natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
n Med henblik på konventionens anvendelse må fortolkningen navnlig tage sit ud gangspunkt i konventionens system og målsætning, således at der skabes sikkerhed for, at den fuldt ud kan få de tilsigtede retsvirkninger.
Since the Italian Customs Administration claimed payment of a series of penalties, charges and duties connected with road transport under the TIR system in Italy the Ministry of the Treasury brought an action before the Tribunale di Roma [District Court, Rome] against the aforesaid group of insurers claiming payment of a total sum of LIT8I2 134310.
'Såfremt parterne i tilfælde, hvor mindst en af den har bopæl på en kontraherende stats område, ved en skriftlig aftale eller ved en mundtlig aftale, der er skriftlig be kræftet, har vedtagtet, at en ret eller retterne i en kontraherende stat skal være kom petente til at påkende allerede opståede tvister eller fremtidige tvister i anledning af et bestemt retsforhold, er alene denne ret eller retterne i den pågældende stat kompe tente.'
The insurers denied that the aforesaid clause conferring jurisdiction could be relied upon, since it was not signed by the Ente Autotrasporti Merci (orby the Treasury Administration), whereas Article 17 of the Con­vention required such a clause to be in writing and signed by the parties.
14 I øvrigt har konventionens artikel 17 med opstilling af et sådant krav om skriftlig hed inter partes hverken til formål eller følge, at en ved et tredjemandsløfte i kontrak-
"I. Where a contract has been duly signed by the contracting parties and there has been included by one of those parties, on its own behalf and in the interests of other beneficiaries under the contract, the jurisdiction clause agreed upon therein with reference to proceedings which may be brought by the said ben­eficiaries, does the requirement as to written form laid down by Article 17 of the Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters also apply in favour of those beneficiaries?
) Jfr. ovenfor under 1-17.1.2 - A 2.
The Court of Justice held (paragraphs 10 to 21 of the decision) that:
1968 ­ ARTIKEL 17, STK. I
1968 — ARTICLE 17 (I )
(fortsat 3) ten begunstiget tredjemands adgang til under en tvist mod forsikringsgiveren at på­beråbe sig den til hans fordel vedtagne væmetingsklausul er betinget af et lignende krav om skriftlighed.
(continued 2) not a party to the contract and is separate from the insured, is entitled to rely on a clause extending jurisdiction inserted for his benefit although he has not himself signed it, albeit the insurer and insured have duly done so.
15 Det må herefter fastslås, at forsikringsgiveren ikke kan anfægte en værnetings­klausul som den omhandlede, når han klart har tiltrådt den i aftalens bestemmelser, blot fordi den begunstigede udenforstående tredjemand ikke selv har opfyldt skrift­lighedskravet i konventionens artikel 17.
In applying the Convention it is necessary to interpret it by reference mainly to its structure and objectives in order to make it fully effective.
16 Dette resultat bestyrkes ved en undersøgelse af reglerne i konventionens afdeling 3 om kompetence i forsikringssager.
12 The first paragraph of Article 17 of the Convention provides:
π Denne undersøgelse og de oplysninger, forarbejderne herved kan give, viser såle­des, at bestemmelserne, hvorefter den forsikrede jo har flere muligheder for at vælge værnetinget end forsikringsgiveren, mens adgangen til at vedtage en værnetings­klausul i sidstnævntes interesse afskæres, er begrundet i ønsket om at beskytte den forsikrede. Denne står som oftest over for en standardkontrakt, hvis vilkår ikke læn­gere kan forhandles, ligesom han er den økonomisk svage part.
'If the parties, one or more of whom is domiciled in a Contracting State, have, by agreement in writing or by an oral agreement evidenced in writing, agreed that a court or the courts of a Contracting State are to have jurisdiction to settle any dis putes which have arisen or which may arise in connection with a particular legal re lationship, that court or those courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction.'
18 Endvidere kan parterne ifølge konventionens artikel 12 fravige bestemmelserne i afdeling 3 'ved aftale ... 2. såfremt aftalen giver forsikringstageren, den sikrede eller den begunstigede ret til at anlægge sag ved andre retter end den, der er nævnt i denne afdeling'.
13 As the Court has repeatedly held in particular in its judgments of 14 December 1976 in Case 24/76 Estasis Salotti [ 1976] ECR 1831' and Case 25/76 Segoura [1976] ECR 18512andof6May 1980 in Case 784/79, Porta Leasing [\9S0] ECR 1517,'the purpose of the requirement of writing under Article 17 of the Convention is to ensure that the consent of the parties, who, by an agreement conferring jurisdiction, depart from the general rules for determining jurisdiction laid down in Articles 2, 5 and 6 of the Convention, is clearly and precisely demonstrated and is actually established.
Heraf følger klart, at der ifølge konventionen udtrykkelig består en adgang til at aftale værnetinget, ikke blot i den i aftalen deltagende forsikringstagers interes­se, men også i den forsikredes og den begunstigedes — når disse ikke deltager i afta­len — som i det foreliggende tilfælde ikke er identiske, og som kan være ukendte ved indgåelsen af en forsikringsaftale.
14 Moreover, Article 17 of the Convention in requiring writing between the parties does not have either the object or the effect of subjecting a third party benefiting from the requirement imposed on others to the same requirement of writing where the clause conferring jurisdiction is made for his benefit and he seeks to rely on it in pro ceedings between him and the insurer.
19 Såfremt det i artikel 17 indeholdte krav om skriftlighed måtte antages at indebæ­re, at den forsikrede, eller den begunstigede uden for aftalen stående tredjemand, i hvis interesse værnetingsklausulen er vedtaget, udtrykkeligt skulle underskrive denne klausul for at kunne påberåbe sig den som gyldig, ville sidstnævnte blive på­lagt en unødvendig byrde, eftersom forsikringsgiveren fra først af utvetydigt har ac­cepteret en generel og åben ordning vedrørende værnetinget, ligesom der eventuelt kunne være tale om en vanskeligt opfyldelig formalitet i tilfælde, hvor den forsikre­de, endnu før tvist var opstået, ikke af forsikringstageren var gjort bekendt med, at der var indgået en væmetingsklausul i hans interesse.
is In such circumstances it appears to the Court that the insurer, if his original con sent has been made clear in the provisions of the contract, cannot object to such an exclusion of jurisdiction on the sole ground that the party benefiting from the re quirement imposed on others, not being a party to the contract, has not himself satisfied the requirement of writing prescribed by Article 17 of the Convention.
20 Af det ovenfor anførte følger, i det hele, at en væmetingsklausul i en forsikrings­aftale, der er vedtaget til fordel for den forsikrede, der ikke deltager i aftalen og ikke er identisk med forsikringstageren, må anses for gyldig i henhold til konventionens artikel 17, såfremt det i nævnte artikel opstillede krav om skriftlighed er opfyldt for forsikringsgiverens og forsikringstagerens vedkommende og forsikringsgiverens af­talevilje herved klart og præcist er kommet til udtryk.
17 It is apparent from consideration of the provisions of that section in the light of the documents leading to their enactment that in affording the insured a wider range of jurisdiction than that available to the insurer and in excluding any possibility of a clause conferring jurisdiction for the benefit of the insurer their purpose was to pro tect the insured who is most frequently faced with a predetermined contract the clauses of which are no longer negotiable and who is in a weaker economic position.
Det andet spørgsmål
Second question
2i Det vil vedrørende dette spørgsmål være tilstrækkeligt at henvise til, at Domstolen i dommene af 24. juni 1981 (Elefanten Schuh GmbH, sag 150/80, Sml., s. 1671)') af 22. oktober 1981 (Rohr, sag 27/81, Sml., s. 2431)2) og af 31. marts 1982 (CHW, sag 25/81, Sml., s. 1189)3) har fastslået, at konventionens artikel 18 skal fortolkes således, at sagsøgte ikke blot kan bestride rettens kompetence, men tillige subsidiært kan be stride kravet i realiteten uden derved at fortabe retten til at fremføre indsigelsen om inkompetence.«
21 As regards this question it is sufficient to recall that the Court in its judgments of 24 June 1981 in Case 150/80 Elefanten Schuh GmbH[ 1981] ECR 16712, of 22 October
') Jfr. nedenfor under 118 — A 1.
1 — Infra, 118 - A I. 2 - Infra. I-IX - A 2.
1968 - ARTIKEL 17, STK. 1
1968 — ARTICLE 17 ( I )
Belgiens Hofvan Cassatie forelagde ved kendelse af 8. april 1983 Domstolen et præjudicielt spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af konventionens artikel 17. Spørgsmålet var blevet rejst under en sag mellem det belgiske aktieselskab »Goeminne Hout« (herefter benævnt sagsøgeren) og det tyske rederi »Partenreederei ms.
Article 18 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the En forcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters must be interpreted as meaning that it allows a defendant not merely to contest jurisdiction but at the same time to submit, in the alternative, a defence on the substance of the case without thereby losing the right to raise an objection of want of jurisdiction."
