natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
De tre andre krav vedrørende godtgørelse for lagerbeholdninger, betaling af provision og indløsning af debetnotaer måtte derimod anses for accessoriske krav. De var derfor omfattet af den rets kompetence, som skulle træffe afgørelse vedrørende hovedkravet, selv om de hver for sig støttedes på selvstændige forpligtelser, som skulle opfyldes i Tyskland.
In contrast, the other three claims relating to reimbursement for stocks, the payment of commission and the settlement of debit entries had to be regarded as secondary claims.
(fortsat 1) pligtelse til at opfylde aftalen — kompetence for retterne i den kontraherende stat, for hvis område der var indrømmet eneforhandlingsret
(continued 1) contract — Prorogation of jurisdiction not applicable to legal disputes concerning the exclusive distribution contract itself
Et tysk firma (Hacker) havde med et nederlandsk selskab (Bosma) indgået en enefor­handlingsaftale, hvorefter Hacker forpligtede sig til udelukkende at sælge og levere køkkener i Nederlandene gennem Bosma som eneimportør.
A German company (Hacker) concluded an exclusive distribution contract with a Netherlands company (Bosma) by which Hacker undertook to sell and deliver kitchens in the Netherlands exclusively through Bosma as sole importer.
Under henvisning til, at Hacker ensidigt havde opsagt aftalen og i øvrigt havde misligholdt den ved ikke at op­fylde sin forpligtelse til at indrømme og opretholde eneforhandlingsretten, anlagde Bosma erstatningssag ved retten pá sit hjemsted i Assen.
Bosma brought an ac­tion for damages against Hacker before the court in Assen, where Bosma had its regis­tered office, on the ground that Hacker had unilaterally repudiated the contract and had failed to perform its obligation to ensure and maintain the right of exclusive dis­tribution.
Hacker bestred, at Arrondisse­mentsrechtbank var rette værneting, og anførte til støtte herfor, at kravet ikke angik en forpligtelse — jfr. domskonventionens artikel 5, nr. 1 — som skulle opfyldes i Neder­landene, og til, at sag ifølge Häcker's almindelige forretningsbetingelser, som fandt an­vendelse i det konkrete tilfælde, kun kunne anlægges ved retten i Bünde (Forbundsre­publikken Tyskland).
The defendant objected that the court seised lacked jurisdiction on the ground that the subject­matter of the dispute was not an obligation to be performed in the Netherlands, within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the Convention, and also on the ground that it had been agreed in the general conditions of business applicable to the present case that the courts of Bünde (Federal Republic of Germany) would have ex­clusive jurisdiction in the matter.
Arrondissementsrechtbank tog sagsøgtes indsigelse til følge, men appelinstansen — Gerechtshof, Leeuwarden — ophævede afgørelsen.
The Rechtbank upheld the objection. On appeal by the plaintiff, the Gerechtshof Leeuwarden reversed that decision.
Gerechtshof udtalte, at der måtte sondres mellem den eneforhandlingsaftale, der hævdedes at være indgået, og de på grundlag af eneforhandlingsaftalen indgåede købe­kontrakter mellem parterne.
The Gerechtshof drew a distinction between the alleged exclusive distribution contract and the resulting contracts of sale between the parties.
Häcker's almindelige forretningsbetingelser (salgsbetingel­ser), som helt åbenbart fandt anvendelse på købekontrakterne, kunne ikke uden videre tillige finde anvendelse på eneforhandlingsaftalen, og dette måtte specielt gælde for værnetingsklausulens vedkommende.
The defendant's general condi­tions of business (conditions of sale) were, it held, evidently applicable to the latter contracts, but not to the exclusive distribution contract; that was particularly the case with regard to the jurisdiction clause.
Under hensyn til, at eneforhandlingsaftalen var en aftale af anden karakter end de enkelte købekontrakter, kunne det ikke af parternes samstemmende vilje med hensyn til værnetingsvalget for købekontrakterne udledes, at der også forelå en sådan viljesoverensstemmelse for så vidt angik tvister om enefor­handlingsaftalen.
In view of the differences in character between the exclusive distribution contract and the individual contracts of sale, it could not be inferred from the parties' agreement in respect of the jurisdiction clause applicable to the latter contracts that that agreement also covered disputes arising from the exclusive distribution contract.
Gerechtshof udtalte endvidere, at der heller ikke ved afgørelsen af, hvilken forpligtelse der skulle lægges til grund i forbindelse med eneforhandlingsaftalen, jfr. konventio­nens artikel 5, nr. 1, kunne lægges vægt på forpligtelserne i henhold til købekontrakter­ne.
Likewise, according to the Gerechtshof, reference could not be made to the obligations under the contracts of sale for the purpose of establishing the main obligation under Article 5(1) in connection with the exclusive distribution contract.
De forpligtelser, som lå til grund for Bosma's krav, måtte antages at være dels Häcker's (ikke opfyldte) forpligtelse til at give et rimeligt varsel ved opsigelse, dels Häcker's (tilsidesatte) forpligtelse til ikke at sælge eller levere i Nederlandene uden om Bosma.
The obligation to provide reasonable notice of termination, with which the defendant had failed to com­ply, and the obligation (similarly breached) not to conclude transactions in the Nether­lands otherwise than through the plaintiff were to be treated as the obligations which formed the basis of the claim.
Spørgsmålet om, hvor disse forpligtelser skulle opfyldes, måtte besvares efter det lands lov, som ifølge nederlandsk international privatret fandt anvendelse på ene­forhandlingsaftalen.
The question where those obligations were to be per­formed had to be answered pursuant to the law which, according to the private interna­tional law of the Netherlands, governed the exclusive distribution contract.
Da eneforhandleren havde forretningssted i Nederlandene, og eneforhandlingsretten skulle gælde på det nederlandske marked, måtte nederlandsk ret antages at finde anvendelse.
As the sole importer had its seat in the Netherlands and the exclusive distribution right related to the Netherlands market, Netherlands law was to be regarded as applicable.
Denne praksis går ud på, at grundlaget for sådanne krav er den manglende opfyldelse af leverandø­rens forpligtelse til at sætte sin medkontrahent i stand til — så længe eneforhandlings­aftalen ikke retsgyldigt er bragt til ophør — at forhandle produkterne i eneforhand­lingsområdet, uden at andre får adgang dertil.
In the opinion of the Hoge Raad, the basis of such claims was the failure on the part of the supplier to perform its obligation to enable its con­tracting partner to assume exclusive distribution of its products within the contractual area so long as the exclusive distribution contract had not been validly terminated.
1990, 702, kommenteret af Hollander; Rev.dr.étr. 1990, 203; T.P.R. 1992, 904
1990, 702, Note: Hollander; Rev.dr.étr. 1990, 203; T.P.R. 1992, 904
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — opfyldelsesværneting — eneforhandlingsaf­tale — flere krav — forpligtelsen til at betale godtgørelse og til at overtage lagerbeholdnin­gerne skulle opfyldes i Belgien — forpligtelsen til at betale supplerende godtgørelse skulle opfyldes i Frankrig — de belgiske retters kompetence udvidet til at omfatte samtlige krav
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction of the courts for the place of perform­ance — Exclusive distribution contract — Several claims — Obligations to pay indem­nities and to take back stock to be performed in Belgium — Obligation to pay additional compensation to be performed in France — Jurisdiction of the Belgian courts extended to cover all claims
SPRL Khéops, som havde hjemsted i Belgien, gjorde gældende, at det var eneforhand­ler af varer, som blev leveret til Khéops af det franske firma Les Créations Ada Tuch­bant.
The Khéops company, domiciled in Belgium, claimed that it was the exclusive distribu­tion agent for articles supplied by the French company Les Créations Ada Tuchbant.
Efter at leverandøren havde opsagt aftalen, gjorde Khéops i medfør af belgisk ret krav på den godtgørelse, der skal ydes, når der ikke er givet et rimeligt opsigelsesvarsel, samt en supplerende godtgørelse, Khéops forlangte desuden, at leverandøren skulle overtage lagerbeholdningerne.
After the supplier had terminated the contract, the plaintiff applied under Belgian law for payment of the indemnity due in the event of failure to give reasonable notice of termination, plus additional compensation and that the supplier be required to take back stock.
Tribunal de commerce de Bruxelles erklærede sig kompetent til at påkende samtlige krav i medfør af konventionens artikel 5, nr. 1.
The Tribunal de commerce, Brussels, ruled that it had jurisdiction under Article 5(1) of the Convention to deal with all the claims.
Retten fastslog, at flere forskellige for­pligtelser lå til grund for sagen. Forpligtelsen til at betale godtgørelsen var trådt i stedet for forpligtelsen til at overholde opsigelsesvarslet, som skulle have gjort det muligt for eneforhandleren midlertidigt at fortsætte sin virksomhed i aftaleområdet.
It established that the obligations which formed the basis of the action were quite distinct from each other.
Betalingsfor­pligtelsen skulle — ligesom eneforhandlingsaftalen — opfyldes i Belgien.
As was the case with the dis­tribution contract, the obligation to pay that indemnity was to be performed in Bel­gium.
Det samme gjaldt for leverandørens forpligtelse til at overtage lagerbeholdningerne.
The same applied with regard to the obligation on the supplier to take back re­maining stock.
Opfyldelses­stedet for forpligtelsen til at betale supplerende godtgørelse var derimod — da der var tale om henteskyld — skyldnerens hjemsted i Frankrig.
On the other hand, the place of performance of the obligation to pay ad­
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — opfyldelsesværneting »i sager om kon­traktforhold« — udvidelse til også at omfatte en tvist om aftalens eksistens — betin­gelse — bevis for, at der faktisk foreligger en egentlig tvist
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction of the courts for the place of per­formance to hear claims 'in matters relating to a contract' — Scope comprising a dis­pute as to the existence of the contract — Condition — Evidence establishing a genuine and real dispute
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — deliktsværneting (artikel 5, nr. 3) — ud­videlse til også at omfatte en tvist om, hvorvidt der foreligger faktiske omstændigheder, der kan begrunde et krav om erstatning udenfor kontrakt — betingelse — bevis for, at der foreligger et »seriøst« krav
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi­delict (Art. 5(3)) — Scope extending to a dispute as to the facts supporting a claim in tort — Condition — Establishment of a seriously arguable claim
Sagsøgeren var et engelsk selskab.
The plaintiff was an English company.
Sagsøgte 1 forhandlede sko, og sagsøgte 2 var en bank; begge drev virksomhed i Tyskland, og ingen af dem havde hjemsted i England.
The first defendant was a supplier of shoes and the second defendant a bank; both carried on business in Germany and neither had a seat in England.
Stævningen blev forkyndt for sagsøgte 2 i udlandet.
The writ was served out of the jurisdiction on the bank.
Sagsøgte 2 fremsatte begæring om, at forkyndelsen af stævningen blev erklæret ugyldig, da sagen skulle have været anlagt i Tyskland, og den engelske ret savnede kompetence.
The bank ap­plied to have the writ and service of it set aside on the ground that the proceedings ought to have been brought in Germany and that the English court had no jurisdiction.
Master ved High Court tog begæringen til følge, og en dommer ved High Court stadfæstede hans afgørelse. Sagsø­geren appellerede til Court of Appeal.
The Master of the High Court had acceded to that application and, on appeal, a High Court judge upheld that decision.
Sagsøgeren gjorde gældende, at de sagsøgte havde solgt selskabet et parti sko, som eje­des af sagsøgte 1 eller sagsøgte 2, subsidiært, at skoene ejedes af sagsøgte 1, men at sag­søgte 2 havde pant i dem.
The plaintiffs statement of claim alleged that the defendants had sold them a quantity of shoes owned by the first defendant or by the bank, or, alternatively, owned by the first defendant but over which the bank had a charge.
Sagsøgeren hævdede, at varerne ikke var blevet leveret, og fremsatte over for begge de sagsøgte krav om erstatning for misligholdelse og over for sagsøgte 2 krav om erstatning uden for kontrakt med den begrundelse, at sagsøgte 2 havde foranlediget misligholdelsen.
It then alleged failure to deliver the goods and claimed damages against both defendants for breach of contract and, in tort, against the bank for inducing breach of contract.
Sagsøgte 2 bestred dette og gjorde gældende, at sagsøgeren ikke havde opfyldt de mindstekrav, som ifølge konventionen skulle være opfyldt, for at en engelsk ret havde kompetence til at påkende kravene.
The bank contested these allega­tions and contended that the plaintiff had not crossed the threshold which, under the Convention, had to be cleared before an English court had jurisdiction to hear the claims.
Derfor var det spørgsmål, der først skulle tages stilling til, hvilket kriterium der skulle anvendes, når det var omtvistet, om der var indgået en aftale eller forelå et retsbrud som påstået.
Thus the initial question to be considered was what test was to be applied when there was a dispute whether the contract alleged was made or the tort alleged was com­mitted.
Der skal føres bevis for, at der faktisk foreligger en egentlig tvist, og retten skal også være overbevist om, at der er tale om et seriøst spørgs­mål, som det er nødvendigt, at en retsinstans tager stilling til. Court of Appeal fandt, at sagsøgeren — omend med visse vanskeligheder — havde godtgjort, at der forelå et se­riøst spørgsmål, som krævede en retslig afgørelse.
Allowing the plaintiffs appeal in relation to the breach of contract claim, the Court of Appeal held that, although jurisdiction under the Convention was not a matter of dis­cretion, the English court would be astute to see that frivolous or vexatious claims for
(fortsat 1) beråbt til støtte for dette krav, udgjorde en så usammenhængende og usandsynlig kæde af begivenheder, at sagsøgeren ikke kunne anses for at have godtgjort, at der forelå et seriøst krav, som krævede en retslig afgørelse.
(continued 1) the existence of a contract were stopped summarily at the outset. There had to be evi­dence establishing a genuine and real dispute.
For så vidt angik kravet om erstatning uden for kontrakt, stadfæstedes underinstansens afgørelse.
The court should be satisfied that there is a serious question which calls for a trial for its proper determination.
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence —formkrav (artikel 17, stk. 1) — værnetings­klausul i en faktura — ingen forudgående mundtlig aftale — klausulen uden retsvirk­ning
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of Jurisdiction — Formal requirements (first paragraph of Article 17) — Jurisdiction clause in an invoice — Absence of prior oral agreement — Clause ineffective
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — opfyldelsesværneting — begrebet kon­traktlig »forpligtelse« — omfatter ikke forpligtelsen til at tilbagebetale et beløb betalt i henhold til en kontrakt, som er blevet erklæret ugyldig ex tune
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction of the courts for the place of per­formance — Concept of the contractual Obligation' — Obligation to reimburse an amount paid on the basis of a contract declared void ex tunc not a contractual obliga­tion
Colorificio Paulin s.p.a., der havde hjemsted i Italien, havde i henhold til en købekon­trakt indgået med det franske selskab Sogeref Artlin fået leveret et parti maling med in­sektdræbende virkning, som viste sig at være usælgeligt, da det indeholdt stoffer, som var forbudt af Sundhedsministeriet.
Colorificio Paulin SpA, a company with its registered office in Italy, had, pursuant to a contract of sale concluded with the French company Sogeref Arilin, taken delivery of a consignment of insecticide paint which subsequently proved to be unsaleable on the ground that it contained substances prohibited by the Italian Ministry of Health.
Det italienske selskab anlagde herefter sag ved Tri­bunale di Belluno med påstand om ophævelse af kontrakten og tilbagebetaling af købe­summen med tillæg af renter.
The Italian company thereupon brought proceedings against Sogeref before the Tribunale Belluno in which it sought a declaration that the contract was void and requested reim­bursement of the purchase price plus interest.
Sagsøgte påstod sagen afvist under henvisning til en værnetingsklausul i en faktura til fordel for de franske retter. Tribunale di Belluno erklærede sig kompetent under henvisning til artikel 4, nr. 2, i Codice di procedura ci­vile.
The defendant first raised the objection that the Italian court lacked jurisdiction on the ground that an invoice contained a jurisdiction clause in favour of the French courts.
Sagsøgte indbragte herefter spørgsmålet om den internationale kompetence for Corte di cassazione.
The de­fendant thereupon requested the Corte di cassazione to rule on the issue of interna­tional jurisdiction.
Corte di cassazione fastslog, at de italienske retter savnede kompetence, selv om den forkastede den af sagsøgte anførte begrundelse.
The Corte di cassazione ruled that the Italian courts did lack jurisdiction, although it rejected the reasons submitted by the defendant.
Corte di cassazione fandt dog heller ikke, at det kunne udledes af konventionens arti­kel 5, nr. 1, at den ret, ved hvilken sagen var anlagt, havde kompetencen, da denne be­stemmelse ikke omhandler enhver forpligtelse, som udspringer af en kontrakt, men kun vedrører sager, som støttes på en bestemt kontraktlig forpligtelse.
The Corte di cassazione, however, also did not conclude that the court seised had juris­diction under Article 5(1) of the Convention in view of the fact that that provision did not relate to every obligation arising under a contract but solely concerned claims which were based on a specific contractual obligation.
