natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Den ændring af artikel 17, som skete ved tiltrædelseskonventionen af 1978, indebærer, at værnetingsaftalen ikke kun er gyldig og bindende, når den er indgået skriftligt — under hensyntagen til de kriterier, der er opstillet af Domstolen i dommen af 19. juni 1984 i sag 71/83 (jfr. ovenfor under 1­17.1.2 — A 4) — men også, når den er indgået i en form, som lader parternes vilje komme til udtryk på en måde, som er i overensstemmelse med internationale sædvaner.
The amendment to Article 17 which resulted from the 1978 Accession Convention meant that the agreement on juris­diction was effective and binding not only when concluded in writing — in the light of the criteria set out by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 19 June 1984 in Case 71/83 Tilly Russ v Nova (supra, 1­17.1.2 — A4) — but also if concluded in a form expressing the intentions of the parties in a manner corresponding to international commercial usage.
Dette er tilfældet, når værnetingsklausulen er indføjet i konnossementsbetingelserne af bort­fragteren eller en repræsentant for denne, uden at der kræves en underskrift fra afla­deren, som har — eller i det mindste kunne eller burde have — kendskab til værne­tingsklausulen, idet han har gennemgået konnossementsbetingelserne og konstateret, at de indeholder en værnetingsklausul.
That was so in the case of the inclusion by the shipper or his agent of a jurisdic­tion clause in the conditions of the bill of lading, without the need for signature by the person responsible for unloading, who was acquainted, or at least could have or ought to have been acquainted, with the jurisdiction clause through an examination of the conditions set out in the bill of lading and ascertainment that such a clause was con­tained therein.
I praksis bliver konnossementet nemlig inden for søtransporten normalt kun underskrevet af bortfragteren eller en repræsentant for den­ne, sendt til afladeren og endosseret af denne samt senere ihændehavere af dokumen­tet, uden at afladeren behøver at underskrive på forsiden af konnossementet.
In maritime trade, the normal practice was that a bill of lading was signed only by the shipper or his agent, sent to the person responsible for unloading and endorsed by the latter and the subsequent holders of the document, without its being necessary for the person responsible for the unloading to sign the front page of the bill of lading.
Tribunale forkastede endelig sagsøgerens indsigelse om, at sagsøgtes fremmøde ved be­visoptagelsen indebar en stiltiende anerkendelse af de italienske retters kompetence.
Lastly, the Tribunale rejected the plaintiffs objection that the defendant's appearance in the proceedings for the preservation of evidence constituted implied recognition of the jurisdiction of the Italian courts.
Efter Corte di cassazione's praksis kan en begæring om isoleret bevisoptagelse, for slet ikke at tale om fremmøde ved en bevisoptagelse — som den anden part har fremsat begæring om — for en italiensk ret, nemlig ikke anses for en anerkendelse af, at de ita­lienske retter har kompetence til at træffe afgørelse vedrørende realiteten.
According to the case­law of the Corte di cassa­zione, neither an application for proceedings for the preservation of evidence nor ap­pearance before an Italian court in such proceeding requested by another party could be treated as recognition that the Italian courts had jurisdiction to reach a decision in the matter.
Formålet med den isolerede bevisoptagelse er straks at få fastslået en kendsgerning og hindre, at et bevis går tabt.
The purpose of the proceedings for the preservation of evidence was to make an immediate determination possible and prevent the loss of the evidence.
Selv om den isolerede bevisoptagelse finder sted med henblik på den senere retssag, er den selvstændig i forhold til denne; der tages under bevisoptagelsen ingen stilling til realiteten, som kan udlægges som en anerkendelse af kompetencen.
Even though these proceedings were of benefit to the substantive proceedings, they were in­dependent vis­à­vis the latter: there was no appearance in respect of the substance of the case which could be interpreted as a recognition of jurisdiction.
Sagsøgeren var kurator i konkursboet efter en tysk virksomhed, som bl.a. handlede med kobberskrot (skyldneren).
The plaintiff was the liquidator of a German undertaking dealing inter alia in scrap copper (the bankrupt undertaking).
Skyldneren havde i nogle måneder stået i forretnings­forbindelse med sagsøgte, som havde hjemsted i Storbritannien.
The bankrupt undertaking had had business deal­ings over the course of several months with the defendant, domiciled in Great Britain.
Forhandlings­ og kon­traktsproget var udelukkende engelsk.
The language in which the negotiations were conducted, and the contract concluded, was exclusively English.
