natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
12 Denne bestemmelse sigter til foreløbige retsmidler, som der er afsagt kendelse om i en kontraherende stat, når en ret i en anden kontraherende stat 'i medfør af denne konvention' er kompetent til at påkende sagens realitet.
s Therefore an application for provisional measures to secure the delivery up of a document in order to prevent the statements which it contains from being used as evidence in an action concerning the management of the wife's property must also be considered to be connected with rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship within the meaningof the Convention because of its ancillary nature.
De foreløbige, herunder sikrende retsmidler, som vedrører forhold, der er udelukket fra konventionens anvendelsesområde, kan derfor ikke med henvisning til denne bestemmelse inddrages under konventionens anvendelsesområde. Det tredje spørgsmål må besvares i overensstemmelse hermed.
9 Therefore the answer to the second question must be that an application for pro visional measures to secure the delivery up of a document in order to prevent it from being used as evidence in an action concerning a husband's management of his wife's property does not fall within the scope of the Convention if such management is closely connected with the proprietary relationship resulting directly from the marriage bond.
Det fjerde spørgsmål
m In view ofthat answer there is no need to reply to the first question.
Udsendelse 3/december 1985
Issue
(fortsat 3) s. 1671) ') og af 22. oktober 1981, (Rohr, sag 27/81, Sml.
(continued 3)
1981, s. 2431)2) har antaget, at konventionens artikel 18 skal fortolkes således, at sagsøgte ikke blot kan bestride kompetencen, men samtidig subsidiært kan bestride kravet i realiteten uden derved at miste retten til at rejse indsigelse om inkompetence.«
13 As to the fourth question, it suffices to recall that in its judgments of 24 June 1981 in Case 150/80 Elefanten Schuh GmbH [1981] ECR 1671' and of 22 October 1981 in Case 27/81 Rohr [1981] ECR 24312the Court held that Article 18 of the Convention must be interpreted as meaning that it allows the defendant not only to contest the jurisdiction but to submit at the same time in the alternative a defence on the substance of the action without however losing his right to raise an objection of lack of jurisdiction."
Herefter kendte Domstolen for ret:
The Court therefore ruled that:
De foreløbige, herunder sikrende retsmidler, som vedrører forhold, der er ude lukket fra anvendelsesområdet for konventionen af 27. september 1968 om ret ternes kompetence og om fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser i borgerlige sager, herunder handelssager, kan ikke med henvisning til konventionens artikel 24 inddrages under konventionens anvendelsesområde.
Article 24 of the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judg­ments in Civil and Commercial Matters may not be relied on to bring within the scope of the Convention provisional or protective measures relating to matters which are excluded from it.
Artikel 18 i konventionen af 27. september 1968 om retternes kompetence og om fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser i borgerlige sager, herunder handelssager, skal fortolkes således, at sagsøgte ikke blot kan bestride rettens kompetence, men til lige subsidiært kan bestride kravet i realiteten uden derved at fortabe retten til at fremføre indsigelsen om inkompetence.«
Article 18 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the En­forcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters must be interpreted as meaning that it allows the defendant not only to contest the jurisdiction but to
I tilslutning til denne dom stadfæstede Hoge Raad den af Gerechtshof, Haag, afsagte dom, for så vidt angik spørgsmålet om præsidenten for Arrondissementsrechtbank Rotterdam's kompetence, men gav i øvrigt hustruen medhold, idet den henviste sagen til Ge rechtshof Amsterdam til videre behandling og afgørelse og ophævede den anfægtede dom (Hoge Raad, dom af 1. juli 1982, Nederlandse Jurisprudentie 1983, nr. 682): Alle rede i forelæggelsesdommen havde Hoge Raad anført, at præsidenten for den Arrondissementsrechtbank, som sagen var anlagt ved, havde kompetence, hvis konventionen af 1968 ikke fandt anvendelse.
-ollowing that judgment the Hoge Raad dismissed the wife's appeal against the judgnent of the Gerechtshof, 's-Gravenhage, in so far as it claimed that the President of the \rrondissementsrechtbank, Rotterdam, had no jurisdiction, but upheld it in other re­spects; it therefore quashed the judgment appealed against and remitted the matter to he Gerechtshof, Amsterdam, for further argument and decision (Hoge Raad, judgment }f I July 1982, Nederlandse Jurisprudentie 1983, No 682). In the judgment requesting ι preliminary ruling the Hoge Raad had already held that if the 1968 Convention was lot applicable the President of the Arrondissementsrechtbank seised of the matter had urisdiction.
Af den dom, Domstolen nu havde afsagt, fulgte, at det krav, der var gjort gældende, faktisk ikke henhørte under konventionens anvendelsesområde.
From the judgment of the Court of Justice it followed, said the Hoge Raad. hat the claim was in fact excluded from the scope of the Convention.
Indsigelsen om inkompetence kunne derfor ikke tages til følge.
The objection igainst jurisdiction should therefore be dismissed.
1968 ­ ARTIKEL I, STK. 2
1968 ­ ARTICLE I (2)
Cour d'appel fandt, at den ret, der behandlede konkursen, ikke i medfør af anordnin­gens artikel 112 var kompetent til at påkende eneforhandlerens krav, som udsprang af den ensidige annullation af eneforhandlingsaftalen forud for meddelelsen om betalings­standsningen og ikke vedrørte konkursen som sådan, navnlig for så vidt denne var afgø­rende for, hvordan den samlede afvikling af selskabets gæld skulle ske.
The Cour d'Appel held that Article 1 12 of the abovementioned Decree did not give the court engaged upon the judicial arrangement jurisdiction to entertain the French com­pany's claim, which had its origin in the unilateral repudiation of the dealership con­tract prior to the commencement of insolvency proceedings and did not concern the ju­dicial arrangement as such, particularly in so far as those proceedings determined the manner in which the company's liabilities were to be collectively discharged.
Med hensyn til artikel 5, nr. 1, udtalte Cour d'appel, at hovedspørgsmålet i sagen var leverandørens tilsidesættelse af forpligtelsen til at forbeholde eneforhandleren salget af alle de produkter, det fremstillede, i form af en angiveligt uberettiget annullation af kontrakten.
With regard to Article 5 ( 1 ) of the Convention, the Cour d'Appel observed that the es­sential subject-matter of the action was the German company's breach, through the al­legedly wrongful repudiation of the contract, of its obligation to reserve the sale of all the products which it manufactured to its dealer.
Anvendelsesområde — ikke­omfattede retsområder —formueforholdet mellem ægtefæller — formueretligt forhold, som er en direkte følge af ægteskabet
Scope — Excluded matlers — Matrimonial property — Properly relationships arising di­rectly out of the marriage
Efer påstand nedlagt af ægtemanden H. D. dømte en belgisk Vrederechter dennes hustru til at betale ægtemanden et beløb på ca. 30 000 BFR, der udgjorde hendes andel af udgif­terne til den fælles husholdning.
H.B. obtained an order from a Belgian Vrederechter requiring his wife to pay him the sum of about BFR 30 000 as her share of the costs of their joint household.
Ægtemanden støttede sin påstand på artikel 221 i den belgiske Burgerlijk Wetboek, hvorefter en Vrederechter efter påstand herom kan give en ægtefælle fuldmagt til at lade den anden ægtefælles indkomst udbetale direkte til sig, når den anden ægtefælle ikke opfylder sin forpligtelse til efter evne at bidrage til betalin­gen af udgifterne til den fælles husholdning.
The husband's application was based on Article 221 of the Belgian Civil Code, under which a Vrede­rechter may on application authorize one spouse to attach the income of the other spouse, where the latter fails to meet his obligation to contribute to the expenses of the family in so far as he is able.
