natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
5 Dette spørgsmål kan besvares således, at dels vedrører konventionen ikke materielretlige regler, dels er det konventionens formål at fastlægge kompetencen for de kontraherende medlemsstaters retter i borgerlige sager inden for Fællesskabet, hvor for de herved gældende nationale retsplejeregler ophæves og erstattes af konventionens bestemmelser.
It is appropriate to answer this point by stating, on the one hand, that the Con vention does not affect rules of substantive law and, on the other hand, that, as the Convention seeks to determine the jurisdiction of the courts of the contracting States in the intraCommunity legal order in regard to matters of civil jurisdiction, the na tional procedural laws applicable to the cases concerned are set aside in the matters governed by the Convention in favour of the provisions thereof.
6 En skriftlig væmetingsklausul i en arbejdskontrakt er efter sin karakter et værnetingsvalg, som er uden retsvirkning, så længe der ikke er anlagt en retssag, og som først får virkning den dag, da denne anlægges.
By its nature a clause in writing conferring jurisdiction and occurring in a con tract of employment is a choice of jurisdiction; such a choice has no legal effect for so long as no judicial proceedings have been commenced and only becomes of con sequence at the date when judicial proceedings are set in motion.
Det er derfor dette tidspunkt, som er afgørende for bedømmelsen af værnetingsaftalens rækkevidde i forhold til de retsregler, der finder anvendelse på dette tidspunkt.
That is therefore the relevant date for the purposes of an appreciation of the scope of such a clause in relation to the legal rules applying at that time.
Da retssagen er anlagt den 27. november 1973, er det konventionen, som i medfør af artikel 54 finder anvendelse.
The judicial proceedings were instituted on 27 November 1973 and the Convention thus applies in pursuance of Article 54 thereof.
1968 - ARTIKEL 54 fortsat 2) klausuler i arbejdskontrakter, indgået inden konventionens ikrafttræden, anses for gyldige, selv om de var ugyldige efter de ved arbejdskontraktens indgåelse gældende nationale lovbestemmelser.«
Consequently the answer to the question raised by the French Cour de Cassation (Social Chamber) must be that Articles 17 and 54 of the Convention must be inter preted to mean that, in judicial proceedings instituted after the coming into force of the Convention, clauses conferring jurisdiction included in contracts of employment concluded prior to that date must be considered valid even in cases in which they would have been regarded as void under the national law in force at the time when the contract was entered into."
Domstolen kendte herefter for ret:
Accordingly the Court of Justice ruled as follows:
»Artiklerne 17 og 54 i Bruxelles-konventionen af 27. september 1968 om retternes kompetence og om fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelse i borgerlige sager, herunder han delssager, skal fortolkes således, at i retssager, som er anlagt efter konventionens ikrafttræden, skal værnetingsklausuler i arbejdskontrakter, indgået inden konventionens ikrafttræden, anses for gyldige, selv om de var ugyldige efter de ved arbejdskontraktens indgåelse gældende nationale lovbestemmelser.«
"Articles 17 and 54 of the Convention of Brussels of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters must be in terpreted to mean that, in judicial proceedings instituted after the coming into force of the Convention, clauses conferring jurisdiction included in contracts of employment concluded prior to that date must be considered valid even in cases in which they would have been regarded as void under the national law in force at the time when the contract was entered into."
Under henvisning til Domstolens dom anførte Cour de cassation, at da arbejdstageren havde anlagt sagen efter konventionens ikrafttræden, og aftalen om, at en tysk ret skulle være kompetent, måtte anses for gyldig, havde Cour d'appel tilsidesat konven tionens artikler 17 og 54.
Referring to the ruling of the Court of Justice, the Cour de Cassation held that, as the worker's application had been brought after the Convention entered into force and the agreement conferring jurisdiction on a German court must be regarded as valid, the Cour d'Appel had failed to comply with Articles 17 and 54 of the Convention.