Efter mundtlige forhandlinger, som også var blevet ført på engelsk, bestilte skyldneren ved skrivelse affattet på engelsk 20 t kobber­skrot hos sagsøgte.
Following oral negotiations, again conducted in English, the bankrupt undertaking ordered from the defendant, by letter written in English, 20 tonnes of scrap copper.
I overensstemmelse med, hvad skyldneren allerede havde meddelt under forhandlingerne, hed det i begyndelsen af skrivelsen: »Vi bekræfter at have købt følgende i henhold til omstående almindelige forretningsbetingelser ...«.
As had already been notified during the negotiations, the be­ginning of the letter read: 'We confirm our purchase from you as follows, on the basis of our General Conditions of Business printed overleaf ...'.
På bagsiden af ordreskrivelsen var skyldnerens almindelige forretningsbetingelser trykt på tysk.
The bankrupt undertak­ing's general conditions of business were printed in German on the reverse side of its letter­headed paper.
De indeholdt bl.a. en bestemmelse om, at Dortmund var værneting for begge kontrahenter.
They contained inter alia a provision stating that the courts in Dortmund were to have jurisdiction in relation to both parties to the contract.
Efter skyldnerens ønske medunderskrev sagsøgte ordren og sendte den tilbage til skyld­neren.
At the bankrupt undertaking's request, the defendant countersigned the order form and sent it back to the bankrupt undertaking.
Efter at varen var leveret, kom det til reklamationer, hvorefter skyldneren foran­ledigede kobberskrottet returneret til sagsøgte.
In the light of complaints following the delivery of the goods, the bankrupt undertaking arranged for the scrap copper to be returned to the defendant.
Sagsøgeren hævdede, at dette først skete efter konkursens begyndelse, og at dispositionen derfor ikke var gyldig.
The plaintiff maintained that this did not occur until after the com­mencement of bankruptcy proceedings and that the manner in which it took place was therefore ineffective in law.
Da sagsøgte i mellemtiden havde solgt varen til anden side, forlangte han erstatning.
Since the defendant had in the meantime sold the goods elsewhere, the plaintiff claimed damages.
I modsætning til førsteinstansen fandt Oberlandesgericht, at Landgericht Dortmund havde international kompetence.
Contrary to the decision at first instance, the Oberlandesgericht confirmed the international jurisdiction of the Landgericht Dort­mund.
I det foreliggende tilfælde fandt konventionen som affattet ved tiltrædelseskonventio­nen af 1978 anvendelse.
In the present case, the Oberlandesgericht held, the Convention, as amended by the 1978 Accession Convention, was applicable.
Ganske vist var købekontrakten indgået, inden tiltrædelses­konventionen trådte i kraft, men overgangsbestemmelsen i artikel 34, som i det væsent­lige svarer til formuleringen af artikel 54 i den oprindelige konvention, måtte ligesom denne bestemmelse forstås således, at bestemmelserne i tiltrædelseskonventionen også gjaldt for værnetingsaftaler, som var indgået før dens ikrafttræden.
Although the contract of sale had been concluded prior to the entry into force of this Accession Convention, the transitional provision in Article 34, which corresponded in all essential respects to the wording of Article 54 of the original Convention, was to be understood, in the same way as the lat­ter provision, as meaning that the provisions of the Accession Convention were also to apply in respect of jurisdiction agreements concluded prior to its entry into force.
(fortsat 2) udsætning, at den, der anvender betingelserne, gør dem tilgængelige for medkontra­henten, og at denne med rimelighed kan forventes at få kendskab til værnetingsaftalen i betingelserne, hvis han udviser almindelig opmærksomhed.
The jurisdiction clause in the bankrupt undertaking's general conditions of business had been effectively concluded pursuant to the first alternative in the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 17 of the Brussels Convention.
Dette princip gælder også i de nationale retsordener i Tyskland og Det Forenede Kongerige.
In view of the need for unambiguity, such references had normally to be in the language of the negotiations.
I det foreliggende tilfælde var princippet tilgodeset til trods for, at de almindelige forretningsbetingelser var affattet på tysk og dermed på et andet sprog end forhandlingssproget.
All those conditions had, however, been satisfied in the present case.
Sagsøgte havde nemlig udtrykkeligt accepteret de tysksprogede betingelser.
That principle had been sufficiently com­plied with in this case, despite the fact that the general conditions of business had been printed in German (and thus in a language other than that in which the negotiations had been conducted), since the defendant had expressly accepted the conditions in German.
