natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Fuldbyrdelse — anfægtelse af fuldbyrdelsespåtegningen ved appel eller begæring om gen­optagelse — den ret, der behandler appellen eller begæringen om genoptagelse kan kun kræve sikkerhedsstillelse (artikel 38, stk. 2), hvis der er indgivet ordinær appel eller begæring om genoptagelse af retsafgørelsen i domsstaten — kassationsanke i fransk ret er ikke ordinær appel eller begæring om genoptagelse
Enforcement — Appeal against order for enforcement — Order for the provision of security by the court dealing with the appeal (Art. 38, second para.) only if an ordinary ap­peal has been lodged against the judgment in the State in which that judgment was given — Appeal in cassation in France is not an Ordinary' appeal
I denne sag havde Landgericht Koblenz givet fuldbyrdelsespåtegning på en dom fra Cour d'appel de Paris, som den tyske sagsøgte havde iværksat kassationsanke mod.
In this case the Landgericht Koblenz had made an order for the enforcement of the judgment of the Cour d'appel, Paris, against which the German defendant had ap­pealed to the Cour de cassation.
Ober­landesgericht stadfæstede afgørelsen om meddelelsen af fuldbyrdelsespåtegning, fordi dommen fra Cour d'appel efter fransk ret både var »retskraftig og eksigibel«.
The Oberlandesgericht dismissed the defendant's appeal against the order for enforcement because under French law the judgment of the Cour d'appel was 'final and enforceable'.
Heller ikke sagsøgtes subsidiære påstand om at gøre fuldbyrdelsen betinget af, at der blev stillet en sikkerhed (domskonventionens artikel 38, stk. 2), blev taget til følge.
An alternative submission that enforcement should be conditional upon the provision of security (second paragraph of Article 38 of the Brussels Convention) was also re­jected.
Oberlandesgericht anførte, at artikel 38 angik det tilfælde, at den udenlandske afgørel­se i domsstaten allerede var anfægtet ved ordinær appel eller genoptagelse.
Article 38 applied where an ordinary appeal had been lodged against the foreign judgment in the State in which it was given.
Kassationsanken forudsatte, at de ordinære retsmidler var udtømt.
Since the appeal in cas­sation presupposed the exhaustion of the ordinary means of appeal and had no sus­pensive effect, it did not affect the finality of the judgment.
Fuldbyrdelse — anfægtelse af fuldbyrdelsespåtegningen ved appel eller genoptagelse — sikkerhedsstillelse (artikel 38, stk. 2) — betingelser — udsættelse af afgørelsen (artikel 38, stk. I) — betingelser
Enforcement — Appeal against order for enforcement — Provision of security (Art. 38, second para.) — Conditions — Stay of proceedings (Art. 38, first para.) — Conditions
Et italiensk firma havde ved Tribunale civile e penale di Mantua opnået en foreløbigt eksigibel dom over et tysk firma til betaling af 4 000000 LIT med renter og sagsomkost­ninger.
An Italian firm obtained a provisionally enforceable judgment for the payment of 4 million lira, plus interest and costs, in the Tribunale civile e penale, Mantua, against a German company; on application the competent German court made an order for en­forcement.
Vedkommende tyske ret meddelte efter anmodning den italienske dom fuldbyr­delsespåtegning. Dette appellerede det tyske firma til Oberlandesgericht Köln, hvor det
The German company appealed against the order to the Oberlandesgericht Köln, stating that it had in the mean time appealed against the judgment of the Italian court of first instance to the Corte d'appello di Brescia.
Det sagsøgte firma mente, at det ville stride mod enhver billighed såfremt det, endnu før dommen fik retskraft, måtte betale til det ita­lienske firma, om hvis soliditet det tyske firma ingen pålidelige oplysninger havde, hvorfor det nedlagde påstand om, at Oberlandesgericht Köln skulle udsætte sin afgø­relse i appelsagen efter artikel 38, stk. 1, indtil den italienske appelsag var afsluttet, og om, at tvangsfuldbyrdelsen af underinstansens dom skulle gøres betinget af en sikker­hedsstillelse.