Udsendelse 3/december ¡ 985
Issue 3 December 1985
Afsnit VII - FORHOLDET TIL ANDRE KONVENTIONER
Title VII - RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER CONVENTIONS
1-56 — A 1 Dom af 14. juli 1977 '), forenede sager 9 og 10/77, Bavaria Fluggesellschaft Schwabe & Co. KG og Germanair Bedarfsluftfahrt GmbH & Co. KG mod Eurocontrol (anmodning om præjudiciel afgørelse indgivet af Bundesgerichtshof), Sml. 1977, s. 1517 (Forslag til afgørelse fra generaladvokat H. Mayras, s. 1527) /.
KG and Germanair Bedarfsluftfahrt GmbH & Co. KG ν Eurocontrol [1977] ECR 1517 (Preliminary ruling requested by Bundesgerichtshof) Advocate General: H. Mayras (p. 1527) — Protocol of 3 June 1971 — Judgments of the
Forholdet til andre konventioner — den tysk-belgiske konvention af 30.juni 1958 — fortsat gyldighed (artikel 56) —fortolkning — den nationale rets opgave — afgrænsning i forhold til domskonventionen — Domstolens fortolkning — identiske begreber i konventionen og i fortsat gældende konventioner — forskellig fortolkning tænkelig
Relationship to other Conventions — Convention of 30 June 1958 between Germany and Belgium — Continuing effect (Anide 56) — Interpretation — A matter for the na­tional court — Scope of the Brussels Convention — Interpretation by the Court of Jus­tice — Use of the same terms in the Convention and in other agreements which continue to have effect — Different interpretation conceivable
1968 - ARTIKEL 56 fortsat I)
1968 - ARTICLE 56
Den 14. oktober 1976 udtalte Domstolen i en lignende sag, efter forelæggelse af Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, følgende : »En afgørelse, der er afsagt i en tvist mellem en of fentlig myndighed og en privatperson, hvor den offentlige myndighed har udøvet en of fentligretlig beføjelse, falder uden for konventionens anvendelsesområde« (sag 29/76, jfr. ovenfor I-1.1 — A 1 ).
On 14 October 1976 the Court of Justice of the European Communities in a similar case referred to it by the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf ruled that "a judgment given in an action between a public authority and a person governed by private law, in which the public authority has acted in the exercise of its powers, is excluded from the area of application of the Convention" (Case 29/76, I-l.l — Al, supra).
Efter at Eurocontrol derefter under sagen for Bundesgerichtshof havde påberåbt sig den tysk-belgiske konvention vedrørende anerkendelse og fuldbyrdelse af 30. juni 1958, forelagde Bundesgerichtshof ved kendelser af 22. december 1976 Domstolen følgende spørgsmål :
After Eurocontrol had referred in the proceedings before the Bundesgerichtshof to the Convention between Germany and Belgium of 30 June 1958 on the Recognition and En forcement of Judgments, the Bundesgerichtshof by orders of 22 December 1976 referred to the Court of Justice the following question :
»Bevarer den traktat og de konventioner, som er nævnt i artikel 55 i konventionen, ifølge artikel 56 deres gyldighed for retsafgørelser, der, uden at falde ind under arti kel 1, stk. 2, i konventionen, er udelukket fra dennes anvendelsesområde?«
"Under Article 56 of the Brussels Convention do the Treaty and Conventions re ferred to in Article 55 continue to have effect in relation to judgments which do not fall under the second paragraph of Article 1 of the Brussels Convention but are ex cluded from its scope?"
Domstolen udtalte herom (i præmisserne 2 — 7):
In reply to that question the Court of Justice held as follows (paragraphs 2 to 7 of the decision):
Udsendelse 3/december 1985
3 Decembei 1985
6 svaret er derfor, at Bruxelles-konventionens artikel 56, stk. 1 ikke er til hinder for, at en bilateral konvention som den tysk-belgiske konvention, der er nævnt i arti kel 55, stk. 5, bevarer sin gyldighed for retsafgørelser, der, uden at falde ind under artikel 1, stk. 2 i konventionen, er udelukket fra dennes anvendelsesområde;
The answer must therefore be that the first paragraph of Article 56 of the Brussels Convention does not prevent a bilateral agreement such as the German-Belgian Convention, which is the fifth to be listed in Article 55 from continuing to have effect in relation to judgments which do not fall under the second paragraph of Article 1 of the Brussels Convention, but to which nevertheless that Convention does not apply.