I betragtning af den betydning og rækkevidde, almindelige forretningsbetingelser har inden for den interna­tionale samhandel, kunne og måtte skyldneren forstå den uindskrænkede accept, der var påført ordreskrivelsen, således, at sagsøgte accepterede betingelserne i den form, hvori de var blevet tilsendt ham.
Given the importance and scope attached to general conditions of business in international trade, the bankrupt undertaking was entitled to interpret, and must have interpreted, the unreserved declaration of acceptance on the order form as meaning that the defendant had accepted the conditions in the form in which they were sent to it.
I den forbindelse spillede det ingen rolle, om der i sag­søgtes firma var nogen, der kunne forstå tysk, da skyldneren ikke havde grund til at rej­se dette spørgsmål.
It was in that regard immaterial whether anyone in the defendant's office understood German, since that question had not arisen for as far as the bankrupt undertaking was concerned.
Skyldneren måtte på grund af accepten tværtimod gå ud fra, at sag­søgte enten havde forstået de almindelige forretningsbetingelser eller havde været parat til at acceptere dem uden at have skaffet sig nærmere kendskab til dem.
In view of the declaration of acceptance the latter must, on the contrary, have proceeded on the basis that the defendant had either understood the general con­ditions of business or, without being fully familiar with them, was prepared to accept them.
Skyldneren måtte navnlig gå ud fra, at sagsøgte som handelsvirksomhed ville gøre eventuelle ind­vendinger gældende sammen med underskriften.
In particular, the bankrupt undertaking was entitled to assume that the defend­ant, as a commercially active undertaking, would have raised any objections it had at the time of signing.
Hvis sagsøgte havde været af den op­fattelse, at firmaet havde krav på oversættelse af forretningsbetingelserne, skulle det have forlangt dette eller afvist at acceptere betingelserne.
Had the defendant taken the view that it was entitled to have a translation of the commercial terms, it should have made a request to that effect or else rejected the terms.
Sagsøgte burde imidlertid un­der ingen omstændigheder — som det gjorde — have foranlediget, at skyldneren ved sin underskrift gennemførte forretningen i tillid til sagsøgtes samtykke.
In no event, however, should it have induced the bankrupt under­taking, as it did by its signature, to go through with the transaction in the belief that the defendant had declared its acceptance.
Bundesgerichtshof afviste sagsøgtes revisionsanke af den ovenfor gengivne dom (ken­delse af 31. oktober 1989 — VIII ZR 330/88; IPRax 1991, 326, kommenteret af Kohler, 299; IPRspr. 1989, nr. 197; WM 1989, 1941).
The Bundesgerichtshof rejected the defendant's appeal on a point of law against the above judgment (decision of 31 October 1989 ­ VIII ZR 330/88; IPRax 1991, 326, Note: Kohler, 299; IPRspr. 1989, No 197; WM 1989, 1941).
Appelinstansens konstatering af, at der fo­relå en uindskrænket accept fra sagsøgtes side, vedrørte bedømmelsen af sagens fakti­ske omstændigheder. Den kunne i hvert fald ikke kritiseres af retlige grunde, når hen­visningen i ordren til de almindelige forretningsbetingelser, som var trykt på bagsiden af ordren — som i det foreliggende tilfælde — var sket på parternes forhandlings­ og kontraktsprog (engelsk).
The appellate court's find­ing that the defendant had unreservedly declared its acceptance was primarily an issue
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — formkrav — værnetingsklausul i almindelige for­retningsbetingelser, som var gengivet i ordrebekræftelsen — ingen udtrykkelig accept — formen i overensstemmelse med de af parterne fulgte internationale sædvaner — klausu­len var gyldig
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Formal requirements — Jurisdiction clause contained in general conditions of business, reproduced in the confirmation of order — Absence of express acceptance — Form corresponding to international commercial prac­tice observed by the parties — Validity of the clause
Det franske selskab Laine Frères havde i 1985 købt stof hos det engelske selskab Micro­stof Textiles.
The French company Laine Frères had in 1985 purchased material from the English company Microstof Textiles.
Da stoffet viste sig at være behæftet med mangler, anlagde køberen, efter at konventionen om Det Forenede Kongeriges tiltrædelse af Bruxelles­konventionen var trådt i kraft, sag ved Tribunal de commerce de Paris med påstand om erstatning af det lidte tab.
As the material had proved to be defective, the purchaser had brought an action, following the entry into force of the Convention on the Acces­sion of the United Kingdom, before the Tribunal de commerce, Paris, in which it sought compensation for the damage which it claimed to have incurred.
En af sælgeren fremsat indsigelse om, at retten savnede kompetence som følge af en værnetingsklausul til fordel for de britiske retter, blev ikke taget til følge, idet retten ikke fandt det godtgjort, at køberen havde accepteret klausulen.
An objection of inadmissibility raised by the vendor on the basis of a jurisdiction clause in favour of the courts in the United Kingdom was dismissed, on the ground that it had not been proved that the purchaser had agreed to that clause.
For Cour d'appel framsatte sælgeren under henvisning til klausulen, som var indeholdt i selska­bets almindelige forretningsbetingelser, på ny indsigelse om, at de franske retter savne­de kompetence.
Before the Cour d'appel, Microstof once again invoked that clause, which was contained in its general conditions of busi­ness, in its objection that the French courts lacked jurisdiction.
Cour d'appel undersøgte, om køberen havde accepteret værnetingsklausulen.
The Cour d'appel examined whether the purchaser had agreed to the jurisdiction clause.
Retten anførte, at sagsøgeren — trods et vedvarende forretningsforhold mellem de to selska­ber — aldrig havde underskrevet eller returneret den del af ordrebekræftelsen, som indeholdt en udtrykkelig accept af de salgsvilkår, der var trykt på bagsiden af ordre­bekræftelsen, herunder værnetingsklausulen.
It noted that despite the fact that the two companies had had a prolonged busi­ness relationship, Laine Frères had never signed or sent back to Microstof that portion of the confirmation of order which contained express acceptance of the conditions of sale, including the jurisdiction clause, printed on the reverse side of that confirmation.
Sagsøgeren havde derfor ikke udtrykke­ligt accepteret sagsøgtes salgsvilkår, herunder værnetingsklausulen.
The court held that there was consequently no express acceptance by Laine Frères of Microstof s conditions of sale, including the jurisdiction agreement.
Den omstændighed, at køberen ikke havde gjort indsigelse imod den af sælgeren frem­sendte ordrebekræftelse, kunne ikke føre til et andet resultat, da det normalt ikke kan sidestilles med en accept af klausulen, at aftalen opfyldes, uden at der fremsættes en så­dan indsigelse. Det forholdt sig imidlertid anderledes i den internationale samhandel mellem forretningsdrivende inden for samme branche — et område der nødvendigvis var præget af mindre formalisme — når aftalen indgik i et vedvarende forretningsfor­hold på grundlag af sælgers almindelige forretningsbetingelser, som køber ifølge sa­gens natur var bekendt med og havde accepteret.
Although the fact that the purchaser had not objected to the confirmation of order sent by the vendor could not lead to any different result, since the performance of a contract without such objection was not in general tantamount to acceptance of the clause, the position was different in the case of an international business relationship between companies engaged in the same type of trade — an area in which formalities were necessarily reduced — if the contract was concluded within the context of ongoing commercial relations on the basis of the vendor's general terms, with which the pur­chaser was necessarily conversant and to which he agreed.
Optagelsen af en værnetingsklausul i en ordrebekræftelse var derfor — selv om dette dokument ikke var underskrevet af den anden part — i overensstemmelse med internationale sædvaner i konventionens for­stand, som regelmæssigt fulgtes af parterne som specialister på dette område, og som de måtte antages at have kendskab til.
Even though not signed by the other party, the inclusion of a jurisdiction clause in a confirmation of order corre­sponded to international practice within the meaning of the Convention which were generally observed by the parties, as specialists in the trade concerned, and with which they were deemed to be familiar.
Cour d'appel fastslog derfor, at klausulen var gyldig, og at Tribunal de commerce de Paris havde savnet kompetence.
The Cour d'appel accordingly accepted that the clause was valid and declared that the Tribunal de commerce, Paris, lacked jurisdiction.
Artikel 17, stk. 2, 1968­affattelsen Artikel 17, stk. 3, 1978/1982­affattelsen
Article 17, second para., 1968 version Article 17, third para., 1978/1982 version
[ingen gyldig aftale i tilfælde, hvor der gælder præceptive kompetenceregler]
[Agreement of no effect if contrary to a mandatory rule on jurisdiction]
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — ingen fravigelse ved aftale af præceptive kompe­tenceregler eller regler om enekompetence — aftale om køb af en fast ejendom i ikke­konventionsstat — kompetenceaftale til fordel for retterne i en konventionsstat — ikke gyl­dig
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — No contractual exclusion of mandatory or exclusive jurisdiction — Contract for the sale of land situated in a non­contracting State — Agreement conferring jurisdiction on the courts of a Contracting State — Held invalid
Sagsøgeren, et selskab med hjemsted i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland, havde indstævnet et selskab med hjemsted i Spanien for Arrondissementsrechtbank Rotter­dam til opfyldelse af en aftale om køb af en fast ejendom i Spanien.