Tilly Russe rejste indsigelse om, at retten i Antwerpen var inkompetent, og henviste til en væmetingsklausul bag på hver af de pågældende konnossementer, hvorefter »any dispute arising under this bill of lading shall be decided by the Hamburg courts« (værneting for søgsmål i forbindelse med dette konnossement er retterne i Hamburg).
1-17.1.2 — A 4 Judgment of 19June 1984,' Case 71/83, Partenreederei ms Tilly Russ and Ernest Russ v NV Haven & Vervoerbedrijf Nova and NV Goeminne Hout [1984] ECR 2417 (Preliminary ruling requested by the Belgian Hofvan Cassatie) Advocate General: Sir Gordon Slynn (p. 2437) Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Jurisdiction clause in a bill of lading — Valid ity — Conditions
På denne baggrund stillede Hof van Cassatie følgende præjudicielle spørgsmål: mål:
By a judgment of 8 April 1983 the Belgian Hofvan Cassatie referred to the Court of Justice a question on the interpretation of Article 17 of the Convention.
»Kan det konnossement, som af bortfragteren udleveres til afladeren, når de herfor almindeligt gældende sædvaner tages i betragtning, mellem parterne betragtes som en 'skriftlig aftale' eller en 'mundtlig aftale, der er skriftligt bekræftet' som nævnt i artikel 17 i konventionen af 27. september 1968 om retternes kompetence og om fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser i borgerlige sager, herunder handelssager, og gælder dette i bekræftende fald også i forhold til en tredjemand, der er indehaver af konnossementet?« sementet?«
That question was raised in proceedings between the Belgian limited company Goeminne Hout (plaintiff and respondent) and the German shipowner Partenreederei ms Tilly Russ and Mr Er nest Russ, both of Hamburg (defendants and appellants), concerning the validity of a jurisdiction clause contained in bills of lading Nos CT 108 and CT 1 18 dated 16 August 1976, issued for the shipment of several consignments of wood.
»7 Dette spørgsmål må forstås således, at det går ud på, om værnetingsklausulen i konnossementerne opfylder betingelserne i konventionens artikel 17 med hensyn til, for det første forholdet mellem afladeren og bortfragteren og for det andet mellem bortfragteren og den tredjemand, der er indehaver af konnossementet.
According to the documents before the court those bills of lading were issued for the carrier by Tolmar Interna tional Inc., Cleveland, as agent for Europe Canada Lakes Line Ernest Russ North America Inc., Chicago, to the order of the shipper, American Lumber International Inc., Un ion City, Pennsylvania; Goeminne Hout was indicated as "notify party" and Tilly Russ as "exporting carrier".
Spørgsmålets første del
I — Language of the Case: Dutch.
(fortsat 2) tionens artikel 17 fortolkes således, at når en væmetingsklausul ikke udtrykkeligt er accepteret af afladeren og bortfragteren, er den ikke gyldig i denne bestemmelses forstand.
When the cargo was delivered in Antwerp on 7 September 1976 the packaging of two lots was found to be damaged and about 10 planks were missing. Goeminne Hout there fore claimed USD 304 in damages before the Rechtbank van Koophandel, Antwerp.
9 Kommissionen har imidlertid tilføjet, at selv hvis en sådan væmetingsklausul ikke er underskrevet af afladeren, kan den alligevel være gyldig i henhold til konven tionens artikel 17, såfremt der mellem parterne består et løbende forretningsforhold.
Tilly Russ objected to the jurisdiction of the Antwerp court, relying on a jurisdiction clause appearing on the reverse of each of the bills of lading which stated as follows: "Any dispute arising under this bill of lading shall be decided by the Hamburg courts."
10 Den italienske regering har anført, at et konnossement er et dokument, som beviser, at der foreligger en transportaftale, og at værnetingsklausulen salades er en mundtlig aftale, der er skriftligt bekræftet.
Nevertheless, by judgment of 31 October 1978, the Antwerp court held that it had jurisdiction and gave judgment in favour of Goeminne Hout ; that judgment was confirmed by the Hofvan Beroep, Antwerp, by judgment of 7 October 1981 and, on 1 March 1982, Tilly Russ appealed to the Hof van Cassatie.
n Under retsmødet har den britiske regering fremhævet, at det rejste spørgsmål er af fundamental betydning, og den har foreslået, at den nationale domstols spørgsmål omformuleres således: Er værnetingsklausulen gentaget i konnossementet på en sådan måde, at det er muligt at påvise, at der virkelig er en aftale mellem parterne, også når man anvender principperne om redelighed i handelsforhold?
"Can the bill of lading issued by the carrier to the shipper be considered, having re gard to the relevant generally accepted practices, to be an 'agreement in writing' or an 'agreement evidenced by writing' between the parties within the meaning of Article 17 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgment in Civil and Commercial Matters and, if so, does that also apply in relation to a third party holding the bill of lading?"
12 Det må først bemærkes, at artikel 17, stk. 1 i den nugældende konvention bestemmer, at 'såfremt parterne i tilfælde, hvor mindst én af den har bopæl på en kontraherende stats område, ved en skriftlig aftale eller ved en mundtlig aftale, der er skrift ligt bekræftet, har vedtaget, at en ret eller retterne i en kontraherende stat skal være kompetente til at påkende allerede opståede tvister eller fremtidige tvister i anledning af et bestemt retsforhold, er alene denne ret eller retterne i den pågældende stat kompetente'.
"7 That question must be construed as asking whether the jurisdiction clause con tained in the bills of lading satisfies the conditions laid down in Article 17 of the Convention as regards, first, the relationship between the shipper and the carrier and, secondly, the relationship between the carrier and a third party holding the bill.
14 Som Domstolen har statueret i dommene af 14. december 1976 (Salotti, sag 24/76, Sml. s. 1831'), og Segoura, sag 25/76, Sml. s. 1851)2) og af 6. maj 1980 (Porta-Leasing, sag 784/79, Sml. s. 1517)3), skal de betingelser, som artikel 17 stiller
8 According to Goeminne Hout and the Commission of the European Communities, Article 17 of the Convention should be interpreted as meaning that where a jurisdiction clause is not expressly accepted by the shipper and the carrier it is not valid within the meaning of that provision.
Jfr. nedenfor under II-l A 1.
However, according to the
15 Ved afgørelsen af, om de i artikel 17 stillede betingelser er opfyldt, må det under søges særskilt, om parternes samstemmende vilje til værnetingsklausulen er udtrykt i form af en skriftlig aftale eller i form af en mundtlig aftale, der er skriftligt bekræftet. tet.
Italian Government, it is for the national court to ascertain whether there is a signa­ture in the sense indicated above and in what circumstances the jurisdiction clause was incorporated in the bill of lading.
16 For det første må det konstateres, at når der er tale om en væmetingsklausul, der findes i trykte betingelser på et konnossement, som er underskrevet af bortfragteren, er betingelsen om en 'skriftlig aftale' i konventionens artikel 17 kun opfyldt, hvis afladeren skriftligt har udtrykt sit samtykke til de betingelser, som omfatter denne klausul, enten på det pågældende dokument selv eller i et særskilt dokument.
M At the hearing, the United Kingdom emphasized the importance of the issue raised and suggested that the question submitted by the national court should be re­formulated as follows: Was the jurisdiction clause incorporated in the bill of lading in a manner enabling it to be shown that there was a genuine agreement between the parties, account being taken of the principle of good faith?
Det må tilføjes, at en væmetingsklausul, der blot er trykt på bagsiden af konnossementsformularen, ikke opfylder kravene i konventionens artikel 17, da der ved denne frem gangsmåde ikke gives nogen garanti for, at den anden part faktisk har samtykket i den klausul, der fraviger konventionens almindelige værnetingsregler.
A reply to that question is possible, according to the United Kingdom, only if the precise facts of the case are known ; however, since in this instance they have not been established no general re­ply should be given to the first question, on the ground that there are several possibili­ties, and the national court should be left to determine the precise nature of the bill of lading.
17 For det andet må det konstateres, at hvis det godtgøres, at værnetingsklausulen i de på et konnossement trykte betingelser har været genstand for en tidligere mundt lig aftale mellem parterne, som udtrykkeligt vedrører værnetingsklausulen, og som det af bortfragteren underskrevne konnossement må anses for at være den skriftlige bekræftelse af, opfylder klausulen betingelserne i konventionens artikel 17, selv hvis den ikke er underskrevet af afladeren og følgelig kun bærer bortfragterens under skrift.
12 The first paragraph of Article 17 of the Convention, as now in force, states: 'If the parties, one or more of whom is domiciled in a Contracting State, have, by agreement in writing or by an oral agreement evidenced in writing, agreed that a court or the courts of a Contracting State are to have jurisdiction to settle any dis­putes which have arisen or which may arise in connection with a particular legal re­lationship, that court or those courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction.'