1968 ­ ARTIKEL 56 fortsat 3)
'continued 3) interpretation of which is entrusted to a court common to all parties, it would lead to undesirable divergencies."
»Artikel 56, stk. I i konventionen om retternes kompetence og om fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser i borgerlige sager, herunder handelssager, er ikke til hinder for, at en bilateral konvention som den tysk­belgiske konvention, der er nævnt i artikel 55, nr. 5, bevarer sin gyldighed for retsafgørelser, der, uden at falde ind under artikel 1, stk. 2 i konventionen, er udelukket fra dennes anvendelsesområde.«
"The first paragraph of Article 56 of the Convention on Jurisdiction and the En­forcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters does not prevent a bilat­eral agreement such as the German-Belgian Convention, which is the fifth to be list­ed in Article 55, from continuing to have effect in relation to judgments which do not fall under the second paragraph of Article 1 of the Convention first abovementioned, but to which nevertheless that Convention does not apply."
Den afgørelse i sagen for den nationale ret, som blev truffet i tilslutning til denne dom, er omtalt under 1­56 — Β 1.
For the decision given in the main action after this judgment see 1-56 — Β 1 infra.
Zivilsenat, kendelse af 10. oktober 1977, sag VIII ZB 44/75 [afgørelse truffet i tilslutning til præjudiciel afgørelse fra EF­Domstolen]
Zivilsenat, Order of lOOctober 1977, Case No VIII ZB 44/75 [Decision following a preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Communities]
Forholdet til andre konventioner — den tysk­belgiske konvention af 30. juni 1958 —fortsat gyldighed for sagsområder, der ikke er omfattet af konventionen (artikel 56) — fortolkning af begrebet »borgerlige sager, herunder handelssager« i artikel 1 i den tysk­belgiske kon­vention — den af retten i domsstaten anlagte fortolkning bestemmende for anerkendelses­og fuldbyrdelsessagen
Relationship to other Conventions — German-Belgian Convention of 30 June 1958 — Continued effect in relation to matters to which the Brussels Convention does not apply (Ar­ticle 56) — Interpretation of the term "civil and commercial matters" in Article 1 of the German-Belgian Convention — Interpretation given by the court of the Stale in which the judgment was given is also applicable in the proceedings for recognition and enforcement
I denne sag havde Bundesgerichtshof forelagt EF­Domstolen et spørgsmål til præjudi­ciel afgørelse, som denne besvarede ved dom af 14. juli 1977 (forenede sager 9 og 10/77 ; jfr. ovenfor under 1­56 — A 1).
In this case the Bundesgerichtshof had referred to the Court of Justice of the European Communities a question for a preliminary ruling. The Court of Justice answered that question in its judgment of 14 June 1977 (Joined Cases 9 and 10/77 Bavaria Fluggesell­schaft ν Eurocontrol [1977] ECR 1517 supra 1-56 — A I).
I sin afgørelse vedrørende det tyske luftfartsselskabs an­fægtelse af tilladelsen til ifølge domskonventionen at fuldbyrde den dom, Eurocontrol havde opnået i Belgien, tog Bundesgerichtshof herefter stilling til, om den belgiske dom måtte erklæres eksigibel i henhold til den tysk­belgiske anerkendelses­ og fuldbyrdelses­konvention af 30. juni 1958, idet en fuldbyrdelsespåtegning i medfør af domskonventio­nen ifølge EF­Domstolens dom af 14. oktober 1976 [sag 29/76; jfr. ovenfor under 1­1.1 — A 1] var udelukket, medens den tysk­belgiske konvention ifølge dommen for så vidt fortsat var i kraft.
