natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I en afgørelse af 18. februar 1988 (2 AZR 590/87) skulle Bundesarbeitsgericht under lignende faktiske omstændigheder tage stilling til, hvilken forpligtelse der var afgøren­de for det tilfælde, at det bestående arbejdsforhold — i forbindelse med repræsentan­tens anerkendelsessøgsmål — ikke var blevet opløst ved arbejdsgiverens opsigelse.
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction of the courts for the place of perform­ance — Loans taken out by the French subsidiaries of a Netherlands parent company — Agreement by the parent company to guarantee the solvency of it subsidiaries — Claim for repayment brought against the parent company — Underlying obligation to be performed in France
Den umiddelbare sagsgenstand var her arbejdsforholdets fortsatte beståen.
Two wholly­owned French subsidiaries of the Netherlands undertaking Svedex Hold­ing had taken out loans from two French banks.
Der måtte derfor lægges vægt på de pligter, arbejdstageren havde i henhold til kontrakten, og som var afhængige af arbejdsforholdets fortsatte beståen, hvorved pligten til at udføre arbejdet var karakteristisk.
In a letter of support Svedex had undertaken to do everything within its power to ensure that its subsidiaries would have sufficient funds available to meet their obligations.
Ved bestemmelsen af opfyldelsesstedet fulgte retten den ovenfor fremstillede retspraksis.
After the subsidiaries had been de­clared bankrupt, the banks which had made the loans sought repayment from the par­ent company.
For så vidt som repræsentantens bopæl fortsat var midtpunktet for hans livsinteresser og dermed tyngdepunktet i hans arbejdsydelse, havde det ingen betydning, at der også var blevet tildelt ham fjernere liggende egne som salgsområder.
Following its refusal, the banks brought their claim before a French com­mercial court. That court ruled that it had jurisdiction and ordered the parent company to make payment.
1­5.1.2 — Β 49 Hofvan beroep Antwerpen, dom af 25. marts 1987, Sari Grace mod NV Schuybroek
The Cour d'appel began its examination by considering Article 5(1) of the Convention.
Mellem en fransk virksomhed som sælger og en belgisk virksomhed som køber var der opstået tvist om de leverede varer.
As the subsidiaries had their seat in France, those efforts had to take the form of actual or legal measures in France.
Den belgiske virksomhed anlagde sag ved Recht­bank van koophandel, Antwerpen, med påstand om skadeserstatning for skjulte mang­ler.
Such steps might per­haps have included increases in capital, measures to increase productivity, improve­ments in technical and staff management of the subsidiaries, the raising of new loans and negotiations with authorities.
Retten erklærede sig kompetent til at pådømme sagen, og denne afgørelse kærede sagsøgte under henvisning til en i fakturaerne indeholdt klausul, hvorefter værneting i tvister var de franske domstole.
As the place of performance of the obligation for­ming the subject­matter of the claim was therefore France, it was the French courts which had jurisdiction.
Hof van beroep stadfæstede afgørelsen med den begrundelse, at værnetingsklausulen på bagsiden af den franske sælgers fakturaer ikke opfyldte formkravene i domskonven­tionens artikel 17.
It was not possible to accept the argument of Svedex that breach of its obligation gave rise to a claim for damages which had to be brought in the Netherlands.
Sagsøgte havde således ikke godtgjort, at medkontrahenten skriftligt
Article 5(1) determined jurisdiction according to the place of performance of the obligation and not according to the place in which damages would be payable in the event of breach of that obligation.
(fortsat 1) havde accepteret klausulen — hverken på fakturaerne eller særskilt — eller at der var indgået en mundtlig aftale, som udtrykkeligt angik værnetingsklausulen, og som købe­ren skriftligt havde bekræftet.
1­5.1.2 — Β 51 Court of Session, Inner House, First Division, Judgment of 2 February 1990, Bank of Scotland ν Seitz
Med hensyn til konventionens artikel 5, nr. 1, udtalte Hof van beroep indledningsvis, at i henhold til artikel 3 i Haagerkonventionen af 15. juni 1955 om, hvilken lovgivning der skal anvendes på internationale løsørekøb, fandt fransk ret anvendelse på købeaf­talen.
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction of the courts for the place of perform­ance — Letters of guarantee in favour of a bank having several branches — Payment under the guarantees to be made at branch where principal debtors' accounts held
Der er imidlertid overensstemmelse mellem fransk og belgisk ret med hensyn til de retsprincipper, der skal anvendes ved fastlæggelsen af den forpligtelse, kravet støttes på.
