natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Det tyske firma begrundede arresten med, at dommen for dets fordring mod det franske firma skulle fuldbyrdes i udlandet (§917, stk. 2, i Zivilprozessordnung [ZPO]).
The ground which the Hamburg firm had advanced in seeking the attachment order had been that the judgment on the principal claim would need to be enforced abroad (second paragraph of Article 917 of the Zivilprozessordnung (ZPO) [German Code of Civil Procedure]).
Efter afsigelsen af arrestdekretet anlagde firmaet fra Hamburg sag om fordrin­gen ved handelsretten i Paris.
After the attachment order had been made, the Hamburg firm brought an action on the principal claim in the Tribunal de Commerce, Paris.
Det franske firma havde i mellemtiden rejst indsigelse mod arresten, som dog blev stadfæstet af Landgericht ved dom.
In the meantime the French firm had applied to have the attachment order set aside but the Landgericht refused to grant that application.
Det franske firma appel­lerede denne afgørelse og fik medhold.
The appeal brought by the French firm against that refusal was successful.
Oberlandesgericht udtalte, at da der ikke var noget værneting for hovedsagen i henhold til domskonventionen — godsværnetinget i tysk procesret (§ 23 i ZPO) er udelukket ved konventionens artikel 3, stk. 2 — måtte tyske retters internationale kompetence have et særligt grundlag.
As the courts in the Federal Republic of Germany did not have jurisdiction under the Brussels Convention as regards the substance of the matter — jurisdiction under Arti­cle 23 of the ZPO by virtue of the presence of property belonging to the defendant within the territorial jurisdiction of the court was excluded by the second paragraph of Article 3 of the Convention — a separate basis was necessary to give the German courts jurisdiction.
Oberlandesgericht henviste herved til konventionens artikel 24, hvor­efter tyske retter også er kompetente, selv om retterne i en anden kontraherende stat i medfør af konventionen har kompetence til at afgøre hovedsagen.
In this respect the Oberlandesgericht relied on Article 24 of the Convention under which the German courts may still grant provisional measures, even if under the Convention the courts of another Contracting State have jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter.
Ifølge tysk procesret (§ 919 i ZPO) var i dette tilfælde den ret kompetent, i hvis retskreds det gods, hvori arre­sten skulle foretages, befandt sig.
German procedural law (Article 919 ZPO) conferred jurisdiction in such a case on the courts in whose district the property which was to be attached was situated.
Oberlandesgericht afviste dog, at den arrestgrund — fuldbyrdelse i udlandet (§917, stk. 2, i ZPO) — som Landgericht havde anført, skulle fo­religge, og anførte, at denne regel kun fandt anvendelse, når en tysk dom skal fuldbyr­des i udlandet.
However, the Oberlandesgericht held that the ground for protective measures acted on by the Landgericht, namely the fact that enforcement would have to take place outside Germany (Article 917 (2) ZPO), was not applicable and stated that that provision was only available where a German judgment had to be enforced in a foreign country.
Formålet med §917, stk. 2, var at bevare værdien af et tysk eksekutions­fundament under tvangsfuldbyrdelsen, hvorfor reglen ikke omfattede udenlandske domme.
Arti­cle 917 (2) sought to maintain the usefulness of a German judgment by facilitating its en­forcement and therefore did not apply to foreign judgments.
Denne bestemmelse var heller ikke ubillig for tyske kreditorer i tilfælde, hvor debitor ifølge domskonventionen skulle sagsøges i sin bopælsstat, da konventionen til­sigter at afskaffe enhver forskelsbehandling mellem personer i de kontraherende stater.
The rule was not unfair to German creditors even if, under the Brussels Convention, the debtor had to be sued in
Kompetence — foreløbige retsmidler — anvendelsen bedømmes efter national ret — fuld­byrdelse af tyske domme i udlandet som arrestgrund — dette princips fortsatte gyldighed indenfor rammerne af domskonventionen
Jurisdiction — Provisional measures — Admissibility governed by national law — Neces­sity of enforcing German judgments abroad as a ground for seeking an order for attach­ment in security of a claim — Principle still valid in the context of the Brussels Convention
Arrestrekvirenten havde anerkendte fordringer mod den nederlandske skyldner.
The plaintiff sought an attachment order in security of claims against the Netherlands defendant which were not disputed.
Efter at skyldneren havde standset sine betalinger og i Nederlandene anmodet om et morato­rium, havde arrestrekvirenten ladet foretage arrest i skyldnerens gods i Forbundsrepu­blikken. Amtsgericht stadfæstede arrestdekretet.