Efter at ægtemanden havde fået fuldmag­ten, fastsatte Vrederechter i den ovenfor nævnte afgørelse de beløb, som hustruen skyld­te.
After the husband had obtained such an authorization, the Vrederechter fixed the amount owed by the wife.
Ægtemanden fremsatte begæring om fuldbyrdelsespåtegning på den belgiske afgørelse i Nederlandene.
The husband sought to enforce the Belgian decision in the Netherlands.
Den nederlandske ret erklærede sig imidlertid for inkompetent til at træffe afgørelse om begæringen.
The Dutch court held, however, that it had no jurisdiction over the application.
(fortsat 1) ter formueordninger, som af nationale lovgivninger specielt og udelukkende er udfor­met med henblik på ægteskabet, men også alle formueretlige forhold, som er en direkte følge af ægteskabet eller af dettes opløsning, og at dette gælder såvel foreløbige retsmid­ler vedrørende ægtefællernes formuegoder som retsmidler af definitiv karakter.
1­1.2 — A 2) the phrase "rights in property arising out of the matrimonial relationship" included not only property arrangements specifically and exclusively envisaged by certain national legal systems in the case of marriage but also any proprietary relationships resulting directly from the matrimonial relationship or the dissolution thereof; that applied to all measures relating to the property of spouses whether they were provisional or definitive in nature.
Da hu­struens ovennævnte betalingspligt beroede på et formueretligt forhold, som var en di­rekte følge af hendes ægteskab med sagsøgeren, fandt konventionen ikke anvendelse på hans begæring.
Since the wife's financial obliga­tion in this case was based on a property arrangement resulting directly from her matri­monial relationship with the applicant, the Convention was not applicable.
Anvendelsesområde — »borgerlige sager, herunder handelssager« — arbejdsmar­kedsoverenskomst, der er erklæret bindende for alle — privatretlig arbejdsaftale
Scope — "Civil and commercial matters" — Collective agreement generally binding — Contract of employment governed by private law
Fuldbyrdelse — udeblivelsesdom — dom i straffesag hvorefter domfældte skal be­tale endnu ikke erlagte bidrag — manglende bevis f or forkyndelse af tilsigelsen — næg­telse af fuldbyrdelsespåtegning
Enforcement — Default judgment — Penal judgment accompanied by an order for the payment of arrears of contributions — No proof of service of notice — Refusal of enforcement
Efter påstand fra Auditeur bij de Arbeidsrecht­bank Antwerpen blev Janssen ved denne straffedom dømt for overtrædelse af den bel­giske Wet betreffende de Fondsen voor de bestaanszekerheid af 7. januar 1958 (lov om fonden til sikring af eksistensgrundlaget), fordi han som arbejdsgiver eller som repræ­sentant for en arbeijdsgiver havde overtrådt bestemmelser i en overenskomst, der i hen­hold til denne lov var blevet erklæret bindende for alle ved Koninklijk Besluit (kongelig anordning).
That penal judgment was pronounced on the application of the /li/í///í'»r[representative of the public interest] of the Arbeitsrechtbank, Antwerp, for breach of the Belgian Law of 7 January 1958 on the Fondsen voor de Bestaanszekerheid [social welfare funds] on the ground that as an employer or the representative of an employer Mr Janssen failed to comply with a col­lective agreement declared generally binding by a Royal Decree issued under the author­ity ofthat Law.
Domfældte havde nemlig overtrådt afgørelser truffet af Nationaal Paritair Comité voor de bouwbedrijven (det nationale paritetiske udvalg for byggesektoren) ved ikke at indbetale bidrag for nogle arbejdstagere i form af »mærker for tro tjeneste« og »mærker for hjemsendelse i dårligt vejr«. Samtidig blev han ved dommen dømt til at be­tale Nationale Patroonskas ca. 150000 BFR.