It considered that it would be an undue hardship for it to have to pay the Italian firm, on whose financial status it had no reliable information, before the judgment became final and therefore sought a stay of proceedings under the first paragraph of Article 38 until the appeal had been de­cided and asked for enforcement of the judgment of the court of first instance to be made conditional on the provision of security.
Den bestemte, at det italienske fir­ma skulle stille sikkerhed, idet den anførte, at en ubetinget tvangsfuldbyrdelse kunne være til alvorlig ulempe for det tyske firma, såfremt afgørelsen i første instans måtte blive ændret, og idet det i øvrigt også måtte tages i betragtning, at det italienske firmas formueforhold ikke forelå oplyst.
The Oberlandesgericht ordered the provision of se­curity by the Italian firm on the ground that unconditional authorization of enforce­ment, especially having regard to the uncertain financial status of the Italian judgment creditor, could seriously prejudice the German judgment debtor in the event of the judgment of the court of first instance being varied.
Derimod afviste Oberlandesgericht at udsætte sin afgørelse og anførte, at en udsættelse — under hensyn til reglen i konventionens artikel 39 — ville have den virkning, at der alene kunne anvendes sikrende retsmidler, men ikke gennemføres en eksekution.
The court dismissed the wider application for a stay of proceedings, holding that in view of Article 39 of the Convention the result of such a stay would be that in the mean time no enforcement measures could be taken other than protective measures.
Den­ne løsning ville være i strid med formålet med den foreløbige eksigibilitet, der netop i princippet skulle give kreditor mulighed for fyldestgørelse — og ikke blot en sikkerhed — uden hensyn til eventuelle retsmidler mod den trufne afgørelse.
This was contrary to the whole purpose of provisional enforcement, which was intended to give the successful party, irrespective of any appeal, the possibility of satisfaction, and not merely a security.
En sådan opsættelse af tvangsfuldbyrdelsen ville kun kunne ske, såfremt der forelå særlige grunde hertil, eksempelvis hvis der netop ved tvangsfuldbyrdelsen til fordringshaverens fyldestgørel­se ville opstå sådanne ulemper for skyldneren, som ikke kunne opvejes i tilstrækkeligt omfang af en eventuel sikkerhedsstillelse.
Such a postponement of enforcement could be granted only where there were good reasons, as would be the case, for instance, where prejudice would be caused to the judgment debtor by enforcement and such prejudice could not be guarded against by the provision of security.
Dette fremgik af almindelige fogedretlige principper, også selv om konventionen ikke indeholdt særlige forskrifter i så henseen­de.
This resulted from general principles of the law of enforcement, even if the Convention itself did not contain any specific pro­visions to that effect.
I det foreliggende tilfælde havde det italienske firma intet fremført om, at der skulle foreligge sådanne særlige risici eller ulemper.
In the present case the Italian judgment creditor had not claimed to be in danger of suffering any such prejudice.
Fuldbyrdelse — meddelelse af fuldbyrdelsespåtegning — begæring — betingelser (arti­kel 33) — valg af processuel bopæl — undladelse heraf — retlige konsekvenser — na­tional ret afgørende
Enforcement — Order for enforcement — Application — Conditions (Art. 33) — Failure to give an address for service of process — Legal consequences — Governed by national law
Fuldbyrdelse — anfægtelse af fuldbyrdelsespåtegningen ved appel eller genoptagelse — udsættelse af afgørelsen i tilslutning til en anfægtelse ved »ordinær appel eller gen­optagelse« i domsstaten — begreb — EF­Domstolens fortolkning — kassationsanke i fransk ret — ordinær appel eller genoptagelse i artikel 38's forstand.
Enforcement — Appeal against order for enforcement — Stay of proceedings where an 'ordinary appeal' is lodged in the State in which the judgment was given — Concept — Interpretation by the Court of Justice of the European Communities — Appeal in cas­sation under French law — Ordinary appeal within the meaning of Article 38
Appellanten, et belgisk selskab, var ved dom af 19. december 1975 afsagt af Tribunal de commerce de Paris samt ved dom af 2. februar 1977 afsagt af Cour d'appel de Paris ble­
By judgment of the Tribunal de commerce, Paris, dated 19 December 1975, and by judgment of the Cour d'appel, Paris, dated 2 February 1977, the appellant, a Belgian company, was ordered to pay certain sums to the respondent, a French company.
(fortsat 1) blot indgivet appellen og begæringen om udsættelse for at forhale fuldbyrdelsen af den dom, der var afsagt mod det.
(continued 1) against, was an ordinary appeal within the meaning of the Convention.
Der var derfor ingen grund til at udnytte de skønsmæssige muligheder, retten har i medfør af konventionens artikel 38.
In addition, the application for a stay was justified.
Cour d'appel stadfæstede den af præsidenten for Tribunal de grande instance trufne afgørelse og dømte appel­lanten til at betale en erstatning på 2 000 FF for unødig trætte.
The court stayed proceedings 'until such time as the judgments comprising the subject­matter of the application become final in the State in which they were given'. It also ordered the appellant to provide security.
En belgisk handlende havde ved Rechtbank van koophandel Brugge (Belgien) fået dom over et tysk firma til betaling af et beløb, og dommen blev erklæret eksigibel i For­bundsrepublikken Tyskland.
In this case the court giving judgment had requested the Court of Justice of the Euro­pean Communities to deliver a preliminary ruling on two questions on the interpreta­tion of the concept of an Ordinary appeal', employed in Articles 30 and 38 of the Brus­sels Convention.
Det tyske firma appellerede afgørelsen, der tillod fuldbyr­delse, og gjorde gældende, at det havde anket dommen i rette tid.
The Court of Justice answered those questions in its judgment of 22 November 1977 in Case 43/77 Industrial Diamond Supplies ν Riva, supra, 1­25.0 — A 2.
Firmaet anmodede om, at fuldbyrdelsen foreløbig blev sat i bero uden sikkerhedsstillelse, subsidiært mod sikkerhedsstillelse. Rekvirenten i fuldbyrdelsessagen gjorde heroverfor gældende, at dommen var anket for sent.
In its subsequent judgment on the respondent's appeal against the issue of an order for enforcement and request for a stay of the proceedings in accordance with Article 38 of the Convention, the court in Antwerp held as follows:
Ret­ten anførte, at for så vidt som den tyske Zivilprozeßordnung bestemmer, at fuldbyrdel­sen i visse tilfælde kan sættes i bero, uden at der skal stilles sikkerhed, er disse bestem­melser ikke forenelige med konventionens artikel 39, stk. 2.
In light of the answers supplied by the Court of Justice to the questions submitted to it, the appeal in cassation which the respondent had brought in Italy was to be re­garded as an ordinary appeal within the meaning of Articles 30 and 38 of the Con­vention.
Denne bestemmelse skal nemlig give kreditor ubetinget mulighed for at iværksætte fuldbyrdelse i det omfang, det er nødvendigt for at sikre ham.
The judgment of the court in Turin, the enforcement of which was sought, was enforceable in Italy notwithstanding the bringing of the appeal in cassation.
De begrænsninger, som i de enkelte nationale lov­givninger måtte være til hinder for sådanne forholdsregler, har ingen retsvirkning in­den for konventionens gyldighedsområde.
The financial circumstances of the applicant appeared to be sound whereas those of the respondent were questionable.
Herefter var der ikke grundlag for at sætte fuldbyrdelsen i bero som følge af anken af den belgiske dom.
In order to preserve the rights of the parties in an appropriate manner, enforcement could be authorized subject to the making of an order for the provision of security.
Appelinstansen kan derimod i medfør af konventionens artikel 38 efter et pligtmæssigt skøn enten udsætte sin afgørelse eller gøre fuldbyrdelsen betinget af, at der stilles sik­kerhed.
The court accordingly confirmed the decision appealed against subject to the provision by the applicant of a certain sum as security.