After the defendant had discontinued payments and asked in the Netherlands for a postponement of the payment of the debt, the plaintiff obtained an order for attachment of the defendant's assets in the Federal Republic of Germany.
Amtsgericht udtalte, at den tyske internationale kompetence reguleredes af konventio­nens artikel 24; arten af de retsmidler, der stod til rådighed, bestemtes af tysk national ret.
The international jurisdiction of the German courts was governed by Article 24 of the Convention ; the kind of measures to be ordered was determined by domestic German law.
Arrest kunne finde sted i henhold til § 917, stk. 2, i den [tyske] Zivilprozessordnung, hvorefter det skal anses som tilstrækkelig arrestgrund, at en dom skal fuldbyrdes i udlan­det.
The attachment was lawful under Article 917 (2) of the Zivilprozessordnung [Code of Civil Procedure], which provided that the fact that a judgment had to be enforced in a foreign country was deemed to be an adequate ground for issuing an order for attach­ment.
Retten udtalte, at denne regel også, modsat en fra visse sider hævdet opfattelse fandt anvendelse, når retssagen til prøvelse af fordringen skulle afgøres af en uden­landsk ret.
Contrary to a view held in some quarters, that provision also applied if the sub­stance of the case had to be dealt with by a foreign court.
Reglen fandt også anvendelse over for skyldnere fra andre af EF­konventio­nens kontraherende stater efter dennes ikrafttræden.
Furthermore, it continued to be applicable as against debtors in other Contracting States after the entry into force of the Brussels Convention.
I modsætning til konventionens ar­tikel 3, hvorefter bestemte nationale kompetenceregler ikke længere kan gøres gælden­de, forblev medlemsstaternes lovgivning i henhold til konventionens artikel 24 uden undtagelse anvendelig, for så vidt angår anvendelse af foreløbige retsmidler. Heller ikke det retspolitiske grundlag for § 917, stk. 2, var bortfaldet ved konventionen.
For in contrast to Article 3 of the Convention, which provided that certain national provisions relating to jurisdiction should no longer apply, Arti­cle 24 of the Convention did not affect the applicability of the law of Member States re­lating to the granting of measures.
For selv om afgørelserne også anerkendes i de andre kontraherende stater, skal de dog for at kunne fuldbyrdes stadig på begæring forsynes med en fuldbyrdelsespåtegning i henhold til konventionens artikel 31. Hindringerne for fuldbyrdelsen var således ikke faldet bort, kun blevet mindre.
For, even if judgments were recognised in the other Contracting States, their enforcement was nevertheless still de­pendent on an application for an order for enforcement under Article 31 of the Conven­tion, so that the obstacles to enforcement had not disappeared but had merely been reduced.
(fortsat 1) ten henviste til, at begæringen om den sikrende foranstaltning ikke ville blive påfulgt af et sagsanlæg ved den ret, i bvis retskreds sikringen skulle gennemføres.
The application was dismissed on the ground that no action as to the substance of the matter was to follow the proceedings for protective measures in the court in whose area the protective measures were intended to be executed.
Var dette således ikke tilfældet, bestemmer artikel 1488 i code judiciare, at den foranstaltning, der var an­ordnet i medfør af artikel 1481, uden videre mistede sin virkning.
In that event Article 1488 of the Code Judiciaire provided that the measures ordered under Article 1481 would automati­cally lose their effect.
Patentindehaveren ap­pellerede afgørelsen og fik medhold.
The appeal against that decision was successful.
Denne kompetenceregel, der i øvrigt havde forrang for national belgisk ret, gjaldt også for »saisie­description«, der måtte betragtes som et »sikrende retsmid­del«.
That rule on jurisdiction (which took precedence over munici­pal Belgian law) also applied to proceedings for saisie­description, which were to be treated as "protective measures".
Den vanskelighed, der opstod ved, at foranstaltningen kun fik virkning, såfremt der ved en belgisk ret blev anlagt retssag, skulle overvindes ved, at patentindehaveren blev pålagt at anlægge retssag inden for en bestemt frist ved vedkommende udenlandske ret.
The difficulty arising from the fact that such a meas­ure took effect only if proceedings as to the substance of the matter were instituted in a Belgian court could be circumvented by requiring the applicant to bring the main issue before the foreign court having jurisdisction within a particular period.
Cour d'appel omstødte derfor underinstansens afgørelse, anordnede »saisie­descrip­tion« og pålagde patentindehaveren at anlægge retssag ved den kompetente neder­landske ret inden for den i belgisk lovgivning fastsatte frist.
In quashing the decision of the lower court the appeal court ordered the saisie­description and gave the applicant the same time as that allowed by Belgian law to bring the main matter before the Netherlands court.
I en afgørelse af 13. juni 1977, Soc. des plastics de la Louve SA mod Armosig SA et Pa­penmeirs­France SA, antog Tribunal de première instance de Mons, at reglerne om »sai­sie­description« i artikel 1481 ff i code judiciaire ikke kunne anvendes på udenlandske (in casu: franske) patenter, men kun på patenter, der var registreret i Belgien.
In a decision of 13 June 1977 Soc. des Plastics de la Louve S.A. ν Armosig S.A. et Papen­meiers­France S.A., the Tribunal de Première Instance, Mons, took the view that the pro­cedure of saisie­description under Article 1481 et seq. of the Code Judiciaire did not apply to foreign (in that case, French) patents, but was intended only to protect patents granted in Belgium.
Spørgsmå­let, om domskonventionens artikel 24 måtte føre til andet resultat, blev rejst, men ikke besvaret (Revue de droit intellectuel — l'ingénieur­conseil 1977, s. 426).
The question whether Article 24 of the Brussels Convention altered the position was raised but left open (Revue de Droit Intellectuel — l'Ingénieur­Conseil 1977, p. 426).
Også i dette tilfælde havde rekvirenten påberåbt sig §917, stk. 2, i Zivilprozessordnung som grundlag for arrestbegæringen, nemlig at der skulle ske fuldbyrdelse i udlandet.
In this case too the applicant relied on the ground for protective measures referred to in Article 917 (2) of the Zivilprozessordnung [Code of Civil Procedure], namely enforce­ment abroad.
I modsætning til Oberlandesgericht Koblenz kom Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf imidler­tid til det resultat, at denne bestemmelse også fandt anvendelse, når en ikke­tysk dom skulle fuldbyrdes i udlandet.
However, contrary to the view taken by the Oberlandesgericht Koblenz, the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf decided that that provision was still applicable when a non­German judgment had to be enforced abroad.
Princippet om, at det skal dreje sig om en tysk dom, kunne ikke finde anvendelse inden for rammerne af domskonventionen.
The principle that it must be a German judgment could not be applied in the context of the Brussels Convention.
Konventionens arti­kel 24 forudsatte netop, at afgørelsen træffes i en anden kontraherende stat.
Ar­ticle 24 of the Convention was based on the assumption that the judgment on the sub­stance of the matter would be delivered in another Contracting State.
Inden for konventionens anvendelsesområde skulle domme fra de kontraherende stater — som skal anerkendes i de andre kontraherende stater, uden at der stilles krav om anvendelse af en særlig fremgangsmåde (konventionens artikel 26) — ligestilles med indenlandske domme. Dette betød imidlertid ikke, at de kontraherende stater stater ikke længere kunne anses som udland i Zivilprozessordnung's § 917, stk. 2's forstand.
Within the scope of the Convention judgments in Contracting States which would be recognized in the other Contracting States without any special procedure being required (Article 26 of the Convention) should be treated in the same way as domestic judgments.
Denne bestem­melse kunne derfor fortsat finde anvendelse i Det europæiske Fællesskab.
Thus in the context of the European Community that provision could still be applicable.
Foreløbige, herunder sikrende retsmidler — arrest efter nederlandsk ret hos en person, der ikke har bopæl i indlandet (vreemdelingenbeslag) — kompetence i henhold til artikel 24 — den ret, der behandler arrestsagen kompetent til at påkende hovedsagen (forum arresti) efter nederlandsk ret — reglen uanvendelig indenfor konventionens rammer
Provisional, including protective, measures — Attachment under Netherlands law of assets of non­residents (vreemdelingenbeslag) — Jurisdiction under Article 24 — Jurisdiction,
(fortsat 1) tent efter konventionen, i dette tilfælde sagsøgtes hjemting i Forbundsrepublikken Tysk­land.
(continued 1) under Netherlands law, of the court ordering the attachment (forum arresti) to try the main action — Inapplicability in the context of the Convention
Retten var derfor kun komptent med hensyn til stadfæstelsen af arresten.
In order to protect its claim it had obtained an order from the Arrondissementsrechtbank, Leeuwarden, for the attachment ad interim of the vessel, which was within the jurisdiction of that court.
Denne afgø­relse udsatte retten i seks måneder for at give sagsøgeren lejlighed til at anlægge sag i an­ledning af fordringen ved den kompetente ret i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland med henblik på at erhverve et eksekutionsfundament, der var eksigibelt i Nederlandene.
In the course of the subsequent pro­ceedings for confirmation of the attachment (vanwaardeverklaring) in the same court the plaintiff commenced the action relating to the principal claim. The defendant did not enter an appearance.
Under sagen behandledes først spørgsmålet, om forbudsbe­gæringen kunne forkyndes for sagsøgte i udlandet og herved gøre engelske retter kompe­tente. Dette spørgsmål blev besvaret bekræftende i en afgørelse fra Court of Appeal den 1. juni 1977 ([1977] 3 Weekly Law Reports 532), efter at underinstanserne havde truffet indbyrdes modstridende afgørelser.
Jurisdiction — Requirements under the Convention — Defendant resident abroad owning assets within the domestic jurisdiction — Not sufficient to found jurisdiction in the substantive action — Jurisdiction to grant provisional measures (Article 24) — Municipal law of the Contracting States — No harmonization of laws in this area
Udsendelse ¡/februar 1981
Issue 1/February 1981
(fortsat 1) res på samme måde som afgørelser fra engelske domstole.
(continued 1)
I øvrigt fulgte det af den til gennemførelse af EØF­traktatens artikel 220 afsluttede domskonvention, som snart ville omfatte Det fore­nede Kongerige, at skyldneren ganske vist principielt skal sagsøges i sin bopælsstat, men at kreditor til sikring af sit krav dog i henhold til konventionens artikel 24 i sin egen stat kan begære anvendt foreløbige retsmidler vedrørende gods, som skyldneren har i sidstnævnte stat.
Scope of the Convention — Original Member States of the European Economic Community — New Member States — Obligations under Article 220 of the EEC Treaty — Negotiations to adopt and modify the Convention — No prior obligation to harmo­nize laws on the basis of the Convention
Dommen blev appelleret og omstødt.
After conflicting decisions by judges of the Com­mercial Court, the Court of Appeal, by a majority, answered that question in the affirma­tive ([1977] 3 WLR 532).
House of Lords antog nemlig, at det for engelske domstoles kompetence i henhold til Order 11, Rule 1 (1) (i) var en forudsætning, at den begærede retsafgørelse skulle være en del af den endelige dom i hovedsagen, der til­stræbtes på grundlag af det materielretlige krav, der blev gjort gældende.
The leave to serve could be granted under Order 11, Rule 1 (1) (i) of the Rules of the Supreme Court, since the injunction applied for with the writ relat­ed to an independent claim to do or refrain from doing something within the jurisdic­tion of the court; it was irrelevant whether the claim for damages, which the English courts could not decide, was valid.
En retsafgø­relse med henblik på skyldnerens gods inden for rettens kompetenceområde ville kun kunne træffes, såfremt fordringshaveren — med henblik på netop dette gods — gjorde sådanne rettigheder gældende, der kunne gennemføres ved engelske domstole.
Giving judgment, Lord Denning stated inter alia that the actual objective of the injunction sought was to restrain the defendant from dispos­ing of its assets in England before a final decision on the claims of the plaintiff by the for­eign courts having jurisdiction.
Da så­danne krav ikke forelå, men sagsøgerne tværtimod kun havde fremsat et krav om erstat­ning, som engelske domstole i det foreliggende tilfælde ikke var kompetente til at påken­de, kunne det begærede foreløbige retsmiddel ikke anvendes.
Such measures, known as "saisie conservatoire", could be taken by the courts of other States and after the United Kingdom's entry into the Common Market the English courts had to do their part in harmonizing the laws of the Member States as required by Article 3 (h) of the EEC Treaty.
I særdeleshed skulle retsforskrifterne ikke tilnærmes af en en­kelt medlemsstat eller af medlemsstaternes nationale domstole, men gennemføres efter den i EØF­traktatens artikel 100 omhandlede procedure.
Further, under Article 220 of the EEC Treaty there was a duty to recognize the decisions of the courts of other Mem­ber States in the same way as the decisions of English courts.
I øvrigt havde domskonventio­nen, hvis principielle hovedregel er, at det er domstolene i sagsøgtes bopælsstat, der er kompetente, ophævet de særlige værnetingsregler i de kontraherende staters retssyste­mer, hvorefter en medlemsstats domstole kan være kompetente, såfremt sagsøgte har gods dér.
Therefore in the case in question, in which the Italian courts had jurisdiction in the main action, protective mea­sures should be taken so that the assets in England might not be disposed of before judg­ment was given in Italy.
Også i forslaget til konventionen om de tre nye medlemsstaters tiltrædelse af domskonventionen er de »exorbitante« værneting, der alene grundes på, at den uden­landske sagsøgte har gods i indlandet, og som de skotske domstole anerkender, afskaf­fet.
Moreover, under the Brussels Convention entered into in imple­mentation of Article 220 of the EEC Treaty — and the Convention would in due course be extended to the United Kingdom — although a debtor as a rule had to be sued in the country in which he lived, the creditor could in the meantime apply under Article 24 of the Convention to the courts of his own country for protective measures to be taken against the assets of the debtor when those assets were situated in that country.
Det kunne heller ikke udledes af domskonventionen, at engelske domstole i det mindste skulle være kompetente til at anvende foreløbige retsmidler med henblik på sik­ring af gods i indlandet, som ejes af en udenlandsk sagsøgt, når engelske domstole ikke er kompetente med hensyn til fordringen.
The appeal against this judgment was successful. The House of Lords held that the juris­diction of English courts under Order 11 Rule 1 (1) (i) presupposed that the injunction sought was part of the substantive relief to which the plaintiffs cause of action entitled him.
Konventionens artikel 24 greb ganske vist ikke ind i de bestående nationalretlige værnetingsregler vedrørende anvendelsen af fore­løbige retsmidler, og det var også korrekt, at retsplejereglerne i flere af de oprindelige medlemstater tillod sikrende retsmidler vedrørende en udenlandsk skyldners inden­landske gods, også selv om fordringen er under påkendelse ved en udenlandsk ret.
An order in relation to the defendant's assets within the jurisdiction of the court could be granted only if the plaintiff claimed rights over such assets enforceable by the English courts.
Af ar­tikel 24 fremgik dog, at hverken medlemsstaterne, Rådet eller Kommissionen havde anset det for nødvendigt at foretage en tilnærmelse af retsforskrifterne på dette område.
Since the plaintiffs were not claiming any such rights but were simply pursuing claims for damages over which the English courts had no jurisdiction in the present case the measures applied for were not available.
1978, Verwal & Co. mod Calzaturificio Zomp SPA, offentliggjort i uddrag i: WPNR — Weekblad voor privaatrecht, notariaat en registratie 1979, s. 615 Kompetence — foreløbige, herunder sikrende retsmidler — arrest i en fordring på tredje­mand i Nederlandene — italienske retter kompetente med hensyn tilpåkendelsen af hoved­sagen — nederlandske retter ikke kompetente til stadfæstelse afarresten (vanwaardever­klaring), da der ikke var rejst retssag
1­24 — Β 7 Arrondissementsrechtbank, Breda, Judgment of 19 September 1978, Verwal & Co. ν Calzaturificio Zomp S.p.a. Reported in Weekblad voor Privaatrecht, Notariaat en Registratie 1979, p.615 Jurisdiction — Provisional, including protective, measures — Protective attachment of a debt owed by a third party in the Netherlands — Jurisdiction as to the substance of the mat­ter lying with the Italian courts — Courts of the Netherlands have no jurisdiction to confirm the attachment (vanwaardeverklaring) where the main action has not been commenced.
Rekvirenten, et selskab med hjemsted i Panama, havde til sikring af et angiveligt krav mod et selskab med hjemsted i Italien ved en nederlandsk ret bl.a. ladet foretage arrest i det italienske selskabs krav mod et selskab med hjemsted i Nederlandene.
In order to obtain security for alleged claims against an Italian company the applicant, a Panamanian company, had obtained from a court in the Netherlands inter alia an order for the provisional attachment of debts owed to the Italian company by a company based in the Netherlands.
Rekvirenten havde herefter anmodet om stadfæstelse afarresten (vanwaardeverklaring); rekvirenten havde i øvrigt anlagt retssag ved den samme nederlandske ret.
The applicant now sought confirmation of attachment (van­waardeverklaring). It also commenced proceedings on the substantive claim in the same court in the Netherlands.
Retten udtalte først, at den savnede kompetence vedrørende hovedsagen, da dens kom­petence hverken kunne udledes af domskonventionens artikel 2 eller nogen anden be­stemmelse i konventionen.
The court held, first, that it had no jurisdiction in the substantive action on the ground that jurisdiction could not be assumed under either Article 2 or any other provision of the Brussels Convention.
Den udtalte videre, at dens kompetence til at stadtfæste arre­sten i fordringen alene kunne grundes på en analog anvendelse af de nederlandske reg­ler om arrest hos udlændinge (vreemdelingenbeslag, jfr. artiklerne 764 ff i Wetboek van burgerlijke rechtsvordering), da ingen af parterne havde bopæl eller ophold i Nederlan­dene.
It further held that since none of the parties was domiciled or resident in the Netherlands, its power to confirm the attachment of the debts could be based only on the application by analogy of the provisions in the law of the Netherlands on the attachment of aliens' assets in security (vreemdelingensbeslag, Article 764 et seq. of the Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering).