natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Rechtbank erklærede sig følgelig kompetent til at træffe afgørelse i sagen, ganse vist uden at angive grundlaget for sin kompetence i dommen ; den frifandt herefter de sag­søgte.
The Rechtbank therefore held that it had jurisdiction to hear the action, but did not indi­cate in its judgment the basis for such jurisdiction; it dismissed the action as unfounded.
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — konventionens regler — forholdet til natio­nale regler
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction with national provisions on
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — aftale om kompetence for en ret i en kon­traherende stat, hvor ingen af parterne havde hjemsted — ugyldig
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Agreement conferring jurisdiction court of Contracting State in which neither parly has its seat — Ineffective
Sagsøgte, der havde hjemsted i Forbundsrepublikken, bestilte hos sagsøgeren, en virk­somhed med hjemsted i Østrig, 285 håndtasker til damer.
The défendent, whose seat was in the Federal Republic of Germany, ordered 285 ladies' handbags from the plaintiff, an undertaking whose seat was in Austria.
Sagsøgte benyttede i forbin­delse hermed sin bestillingsformular, der var affattet på italiensk, med selskabets forret­ningsbetingelser trykt på bagsiden, ligeledes på italiensk.
In so doing the defendant used its order form printed in Italian, on the back of which were printed its general conditions of business, also in Italian.
Sagsøgeren leverede varen og udstedte faktura.
The plaintiff supplied the goods and sub­mitted its invoice.
Da sagsøgte ikke betalte, anlagde sagsøgeren sag ved den tyske ret på sagsøgtes hjemsted.
When the defendant failed to pay, the plaintiff brought proceedings before the court for the defendant's seat in Germany.
Sagsøgte påberåbte sig punkt 12 i sine forretningsbetingelser, hvor­efter retterne i Rom skulle være enekompetente. Landgericht afviste sagen, idet den anså værnetingsaftalen for gyldig.
The defendant relied on Para­graph 12 of its general conditions of business, under which the courts of Rome were de­clared to have exclusive jurisdiction.
Værnetingsaftalen skulle alene bedømmes i henhold til konventionens artikel 17.
The issue fell to be determined under Article 17 of the Convention alone.
Reglen finder også anvendelse på »Vollkaufieute« (handlende, der er optaget i handelsregisteret) og har som særregel forrang for tysk ret; især kunne §38 i Zivilprozessordnung på intet punkt anvendes.
That article was applicable to transactions between traders and as a lex specialis took precedence over German law; in particular. Paragraph 38 of the Zivilprozessordnung[German Code of Civil Procedure] was not applicable in its entirety.
I den konkrete sag var der ikke kommet en skriftlig eller skriftligt bekræftet mundtlig af­tale i stand, således som artikel 17 kræver.
In this case there was no agreement in writing or oral agreement evidenced in writing such as was required by Article 17.
(fortsat I)
Λ RtK IL Γ il ι ι continued
Der var ifølge Oberlandesgericht endnu en grund til, at værnetingsklausulen i sagsøgtes forretningsbetingelser var ugyldig.
I) its confirmation of the order, the plaintiff had simply failed to dispute the conditions contained in the defendant's order form; that was not sufficient.
Parterne havde ikke truffet nogen bestemmelse om, hvilken materiel ret der skulle anvendes.
The parties had made no agreement regarding the applicable substantive law.
Der måtte derfor lægges vægt på opfyldelses­stedet.
It was necessary therefore to refer to the place of per­formance.
Ifølge sagsøgtes betingelser, som sagsøgeren ikke havde protesteret imod, var op­fyldelsesstedet L i Forbundsrepublikken. Derfor gjaldt Gesetz zur Regelung des Rechts der Allgemeinen Geschäftsbedingungen af 9. december 1976.
According to the defendant's conditions, which the plaintiff had not disputed, the place of performance was in the Federal Republic of Germany.
Værnetingsklausulen i sagsøgtes forretningsbetingelser var ugyldig i henhold til generalklausulen i denne lovs § 9, stk. 1, som også gjaldt i forholdet mellem handlende.
Under the general provision of Paragraph 9 ( I ) of that law, also applicable to transactions be­tween traders, the jurisdiction provision in the defendant's conditions of business was of no effect.
Efter rettens opfattelse medfø­rer det uforholdsmæssige ulemper for den anden part, hvis det aftales, at en ret i et land, hvor ingen af parterne har hjemsted, skal have kompetence.
In the court's view, the other contracting party was placed at an undue disad­vantage where jurisdiction was conferred on the courts of a country in which neither par­ty had its seat.
Retsforfølgningen vanske­liggøres herved i urimelig grad.
The bringing of legal proceedings was hindered to an unacceptable de­gree.
Der sås ikke at være noget tilknytningsmoment, der talte for, at en italiensk ret havde kompetence, eller for, at sagsøgte havde interesse i, at en ret i Rom skulle være kompetent.
There was no visible connecting factor justifying the attribution of jurisdiction to an Italian court, nor did the defendant have any visible interest in the attribution of juris­diction to the courts of Rome.
Den omstændighed, at enkelte varer blev produceret i Ita­lien, var ikke i sig selv tilstrækkelig.
The simple fact that certain goods were manufactured in Italy was not sufficient.
Den konkrete sag viste, at sagsøgte havde optaget værnetingsklausulen i sine forretningsbetingelser for at misbruge den.
This case showed that the defendant had included the jurisdic­tion clause in its conditions of business with a view to its misuse.
Sagsøgte havde på intet tidspunkt rejst indvendinger mod selve kravet.
At no time had it raised objections to the plaintiffs claim.
Alligevel forsøgte sagsøgte under påberåbelse af sine forretningsbetingelser at forhindre, at kravet gennemførtes ad rettens vej.
Yet it sought, by relying on its conditions of business, to avoid the enforcement ofthat claim in the courts.
1) Bestemmelser i almindelige forretningsbetingelser er ugyldige, hvis det vil være urimeligt eller i strid med redelig handlemåde at gøre dem gældende.«
( I ) Provisions in general conditions of business are of no ef­fect where they place the party against whom they are invoked at an undue disadvan­tage, contrary to the requirements of good faith."
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — opfyldelsesværneting (artikel 5, nr. 1) — sagsøgte hjemsted i Luxembourg — ingen kompetence
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction of the courts for the place of per­formance (An. 5(D) — Defendant with seal in Luxembourg — No jurisdiction
Udsendelse 3/december 1985
Issue 3 December 198
Det tyske flodskib »Müggelsee« havde befordret et parti stål fra Mertert (Luxembourg) til Rotterdam, hvor der ved losningen konstateredes en skade.
The German­registered barge "Müggelsee" carried a consignment of steel from Mertert (Luxembourg) to Rotterdam ; on discharge of the cargo it was discovered that it had been damaged.
Indehaveren af konnosse­mentet, firmaet Oving­Diepeveen­Struycken NV (sagsøgeren), anlagde sag med på­stand om erstatning for denne skade mod ejeren af »Müggelsee«, Schiller & Köpke KG, Berlin, og komplementaren i selskabet, et anpartsselskab, der ligeledes havde hjemsted i Berlin, samt mod Manuport SA, Mertert (Luxembourg). Sagsøgeren udledte sidstnævn­tes ansvar af den omstændighed, at det konnossement, der var udstedt for transporten, var udstedt på en formular fra Manuport, som derfor måtte anses for fragtfører. I sagen ved Rechtbank Rotterdam gjorde alle tre sagsøgte gældende, at retten savnede kompetence, da konnossementet henviste til betingelserne for »lastning og transport«, som indeholdt en væmetingsklausul, hvorefter de luxembourgske retter var enekompe­tente til at træffe afgørelse i sager som den af sagsøgeren anlagte.
