natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I forhold til den person, der har lidt et indirekte tab som følge af den oprindeligt skadelidtes tab, er skadetilføjelsen foregået på det sted, hvor personens rettigheder er blevet krænket.
In those circumstances, the plaintiffs went on, the place where the harmful event occurred was, for a victim who had sustained damage as a consequence of the loss suffered by the initial victim, the place where his interests were adversely affected.
Det økonomiske tab, sagsøgerne havde lidt som følge af, at deres datterselskaber i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland gik kon kurs, måtte derfor stedfæstes til sagsøgernes hjemsted i Frankrig.
According to the plaintiffs, the place of the financial loss which they had suffered following the insolvency of their subsidiaries in the Federal Republic of Germany was therefore their own registered offices in France.
Cour de cassation ud satte sagen og forelagde Domstolen følgende præjudicielle spørgsmål:
The Cour de cassation stayed the proceedings and referred the following ques tion to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
»Omfatter værnetingsreglen om, at sagsøgeren, for så vidt angår anvendelsen af konventionens artikel 5, nr. 3, kan vælge mellem retten på det sted, hvor den skade gørende handling er foretaget, og retten på det sted, hvor skaden er indtrådt, også det tilfælde, hvor den påståede skade kun er en følge af den skade, de direkte skadelidte har lidt ved en skadetilføjelse, der er sket et andet sted, hvilket — hvis spørgsmålet besvares bekræftende — vil gøre det muligt for den indirekte skadelidte at anlægge sagen ved sit hjemting?«
'Is the rule on jurisdiction which allows the plaintiff, under Article 5(3) of the Con vention, to choose between the court for the place of the event giving rise to damage and the court for the place where that damage occurs to be extended to cases in which the damage alleged is merely the consequence of the harm suffered by per sons who were the immediate victims of damage occurring at a different place, which would enable the indirect victim to bring proceedings before the court of the State in which he is domiciled?'
Domstolen udtalte herom (i præmisserne 9 — 21):
In reply to that question the Court of Justice ruled as follows (paragraphs 9 to 21 of the decision):
»9 Med henblik på besvarelsen af det stillede spørgsmål skal Domstolen først henvise til konventionens artikel 5, der indeholder følgende bestemmelse:
'9 In order to answer the question submitted, it must first be borne in mind that, in the terms of Article 5 of the Convention,
'En person, der har bopæl på en kontraherende stats område, kan sagsøges i en anden kontraherende stat:...
"A person domiciled in a Contracting State may, in another Contracting State, be sued:...
3. i sager om erstatning uden for kontrakt, ved retten på det sted, hvor skadetil føjelsen er foregået'.
(3) in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred".
11 Dumez m.fl. har anført, at Domstolen ved fortolkningen af konventionens artikel 5, nr. 3, i den nævnte dom ikke sondrede mellem en direkte og en indirekte skadelidt. De slutter heraf, at såfremt en indirekte skadelidt godtgør selv at have lidt et tab, er retten på det sted, hvor denne skadelidte er blevet påført tabet, kompetent.
io It must then be pointed out that, in its judgment in Mines de Potasse d'Alsace, cited above,' the Court ruled 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
I den her foreliggende hovedsag havde det tab, som Dumez m.fl. hævder at have lidt som følge af, at de tyske banker standsede finansieringen af bygherrens byggeri, derimod oprindelse og direkte følger i én og samme medlemsstat, nemlig den stat, hvor de kreditgivende banker, bygherren og datterselskaberne af Dumez m.fl., som skulle gennemføre byggeriet, alle havde hjemsted.
11 Dumez and Others observe that in that judgment the Court interpreted Article 5(3) of the Convention without drawing any distinction between direct and indirect vic­tims of damage.
Det tab, som Dumez og de andre moderselskaber hævder at have lidt, er kun den indirekte følge af de økonomiske tab, som først blev påført deres datterselskaber som følge af, at kreditgivningen blev standset, og byggeriet derefter indstillet.
In their view, it follows that where an indirect victim claims to have suffered personal damage the court of competent jurisdiction is the court for the place where the victim sustained that damage.
Det må følgelig undersøges, om begrebet 'det sted, hvor skaden er indtrådt' som dette er fortolket i den nævnte dom af 30. november 1976, kan forstås som omfattende det sted, hvor indirekte skadelidte konstaterer skadevirkninger på deres egen formue.
