had to be observed that the defendant, as his printed conditions of business showed, definitely had an interest in the dispute's being determined by the courts of the State in which the property was situated, since he managed the property there himself.
I øvrigt ville en fravigelse af EF­Domstolens afgørelse tvinge retten til at forelægge spørgsmålet på ny uanset det skøn, den har i henhold til fortolkningsprotokollens arti­kel 3, stk. 2, og selv om der ikke var nogen grund til at antage, at Domstolen ville fravi­ge den netop trufne afgørelse.
Furthermore, any departure from the relevant decision of the Court of Justice would necessarily involve the national court — despite its discretion under Article 3(2) of the Protocol on the interpretation of the Convention — in making a further reference to the Court of Justice, and there was no reason to suppose that the Court of Justice would take a different view from the one which it had taken in its only recently delivered judgment.
Da sagens værdi ikke stod i rimeligt forhold til omkost­ningerne ved en forelæggelse, så retten bort fra en forelæggelse af spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt konventionens artikel 16, nr. 1, også omfatter sager om leje eller forpagtning, som støttes på reglerne om ansvar uden for kontrakt.
The court would not request the Court of Justice for a ruling on whether Ar­ticle 16(1) covered proceedings relating to a tenancy which were based on non­contrac­tual claims in view of the fact that the amount of damages claimed was out of propor­tion to the costs of making a reference to the Court of Justice.
Kompetence — enekompetence — sager om leje eller forpagtning af fast ejendom — kort­varig udlejning af en feriebolig — artikel 16, nr. I, fandt anvendelse
Jurisdiction — Exclusive jurisdiction — Proceedings relating to tenancies of immovable property — Short­term let of a holiday home — Article 16(1) held applicable
(fortsat 1) gældende, at den belgiske retsinstans ikke var rette værneting.
(continued 1)
Subsidiært påstod udlej­eren frifindelse for lejerens krav.
The landlord claimed first that the Bel­gian court lacked jurisdiction and requested, in the alternative, that the claim be dis­missed as unfounded.
Vredegerecht gav under henvisning til konventionens artikel 16, nr. 1, udlejeren med­hold i indsigelsen om, at retten savnede kompetence.
The Vredegerecht upheld the objection that it lacked jurisdiction under Article 16(1) of the Convention.
Vredegerecht udtalte, at artikel 16 — som retten skal bringe i anvendelse ex officio — gælder uden hensyn til, hvor parterne har bopæl.
It stated that Article 16, which the court had to consider of its own motion, applied irre­spective of the parties' domicile.
Over for udlejerens indsigelse om, at retten ikke havde kompetence til at påkende sagen, havde lejeren med urette påberåbt sig en indskrænkende retsopfattelse med hensyn til kortvarig leje af ferieboliger, som ikke fulgtes i almindelig domspraksis.
In answer to the objection as to jurisdiction, the plain­tiff wrongly relied on a restrictive interpretation of the law concerning short­term let­tings of holiday homes which was not in accordance with the view which prevailed in the case­law.
Enhver tænkelig tvivl var fjernet som følge af Domstolens dom af 15. januar 1985 (sag 241/83, jfr. ovenfor under 1­16.1 — A 2), som var afsagt i en næsten tilsvarende sag som den foreliggende. Det var ubestridt, at den foreliggende sag kun angik udlejerens forpligtelser.
All conceivable doubts had been removed by the judgment of the Court of Justice of 15 January 1985 (Case 241/83 Rosier ν Rottwinkel, supra, 1­16.1 — A 2) which had been given in a case almost identical to the present one.
Vredegerecht udtalte endvidere, at Domstolen i sin dom også havde rejst spørgsmålet, om det var særlig hensigtsmæssigt at anvende artikel 16, nr. 1, på ferieboliger, men at den havde fastslået, at der ikke kunne gøres undtagelser fra bestemmelsen, heller ikke for ferieboliger.
The Vredegerecht stated further that in the abovementioned judgment the Court of Jus­tice had also raised the question whether the application of Article 16(1) to holiday homes was particularly practical; however, the Court stated that Article 16(1) made no exceptions, not even for holiday homes.
Man havde under udarbejdelsen af konventionen åbenbart afvejet hen­synet til procesparternes bekvemmelighed mod hensynet til retssikkerheden og havde lagt størst vægt på retssikkerheden.
When drawing up the Convention, conven­ience for the plaintiff had clearly been weighed against legal certainty, and precedence given to the latter.
Det var også klart, at den belgiske ret havde ringere kendskab til lejelovgivningen og praksis i lejeforhold i det land, hvor ferieboligen var beliggende, og at den endnu mindre kunne bedømme, hvilken beviskraft der skulle tillægges bestemte dokumenter fra en udenlandsk myndighed.
It was clear that the Belgian court had less knowledge of legislation and practice concerning lettings in the country where the holiday home was situated, and was even less able to judge the evidentiary value to be accorded to particular docu­ments issued by a foreign court.
Kompetence — enekompetence — sager om leje eller forpagtning affasi ejendom — erhvervsmæssig udlejning af ferielejligheder ogferiehuse med anvendelse af almindeli­ge forretningsbetingelser — domstolskontrol med disse betingelser under en sag anlagt af en organisation efter tysk ret — artikel 16, nr. 1, fandt ikke anvendelse
Jurisdiction — Exclusive jurisdiction — Proceedings relating to tenancies of immov­able property — Letting of holiday homes by way of business on standard terms — Re­view of those terms by the court in an action taken by an association in accordance with German law — Article 16(1) held inapplicable
Fortolkning af konventionen — protokollen af 3. juni 1971 — forelæggelse for Dom­stolen af et fortolkningsspørgsmål — forpligtelse for den ret, ved hvilken sagen er an­lagt (artikel 3, stk. 1) — anvendelse af de ifølge EØF­traktaten gældende principper omforelæggelsespligten — der forelå ikke rimelig tvivl
Interpretation of the Convention — Protocol of 3 June 1971 — Request for interpreta­tion by the Court of Justice — Obligation of the court seised (Art. 3(1)) — Application
Udsendelse S/februar 1993
Issue ¡/February 1993
(fortsat 1) le betale, ville blive tilbagebetalt to uger efter afrejsen, hvis de hverken havde forvoldt skader på huset eller inventaret.
(continued 1) of the principles determining the obligation to make a reference under the EEC Treaty — Absence of reasonable doubt
Sagsøgeren, en forbrugerorganisation, var af den op­fattelse, at denne klausul var i strid med § 9 i den tyske Gesetz zur Regelung des Rechts der Allgemeinen Geschäftsbedingungen (AGB­loven), hvorefter bestemmelser i almin­delige forretningsbetingelser er ugyldige, når de anvendes over for medkontrahenten på en måde, der er til uforholdsmæssig skade for denne og i modstrid med redelig handlemåde (»Treu und Glauben«).
The defendant's general conditions of business provided inter alia for the deposit paid by customers to be reimbursed two weeks after their return, pro­vided that they had not caused any damage to the property or its contents. The plain­tiff, a consumer protection association, considered that such a clause infringed Para­graph 9 of the German statute governing the law relating to general conditions of busi­ness (AGB­Gesetz) under which general conditions of business are ineffective if, con­trary to the principle of good faith, they unreasonably place the other party to the con­tract at a disadvantage.
Under henvisning til forbrugerorganisationernes søgsmålskompetence i henhold til AGB­lovens § 13 nedlagde sagsøgeren derfor på­stand om, at sagsøgte tilpligtedes at undlade at anvende den omtvistede klausul.
Basing itself on the right of action given to consumer associ­ations under Paragraph 13 of the AGB­Gesetz, the plaintiff therefore demanded that the defendant cease using the clause in question.
Ifølge Bundesgerichtshofs afgørelse i revisionsankesagen havde de tyske retsinstanser international kompetence.
In its decision in the appeal proceedings, the Bundesgerichtshof affirmed the interna­tional jurisdiction of the German courts.
For så vidt angik ejendommene i Frankrig, fulgte dette af reglerne i Bruxelles­konventionen, og for så vidt angik ejendommene i Spanien af tysk international civilprocesret.
With respect to the premises situated in France, such jurisdiction resulted from the provisions of the Brussels Convention and, with respect to the premises in Spain, from the rules of German private international procedural law.
Konventionen finder anvendelse på sager anlagt af organisationer i henhold til AGB­lovens § 13 ff., da der for så vidt er tale om borgerlige sager i konventionens artikel l's forstand.
The Convention was applicable to the right of action given to consumer associations under Paragraph 13 et seq. of the AGB­Gesetz because the matter concerned civil mat­ters within the meaning of Article 1.
De tyske retter var kompetente i medfør af artikel 2, stk. 1, da sagsøgte havde hjemsted i Tyskland, jfr. artikel 53, stk. 1.
The basis of the German courts' jurisdiction was Article 2(1) since the defendant had its seat, within the meaning of Article 53(1), in Germany.
De franske retter var derimod ikke enekom­petente i henhold til artikel 16, nr. 1, da betingelserne i denne bestemmelse ikke var op­fyldt.
The French courts did not have exclusive jurisdiction under Article 16(1) be­cause the requirements ofthat provision were not satisfied.
Ifølge Domstolens praksis må artikel 16, nr. 1, ikke fortolkes videre, end dens formål kræver.
According to the case­law of the European Court of Justice, Article 16(1) was not to be interpreted more widely than was necessary to achieve its purpose.
Bestemmelsens berettigelse ligger herefter udelukkende i, at retsreglerne om fast ejendom og præceptive særbestemmelser om leje og forpagtning i den stat, hvor ejendommen er beliggende, kan være af betydning for afgørelsen.
The justification for that provision lay solely in the fact that rules concerning the ownership of immovable property and mandatory special rules of the State of situs concerning tenancies could be material to the decision to be made.