The defendant, domiciled in the Federal Republic of Germany, gave two letters of guarantee to the plaintiff bank, having branches in several places, in respect of debts owed by two companies.
Efter disse principper har sælgeren en leverings­ og en garantiforpligtelse, og disse forpligtelser kan gennemtvinges hver for sig.
The letters made no express provision regarding the place of payment under the guarantees.
I det konkrete tilfælde havde køberen benyttet varen i sin virksomhed, som var beliggende i Antwerpen retskreds, og herefter havde Recht­bank van koophandel i medfør af domskonventionens artikel 5, nr. 1, kompetence til at pådømme sagen.
The bank sought payment from the defendant, who contended that the Scottish court had no jurisdiction as the primary rule of the Convention was that a person should be sued in the courts of the state of his domicile.
To 100%­ejede franske datterselskaber af det nederlandske selskab Svedex Holding havde optaget lån hos to franske banker.
In both the English and French texts of the Convention, Article 5(1) was based on the assumption that the obligation in question was to be performed in only one place.
I en hensigtserklæring havde Svedex forplig­tet sig til at gøre alt, hvad der stod i dets magt, for at sørge for, at datterselskaberne hav­de tilstrækkelige midler til at opfylde deres forpligtelser.
The fact that the creditor might have more than one residence or place of business was immaterial if the facts showed that he could insist on performance at only one of them.
Efter at datterselskaberne var gået konkurs, opfordrede långiverne moderselskabet til at tilbagebetale lånene. Da det­te vægrede sig herved, anlagde de sag ved en Tribunal de commerce i Frankrig.
In accordance with ordinary banking practice the two companies' bank accounts were localized at the branch at which they were kept, i.e. Glasgow.
Denne ret erklærede sig kompetent og dømte moderselskabet til at betale.
Accordingly, payment under the guarantees was to be made at that branch and the appeal would be rejected.
Under appelsagen fremsatte Svedex indsigelse om manglende kompetence og gjorde i det væsentlige gældende, at de nederlandske retter havde kompetencen i medfør af konventionens artikel 2.
Kingdom distributor — Repudiation by manufacturer — Obligation in question — Manu­facturer's obligations to give reasonable notice of the determination of the contract and not to supply another English distributor — Obligations to be performed in the United Kingdom
Cour d'appel tog i sin stillingtagen udgangspunkt i konventionens artikel 5, nr. 1.
The plaintiff, an English company, was a distributor of shrink and stretch wrapping machines.
Det var hævet over al tvivl, at det af moderselskabet givne tilsagn var af kontraktmæssig ka­rakter, således at denne bestemmelse fandt anvendelse.
The defendant was a German engineering company specializing in the manufacture of film packaging machines.
Cour d'appel søgte herefter at finde frem til opfyldelsesstedet for den forpligtelse, som lå til grund for søgsmålet, for at kunne fastslå, hvilken ret der havde kompetencen.
It agreed to appoint the plaintiff as exclusive distributor of its machinery in the United Kingdom.
Hvad moderselskabet angik, hav­de forpligtelsen bestået, at det skulle bestræbe sig for at sikre, at dets datterselskaber var betalingsdygtige.
The plaintiff alleged that, in breach of the exclusive distribution agreement, the defendant authorized another com­pany to act as its United Kingdom distributor and purported to terminate the agree­ment without giving reasonable notice.
Da datterselskaberne havde hjemsted i Frankrig, burde disse bestræbelser nødvendigvis have fundet udtryk i faktiske eller retlige skridt i dette land.
The plaintiff sought damages for breach of contract in the High Court and issued a writ which was served on the defendant in Germany.
Som eksempler på sådanne skridt nævnte retten forhøjelser af selskabskapitalen, foran­staltninger med henblik på at øge produktiviteten, bedre ledelse af datterselskaberne i teknisk og personalemæssig henseende, optagelse af nye lån og forhandlinger med myndighederne.
The defendant applied to the High Court to set aside service of the writ and for a declaration that the High Court had no jurisdiction to hear the plaintiffs' claim.
Da opfyldelsesstedet for den forpligtelse, der lå til grund for sagen, så­ledes lå i Frankrig, havde de franske retter kompetencen.
On appeal by the defendant against the High Court's refusal to set aside service of the writ, the Court of Appeal held that what had to be determined was the place of performance of the obligation which formed the ac­tual basis of the proceedings.
Svedex kunne ikke gøre gældende, at tilsidesættelsen af dets forpligtelse førte til et er­statningskrav, som skulle fremsættes i Nederlandene. Artikel 5, nr. 1, fastlægger nemlig kompetencen under hensyn til opfyldelsesstedet for forpligtelsen og ikke under hensyn til det sted, hvor erstatningen skal betales, hvis denne forpligtelse tilsidesættes.