In its decision on the German airline's appeal against an order issued under the Brussels Convention for the enforce­ment of the judgment which Eurocontrol had obtained in Belgium the Bundesgerichts­hof considered the question whether the Belgian judgment was enforceable under the German-Belgian Convention of 30 June 1958 on recognition and enforcement, since, on the one hand, it was clear from the judgment of the European Court of Justice of UOctober 1976 (Case 29/76 LTUv Eurocontrol[\976]ECR 1541 supra I -1.1 — A 1) that no order for enforcement could be made under the Brussels Convention, whilst, on the other hand, according to the judgment of 14 July 1977, the German-Belgian Convention continued to have effect.
Med hensyn til det i denne sammenhæng afgørende spørgsmål, nemlig om den belgiske dom var afsagt i en borgerlig sag, herunder en handelssag, i den i artikel 1 i den tysk­belgiske konvention forudsatte betydning, lagde Bundesgerichtshof den belgiske rets fortolkning af dette begreb til grund.
In dealing with the decisive question in that regard, namely whether the Belgian judg­ment was given in a civil or commercial matter within the meaning of Article I of the German-Belgian Convention, the Bundesgerichtshof proceeded on the basis of the Bel­gian court's interpretation ofthat term.
Under sin videre efterprøvelse bekræftede Bundesgerichtshof, at det principielt var muligt at tillade tvangsfuldbyrdelse af den belgiske dom, og at dette under ingen om­stændigheder var i strid med ordre public i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland, når hensås til Eurocontrol's særlige folkeretlige retsstilling, som også Forbundsrepublikken Tysk­land havde været med til at etablere grundlaget for. Bundesgerichtshof hjemviste derfor
The Bundesgerichtshof went on to confirm that the making of an order for the enforce­ment of the Belgian judgment was possible in principle and in view of the special legal situation of Eurocontrol, which was established under public international law with the participation of the Federal Republic of Germany, was in no way contrary to public pol-
(Fortsættelse på følgende blad)
(conlinued two pages later)
Β 6 fortsat 1) den 12. september 1974, under skilsmissesagen, var afsagt af Tribunal de grande instance de Verdun (Frankrig), hvorved retten konstaterede, at mægling havde været resultatløs (ordonnance d'inconciliation), dels for en af samme ret afsagt skilsmissedom af ^.de­cember 1974, dog alene i det omfang rekvisitus ved afgørelserne var blevet tilpligtet at betale nærmere bestemte månedlige underholdsbidrag til de mindreårige fællesbørn.
The applicant, the divorced wife of the respondent, sought a declaration that an order made on 12 September 1974 by the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Verdun (France), in divorce proceedings between the parties which recorded that a reconciliation was not possible (ordonnance d'inconciliation) and a divorce decree pronounced on 12 De­cember 1974 by the same court were enforceable in Belgium under the Brussels Conven­tion in so far as the respondent was thereby ordered to pay monthly amounts for the maintenance of the children of the marriage.
Retten afslog imidlertid begæringen med den begrundelse, at domskonventionen ifølge artiklerne 55 til 57 ganske vist var trådt i stedet for den belgisk­franske konvention af 8. juli 1899 — som rekvirenten først havde påberåbt sig — men at dette ikke gjaldt Haag­konventionen af 15. april 1958 om anerkendelse og fuldbyrdelse af afgørelser vedrø­rende underholdspligten over for børn, som således skulle lægges til grond i det forelig­gende tilfælde.
The court dismissed the application. It held that the Convention, by virtue of Articles 55 to 57 thereof, replaced the Convention of 8 July 1899 between Belgium and France (on which the applicant had primarily based her application) but not, however, the Hague Convention of 15 April 1958 on the recog­nition and enforcement of decisions relating to maintenance obligations towards chil­dren, which was therefore applicable to the present case.
Retten fremhævede i øvrigt, at begæring om fuldbyrdelsespåtegning i medfør af domkonventionen skulle fremsættes ifølge den procedure, der var omhandlet i konventionens artikel 31, hvorimod det fulgte af Haag­konventionens artikel 6, at an­modninger om fuldbyrdelsespåtegning reguleredes af fuldbyrdelsesstatens almindelige processuelle regler, dvs. i Belgien artikel 700 i code judiciaire. Begæringen måtte derfor afvises i det omfang, den støttedes på domskonventionen.
Moreover, it had also to be noted that under the Brussels Convention the order for enforcement should be applied for by the procedure under Article 31 of the Convention, whereas under Article 6 of the Hague Convention applications for enforcement were governed by the general provisions of procedural law of the enforcing State, that was to say, in the case of Belgium, Article 700 of the Code Judiciaire.
Ved kendelse af 10. februar 1978 i sagen Matthyse mod Matthyse erklærende Rechtbank van 1ste aanleg Tongeren en dom afsagt den 28. oktober 1975 af Arrondissementsrecht­bank Maastricht (Nederlandene), hvorved rekvisitus var blevet tilpligtet at betale under­holdsbidrag til sine mindreårige børn, for eksigibel i Belgien i medfør af domskonventio­
By order of 10 February 1978 in Matthy.ses/ Matlhysethe Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg, Tongeren, held that a judgment of the Arrondissementsrechtbank, Maastricht (Nether­lands), of 28 October 1975 which ordered the respondent to pay maintenance for his children was enforceable under the Brussels Convention.
Ved kendelse afsagt af Tribunal de 1ère instance de Nivelles den 5. december 1978 i sagen Garçon mod List blev fuldbyrdelsespåtegning på en dom afsagt den 12. januar 1978 af Tribunal de grande instance de Rennes (Frankrig) om rekvisiti underholdspligt over for sit mindreårige barn meddelt under henvisning til Haag­konventionen af 15. april 1958, uagtet at begæring var indgivet i medfør af domskonventionens art. 31 ff.
By an order of 5 December 1978 in Garçon ν List the Tribunal de Première Instance, Ni­velles, granted an application under Article 3 I et seq. of the Brussels Convention for the enforcement of a judgment of the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Rennes (France), of l2January 1978 dealing with the respondent's obligation to pay maintenance for his child on the basis of the Hague Convention of 15 April 1958.
En dom afsagt den 27. juni 1976 af Amtsgericht Heinsberg (Forbundsrepublikken Tysk­land), hvorved rekvisitus i fuldbyrdelsessagen var blevet tilpligtet at betale underholds­bidrag til sine mindreårige børn, blev ved kendelse afsagt den 6. september 1978 af Rechtbank van 1ste aanleg, Bruxelles, i sagen Janssen mod Geers erklæret eksigibel i Belgien i medfør af Haagerkonventionen af 15. april 1958, den belgisk­tyske anerkendel­ses­ og fuldbyrdelseskonvention af 30. juni 1958 samt domskonventionen.
By an order of 6 September 1978 in Janssen ν Geers the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg. Brussels, declared that a judgment of the Amtsgericht Heinsberg (Federal Republic of Germany) of 27 June 1976 which ordered the respondent to pay maintenance for his children was enforceable under the Hague Convention of 15 April 1958. the Belgian­German Convention of 30 June 1958 on recognition and enforcement and the Brussels Convention.
Det udtaltes udtrykkeligt i kendelsen, at rekvirenten i sin begæring i medfør af artikel 1, stk. 2, i Haag­konventionen af 15. april 1958 havde begrænset sit krav til at angå underholdsbi­dragsafgørelsen.
The order expressly stated that, in accordance with the second paragraph
Rekvirenterne i denne sag, der var advokater i Hannover (Forbundsrepublikken Tysk­land), havde repræsenteret rekvisitus — der havde bopæl i Belgien — i en retssag for Landgericht Hannover.
The applicants, who were lawyers in Hannover (Federal Republic of Germany), had reiresented the respondent, who was domiciled in Belgium, in litigation in the Landgeicht Hannover.
Salærkravene og kravene på godtgørelse af udlagte beløb i denne anledning lod advokaterne senere fastsætte af Landgericht Hannover ved kendel­se.
The applicants subsequently obtained an order from the Landgericht rlannover determining the amount of their fees and expenses payable by the respondent η connexion with that representation.
Den derpå — over for Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Veurne — fremsatte begæring om fuldbyrdelsespåtegning i Belgien blev taget til følge, idet retten støttede tilladelsen til fuldbyrdelse på artikel 19 i Haag­civilproceskonventionen af 1. marts 1954.
An application to the Rechtbank van Eerste Aaneg, Veurne, for the enforcement ofthat order in Belgium was granted. The court grantid the order for enforcement on the basis of Article 19 of the Hague Convention of I March 1954 on civil procedure.
Retten an­førte, at det af domskonventionens artikler 56 og 57 fremgik, at bestående konventioner om anerkendelse og fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser på sagsområder, hvor domskonven­tionen ikke fandt anvendelse, bevarede deres gyldighed.
It held that the Brussels Convention, by the terms of \rticles 56 and 57 thereof, did not affect existing conventions which contained rules on he recognition and enforcement of judgments relating to matters to which the Brussels Zonvention did not apply.
Ved Landgericht Hannover's kendelse var der sket en fastsættelse af en advokats krav på salær og godtgørelse af udlæg mod en tidligere klient i forbindelse med en retssag, og spørgsmål af denne art var reguleret af Haag­konventionen af 1. marts 1954.
The order of the Landgericht Hannover dealt with the deterTiination of costs and expenses owed to a lawyer by his former client in respect of his rep'esentation in a litigation; that matter was governed by the Hague Convention of I March 1954.
Anmærkning : Jfr. også ovenfor under 1­27.2 — B 7.
Vote: see also 1-27.2 — Β 7 supra.
1­57 — B 8 Præsidenten for Arrondissementsrechtbank Breda, kendelse af 15. april 1980, V mod G
[-57 — Β 8 President of the Arrondissementsrechtbank, Breda, Drder of 15 April 1980, V. v G.
Forholdet til andre konventioner — anerkendelse og fuldbyrdelse — Haag­konventionen af 15. april 1958 om anerkendelse og fuldbyrdelse af afgørelser vedrørende underholdspligt overfor børn — valg af den for kreditor gunstigste ordning
Relationship to other Conventions — Recognition and enforcement — Hague Convention if 15 April 1958 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions relating lo Maintenance Obligations in respect of Children — Choice of the rules most favourable to the creditor η proceedings between the parties two decisions were obtained from the President of he Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg.
Hustruen begærede disse afgørelser over for manden, som nu boede i retskreds Breda, forsynet med fuldbyrdelsespåtegning. Præsidenten for denne ret anførte, at såvel Bru­xelles­konventionen som Haag­konventionen af 15. april 1958 om anerkendelse og fuld­
Antwerp: (i) an interlocutory order requiring the íusband to pay maintenance for his wife and child and (ii) a judgment by which the hus-
På grundlag af konventionens artikel 57 og artikel 11 i Haag­konventionen af 1958, der — som det fremgår af dens tilblivelseshistorie — skulle gøre det muligt for den bidragsberettigede at gøre krav på anvendelse af den ordning, som er gunstigst for ham, med henblik på at opnå en fuldbyrdelsespåtegning, anså præsidenten sig for kom­petent til at træffe afgørelse om begæringen om fuldbyrdelsespåtegning på begge afgø­relser.
On the basis of Article 57 of the Convention and Article 11 of the Hague Convention of 1958, which — as was apparent from its history — was in­tended to enable the person entitled to maintenance to rely on the rules most favourable to him in order to obtain an order for enforcement, the President considered that he had jurisdiction to determine the application for enforcement orders in respect of the two decisions.
Denne kompetence omfattede derfor også underholdsbidraget til det mindreå­rige barn, selv om det i henhold til Haag­konventionen ikke er præsidenten, men Arron­dissementsrechtbank, der har kompetence til at træffe afgørelse herom.
His jurisdiction thus extended to the maintenance for the child, even though according to the Hague Convention it was the Arrondissementsrechtbank rather than the President which had jurisdiction in that case.