(fortsat 1) bestemmelses stk. 1, da det var uvist, om anken ville føre til et andet resultat, og da rekvirenten allerede havde rejst spørgsmål om, hvorvidt anken kunne admitteres.
(continued 1) viding security, was not impaired.
Ordlyden af artikel 38, stk. 2, er ikke til hinder for en sådan begrænsning.
The wording of the second paragraph of Article 38 did not preclude such a limited order.
Når konventionen giver mulighed for generelt at gøre fuldbyrdelse betin­get af, at der stilles sikkerhed, må det nemlig som en mindre indgribende forholdsregel også være tilladt at bestemme, at der kun skal stilles sikkerhed for det tilfælde, at kredi­tor anvender andet end sikrende retsmidler.
If the Convention provided in general terms for the possibility of making enforcement conditional on the provision of security, it must also be permissible, as a less onerous measure, to order that security should be pro­vided only in the event that, in proceeding to enforcement, the creditor went beyond protective measures.
Fuldbyrdelse — anfægtelse af fuldbyrdelsespåtegningen ved appel eller genoptagelse — udsættelse af afgørelsen — betingelse — rimelig tvivl om den afgørelse, som er anfægtet ved appel i domsstaten
Enforcement — Appeal against the issue of an order for enforcement — Stay of proceed­ings — Conditions — Reasonable doubt as to the outcome of the decision against which an appeal is pending in the State in which judgment was given
Et italiensk selskab, som er indehaver af et varemærke for lægemidler, opnåede i Ne­derlandene ved de retter, der kan træffe bestemmelse om anvendelse af foreløbige rets­midler, et forbud mod, at tredjemand, herunder et fransk selskab, anvendte dette va­remærke i Nederlandene.
An Italian company, which was the holder of a trade mark for pharmaceutical prod­ucts, had secured, from courts in the Netherlands to which it had applied for interim measures, a prohibition of the use of the trade mark in the Netherlands by third parties, including a French company.
Det franske selskab anfægtede tilladelsen til fuldbyrdelse af denne afgørelse i Frankrig og fremsatte i medfør af konventionens artikel 38, stk. 1, begæring om udsættelse af afgørelsen, indtil vedkommende nederlandske ret havde truffet afgørelse i den appelsag, selskabet havde indledt i Nederlandene.
That French company appealed in France against the issue of an order for the enforcement of the decision imposing that prohibition in France and requested that the proceedings be stayed under the first paragraph of Ar­ticle 38 of the Convention until such time as the competent court in the Netherlands had given its decision on the appeal there lodged.
Cour d'appel henviste først til formålet med artikel 38, som er at forhindre, at afgørel­ser, som muligvis ikke vil blive opretholdt i domsstaten, erklæres eksigible i fuldbyrdel­sesstaten.
The Cour d'appel first pointed to the objective pursued by Article 38, which was to pre­vent decisions which might prove to have no force in the State in which judgment had been given from being declared enforceable in the State in which enforcement was being sought.
Der gives dog ifølge Domstolens praksis (jfr. dommen i sag 43/77, ovenfor under 1­25.0 — A 2) kun udsættelse, når der er rimelig tvivl om den endelige afgørelse i domsstaten.
However, according to the case­law of the Court of Justice (judgment in Case 43/77 PVBA ν Λίνα, supra, 1-25.0 — A 2), proceedings could be stayed only if there was reasonable doubt as to the outcome of the decision in the State in which it had been given.
Efter en prøvelse af den nederlandske afgørelse på baggrund af de af appellanten frem­satte indsigelser kom Cour d'appel til det resultat, at appellanten ikke havde bevist, at der forelå en sådan rimelig tvivl.
Following an examination of the Netherlands decision in the light of the objections raised by the appellant, the Cour d'appel came to the conclusion that the appellant had failed to prove any such reasonable doubt.
Det havde ingen betydning, at den nederlandske ret havde pålagt det franske selskab en meget høj tvangsbøde, da udenlandske retsafgørel­ser, hvorved der fastsættes en tvangsbøde, i henhold til konventionens artikel 43 kun er eksigible — og dermed kan begæres udsat — såfremt bødens størrelse er endeligt fast­sat af retterne i domsstaten, hvilket ikke var tilfældet her.
The fact that the Netherlands court had im­posed a very large periodic payment on the French company was in this context imma­terial since foreign judgments imposing periodic payments were, under Article 43 of the Convention, only enforceable (and a stay on their enforcement could therefore only be sought) once the amount of the payment had been finally determined by the courts of the State in which judgment had been given, which was not the case here.
Cour d'appel tog derfor ikke begæringen om udsættelse til følge.
The Cour d'appel for those reasons refused to stay the proceedings.
1­38 — Β 10 Østre Landsret, kendelse af 10. maj 1989, Anhydro A/S mod Caso Pillet SA
1­38 — Β 10 Østre Landsret, Order of 10 May 1989, Anhydro A/S ν Caso Pillet SA
Overgangsbestemmelser — tiltrædelseskonventionen af ¡978 (artikel 34) — sag anlagt i Frankrig før ikrafttrædelsen — fuldbyrdelsesbegæring i Danmark efter ikrafttrædel­sen — den franske domstols kompetence i overensstemmelse med konventionens be­stemmelser — konventionen fandt anvendelse
Transitional provisions — 1978 Accession Convention (Art. 34) — Action brought in France before the entry into force of the Accession Convention — Application for an order for enforcement in Denmark made after the entry into force of the Accession Convention — Jurisdiction of the French court pursuant to the Convention — Issue of order for enforcement in accordance with the Convention
Fuldbyrdelse — anfægtelse af fuldbyrdelsespåtegningen — verserende anke af den udenlandske dom i domsstaten — afgørelse af anfægtelsen i fuldbyrdelsesstaten — fuldbyrdelse betinget af sikkerhedsstillelse
Enforcement — Appeal against order for enforcement — Appeal pending in the State in which judgment was given — Decision on the appeal lodged in the State in which en­forcement is sought — Enforcement made conditional on the provision of security
Et fransk selskab, Pillet, anlagde i 1985 sag mod et i Danmark hjemmehørende selskab, Anhydro, ved Tribunal de commerce i Bordeaux for betaling af et beløb.
The French company Pillet brought an action in 1985 before the Tribunal de com­merce, Bordeaux, against Anhydro, a company based in Denmark, for payment of a sum of money.
Anhydro gav møde og nedlagde påstand principalt om afvisning under henvisning til en voldgifts­klausul i kontraktsforholdet mellem parterne, subsidiært om frifindelse.
Anhydro entered an appearance in the proceedings and requested — on the basis of an arbitration clause agreed on by the parties — that the action be dis­missed as inadmissible or, in the alternative, as being unfounded.
Pillet fik med­hold ved dom afsagt af Tribunal de commerce.
The Tribunal de com­merce upheld the action.
Cour d'appel stadfæstede den indanke­de dom.
Following an appeal by Anhydro, the Cour d'appel confirmed the contested judgment.
I 1988 begærede Pillet en fogedforretning mod Anhydro for domsbeløbet ved Anhyd­ro's hjemting, Gladsaxe ret, som ved kendelse lod forretningen nyde fremme.
In 1988 the judgment creditor applied to the Byret in Gladsaxe for an enforcement order in respect of the amount specified in the judgment. The Byret granted the appli­cation.
Anhydro kærede denne kendelse til Østre Landsret samtidig med, at det i Frankrig ankede Cour d'appels dom til Cour de cassation.
The debtor appealed to the Østre Landsret, while at the same time appealing to the French Cour de cassation against the judgment of the Cour d'appel.
For landsretten nedlagde Anhydro principalt på­stand om, at Pillet's begæring om eksekution afvistes, da sagen havde været anlagt ved Tribunal de commerce før ikrafttrædelsen af EF­domskonventionen i forholdet mellem Frankrig og Danmark, og da Cour d'appels kompetence ikke hvilede på nogen grundsætning i overensstemmelse med bestemmelserne i konventionens afsnit II, jfr. herved tiltrædelseskonventionens artikel 34, stk. 3.
Before the Østre Landsret, it argued essentially that the creditor's application for an order for en­forcement ought to be dismissed on the ground that the proceedings before the Tribu­nal de commerce had been pending prior to the entry into force of the Brussels Con­vention for the purpose of relations between France and Denmark and that no legal basis for the jurisdiction of the Cour d'appel could be found in Title II of the Conven­tion (Article 34(3) of the Accession Convention).
Subsidiært påstod Anhydro, at ekse­kution i Danmark udsattes i medfør af EF­domskonventionens artikel 38, stk. 1, jfr. § 10 i den danske gennemførelseslov, lov nr. 325 af 4. juni 1986, indtil Cour de cassa­tion's afgørelse ville foreligge, og mest subsidiært, at fuldbyrdelsen i medfør af konven­tionens artikel 38, stk. 3, jfr. § 10 in fine i nævnte lov, skulle gøres betinget af, at Pillet stillede en sikkerhed.
In the alternative, it submitted that the proceedings ought to be stayed under the first paragraph of Article 38 of the Brus­sels Convention in conjunction with Paragraph 10 of the Danish Implementing Law (Law No 325 of 4 June 1986) until the Cour de cassation had given its decision. In the further alternative, it submitted that enforcement ought to be made conditional on the provision of a security by the creditor in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 38 of the Convention in conjunction with the final section of Paragraph 10 of the Danish Law.
For landsretten blev der fremlagt udskrifter af det franske han­delsregister, hvoraf fremgik, at Pillet i årene 1985­87 havde haft en meget beskeden år­lig omsætning.
Excerpts from the French commercial register were produced before the Østre Landsret which showed that the creditor had had very low turnover figures for the years 1985 to 1987.
Da Anhydro havde givet møde for såvel Tribunal de commerce som Cour d'appel uden at bestride de franske domstoles kompetence med anden begrundelse end den af par­terne indgåede voldgiftsaftale, fandt Østre Landsret, at Anhydro stiltiende i øvrigt hav­de anerkendt de franske domstoles kompetence, således at Cour d'appels kompetence hvilede på en grundsætning i overensstemmelse med EF­domskonventionens arti­kel 18, jfr. herved tiltrædelseskonventionens artikel 34, stk. 1 og 3. Landsretten fandt derfor ingen grund til at nægte fuldbyrdelse.
As the debtor had entered an appearance in the proceedings before both the Tribunal de commerce and the Cour d'appel and had not contested the jurisdiction of the French courts on grounds other than that of the arbitration clause agreed on by the par­
Den omstændighed, at Cour d'appels dom var anket til Cour de cassation, fandtes ud fra ovenfor nævnte betragtninger ikke at kunne begrunde en udsættelse.
The fact that an appeal against the judgment of the Cour d'appel was pending before the Cour de cassation could not, in the light of the above considerations, justify a stay of the proceedings.
Under hensyn­tagen til oplysningerne om Pillet's solvens gav landsretten imidlertid Anhydro medhold i dennes mest subsidiære påstand om, at fuldbyrdelsen betingedes af en sikkerhedsstil­lelse.
In view of the information concerning the doubtful solvency of the creditor, the Landsret upheld the debtor's alternative submission that enforcement be made conditional on the provision of a security.
Landsretten bemærkede herved, at Pillet ikke havde fremsat nogen selvstændig indsigelse mod denne påstand.
The Landsret found in that regard that the creditor had not raised any special objections to that submission.
Fuldbyrdelse — anfægtelse af fuldbyrdelsespåtegningen ved appel eller genoptagelse — udsættelse af afgørelsen — skønsudøvelse — udsættelsen betinget af, at domfældte stille­de sikkerhed
Enforcement — Appeal against order for enforcement — Stay of proceedings — Exercise of discretion — Grant of stay subject to provision of security by the judgment debtor