The court was dealing with a contract which was allegedly repudiated and where the repudiation was accepted by the plaintiff.
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — opfyldelsesværneting — kautionsaftale til fordel for en bank med flere filialer — pligt til at betale kautionstilsvaret i den filial, hvor hovedmandens konto førtes
That obligation was to be per­formed in England and it could reasonably be regarded as the principal obligation be­cause it was the proper giving of notice which brought the contract to an end.
Sagsøgte, som havde bopæl i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland, påtog sig over for den sagsøgende bank, som havde filialer flere steder, to kautioner for to selskabers gæld.
With regard to breach of the agreement for an exclusive agency, although this was to be performed by procuring that a certain state of affairs continued to exist in England, the nature of the obligation was negative.
Kautionserklæringerne indeholdt ikke udtrykkelige bestemmelser om betalingsstedet for kautionstilsvaret.
It was an obligation not to supply another Eng­lish distributor and could be broken either in Germany or in England.
De to selskabers konti førtes i en af sagsøgerens filialer i Glasgow, og selskaberne havde forretningssted i Glasgow­området.
The grant of an exclusive right of distribution in England carried with it an obligation on the grantor's part so to act in England and Germany as to respect fully the rights of the grantee under the distribution agreement.
Da sagsøgeren gjorde krave­ne gældende over for sagsøgte, anførte denne, at den skotske ret, ved hvilken sagen var anlagt, savnede kompetence, da personer efter hovedreglen i Bruxelles­konventionen skal sagsøges ved retterne i den stat, hvor de har bopæl.
The High Court had, therefore, realistically con­cluded that the contract was as much performable in the one country as in the other.
Sagsøgte appellerede denne afgørelse.
The appeal was dismissed.
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — opfyldelsesværneting — remburs åbnet af italienske banker og bekræftet af en bank i Det Forenede Kongerige — de åbnende ban­kers forpligtelse til at godtgøre den bekræftende bank dens udlæg gennem bestemte ban­ker i De Forenede Stater — den relevante forpligtelse — pligten til at stille midler til dispo­sition for rembursbankerne — opfyldelsessted i De Forenede Stater
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction of the courts for the place of perform­ance — Letters of credit issued by Italian banks and confirmed by United Kingdom bank — Reimbursement of confirming bank to be made by issuing banks through specified banks in the United States — Obligation in question — Procurement of credit to reimburs­ing banks — Place of performance — United States
Italienske importører havde købt nogle partier argentinske pærer, som fra Argentina skulle udskibes til to italienske havne.
Italian importers purchased consignments of Argentinian pears to be shipped from the Argentine to two Italian ports.
Betalingen skulle erlægges i US­dollars til CIR Ltd. i London ved hjælp af uigenkaldelige remburser. På vegne af importørerne anmo­dede seks italienske banker en filial af Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) i London om at bekræfte remburserne.
Payment was to be in US dollars under irrevocable letters of credit to CIR Ltd ('CIR') in London.
Hver af de italienske banker forlangte, at RBS' krav på at få sit udlæg godtgjort skulle rettes mod bestemte banker i De Forenede Stater.
Each Italian bank stated that claims for reimbursement by RBS should be made to specified banks in the United States.
RBS be­kræftede remburserne og betalte CIR, efter at dokumenterne var præsenteret.
RBS confirmed the letters of credit and upon presentation of documents paid CIR.
Heref­ter modtog de italienske importører oplysninger, som vakte deres mistanke om, at de var blevet udsat for et bedrageri, da hverken pærerne eller skibet eksisterede.
The Italian importers then re­ceived information that led them to suspect that they were the intended victims of a fraud and that neither the pears nor the ship existed.
De gav de italienske banker ordre til at blokere remburserne.
They instructed the Italian banks to freeze the credits.
Herefter tilbagekaldte de italienske banker den bemyndigelse, de havde givet de amerikanske banker, til at godtgøre RBS
The Italian banks had requested RBS to confirm the credits on the basis that the speci­fied American banks would be the reimbursing banks. RBS had implicitly accepted
(fortsat 1) dens udlæg og meddelte RBS, at den ikke ville få sit udlæg godtgjort. RBS anmodede de amerikanske banker om godtgørelse af udlægget.
(continued 1) those offers by confirming the credits and had subsequently stated expressly that they would claim on the reimbursing banks.
Dette betød, at der forelå en udtrykkelig kontraktlig aftale mellem parterne om den måde, hvorpå godtgørelsen skulle finde sted.
That constituted express contractual agreement between the parties as to the manner in which reimbursement would be effected.
Uanset hvor RBS' konto, som i sidste instans ville blive krediteret for beløbet, blev ført, fulgte det af aftalen om, at en amerikansk bank skulle være rembursbank, at opfyldel­sesstedet for forpligtelsen til at godtgøre RBS dens udlæg, jfr. artikel 5, nr. 1, var De Forenede Stater, da det var dér, den åbnende bank skulle have stillet midler til disposi­tion for rembursbanken.
Wherever the RBS account ultimately credited with the reimbursement might prove to be, the stipulation for the use of an American reimbursing bank made the United States the place of performance of the reimbursement obligation for the purpose of Article 5(1), since this was where the issuing bank had to procure the credit or facility to the re­imbursing bank.
De italienske banker havde ikke opfyldt en sådan forpligtelse i De Forenede Stater.
The Italian banks failed to effect performance by that mode and in that place.
Det væsentlige spørgsmål, om denne misligholdelse var begrundet, kunne High Court ikke tage stilling til, da England ikke var opfyldelsesstedet for denne forpligtelse.
The substantive issue whether they could justify that failure, could not be re­solved in the High Court, because England was not the place of performance of the ob­ligation in question.
Udsendelse 5/februar
Issue 5/February ¡993
18 at vælge det ene af disse synes så meget desto mindre ønskeligt, som konventionens artikel 5, nr. 3 ved sin vide formulering omfatter en lang række forskellige former for ansvar;
18 To exclude one option appears all the more undesirable in that, by its comprehensive form of words, Article 5(3) of the Convention covers a wide diversity of kinds of liability.
19 udtrykket 'det sted, hvor skadetilføjelsen er foregået' i artikel 5, nr. 3 skal altså forstås således, at sagsøger efter eget valg kan anlægge sag enten på det sted, hvor skaden er indtrådt, eller på stedet for den skadevoldende begivenhed;
19 Thus the meaning of the expression "place where the harmful event occurred" in Article 5(3) must be established in such a way as to acknowledge that the plaintiff has an option to commence proceedings either at the place where the damage occurred or the place of the event giving rise to it.
20 til støtte for denne løsning kan for det første anføres, at valg af stedet for den skadevoldende begivenhed som eneste tilknytningsmoment ville medføre, at de i konventionens artikler 2 og 5, nr. 3, omhandlede værnetingsregler i et betydeligt antal sager ville falde sammen, således at den sidstnævnte bestemmelse for så vidt ville miste sin tilsigtede virkning;
20 This conclusion is supported by the consideration, first, that to decide in favour only of the place of the event giving rise to the damage would, in an appreciable number of cases, cause confusion between the head of jurisdiction laid down by Ar ticles 2 and 5(3) of the Convention, so that the latter provision would, to that extent, lose its effectiveness.
2i for det andet kan det anføres, at valg af det sted, hvor skaden er indtrådt, som eneste tilknytning i de sager, hvor stedet for den skadegørende begivenhed ikke falder sammen med skadevolders bopæl, ganske uhensigstmæssigt ville udelukke en ret, som er særlig tæt på skadens årsag;
2i Secondly, a decision in favour only of the place where the damage occurred would, in cases where the place of the event giving rise to the damage does not coincide with the domicile of the person liable, have the effect of excluding a helpful connecting factor with the jurisdiction of a court particularly near to the cause of the damage.
22 det følger desuden af en sammenligning mellem de enkelte staters lovgivninger og retspraksis om værneting — både nationalt og internationalt — at der i flere stater, ganske vist i forskellige retlige udformninger, samtidig er skabt mulighed for en anvendelse af begge de her omhandlede tilknytningsmomenter;
22 Moreover, it appears from a comparison of the national legislative provisions and national case-law on the distribution of jurisdiction — both as regards internal rela tionships, as between courts for different areas, and in international relationships — that, albeit by differing legal techniques, a place is found for both of the two con necting factors here considered and that in several States they are accepted concurrently.
23 under disse omstændigheder har den ovenfor udviklede fortolkning den fordel, at de løsninger, der er udviklet i de forskellige nationale retssystemer, ikke fuld stændig ændres, idet ensartetheden søges gennemført i overensstemmelse med konventionens artikel 5, nr. 3, ved en systematisering afløsninger, der principielt allerede er i brug i størstedelen af de pågældende stater;
23 In these circumstances, the interpretation stated above has the advantage of avoiding any upheaval in the solutions worked out in the various national systems of law, since it looks to unification, in conformity with Article 5(3) of the Convention, by way of a systematization of solutions which, as to their principle, have already been established in most of the States concerned.
24 spørgsmålet skal herefter besvares således, at er det sted, hvor den handling, der kan medføre et ansvar uden for kontraktsforhold, og det sted, hvor denne handling har forårsaget en skade, ikke identiske, skal udtrykket 'det sted, hvor skadetilføjelsen er foregået' i konventionens artikel 5, nr. 3, forstås således, at det både omfatter det sted, hvor skaden er indtrådt, og det sted, hvor den skadegørende handling er foretaget;
24 Thus it should be answered that where the place of the happening of the event which may give rise to liability in tort, delict or quasi-delict and the place where that event results in damage are not identical, the expresson "place where the harmful event occurred", in Article 5(3) of the Convention, must be understood as being in tended to cover both the place where the damage occurred and the place of the event giving rise to it.
25 det følger heraf, at en person efter sagsøgerens valg kan sagsøges enten ved retten på det sted, hvor skaden er indtrådt, eller ved retten på det sted, hvor den til grund for denne skade liggende handling er foretaget.«
25 The result is that the defendant may be sued, at the option of the plaintiff, either in the courts for the place where the damage occurred or in the courts for the place of the event which gives rise to and is at the origin ofthat damage.'
(fortsat 3) både omfatter det sted, hvor skaden er indtrådt, og det sted, hvor den skadegørende handling er foretaget.
'Where the place of the happening of the event which may give rise to liability in tort, delict or quasi­delict and the place where that event results in damage are not identical, the expression "place where the harmful event occurred", in Article 5(3) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, must be understood as being intended to cover both the place where the damage occurred and the place of the event giving rise to it.
Det følger heraf, at en person efter sagsøgerens valg kan sagsøges enten ved retten på det sted, hvor skaden er indtrådt, eller ved retten på det sted, hvor den til grund for denne skade liggende handling er foretaget.«
The result is that the defendant may be sued, at the option of the plaintiff, either in the courts for the place where the damage occurred or in the courts for the place of the event which gives rise to and is at the origin ofthat damage.'
Den i tilknytning til denne dom trufne afgørelse i hovedsagen er omtalt under 1­5.3 — Β 4.
For the decision given in the main action following this judgment see 1­5.3 — Β 4, infra.
Dom af 27. september 1988 [Femte Afdeling]'), sag 189/87, Kalfelis mod Bankhaus Schröder, Münchmeyer, Hengst & Co. m.fl. (anmodning om præjudiciel afgørelse indgivet af Bundesgerichtshof) Sml. 1988, s. 5565 (forslag til afgørelse fra generaladvokat M. Darmon, s. 5573) Kommentarer af Anton/Beaumont i S.L.T. 1991, A 2; Audit i D.S. 1989, Somm., 254; Ekelmans i J.T. 1989, 215; Gaudemet­Tallon i Rev.crit.dr.int.pr. 1989, 117; Geimer i NJW 1988, 3089; GUI i I.L.T. 1989, 2; Gottwald i IPRax 1989, 272; Hartley i Eur.L.R. 1989, 172; Huet i Clunet 1989, 457; Jimenez­Fortea i Rev.Gen.Der. 1989, 3939; Μακρίδον i Αρμ. 1990, 1165; Schlosser i RIW 1988, 987; Schultsz i NJ 1990, nr. 425; Tagaras i Cahiers dr.eur. 1990, 667; Vlas i TVVS 1989, 181
Notes: Anton/Beaumont, S.L.T. 1991, A 2; Audit, D.S. 1989, Somm., 254; Ekelmans, J.T. 1989, 215; Gaudemet­Tallon, Rev.crit.dr.int.pr. 1989, 117; Geimer, NJW 1988, 3089; Gill, I.L.T. 1989, 2; Gottwald, IPRax 1989, 272; Hartley, Eur.L.R. 1989, 172; Huet, Clunet 1989, 457; Jimenez­Fortea, Rev.Gen.Der. 1989, 3939; Μακρίδου, Αρμ. 1990, 1165; Schlosser, RIW 1988, 987; Schultsz, NJ 1990, No 425; Tugaras, Cahiers dr.eur. 1990, 667; Vlas, TVVS 1989, 181
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler —flere sagsøgte — kompetence for retten på det sted. hvor en af de sagsøgte har bopæl (artikel 6, nr. 1) — betingelse — indbyrdes sammenhæng mellem kravene — selvstændig vurdering af den indbyrdes sam menhæng
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — More than one defendant — Jurisdiction of the court where one of the defendants is domiciled (Art. 6(1)) — Conditions — Connection between the actions — Connection to be determined independently of the contract