The holder of the bill of lading, Oving­Diepeveen­Struycken NV, brought an action fordamages against the owner of the "Müggelsee", Schiller & Köpke KG, Berlin, and its general partner, a limited company whose seat was also in Berlin, and also against Manuport SA, Mertert (Luxembourg). The plaintiff based its claim against Manuport on the fact that the bill of lading was issued on one of its forms, and argued that it should therefore be regarded as the carrier. In the proceedings before the Rechtbank, Rotterdam, all three defendants argued that the court had no jurisdiction, since the bill of lading referred to conditions of loading and transport which contained a jurisdiction provision conferring jurisdiction to hear actions such as that brought by the plaintiff on the courts of Luxembourg.
Med hensyn til spørgs­målet om kompetencen nåede Rechtbank Rotterdam til den opfattelse, at den havde kompetence til at træffe afgørelse i sagen mod Schiller & Köpke og dennes komplemen­tar, men ikke i sagen mod Manuport. Retten var ligesom sagsøgeren af den opfattelse, at konnossementets retlige natur og funktion medfører, at parterne i en fragtaftale tydeligt skal kunne udlede af dokumentet, hvilke rettigheder og forpligtelser de har i henhold til dette.
On this preliminary issue of jurisdiction the Rechtbank came to the conclusion that it had juris­diction to hear the claims against Schiller & Köpke and its general partner but not the claim against Manuport. The court agreed with the plaintiffs view that the legal nature and function of a bill of lading was such that it must be clear to the parties to a contract for the carriage of goods from the document itself what rights and obligations it created for them.
Klausulen i konnossementet betød i det konkrete tilfælde blot, at parterne i fragtaftalen ved at acceptere konnosse­mentet underkastede sig alle dets betingelser, hvad enten de var trykt, skrevet eller på­stemplet.
In this case the provision of the bill of lading simply stated that by accepting the bill of lading the parties to the contract became subject to all its conditions, whether printed, written or stamped.
Konnossementet indeholdt imidlertid ikke de for transporten gældende betin­gelser, især ikke de lastnings­ og transportbetingelser, som de sagsøgte påberåbte sig.
The bill of lading did not however contain the conditions applicable to the carriage of the goods, in particular the loading and transport conditions relied on by the defendants.
Om betingelserne hed det i konnossementet blot, at enhver af parterne kunne forlange at få kendskab til disses ordlyd.
The bill of lading simply stated that the conditions were available to each party on de­mand.
Under disse omstændigheder var konnossementet ikke således affattet, at det tydeligt fremgik heraf, at lastnings­ og transportbetingelserne fandt anvendelse, og værnetingsklausulen var allerede af den grund ugyldig.
In those circumstances the bill of lading was not made out in such a way that the loading and transport conditions could be clearly understood to be applicable, so that on that ground alone the jurisdiction clause was invalid.
Da selskabet, der havde hjemsted i Luxembourg, var blevet sagsøgt ved Rechtbank på grundlag af konventionens artikel 5, nr. 1, var det med rette, at det gjorde gældende, at denne ret savnede kompetence.
Since that firm, whose seat was in Luxembourg, was sued before the Rechtbank on the basis of Article 5 ( I ) of the Convention it was correct to argue that the court had no jurisdiction.
Sag­søgeren havde anført, at Rechtbank's kompetence til at træffe afgørelse i den mod Ma­nuport anlagte sag fulgte af artikel 6, nr. 1, på grund af sagens sammenhæng med de sa­ger, der samtidig var anlagt mod de to andre sagsøgte.
The plaintiff argued that the Rechtbank had jurisdiction to hear the claim against Manuport on the basis of Article 6(1) because of its connection with the concurrent claim against the other two defendants. That view could not be followed, however, since the other defendants,
1968 - ARTIKEL 17, STK. 1
• continued 2)
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — retsvirkninger — forrang for værnetinget i en sag om opfyldelse af en forpligtelse (artikel 6, nr. 2) — betingelser
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Effects — Precedence over jurisdiction of court hearing proceedings in the course of which a claim against a third parly is raised (An. 6(2)) — Conditions
Det franske selskab Chantiers et Ateliers de la Perrière (CAP) havde hos Voith GmbH, der havde hjemsted i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland, købt to skibsskruer, som blev på monteret en slæbebåd, som CAP byggede for Société Provençale de Gestion Maritime (Progemar).
The French company Chantiers et Ateliers de la Perrière (CAP) had bought two ships' screws from Voith GmbH, whose seat was in the Federal Republic of Germany, and had fitted them to a tug built for the Société Provençale de Gestion Maritime (Progemar).
Aftalen om købet af skibsskruerne indeholdt en klausul, hvorefter retterne på sælgers hjemsted skulle have kompetence til at påkende tvister.
A provision in the sales contract covering the screws gave jurisdiction over disputes to the courts for the seat of the seller.
Efter at der var op stået skader på skruerne, anlagde Progemar ved Tribunal de commerce de Paris sag om erstatning mod CAP, som på sin side adciterede Voith GmbH som den ansvarlige for skruerne.
The screws were found to be defective and Progemar brought an action for damages before the Tribunal de Commerce, Paris, against CAP. which in turn brought a third­party claim against Voith GmbH in the same proceedings.
Voith GmbH gjorde gældende, at retten savnede kompetence, og henviste til den med CAP indgåede værnetingsaftale.
Voith objected that the court seised had no jurisdiction, under its agreement on jurisdic­tion with CAP.
Tribunal de commerce forkastede denne indsigelse under henvisning til artikel 333 i Nouveau code de procédure civile, men frifandt Voith GmbH.
The Tribunal de Commerce rejected the objection, referring to Arti­cle 333 of the Nouveau Code de Procédure Civile, but held that the third­party claim was unfounded.
Cour d'appel de Paris, som denne afgørelse blev indbragt for, stadfæstede afgørelsen om kompetencen, men gav CAP medhold i kravet mod Voith GmbH.
On appeal by the parties, the Cour d'Appel, Paris, in a judgment of 1 5 Janu­ary 1981, confirmed the dismissal of the objection on jurisdiction and upheld the third­party claim.
Efter Cour d'appel's opfattelse fulgte det af artikel 6, nr. 2, i konventionen af 1968, at retten i første instans havde kompetence; denne bestemmelse fandt også anvendelse, når der som i dette tilfælde var indgået en værnetingsaftale til anden side, da Voith GmbH ikke havde bevist, at Progemar kun havde anlagt sagen ved retten i Paris for at unddrage Voith GmbH dets tyske værneting.
In the view of the Cour d'Appel the lower court had jurisdiction under Arti­cle 6(2) of the 1968 Convention; that provision continued to be applicable where, as in this case, jurisdiction was conferred by agreement on another court, since Voith GmbH had not shown that Progemar had brought proceedings before the Paris court with the sole object of removing Voith GmbH from the jurisdiction of the German courts.
Voith GmbH indbragte denne dom for Cour de cassation, som gav selskabet medhold.
A further appeal by Voith GmbH was successful.
Cour de cassation anførte, at en værnetingsaftale, der var gyldig i henhold til konven tionens artikel 17, gik forud for enhver anden kompetence, medmindre der udtrykkeligt var taget forbehold. En sådan aftale bevirkede dermed, at både hovedreglen om kompe tencen i artikel 2 og de specielle kompetenceregler i artiklerne 5 og 6, ikke fandt anven delse.
The (our de Cassation held that a valid agreement on jurisdiction under Article 17 of the Convention took precedence over all other grounds of jurisdiction, with the exception of the provisions conferring exclusive jurisdiction on certain courts; such an agreement therefore excluded not only the gen­eral jurisdiction under Article 2 but also the special jurisdictions provided for in Arti­cles and 6.
Da appelretten ikke havde fastslået, at det var parternes ønske, at værnetings klausulen ikke skulle omfatte regressager, måtte dens afgørelse ophæves, fordi konven tionens artikler 6, nr. 2, og 17, var tilsidesat.
Since the appeal court had not held that the jurisdiction clause was not in­tended by the parties to cover third­party claims, its decision must be quashed as con­trary to Article 6 (2) and Article 1 7 of the Convention.
1968 ­ ARTIKEL 17, STK. I
1968 ­ ARTICLE 17(1)
Ifølge artikel 333 i Nouveau code de procédure civile kan en tredjemand, som ad­citeres under en verserende sag, ikke bestride, at den ret, der behandler den oprin­delige sag, har stedlig kompetence, heller ikke under påberåbelse af en værnetingsaf­tale til anden side.
Under Article 333 of the Nouveau Code de Procédure Civile a third party against whom a claim is raised in the course of proceedings before a court seised of another action may not challenge the jurisdiction ratione loci of that court on the basis of an agreement conferring jurisdiction on another court.
Jfr. også nedenfor under 1­17.1.2 — B 24.
See also 1­17.1.2 ­
1968 - ARTIKEL 17, STK. I
1968 ­ ARTICLE 17 (I)
(Jfr. også 1-5.1.2 - A 2; 118 - A 1)
(See also 1­5.1.2 ­ A 2; 118 ­ A 1)
1976, s. 1831 (Forslag til afgørelse fra generaladvokat F. Capotorti, s. 1843)
Polstereimaschinen GmbH [1976] ECR 1831 (Preliminary ruling requested by the Bundesgerichtshof) Advocate General: F. Capotorti (p. 1844)
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — gyldighedsbetingelser — snæver fortolkning ning
Jurisdiction construed
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — skriftlighed — betingelser — værnetingsklausul i almindelige forretningsbetingelser trykt på bagsiden af kontraktsdokumentet — udtrykkelig henvisning i aftaleteksten nødvendig
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — In writing — Requirements — Juris­diction clause in general conditions of business on the back of the contract — Express reference in the text of the contract required
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — skriftlighed — betingelser — værnetingsklausul i almindelige forretningsbetingelser — henvisning i tidligere tilbud — kontraktsafslutning under henvisning hertil — udtrykkelig henvisning nødvendig
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — In writing — Requirements — Juris­diction clause in general conditions of business — Mentioned in previous offers — Contract concluded by reference thereto — Express reference required
I en sag, som var indbragt for Bundesgerichtshof som appelinstans, og som førtes mellem en tysk og en italiensk virksomhed, var der uenighed mellem parterne om, hvorvidt Landgericht Köln gyldigt var aftalt som værneting i kraft af en væmetingsklausul i den tyske sagsøgers almindelige forretningsbetingelser.
In an action between a German and an Italian undertaking, which was brought to the Bundesgerichtshof by way of appeal on a point of law, the parties were in dispute over the question whether jurisdiction had been validly conferred on the Landgericht Köln by virtue of a jurisdiction clause in the German plaintiffs general conditions of sale.
Sagsøgeren havde anlagt sag ved Landgericht Köln mod en italiensk virksomhed på grund af manglende opfyldelse af en kontrakt vedrørende den tyske virksomheds levering af maskiner til den italienske virksomhed til installering i en fabrik for polstermøbler.
The German firm brought proceedings against the Italian firm before the Landgericht Köln for failure to perform a contract relating to the supply by the German firm to the Italian firm of machines for the manufacture of upholstered furniture.
Det fremgik af forelæggelseskendelsen, at der var truffet aftale om denne leverance i en skriftlig kontrakt, der var underskrevet i Milano på forretningspapir med den tyske virksomheds brevhoved, og på hvis bagside den tyske virksomheds almindelige forretningsbetingelser var trykt.
It appeared from the facts stated in the order for reference that the delivery in question had been agreed in a written contract, signed at Milan on commercial paper bearing the letter­head of the German undertaking, on the reverse of which the general conditions of sale of that undertaking were printed.
Disse almindelige forretningsbetingelser indeholdt en klausul, hvorefter retterne i Köln skulle være værneting for ethvert af kontrakten afledt stridsspørgsmål mellem kontrahenterne.
Those general conditions included a clause conferring jurisdiction on the courts of Cologne to settle any dispute which might arise between the parties concerning the contract.
Disse almindelige forretningsbetingelser nævntes ganske vist ikke udtrykkeligt i kontrakten, men denne henviste til tidligere tilbud fra det tyske firma, som indeholdt en udtrykkelig henvisning til de samme almindelige forretningsbetingelser, som også fandtes på bagsiden af disse skrivelser.
Although the text of the contract did not expressly mention the said general conditions, it referred to previous offers made by the German undertaking which contained an express reference to the same general condi­tions, which were also printed on the reverse of the papers in question.
(fortsat 1)
(continued
Landgericht Köln, hvor den tyske virksomhed anlagde sag, erklærede sig ved dom af 9. april 1974 for inkompetent.
In a judgment delivered on 9 April 1974, the Landgericht Köln, before which the matter was brought by the German undertaking, declared that it had no jurisdiction to hear the dispute.
Landgericht fandt, at værnetingsklausulen ikke var gyldigt indgået ifølge italiensk ret, som kontrakten mellem parterne efter rettens opfattelse var omfattet af.
It held that the clause conferring jurisdiction had not validly been agreed be tween the parties, having regard to the provisions of Italian law, to which, in the view ofthat court, the contract between the parties was subject.
Oberlandesgericht Köln ophævede denne afgørelse ved dom af 18. november 1974 under henvisning til, at kontrakten omfattedes af tysk ret, hvorfor den erklærede Landgericht for kompetent og hjemviste sagen til fornyet behandling ved Landgericht. richt.
That judgment was reversed by a judgment of 18 November 1974 of the Oberlandesgericht Köln which, taking the view that the contract in question was subject to the provisions of German law, overruled the judgment of the lower court, declared that the Landgericht had jurisdiction and remitted the case to it.
Den italienske virksomhed indbragte denne dom for Bundesgerichtshof, som ved ken delse af 18. februar 1976 forelagde Domstolen følgende spørgsmål :
The Italian undertaking further appealed to the Bundesgerichtshof. By an order of 18 February 1976 that court referred the following questions to the Court of Justice:
Er det i konventionens artikel 17, stk. 1, nævnte krav om skriftlighed opfyldt, når en værnetingsaftale indeholdes i de almindelige forretningsbetingelser, som er trykt på bagsiden af et aftaledokument, underskrevet af begge medkontrahenter? ter?
Does a clause conferring jurisdiction which is included among general condi tions of sale printed on the back of a contract signed by both parties fulfil the re quirement of a writing under the first paragraph of Article 17 of the Convention ?
Er kravet om skriftlighed i henhold til konventionens artikel 17, stk. 1, op fyldt, når kontrahenterne i aftalen udtrykkeligt refererer til et tidligere skriftligt tilbud, hvori der blev henvist til en værnetingsaftale, som indeholdtes i de al mindelige forretningsbetingelser, der var vedlagt nævnte tilbud?«
In particular, is the requirement of a writing under the first paragraph of Article 17 of the Convention fulfilled if the parties expressly refer in the contract to a prior offer in writing in which reference was made to general conditions of sale including a clause conferring jurisdiction and to which those conditions of sale were annexed?"
Domstolen udtalte herom (i præmisserne 6—13):
The Court of Justice held as follows (paragraphs 6 to 13 of the decision):
»Vedrørende fortolkningen af konventionens artikel 17 i almindelighed
"On the interpretation of Article 17 of the Convention in general