12 It must first be stated in that connection that the judgment in Mines de Potasse d'Alsace related to a situation in which the damage — to crops in the Netherlands — occurred at some distance from the event giving rise to the damage — the dis­charge of saline waste into the Rhine by an undertaking established in France — but by the direct effect of the causal agent, namely the saline waste which had moved physically from one place to another.
Konventionen indeholder i afsnit II bestemmelserne om kompetencefordelingen og henlægger herved, jfr. artikel 2, som hovedregel kompetencen til retterne på det sted, hvor sagsøgte har bopæl.
π By contrast, in the present case, the damage allegedly suffered by Dumez and Others through cancellation, by the German banks, of the loans granted for financ­ing the works originated and produced its direct consequences in the same Member State, namely the one in which the lending banks, the prime contractor and the sub­sidiaries of Dumez and Others, which were responsible for the building work, were all established.
Det fremgår i øvrigt af konventionen, at retterne på sagsøgers bopæl ikke anerkendes som værneting, jfr. artikel 3, stk. 2, hvorefter na tionale bestemmelser, der hjemler dette værneting, er uden retsvirkning i forhold til en sagsøgt med bopæl på en kontraherende stats område.
The harm alleged by the parent companies, Dumez and Others, is merely the indirect consequence of the financial losses initially suffered by their subsidiaries following cancellation of the loans and the subsequent suspension of the works.
Som undtagelse fra hovedreglen om kompetence for retterne på det sted, hvor sag søgte har bopæl, opstiller afsnit II, afdeling 2, en række specielle kompetenceregler, herunder reglen i konventionens artikel 5, nr. 3.
14 It follows that, in a case such as this, the damage alleged is no more than the indi­rect consequence of the harm initially suffered by other legal persons who were the direct victims of damage which occurred at a place different from that where the in­direct victim subsequently suffered harm.
Med disse hensyn for øje, der har afgørende betydning i en konvention, der navnlig skal lette anerkendelsen og fuldbyrdelsen af retsafgørelser uden for den stat, hvor de er afsagt, er det nødvendigt at modvirke skabelsen af flere værneting, idet dette øger risikoen for indbyrdes, uforenelige afgørelser, hvilket i henhold til konventionens artikel 27, nr. 3, bevirker, at anerkendelses- eller fuldbyrdelsespåtegning skal nægtes.
15 It is therefore necessary to consider whether the expression "place where the dam­age occurred" as used in the judgment in Mines de Potasse d'Alsace may be inter­preted as referring to the place where the indirect victims of the damage ascertain the repercussions on their own assets.
De nævnte hensyn er også til hinder for, at konventionen fortolkes således, at retter ne på sagsøgerens bopæl, bortset fra i de udtrykkeligt nævnte tilfælde, bliver kom-
16 In that connection the Convention, in establishing the system for the attribution of jurisdiction, adopted the general rule that the courts of the defendant's domicile would have jurisdiction (Title II, Article 2).
(fortsat 3) petente, idet sagsøgeren i så fald via valg af bopæl kunne udpege den kompetente ret.
(continued 3) π It is only by way of exception to the general rule whereby jurisdiction is attributed to the courts of the defendant's domicile that Title II, Section 2, attributes special jurisdiction in certain cases, including the case envisaged by Article 5(3) of the Con­vention.
20 Det følger af det anførte, at selv om udtrykket 'det sted, hvor skadetilføjelsen er foregået' i konventionens artikel 5, nr. 3, efter Domstolens praksis (jfr. ovennævnte dom af 30. november 1976) kan omfatte det sted, hvor skaden er indtrådt, skal dette begreb forstås således, at det kun betegner det sted, hvor den skadegørende hand ling, der medfører erstatningsansvar uden for kontrakt, direkte har påført den umiddelbart skadelidte et tab.
18 In order to meet that objective, which is of fundamental importance in a convention which has essentially to promote the recognition and enforcement of judgments in States other than those in which they were delivered, it is necessary to avoid the multiplication of courts of competent jurisdiction which would heighten the risk of irreconcilable decisions, this being the reason for which recognition or an order for enforcement is withheld by virtue of Article 27(3) of the Convention.
21 Det bemærkes endvidere, at der typisk er en nær sammenhæng mellem det sted, hvor den oprindelige skadetilføjelse er foregået, og ansvarsbetingelserne i øvrigt, mens dette normalt ikke er tilfældet, for så vidt angår den indirekte skadelidtes bopæl.«
19 Furthermore, that objective militates against any interpretation of the Convention which, otherwise than in the cases expressly provided for, might lead to recognition of the jurisdiction of the courts of the plaintiffs domicile and would enable a plain­tiff to determine the competent court by his choice of domicile.