Således imødekommes ikke blot ordlyden af artikel 17, som udtrykkeligt nævner muligheden for en mundtlig aftale, der er skriftligt bekræftet, men ligeledes dens formål, som er at sikre, at parternes samstemmende vilje faktisk har været til stede.
13 It may be observed that for Article 17 of the Convention to apply at least one of the parties must be domiciled in a Contracting State, that being a matter for the na­tional court to determine.
18 Endelig kan en sådan væmetingsklausul, som ikke er underskrevet af afladeren, stadig opfylde kravene i konventionens artikel 17, selv hvis der ikke foreligger en tid ligere mundtlig aftale om samme klausul, dog på betingelse at, at udfærdigelsen af konnossementet indgår i et løbende forretningsforhold mellem afladeren og bort fragteren, og for så vidt det herved fremgår, at dette forhold i sin helhed reguleres af den bekræftende kontrahents, i dette tilælde bortfragterens, almindelige forretnings betingelser, som indeholder en væmetingsklausul (se ovennævnte Segoura-dom), og konnossementerne alle er udarbejdet på fortrykte blanketter, som systematisk indeholder en sådan væmetingsklausul.
ECR 1517),' the requirements set out in Article 17 governing the validity of jurisdic­tion clauses must be strictly construed since the purpose of Article 17 is to ensure that the parties have actually consented to such a clause, which derogates from the ordi­nary jurisdiction rules laid down in Articles 2, 5 and 6 of the Convention and that their consent is clearly and precisely demonstrated.
Under disse omstændigheder ville det nemlig stride mod god forretningsskik at benægte værnetingsklausulens eksistens.
15 In order to decide whether the conditions laid down in Article 17 are satisfied, it is necessary to consider separately whether the agreement of the parties to the choice of jurisdiction was expressed in the form of a written agreement or in the form of an oral agreement evidenced in writing.
19 Første del af det stillede spørgsmål må derfor besvares således, at en værnetingsklausul, som findes i de trykte betingelser på et konnossement, opfylder betingelserne i konventionens artikel 17 — hvis begge parters samtykke til konnossementets betingelser, herunder den nævnte klausul, er udtrykt skriftligt;
16 In the first place, it must be observed that, where a jurisdiction clause appears in the conditions printed on a bill of lading signed by the carrier, the requirement of an 'agreement in writing' within the meaning of Article 17 of the Convention is satis­fied only if the shipper has expressed in writing his consent to the conditions contain­
(fortsat 4) eller hvis værnetingsklausulen har været genstand for en tidligere mundtlig af tale mellem parterne, som udtrykkeligt omfatter denne klausul, og som det af bortfragteren underskrevne konnossement må anses for at være den skriftlige be kræftelse af; eller hvis konnossementet indgår i et løbende forretningsforhold mellem par terne, og for så vidt det herved fremgår, at dette forhold reguleres af almindelige betingelser, som indeholder den nævnte klausul.
(continued 3) ing that clause, either in the document in question itself or in a separate document. It must be added that the mere printing of a jurisdiction clause on the reverse of the bill of lading does not satisfy the requirements of Article 17 of the Convention, since such a procedure gives no guarantee that the other party has actually consented to the clause derogating from the ordinary jurisdiction rules of the Convention.
20 Med hensyn til værnetingsklausulens gyldighed i forholdet mellem bortfragteren og den tredjemand, der er ihændehaver af konnossementet, er sagsøgeren og Kom missionen af den opfattelse, at hvis konnossementets ihændehaver ikke har under skrevet konnossementet, kan værnetingsklausulen ikke gøres gældende imod ham, fordi det ikke er godtgjort, at der er en aftale mellem parterne.
Finally, such a jurisdiction clause not signed by the shipper may still satisfy the requirements laid down in Article 17 of the Convention, even in the absence of a prior oral agreement relating to that clause, provided that the bill of lading comes within the framework of a continuing business relationship between the shipper and the carrier, in so far as it is thereby established that that relationship is governed as a whole by general conditions containing the jurisdiction clause drawn up by the author of the written confirmation, in this case the carrier (see the Ségoura judg ment, cited above), and provided that the bills of lading are all issued on pre-printed forms systematically containing such a jurisdiction clause. In those circumstances, it would be contrary to good faith to deny the existence of a jurisdiction agreement.
2i Ifølge Kommissionen kan denne regel kun fraviges, hvis ihændehaveren i kraft af nationale regler indtræder i afladerens rettigheder og forpligtelser som følge af selve overdragelsen.
Consequently, the reply to the first part of the question submitted must be that a jurisdiction clause contained in the printed conditions on a bill of lading satisfies the conditions laid down by Article 17 of the Convention: