natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
1968 ­ ARTIKEL I. STK. 2
1968 - ARTICLE 1 (2)
(fortsat 1) terne skilsmisse, og endvidere var der truffet bestemmelse om forældremyndighed og un­derholdspligt.
(continued 1)
Følgelig meddelte den fuldbyrdelsespåteg­ning, for så vidt angik spørgsmålene om forældremyndigheden, om underholdspligten samt for så vidt angik den luxembourgske rets omkostningsafgørelse.
Accordingly, it ordered enforcement of the provisions of the Luxembourg judgment relating to maintenance, custody and costs.
Anvendelsesområde — ikke­omfattede retsområder — »konkurs, akkord og andre lignende ordninger« — (artikel l, stk. 2, nr. 2) sag anlagt af en belgisk kurator mod et nederlandsk selskab vedrørende et »af konkursen flydende krav« — konventionen fandt ikke anvendelse
Scope — Excluded matters — "Bankruptcy, proceedings relating to the windingup of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial arrangements, compositions and analogous proceedings" (subparagraph (2) of the second paragraph of Article 1) — Ac­tion by a Belgian liquidator (curateur) against a Netherlands company in respect of a "claim arising out of the insolvency " — Convention held inapplicable
Forholdet til andre konventioner — nederlandsk­belgisk konvention af 28. marts 1925 — fortsat gældende i konkurssager
Relationship to other conventions — Convention between Belgium and the Nether­lands of 28 March 1925 — Continued validity in respect of insolvency
Et belgisk selskabs bo var taget under konkursbehandling ved dom afsagt af den kom­petente ret.
An order was made by the competent court for the liquidation of an insolvent Belgian company.
Kort forinden havde en kreditor — et selskab med hjemsted i Nederlandene — sat sig i besiddelse af varer fra det belgiske selskab og havde modregnet sine fordrin­ger i varernes pris.
Shortly before, a creditor (an undertaking with its registered office in the Ne­therlands) had taken possession of goods belonging to the company and sought to set certain claims off against the purchase price of the goods.
Under henvisning til artikel 445 i den belgiske konkurslov — hvoref­ter visse dispositioner og formuebevægelser i tiden før konkursens begyndelse ingen rets­virkning har over for boet — gjorde kurator gældende, at modregningen manglede rets­virkning, og sagsøgte det nederlanske selskab ved Tribunal de commerce de Tournai til betaling af varernes pris til boet.
Relying on Article 445 of the Belgian Law on insolvency (according to which certain acts and transfers of property prior to the start of liquidation proceedings by the court are void as against the liquida­tor), the liquidator (curateur) claimed that the set-off was invalid and brought an action before the Tribunal de Commerce, Tournai, against the Netherlands undertaking for payment of the purchase price into the assets.
Sagsøgte fremsatte ved sagens begyndelse indsigelse mod rettens kompetence.
The defendant made a preliminary objec­tion to the jurisdiction of the court.
Retten forkastede denne indsigelse, idet den anførte, at dens kompetence ganske vist ikke fulgte af domskonventionen; konventionen kunne ikke finde anvendelse på den fo­religgende sag, da der var tale om en konkurssag i konventionens artikel 1, stk. 2, nr. 2's forstand.
The court dismissed the objection, stating that its jurisdiction did not arise under the Brussels Convention, which was not applicable to the case, being proceedings relating to the windingup of an insolvent company within the meaning of subparagraph (2) of the second paragraph of Article 1 of the Convention.
Den kunstigt tilvejebragte modregning, der skete i tilslutning til fjernelsen af varerne, var en fyldestgørelse, som fandt sted i den såkaldte »période suspecte« før kon­kursens begyndelse, og som var uden retsvirkning i forhold til konkursboet; det heraf følgende betalingskrav, som kurator havde gjort gældende under sagen, var et typisk ek­sempel på »et af konkursen flydende krav«.
The contrived set-off in connexion with the removal of the goods constituted a benefit in lieu of performance during the "periode suspecte" before the commencement of the liquidation and was void as against the liquidator. The claim in the action brought by the liquidator was a typical example of "a claim arising out of insolvency".
Retten var imidlertid kompetent i medfør af artikel 21 i den nederländsk­belgiske kon­vention af 28. marts 1925 om retternes kompetence, om konkurs samt om anerkendelse
Nevertheless, the court before which the matter had been brought had jurisdiction under Article 21 of the Convention between Belgium and the Netherlands on jurisdiction, bankruptcy, and the validity and enforcement of judgments, arbitration awards and authentic instruments of 28 March 1925, and this continued to have effect under Arti­cle 56 of the Brussels Convention in respect of insolvency proceedings.
1968 ­ ARTIKEL 1, STK. 2
1968 ­ ARTICLE 1 (2)
I en dom af 22. marts 1977 i sagen Van Rolleghem mod Roth statuerede Tribunal de commerce de Bruxelles, at konventionen fandt anvendelse i en sag, under hvilken en ku­rator påstod betaling for varer, som skyldneren havde leveret til sagsøgte før konkur­sens begyndelse.
In a judgment of 22 March 1977, in Van Rolleghem ν Roth, the Tribunal de Commerce, Brussels, approved the applicability of the Convention in a matter in which a trustee in bankruptcy claimed the purchase price of goods which the bankrupt had supplied to the defendant before the commencement of bankruptcy proceedings.
Retten udtalte, at sagen»ikke havde sin oprindelse i konkursretten« og ikke var en direkte følge af konkursen ; sagen angik tværtimod et pengekrav, som skyld­neren efter alt at dømme selv ville have gjort gældende, hvis konkurs ikke var indtrådt.
The Court stated that the proceedings did not have their origin in bankruptcy law and were not the direct con­sequence of the bankruptcy. It was on the contrary a claim for payment which the bank­rupt would no doubt himself have made if he had not become insolvent.
I en sag, der blev afgjort ved dom af 16. september 1977 afsagt af Rechtbank von koophandel Gent i sagen Cie Française des Transports Drouin mod Curator faillisse­ment PVBA Intertrucking, havde et belgisk selskab ved denne ret erhvervet udeblivelses­dom over et fransk selskab, som begærede sagen genoptaget.
In a case which was decided by judgment of the Rechtbank van Koophandel, Ghent, on 16 September 1977, Cie Française des Transports Drouin ν Curator Faillissement PVBA Intertrucking, a Belgian company obtained judgment in default from that court against a French company. The defendant appealed.
Det belgiske selskabs bo var i mellemtiden taget under konkursbehandling.
In the meantime liquidation proceedings were commenced against the Belgian company.
Genoptagelsessagen førtes derpå mod kurator.
The appeal was accordingly continued against the liquidator.
Retten fastslog, at konventionen kunne finde anvendelse, da den oprinde­lige retssag ikke havde nogen forbindelse med konkursen.
The court observed that the Convention was applicable since the original case had no connexion with the liquidation.
Anvendelsesområde — ikke­omfattede retsområder — arv efter loven eller testamente (ar­tikel 1, stk. 2, nr. 1) — en fransk domstols afgørelse vedrørende »envoi en possession« efter fransk ret af en universalarving ifølge testamente — fuldbyrdelse i Belgien tilladt
Scope — Excluded matters — Wills and succession (subparagraph (1) of the second para­graph of Article 1) — Decision of a French court on the "envoi en possession " of a universal successor under French law — Order issued for enforcement in Belgium
Præsidenten for Tribunal de grande instance d'Amiens (Frankrig) afsagde den 19. august 1977 i henhold til artikel 1 008 i code civil en kendelse om indsættelse, »envoi ­en possession«, af rekvirenten som testamentarisk universalarving i besiddelsen af arven efter hendes den 26. oktober 1976 afdøde tante.
The President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Amiens (France), made an order on 19 August 1977 under Article 1008 of the Code Civil for the transfer (envoi en posses­sion) to the applicant, as universal successor, of the estate of her aunt who had died on 26 October 1976.
Til boet hørte fast ejendom i Belgien. Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Kortrijk imødekom anmodningen om i medfør af doms­konventionen at tillade fuldbyrdelse af kendelsen i Belgien.
The estate included land in Belgium.
Retten fastslog, at de i kon­ventionens artikler 46 og 47 nævnte betingelser var opfyldt, og at der ikke forelå omstæn­digheder, som talte imod at tillade fuldbyrdelsen.
The court found that the conditions laid down in Articles 46 and 47 of the Convention were satisfied and that there were no grounds for opposing enforcement.
Udsendelse 1/febmar 1981
Issue 1/February 1981
Anvendelsesområde — ikke­omfattede retsområder —fysiske personers retlige status samt deres rets­ og handleevne (artikel 1, stk. 2, nr. 1) — bestemmelse om en afforældrenes ret til personligt samkvem med barnet — konventionen fandt ikke anvendelse
Scope — Excluded matters — Status or legal capacity of natural persons (subparagraph (1) of the second paragraph of Article 1) — Settlement dealing with a spouse's rights of personal access to his child — Convention held inapplicable.
Rekvirenten anmodede under henvisning til domskonventionen om anerkendelse og fuldbyrdelse i Nederlandene af en af en tysk ret afsagt kendelse, hvorved rekvirenten — i modsætning til, hvad der fulgte af en af den samme ret tidligere afsagt kendelse — havde fået ret til personligt samkvem med sine børn, som opholdt sig i retskredsen for den ret, for hvilken sagen var indbragt.
In reliance on the Brussels Convention the applicant sought the recognition and enfor­cement in the Netherlands of an order made by a German court, which — in variation of a previous order of the same court — dealt with the applicant's rights of personal access to his children, who were resident within the district of the court in question.
Arrondissementsrechtbank afslog anmodningen og udtalte, at den under henvisning til, at domskonventionen i henhold til artikel 1 ikke fandt anvendelse på fysiske personers retlige status samt deres rets­ og handleevne, havde meddelt rekvirenten, at den betragtede anmodningens grundlag som tvivlsomt, og havde givet ham mulighed for at bevise sin modsatte opfattelse på grundlag af retspraksis og litteratur.
The court dismissed the application and stated that it had informed the applicant of its doubts as to the legal foundation of the application, pointing out that, according to Article 1 thereof, the Brussels Convention did not apply to the status or legal capacity of natural persons. The court had given him an opportunity to cite cases or other authority in sup­port of the contrary view.
Rekvirenten havde ikke gjort brug af denne mulighed.
The applicant had not made use ofthat opportunity.
Den op­fattelse, som var kommet til udtryk i meddelelsen til rekvirenten, og som retten fast­holdt, måtte efter rettens opfattelse medføre, at anmodningen om anerkendelse og fuld­byrdelse af den tyske afgørelse vedrørende rekvirentens »samkvemsret« måtte afslås.
The view expressed in the communication addressed to the applicant, to which the court adhered, meant that the application for recognition and enforcement of the German decision on the applicant's right of access had to be dismissed.
Anvendelsesområde — ikke­omfattede retsområder — voldgift (artikel 1, stk. 2, nr.4) — voldgiftskendelse afsagt i Nederlandene og erklæret eksigibel af en nederlandsk domstol — fuldbyrdelse i Belgien tilladt
Scope — Excluded matters — Arbitration (subparagraph (4) of the second paragraph of Article 1) — Arbitration award made in the Netherlands and declared enforceable by a Netherlands court — Order issued for enforcement in Belgium
Et selskab med hjemsted i Nederlandene havde erhvervet en voldgiftskendelse, hvorved rekvisitus, der var bosiddende i Belgien, var blevet tilpligtet at betale en række nærmere bestemte beløb.
A company with its registered office in the Netherlands obtained an arbitration award ordering the defendant, resident in Belgium, to pay certain sums of money.
Den 20. januar 1978 erklærede præsidenten for Arrondissementsrecht­bank Breda i henhold til artikel 642 i den nederlandske Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechts­vordering voldgiftskendelsen eksigibel.
On 20 Janu­ary 1979 the President of the Arrondissementsrechtbank, Breda, declared the arbitra­tion award enforceable pursuant to Article 642 of the Netherlands Wetboek van Burger­lijke Rechtsvordering.
På det nederlandske selskabs anmodning tillod Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel fuldbyrdelse i Belgien på grundlag af domskonven­tionen.
On the application of the Netherlands company the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg, Brussels, granted an order for enforcement in Belgium on the basis of the Brussels Convention.
1­1.2 — Β 9 Tribunal de grande instance de Dieppe, kendelse af 8.8.1978, Denisse mod von Frederici sammendrag i : Gazette du Palais 1979, Somm., s. 68
1­1.2 — Β 9 Tribunal de Grande Instance, Dieppe, Order of 8 August 1978, Denisse ν Von Frederici Gazette du Palais 1979, Somm., p. 68
Anvendelsesområde — ikke­omfattede retsområder — fysiske personers retlige status samt deres rets­ og handleevne (artikel 1, stk. 2, nr. 1) — bestemmelse om en afforældrenes ret til personligt samkvem med barnet samt ret til at bestyre barnets formue efter skilsmisse — konventionen fandt anvendelse
Scope — Excluded matters — Status or legal capacity of natural persons (subparagraph (I) of the second paragraph of Article 1) — Decision dealing with a spouse's rights of perso­nal access to the child and administration of the child's property after divorce — Conven­tion held applicable.
Rekvirenten i denne sag var rekvisitae fraskilte mand.
The applicant was the divorced husband of the respondent.
Ved skilsmissedommen var for­ældremyndigheden over fællesbarnet blevet tillagt moderen og rekvirentens ret til per­sonligt samkvem med barnet fastlagt.
The divorce decree gave custody of the child of the marriage to the respondent and dealt with the applicant's rights of personal access to the child.
Rekvirenten anmodede efterfølgende om ændring af denne bestemmelse samt om overdragelse af retten til at bestyre barnets formue og indstævnede med henblik herpå moderen, der ligesom barnet boede i Forbundsrepublik­ken Tyskland, for afdelingen for familieretlige sager ved Tribunal de grande instance de Dieppe.
The applicant sought a variation of that decision and the transfer of the right to administer the child's property situated in France and for that purpose brought proceedings in the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Dieppe, against the respondent, who lived in the Federal Republic of Germany, as did the child.
Rekvisita gjorde gældende, at denne ret savnede kompetence; tværtimod var Amtsgericht Uelzen (Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland) kompetent i henhold til domskon­ventionen, subsidiært i henhold til Haag­konventionen af 5. oktober 1961 om beskyt­telse af mindreårige.
The re­spondent submitted that the court had no jurisdiction; instead, it was argued, the Amts­gericht Uelzen (Federal Republic of Germany) had jurisdiction under the Brussels Con­vention, or in the alternative under The Hague Convention of 5 October 1961 on the protection of minors.
Retten udtalte, at den savnede kompetence.
The court declined jurisdiction.
Den anførte, at sagens genstand — indrøm­melse af en udvidet samkvemsret og ret til at bestyre barnets formue — på ingen måde berørte fysiske personers retlige status eller deres rets­ og handleevne, således at doms­konventionen kunne finde anvendelse. I henhold til dennes artikel 3 kunne rekvirenten ikke, således som han havde gjort, påberåbe sig artiklerne 14 og 15 i code civil.
It stated that the subject­matter of the proceedings — the granting of extended rights of access and authorization to administer a child's pro­perty — in no way concerned the status or legal capacity of natural persons, with the re­sult that the Brussels Convention was applicable.
Da sa­gens genstand ikke faldt ind under bestemmelserne i afsnit 1, afdelingerne 2—6, havde den i Tyskland bosiddende rekvisita ikke kunnet indstævnes for en fransk domstol.
Since the subject­matter of the proceedings did not fall within the provisions of Sections 2 to 6 of Title II, the respondent, who was resident in Germany, could not be sued in a French court.
At retten manglede kompetence fremgik endvidere af Haag­konventionen.
Nor did the Court have jurisdiction under The Hague Convention.
Amtsgericht Uelzen, som allerede havde truffet to afgørelser vedrørende barnet, var herefter kompe­tent.
Under that con­vention the Amtsgericht Uelzen, which had already made two orders concerning the child, had jurisdiction.
Anvendelsesområde — ikke­omfattede retsområder — arv efter loven eller testamente (ar­tikel 1, stk. 2, nr. 1) — en fransk rets afgørelse vedrørende udpegelse af en midlertidig ekse­kutor —fuldbyrdelse i Belgien tilladt
Scope — Excluded matters — Wills and succession (subparagraph (1) of the second para­graph of Article 1) — Decision of a French court on the appointment of a provisional admin­istrator — Order issued for enforcement in Belgium
Ved kendelse af 14. august 1974 traf præsidenten for Tribunal de grande instance de Paris under en sag vedrørende foreløbig retsbeskyttelse bestemmelse om udpegelse af en midlertidig eksekutor i dødsboet efter rekvirentens den 6. juli 1945 afdøde ægtemand.
An order made on 14 August 1974 by the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Paris, in proceedings for interim relief provided for the appointment of a provisional administrator of the estate of the applicant's husband, who died on 6 July 1945.
1968 ­ ARTIKEL I. STK. 2
(continued 1)
(fortsat I) big eksigibel, bl.a. undersøgelse om arvingerne, registrering af boet, salg af boets gen­stande samt andre bobehandlingsforanstaltninger.
According to that order, which was declared provisionally enforceable, the duties of the administrator included the ascertainment of the heirs, the identification of the estate, the sale of property belonging to the estate and other administrative measures.
Modparter under sagen for den franske ret var blandt andre arveladerens efterkommere i Belgien. På rekvirentens an­modning tillod Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles fuldbyrdelse af kendelsen i Belgien i henhold til domskonventionen artiklerne 1—5 samt artiklerne 31—49.
The respond­ents in the proceedings before the French court included descendants of the deceased who were resident in Belgium.
Udsendelse 1/februar 1981
Issue I/February 1981
Afsnit II ­ KOMPETENCE
Title II ­ JURISDICTION
Afdeling 1 ­ ALMINDELIGE BESTEMMELSER (artikel 2 — artikel 4)
Section 1 ­GENERAL PROVISIONS (Articles 2 to 4)
Konventionens personelle anvendelsesområde — sag anlagt ved en fransk ret af et selskab med hjemsted i Monaco mod en i Italien bosat sagsøgt — konventionen fandt ikke anven­delse
Scope of the Convention ratione personae — Action brought in a French court by a com­pany incorporated in Monaco against a defendant resident in Italy — Convention not appli­cable
Et aktieselskab med hjemsted i Monte Carlo (Monaco) anlagde sag ved Tribunal de commerce de Nice (Frankrig) mod en italiensk handlende i Pesaro (Italien) med påstand om erstatning for misligholdelse af en aftale, der gav sagsøgeren ret til eneforhandling af sagsøgtes produkter i Frankrig og Monaco.
A limited company incorporated under the law of Monaco, with its registered office in Monte Carlo (Monaco) brought an action in the Tribunal de Commerce, Nice (France), against an Italian trader resident in Pesaro (Italy), claiming damages for breach of a con­tract which made the plaintiff sole distributor of the defendant's products in France and Monaco.
Sagsøgte gjorde gældende, at den franske ret ikke var kompetent og henviste herved til, at retten i Pesaro efter domskonventionen artikel 5 var kompetent, idet aftalen var indgået og skulle opfyldes dér.
The defendant submitted that the French court had no jurisdiction and expres­sed the view that under Article 5 of the Brussels Convention the court in Pesaro had juris­diction over the dispute, since the contract in question was concluded there and was to be performed there.
Retten i første instans forkastede ved dom indsigelsen om manglende kompetence.
In its judgment the court of first instance rejected the submission that it lacked jurisdiction.
Appelinstansen ændrede imidlertid afgørelsen.
The appeal against that judgment succeeded.
Appelinstansen udtalte, at sagsøgte var italiensk statsborger og bosat i Italien, hvorimod det sagsøgende selskab var registreret i og havde sit hjemsted i fyrstendømmet Monaco.
The Cour d'Appel stated that although the defendant was an Italian national resident in Italy, the plaintiff company was of Monaco nationality and had its registered office in the principality of Monaco.
Denne stat var imidlertid ikke medlem af Det europæiske økonomiske Fællesskab, hvis medlemsstater havde undertegnet domskonventionen.
That State did not belong to the European Economic Community, the members of which had signed the Brussels Convention.
Konventionens kompetencereg­ler kunne derfor ikke finde anvendelse på det foreliggende tilfælde.
Therefore the rules on jurisdiction contained in that Convention could not be applied in the present case.
Hvorvidt Tribunal de commerce de Nice var kompetent i den foreliggende sag, måtte herefter afgøres alene på grundlag af fransk international privatret.
Consequently the Tribunal de Commerce, Nice, could acquire jurisdiction to entertain the action only under the rules of French private international law.
(fortsat 1) ting eller ved retten på det sted, hvor varen faktisk var leveret eller tjenesteydelsen er lagt.
(continued 1) fendant was domiciled abroad, it was necessary to consider Article 46 of the new (French) Code of Civil Procedure, whereby in disputes arising out of a contract, in addi­tion to jurisdiction being given to the courts for the defendant's place of domicile, the courts for the place where the object was actually delivered or the service rendered had jurisdiction.
Efter at have gennemgået kontrakten samt de faktiske omstændigheder kom appel instansen til det resultat, at kontraktens opfyldelse heller ikke i medfør af den nævnte artikel 46 kunne lokaliseres til Frankrig, idet den misligholdelse, der lå til grund for sa gen, havde haft sin oprindelse i Italien.
After examining the contract in question and the actual circumstances of the case the Cour d'Appel came to the conclusion that even if the said Article 46 were applied the actual performance of the contract could not be localized in France, espe­cially as the breach of contract out of which the dispute arose originated in Italy.
Herefter var der intet grundlag for, at en fransk ret skulle være kompetent.
There­fore there existed no basis on which a French court could found jurisdiction.
Afdeling 2 - SPECIELLE KOMPETENCEREGLER (artikel 5 — artikel 6)
Section 2 - SPECIAL JURISDICTION (Articles 5 and 6)
[kompetence i sager om kontraktsforhold]
[Jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract]
Reglens anvendelsesområde. Begrebet »forpligtelse«.
General; scope of the provision; the term "obligation".
Dom af 6.10.1976, sag 14/76,
1­5.1.1 — A 1 Judgment of 6 October 1976, Case 14/76 Ets. Α.
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — opfyldelsesværneting — begrebet »forpligtelse« i artikel 5, nr. 1
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction of the courts for the place of performance — 77ie term "obligation" in Article5 (1)
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — værneting i sager vedrørende driften af en filial, et agentur eller en lignende virksomhed (artikel 5, nr. 5) — betingelser
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction in relation to a branch, agency or other establishment (Article 5 (1)) — Conditions