»Værnetingsreglen i artikel 5, nr. 3, i konventionen af 27. september 1968 om retter nes kompetence og om fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser i borgerlige sager, herunder handelssager, kan ikke fortolkes således, at en sagsøger, som gør gældende, at han har lidt et tab, som påstås at være en følge af den skade, som andre, direkte skade lidte har lidt ved skadetilføjelsen, efter denne bestemmelse er berettiget til at sagsøge skadevolderen ved retten på det sted, hvor sagsøgeren selv har konstateret for muetabet.«
21 Moreover, whilst the place where the initial damage manifested itself is usually closely related to the other components of the liability, in most cases the domicile of the indirect victim is not so related.'
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — deliktsværneting — fastlæggelse i tilfælde af ulovlig konkurrence
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi­delict — Competition cases
Kompetence — prøvelse af kompetencen og af sagens antagelse til påkendelse (arti­kel 20) — forbudssag — konstatering af rettidig modtagelse af sagens indledende pro­cesskrift — formløst tilsendt kopi af indkaldelsen ikke tilstrækkelig
Jurisdiction — The question of jurisdiction and the admissibility of the action (Art. 20) — Action for an interlocutory injunction — Question whether the document instituting the proceedings was served in sufficient time — Not sufficient to send a copy of the document without observing the appropriate formalities
To virksomheder med hjemsted i Belgien havde under en forbudssag for Arrondisse­mentsrechtbank Arnhem påstået forbud nedlagt imod, at blandt andre en i Forbunds­republikken Tyskland bosiddende rekvisitus fremstillede og markedsførte bestemte transportbeholdere af kunststof.
Two undertakings based in Belgium applied to the Arrondissementsrechtbank, Arn­hem, seeking inter alia an interim injunction restraining the defendant, based in the Federal Republic of Germany, from manufacturing and marketing certain containers made of synthetic materials.
De gjorde gældende, at rekvisitus fremstillede disse beholdere i slavisk efterligning af sådanne transportbeholdere, som den ene rekvirent fremstillede i Belgien, og som den anden rekvirent havde solgt i Nederlandene i adskil­lige år.
They claimed that the defendant was manufacturing those containers in exact imitation of containers which the first plaintiff manufactured in Belgium and which the second plaintiff had distributed in the Netherlands for a num­ber of years.
Arrondissementsrechtbank fandt, at den var kompetent i henhold til domskon­ventionens artikel 5, nr. 3, og udtalte, at ifølge det af rekvirenterne anførte var skadetil­føjelsen, nemlig markedsføringen af de efterlignede beholdere af materialer af ringe kvalitet, sket i Nederlandene i den pågældende rets retskreds; herudover bestod faren for yderligere skadegørende handlinger i denne retskreds.
The Arrondissementsrechtbank held that it had jurisdiction under Article 5(3) of the Brussels Convention and stated that, according to what was averred by the plaintiffs, the harmful event, namely the marketing of the imitation containers made of cheaper materials, had taken place in the Netherlands, and indeed in the district covered by the court; moreover, there was a danger of further harmful acts taking place within the court's district.
Retten udsatte derpå sagen i henhold til konventionens artikel 20, stk. 2, da det ikke var fastslået, at den tyske rekvisitus, der ikke var repræsenteret under retsmødet, havde haft kendskab til sagens indledende processkrift, selv om rekvirenternes advokat havde tilsendt ham en kopi af indkaldelsen ved almindeligt brev.
The court then stayed proceedings pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 20 of the Convention because it had not been established that the German defendant, which had not entered an appearance within the prescribed period, had had notice of the doc­ument instituting the proceedings, although the plaintiffs' lawyer had sent it a copy of the document by ordinary post.
Artikel 20, stk. 2, fandt an­vendelse, uanset at der ikke i nederlandsk ret var foreskrevet et bestemt varsel for ind­kaldelsen i forbudssager.
The second paragraph of Article 20 was applicable not­withstanding the fact that under the law of the Netherlands no particular period is pre­scribed for the service of process in applications for an interlocutory injunction.
Retten overlod det herefter til rekvirenterne at indlede den fremgangsmåde, som er fastsat i artikel IV, stk. 2, i protokollen til konventionen, med henblik på forkyndelsen af dommen.
The court then invited the plaintiffs to consider the procedure laid down in the second paragraph of Article IV of the Protocol to the Convention for service of the judgment.
En tysk fabrikant havde solgt nogle ruller filt til en nederlandsk virksomhed, som hav­de videresolgt en del af dem til en tredje virksomhed, i hvis lagerlokaler de brød i brand ved selvantændelse.
A German manufacturer had sold some rolls of felt to a Netherlands undertaking which resold some of them to a third undertaking. The rolls caught fire spontaneously in that undertaking's warehouses.
Den skadelidte virksomheds forsikringsselskab, som var indtrådt i virksomhedens krav, indstævnede den tyske fabrikant og den nederlandske mellem­handler for retten i Zwolle, som erklærede sig kompetent til at pådømme sagen mod den tyske fabrikant i henhold til domskonventionens artikel 5, nr. 3.
The insurer of the undertaking suffering the loss, who had been subrogated to its claims, sued the German manufacturer and the Nether­lands dealer in the court at Zwolle, which decided that it had jurisdiction to entertain the action brought against the German manufacturer under Article 5(3) of the Brussels Convention.
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — deliktsværneting — det sted, hvor skade­tilføjelsen er foregået — både stedet for den skadegørende handling og stedet for ska­dens indtræden — sagsøgerens valgmulighed
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi­delict — Place at which the harmful event occurred — Place where the original event occurred as well as the place at which the damage arose — Plaintiffs choice of jurisdiction
Indbyrdes sammenhængende krav — definition (artikel 22, stk. 3) — farefor modstri­dende afgørelser — ingen sådan fare, selv om der under to særskilte retssager skulle blive krævet erstatning for samme skade
Related actions — Definition (Art. 22, third para.) — Danger of irreconcilable judg­ments — No such danger in the hypothetical case of compensation being sought for the same damage in separate proceedings
Den italienske Montedison­koncern driver en fabrik i nærheden af Livorno (Italien), i hvilken der fremstilles titandioxyd.
Montedison, an Italian undertaking, operates a factory near Livorno (Leghorn) in Italy in which titanium dioxide is manufactured.
Prud'homie des pêcheurs de Bastia, en erhvervsorganisation for korsikanske fiskere, anlagde i januar 1976 under anbringende af, at den herved forårsagede forurening af havvandet havde ført til en formindskelse af fiskefangsterne, sag mod det italienske selskab ved Tribunal de grande instance de Bastia med påstand om erstatning for den skade, der var opstået for fiskerne.
Alleging that the pollu­tion of the maritime waters caused thereby had led to a reduction in catches, in January 1976 the Prud'homie des Pêcheurs de Bastia, a trade association of fishermen in Corsi­ca, brought an action against the Italian company in the Tribunal de grande instance, Bastia, in which it claimed compensation for the loss suffered by the fishermen.
De to korsikanske departe­menter indtrådte i denne sag og nedlagde påstand om erstatning for de skader, der skulle være opstået for turismen og folkesundheden som følge af vandforureningen.
Both the Corsican 'départements' intervened in the case with claims for compensation for the damage allegedly caused to the tourist trade and public health by the pollution of the sea.
(fortsat 1) retten på det sted, hvor uheldet er sket — ingen kompetence for retten på det sted, hvor ef­tervirkningerne af uheldet er indtrådt
(continued 1) be determined in the light of German substantive law. This followed from the presumed intention of the parties, having regard to the fact that the focal point of the contract of guarantee was situated in Germany.
Fru Hoogueven blev kvæstet ved et færdselsuheld i Utrecht, da den bil, hun kørte i, stødte sammen med en lastvogn, hvis fører, Visser, havde bopæl i Amersfoort (Neder­landene).
Mrs Hoogueven was the victim of a road accident at Utrecht when the car in which she was travelling collided with a lorry driven by Mr Visser, whose domicile was at Amersfoort (Netherlands).
Hun anlagde sag mod Visser, dennes arbejdsgiver og det selskab, hvor last­vognen var forsikret, ved Tribunal de grande instance d'Alençon, i hvis retskreds hun havde bopæl.
She brought an action in the Tribunal de grande instance of Alençon, where she had her domicile, against Mr Visser, his employer and the com­pany with which the lorry was insured.
De sagsøgte gjorde gældende, at Tribunal de grande instance savnede kompetence, og at kompetencen tilkom retterne i Nederlandene, hvor uheldet var sket, og de havde bopæl.
The defendants claimed that the Tribunal de grande instance had no jurisdiction and that the action should be brought before the courts in the Netherlands, which was where the accident had taken place and where the defendants were domiciled.
Den ret, ved hvilken sagen var anlagt, udtalte dog, at den var kom­petent, og begrundede dette med, at når der er tale om kvæstelser, må der ved det sted, hvor skaden er indtrådt, ikke blot forstås det sted, hvor traumet er opstået, men også det sted, hvor den skadelidte dagligt bærer følgerne af dette traume.
However, the court considered that it had jurisdiction on the ground that, in the case of injuries, the place where the damage occurred must be understood as meaning not only the place where the injury was directly sustained, but also the place where the victim suffered its daily consequences.
De sagsøgte ind­bragte denne afgørelse for Cour d'appel de Caen, som gav dem medhold.
The defendants' appeal was successful.
Cour d'appel de Caen anførte, at der i henhold til Bruxelles­konventionens artikel 2 i princippet er værneting på sagsøgtes bopæl, men at konventionens artikel 5, nr. 3, tilla­der sagsøgeren at anlægge sag om erstatning uden for kontrakt ved retten på det »sted, hvor skadetilføjelsen er foregået«.
The Cour d'appel, Caen, observed that under Article 2 of the Brussels Convention in principle the courts of the defendant's domicile had jurisdiction. However, it was possible under Article 5(3) for an action to be brought in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi­delict in the courts for the 'place where the harmful event occurred'.
Ved »det sted, hvor skadetilføjelsen er foregået«, må ifølge den fortolkning, De Euro­pæiske Fællesskabers Domstol har anlagt af denne vending i dommen af 30. november 1976 i sag 21/76 (jfr. ovenfor under 1­5.3 — A 1) forstås både det sted, hvor skaden er indtrådt, og det sted, hvor den skadegørende handling er foretaget. Denne dom var imidlertid ikke relevant i dette tilfælde.
According to the interpretation given to that expression by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 30 November 1976 in Case 21/76 Bier ν Mines de Potasse d'Alsace (supra, 1­5.3 — A 1) it covered both the place where the damage occurred and the place of the event giving rise to it.
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — deliktsværneting — fjernsynsinterview taget i Frankrig og udsendt i Tyskland — de tyske retter kompetente
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi­delict — Television interview recorded in France and shown in Germany — Jurisdic­tion of the German courts
Sagsøgte, som har bopæl i Paris, optog dér et fjernsynsinterview med sagsøgeren.
The defendant, who was domiciled in Paris, there recorded a visual and sound inter­view with the plaintiff.
Inter­viewet blev derefter udbredt i forbindelse med en fjernsynsudsendelse i Forbundsrepu­blikken Tyskland.
The interview was subsequently shown in the course of a tele­vision programme broadcast in the Federal Republic of Germany.
Sagsøgeren fremsatte krav om erstatning for krænkelse af personlige rettigheder.
The plaintiff brought an action on the ground that his rights to personal privacy had been infringed.
Oberlandesgericht München bekræftede, at retten på hvert af de steder, hvor udsendel­sen kunne modtages, havde kompetence.
The Oberlandesgericht München ruled that jurisdiction rested with the court for the place at which (among others) the programme was able to be received.
Konventionens artikel 5, nr. 3, giver sagsøge­ren mulighed for efter eget valg enten at anlægge sag på det sted, hvor skaden er ind­trådt, eller på det sted, hvor den skadegørende handling er foretaget.
Article 5(3) of the Convention, it stated, allowed a plaintiff to choose whether to bring his action at the place in which the consequences of the damage made themselves felt or at the place where the initial act causing the damage had occurred.
Interviewet havde ganske vist fundet sted på det sted, hvor sagsøgte havde bopæl, men indgrebet i sagsø­gerens rettigheder var først blevet fuldbyrdet, da hans ytringer blev udsendt i forbindel­se med den tyske fjernsynsudsendelse.
Although the interview had been conducted in the place where the defendant was resident, the infringement of the plain­tiffs rights to personal privacy had only occurred at the time of the transmission of his comments in the course of the German programme.
Skaden var altså indtrådt dér, hvor udsendelsen var blevet udbredt.
The damage had therefore ensued in the place where the programme had been broadcast.