The plaintiff, a company incorporated under German law and based in the Federal Re­public of Germany, brought an action in the Arrondissementsrechtbank, Rotterdam, against a company incorporated under Spanish law and based in Spain, in which it sought performance of a contract for the sale of a piece of land situated in Spain.
Over for sagsøgtes anbringende om, at retten manglede kompetence, påberåbte sagsøgeren sig en bestem­melse i købekontrakten, ifølge hvilken nederlandsk lov »skal finde anvendelse ved op­fyldelsen af denne aftale«, og hvori det videre hed: »værneting for begge parter i Rot­terdam«.
In answer to the defendant's submission that the court did not have jurisdiction, the plain­tiff relied on a term of the contract which stipulated that 'the performance of this con­tract shall be governed by' the law of the Netherlands and that 'the courts in Rotterdam shall have jurisdiction over both parties'.
Retten anså sig ikke for kompetent.
The court declared that it had no jurisdiction.
Den udtalte, at der ikke i nederlandsk ret var grundlag for nederlandske retters interna­tionale kompetence i et tilfælde som det foreliggende.
It stated that under the law of the Netherlands there was no basis for attributing inter­national jurisdiction to the courts of the Netherlands in this instance.
Herefter kunne rettens kompe­tence ikke begrundes i værnetingsklausulen i købekontrakten.
In those circum­stances the jurisdiction of the court could not be founded on the jurisdiction clause contained in the contract of sale.
Kompetence kunne hel­ler ikke støttes på denne klausul, selv om det antoges, at sagsøgeren med rette havde kunnet påberåbe sig domskonventionen — der ikke gjaldt for Spanien.
Nor could that clause be used to establish jurisdiction even if the assumption were made that the plaintiff could properly rely on the Brussels Convention, which was not applicable to Spain.
Det måtte nem­lig allerede på grundlag af konventionens artikel 16, nr. 1, jfr. artikel 17, stk. 2, antages, at retterne i den konventionsstat, i hvilken den faste ejendom er beliggende, var ene­kompetente i det foreliggende tilfælde.
It must be accepted on the basis of Article 16(1), taken in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 17, that the courts of the Contracting State in which the immovable property was situated had ex­clusive jurisdiction to entertain the action.
KONVENTION AF 27.9.1968 - ARTIKEL 17, STK. 3
CONVENTION OF 27. 9.
Artikel 17, stk. 3, 1968-affattelsen Artikel 17, stk. 4, 1978/1982affattelsen
Article 17, third para., 1968 version Article 17, fourth para., 1978/1982 version
1-17.3 — A 1 Dom af 24. juni 1986 [Femte Afdeling] i), sag 22/85, Anterist mod Crédit Lyonnais (anmodning om præjudiciel afgørelse indgivet af Bundesgerichtshof) Sml.
1­17.3 — A 1 Judgment of 24 June 1986 (Fifth Chamber),' Case 22/85 Anterist ν Crédit Lyonnais [1986] ECR 1951 (Preliminary ruling requested by the Bundesgerichtshof) Advocate General: M. Darmon (p. 1952)
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — værnetingsaftale »kun ... indgået til fordel for én af parterne« — begreb — kriterier
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Agreement conferring jurisdiction for the benefit of only one of the parties' — Definition — Criteria
Sagsøgeren i hovedsagen, en'fransk bank, var kreditor i et selskab, som ligeledes havde hjemsted i Frankrig.
The plaintiff in the main proceedings, a French bank, was the creditor of a company whose registered office was also in France.
Sagsøgte, som var bosat i Saarbrücken (Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland), påtog sig over for sagsøgeren en kaution for skyldnerens forpligtelser.
The defendant, who was resident in Saar­brücken (Federal Republic of Germany) stood surety for the debtor company's lia­bilities to the bank.
Sag søgeren repræsenteredes herved af sin afdeling i Forbach, som ligger i Sarreguemines retskreds (Frankrig).
The plaintiff was represented in the matter by its branch in For­bach, which was within the jurisdiction of the court of Sarreguemines (France).