Contrary to decisions of the Nationaal Paritair Cornile voor de Bouwbe­drijven [National joint committee for the building trade] Mr Janssen had failed to pay contributions in the form of "loyalty stamps" and "foul­weather stamps" in respect of a number of employees.
Sidstnævnte fremsatte begæring om fuld­byrdelsespåtegning på dommen over for præsidenten for Rechtbank 's­Hertogenbosch.
The latter applied to the President of the Rechtbank. 's­Hertogenbosch, for an order for the enforcement of that judgment.
1968 ­ ARTIKEL I, STK. 2
1968 - ARTICLE I (2)
(fortsat 1) vatretlige aftale mellem arbejdsgivere og arbejdstagere; loven indførte alene et system, som skulle sikre, at disse forpligtelser blev opfyldt på hele overenskomstområdet, om fornødent ved anvendelse af særlige sanktioner.
The obli­gations with which Mr Janssen was ordered to comply did not arise directly out of the 1958 Law but were based essentially on the collective agreement and thus on the con­tract governed by private law between employers and employees; the Law merely estab­lished a system ensuring the fulfilment of those obligations throughout the sector cov­ered by the collective agreement, where necessary by means of special sanctions.
Nationale Patroonskas' aktiviteter udadtil, som muligvis kunne betegnes som varetagelse af en forvaltningsmyndigheds op­gaver — en beføjelse som sandsynligvis også tilkom foreningen — beroede i det væsent­lige på de nævnte privatretlige forhold og kunne ikke opfattes som varetagelse af offent­ligretlige beføjelser.
The ac­tivities of the Nationale Patroonskas, which by their outward appearance were perhaps to be classed as the performance of the duties of a public authority — a power which it probably did indeed have —, rested essentially on the private-law relationships referred to and should not be regarded as the exercise of public authority.
Efter præsidenten for Rechtbank's opfattelse var der derfor i prin­cippet tale om en bogerlig sag eller handelssag i den i konventionens artikel 1, stk. 1, for­udsatte betydning.
In the view of the Presi­dent of the Rechtbank, the case was therefore in principle a civil or commercial matter within the meaning of Article 1 (1) of the Convention.
Han anførte imidlertid desuden, at betalingen af de omhandlede beløb bevirker, at en arbejder, der ikke kan passe sit arbejde på grund af vejrforholdene, til trods herfor så vidt muligt får sin løn derved, at han indløser mærkerne for hjemsen­delse i dårligt vejr, og der desuden udbetales ham et yderligere beløb svarende til den pe­riode, han har været beskæftiget.
He went on to hold, however, that the effect of the payment of the contributions in question was that a worker who was un­able to work because of the weather conditions nevertheless received his wages, in so far as was possible, in that he cashed his foul-weather stamps and was in addition paid a sup­plementary amount according to his period of employment.
Derfor måtte det antages, at den omhandlede ordning var en social sikringsordning i den i konventionens artikel 1, stk. 2, forudsatte betyd­ning.
It must therefore be viewed as a social security arrangement within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article I of the Convention.
Ifølge Jenard's kommentar har arbejdsløshedsydelser altid været omfattet af dette begreb; opkrævning af bidrag til fordel for den sociale sikringsinstitution — og dette måtte sagsøgeren anses for at være — er undtaget fra konventionens anvendelsesområ­de.
According to the Jenard Report, unemployment benefits always fell under that rubric; the levying of contributions in favour of social security institutions — among which the applicant must be classed — was excluded from the scope of the Con­vention.
At der i den foreliggende sag var tale om det »sociale sikringsområde«, fulgte også af de i loven af 1958 anvendte begreber »sikring af eksistensgrundlaget« og »sociale for­dele«.
It was clear from the use in the 1958 Law of terms such as "Bestaanszekerheid" [supplementary benefit] and "sociale voordelen "[social benefits] that the matter fell with­in the area of social security.
Rechtbank's præsident gav Nationale Patroonskas mulighed for nærmere at forklare den retlige karakter af kravet mod Janssen i henhold til belgisk ret.
The President of the Rechtbank gave the Nationale Patroonskas the opportunity to pro­vide further details on the legal nature of its claim against Mr Janssen.
I den endelige kendelse afviste præsidenten for Rechtbank at meddele den begærede fuldbyrdelsespåtegning.
In his final order the President of the Rechtbank refused to grant an order for enforce­ment.
Sagsøgeren havde ikke fremlagt dokumenter, hvoraf det frem­gik, at stævningen og tilsigelsen var tilgået den domfældte, og begæringen om fuldbyr­delsespåtegning måtte derfor afslås allerede af den grund.
The applicant had submitted no evidence to the effect that the document institut­ing the proceedings had been served on Mr Janssen, so that enforcement must be denied on that ground alone.
Begæringen måtte også afslås af andre grunde.
There were also other grounds on which the application must be denied.
Ganske vist havde direktøren for Nationale Patroonskas forelagt ret­ten en skrivelse, hvori han anførte, at de belgiske mærkeordninger ikke var omfattet af begrebet social sikring i den betydning, der er forudsat i de belgiske retsregler eller i EØF­forordning nr. 1408/71. Det blev imidlertid ikke bestridt i skrivelsen, at der var tale om foranstaltninger i tilfælde af arbejdsløshed og om en social sikringsinstitutions opkrævning af bidrag.
A letter was submitted to the court in which the director of the Nationale Pa­troonskas stated that the contribution stamp system was not a social security system under Belgian legislation or EEC Regulation No 1408/71.
Af den kendsgerning, at det i skrivelsen blev bekræftet, at mær­keordningerne tjente til »sikring af eksistensgrundlaget«, og at alle virksomheder, som opførte bygninger i Belgien, var pålagt disse forpligtelser, måtte man imidlertid drage den slutning, at sagsøgerens krav faldt ind under det sociale sikringsområde.
From the fact that the letter confirmed that the contribution stamp system was a system of "Bestaanszekerheid", obligatory for all undertakings in the building sector in Belgium, it must be concluded that the applicant's claim fell within the area of social security.
Da konven­tionen for så vidt må fortolkes selvstændigt og ikke gælder med hensyn til social sikring netop på grund af de forskelle og vanskeligheder, som viste sig mellem medlemsstaterne på dette område, var det heller ikke til hinder for denne konklusion, at den foreliggende sag måske måtte bedømmes anderledes efter national ret i nogle af EF­medlemsstater­ne, her efter belgisk ret.
Since the Convention must be interpreted independently and did not apply to social security precisely because of the differences and difficulties which arose between the Member States in that area, that conclusion was not affected by the fact that the issue might be decided otherwise under the law of some Member States of the EEC, in this case Belgian law.
Anvendelsesområde — ikke­omfattede retsområder — konkurs, akkord og andre lig­nende ordninger — en tidligere arbejdstagers krav mod arbejdsgiverens konkursbo
Scope — Excluded matters — "Bankruptcy, proceedings relating to the winding-up of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial arrangements, compositions and analogous proceedings" — Claim by a former employee against the employer's receiver
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — opfyldelsesværneting — det sted, hvor en filial, et agentur eller en lignende virksomhed er beliggende — en tidligere filialdirek­tørs lønkrav
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction of the courts for the place of per­formance — Site of a branch, agency or other establishment — Salary claim by the former director of an establishment
Et selskab med hjemsted i Nederlandene og en filial i Belgien havde ansat den i Belgien bosatte kassationsindstævnte som direktør for sin belgiske filial.
A company whose head office was in the Netherlands and which had an establishment in Belgium employed the appellant, a Belgian resident, as the business manager of its Belgian establishment.
Kort før en nederlandsk ret erklærede selskabet konkurs, blev kassationsindstævnte afskediget.
Shortly before the company was placed in liquidation by a Dutch court it dismissed the appellant.
Han sagsøgte herefter selskabets konkursbo ved Arbeidsrechtbank Hasselt med påstand om betaling afløn, feriepenge og andre beløb, som han mente at have til gode i henhold til arbejdsaf­talen, på i alt ca. 6 mio BFR.
He thereupon brought proceedings before the Arbeids­rechtbank, Hasselt, against the receiver of the company for the payment of salary, holi­day pay and other amounts which in his view were payable to him under his contract of employment, in the total amount of about BFR 6 million.
Arbeidsrechtbank fastslog, at den havde kompetence, og erklærede, at belgisk ret fandt anvendelse i sagen, da tyngdepunktet i arbejdsforholdet havde ligget i Belgien.
The Arbeidsrechtbank held that it had jurisdiction and that Belgian law was applicable to the proceedings, since the main site of the employment relationship was in Belgium.
Arbeids­hof Antwerpen ophævede Rechtbank's dom ved dom af 19. februar 1980.
By judgment of 19 February 1980 the Arbeidshof, Antwerp, quashed the Rechtbank's judgment.
Retten var af den opfattelse, at formålet med kravet var ændret så grundlæggende derved, at det var blevet rejst under en konkurs, at det måtte anses for at udspringe direkte af konkursen og derfor ikke var omfattet af Bruxelles­konventionens anvendelsesområde.
The court took the view that, because the claim was raised in the context of liquidation proceedings, its object was so fundamentally altered that it must be regarded as arising directly out of the liquidation proceedings and therefore excluded from the scope of the Brussels Convention.
Derimod skulle nederlandsk konkursret finde anvendelse i henhold til den belgisk­nederlandske konvention af 28. marts 1925, og ifølge nederlandsk konkursret kunne det omtvistede krav gøres gældende på den måde, at det blev anmeldt som priviligeret til prøvelse ved den nederlandske ret, som havde indledt konkursbehandlingen.
Under the Treaty of 28 March 1925 between Belgium and the Netherlands, applicable in the circumstances, the case should be governed by the Dutch law on insolvency, according to which the claim in question could be pursued before the court dealing with those liquidation proceedings as a preferential claim.
Derfor havde den bel­giske ret ikke været kompetent til at træffe afgørelse i søgsmålet mod boet.
The Belgian court therefore had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim against the receiver.
Hofvan Cassatie ophævede Arbeidshofs dom og henviste sagen til Arbeidshof Gent.
The Hofvan Cassatie quashed the judgment of the Arbeidshof and referred the matter to the Arbeidshof, Ghent.
Da den forpligtelse, der lå til grund for sagsøgerens sagsanlæg, efter det af appelretten anførte skulle have været opfyldt i Belgien, ville Arbeidsrechtbank Hasselt have haft kompeten­cen i henhold til belgisk ret. Hverken reglerne om konkursbehandlingen i den belgisk­nederlandske konvention af 1925 eller Bruxelles­konventionen var til hinder for denne kompetence.
Since, according to the finding of the appeal court, the obligation on which the plain­tiffs claim was based was to have been performed in Belgium, under Belgian law the Ar­beidsrechtbank, Hasselt, had jurisdiction.
Hvis man gik ud fra, at søgsmålet mod boet ifølge konventiones artikel 1, stk. 2, nr. 2, var untaget fra dennes anvendelsesområde, gjaldt konventionen af 1925 for så vidt stadig. Som anført berørte dette imidlertid ikke Arbeidsrechtbank's kompetence. Hvis man derimod fandt, at Bruxelles­konventionen fandt anvendelse på den forelig­gende sag, ville de belgiske retter stadig have kompetencen i henhold til konventionens
If the claim against the receiver were ex­cluded from the scope of the Convention under point 2 of the second paragraph of Article 1, then the 1925 Treaty applied; as had been shown, that Treaty did not affect the jurisdiction of the Arbeidsrechtbank.
Udsendelse 3/december 1985
Issue 3 December 19K5