En forpligtelse til at tilbagebetale en købesum, der er blevet betalt i henhold til en købekontrakt, som er ble­vet erklæret ugyldig og derfor er uden retsvirkning ex tune, kan ikke anses for en kon­traktlig forpligtelse.
An obligation to reimburse the price paid pursuant to a contract of sale which had been declared null and void and thus inoperative ex tunc could not be regarded as a contractual obligation.
Da de forhold, hvorunder der kan gøres undtagelse fra hoved­reglen om værneting i den stat, hvor sagsøgte har bopæl (konventionens artikel 2), såle­des ikke forelå, var betingelserne for at anlægge sagen ved en italiensk ret ikke opfyldt.
As the re­quirements justifying an exception to the general rule that jurisdiction lay with the courts for the place where the defendant was domiciled (Art. 2 of the Convention) had not been met, there were no grounds on which the matter could be brought before the Italian courts.
(Jfr. også de nedenfor under 1­5.LI medtagne afgørelser samt 1­1.1 ­ B 2; 1­3 ­ B 2; 1­5.0 ­ B 1 ; 1­5.3 ­ B 15, 18; 1­6 ­ B 3; 1­17.1.1 ­ B 12, 21; 1­17.1.2 ­ B 2, 5, 8, 12, 29; 1­22 ­ B 7; 1­24 ­ B 9, 10; 1­57 ­ B 5, 12)
(See also the decisions reported under 1­5.1.1 and I­l.l — Β 2; 1­3 ­ Β 2; 1­5.0 ­ Β 1; 1­5.3 ­ Β 15, 18; 1­6 ­ Β 3; 1­17.1.1 ­ Β 12, 21 ; 1­17.1.2 ­ Β 2, 5, 8, 12, 29; 1­22 ­ Β 7; 1­24 ­ Β 9, 10; 1­57 ­ Β 5, 12)
1976, 117, kommenteret af Droz
1976, 117, Note: Droz interpretation
Fortolkning af konventionen — generelle principper — selvstændig fortolkning uden hensyntagen til nationale retssystemers særegenheder
Interpretation of the Convention — General principles — Independent without consideration of the peculiarities of national legal systems
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — opfyldelsesværneting — opfyldelsesste­det for betalingsforpligtelser — skyldnerens bopæl
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction of the courts for the place of per­formance — Place of performance of pecuniary obligations — The debtor's place of business
Sagsøgeren, et fransk selskab, havde drevet virksomhed i Frankrig som agent for sag­søgte, en virksomhed med hjemsted i Tyskland.
The plaintiff, a French company, had acted in France as agents for the defendant, an undertaking based in Germany.
Sagsøgeren havde, efter at agenturafta­len var ophørt ved aftale, i overensstemmelse med aftalen tilbageleveret sin lagerbe­holdning til sagsøgte; denne nægtede at betale.
After termination of the agency contract by mutual agreement the plaintiff had returned its stocks to the defendant as agreed; the latter re­fused to pay for them.
Cour d'appel gav appellanten medhold.
The Cour d'appel allowed the appeal.
Konventio­nen, som har til formål at virkeliggøre EØF­Traktatens målsætninger med hensyn til retternes kompetence, kunne kun få fuld virkning, når den fortolkedes ud fra egne for­udsætninger uden hensyntagen til de særegenheder, som følger af nationale retssyste­mer. Under henvisning til konventionens artikel 2 og artikel 5, nr. 1, fandt Cour d'ap­pel herefter, at franske retter manglede kompetence vedrørende betalingspåstanden.
The Convention, which sought to achieve the objectives of the EEC Treaty in the field of jurisdiction, could only attain its full effect if it were interpreted independently with­out consideration of the special features of the national legal systems.
Sagsøgeren havde nemlig ikke godtgjort, hvorfor — i mangel af en aftale mellem par­terne vedrørende dette spørgsmål — sagsøgtes påståede forpligtelse skulle opfyldes i Frankrig.
The plaintiff had not shown why — in the absence of an agreement between the parties on the question — the defendant's alleged obligation had to be performed in France.
Sagsøgeren kunne heller ikke påberåbe sig en værnetingsaftale ved fremmøde (arti­kel 18), da sagsøgte i første instans overhovedet ikke, og i anden instans, kun var mødt for at bestride franske retters kompetence.
Nor could the plaintiff argue that the defendant had submitted to the jurisdiction by entering an appearance (Article 18), since at first instance the defendant had not ap­peared at all and at second instance had appeared solely in order to contest the juris­diction of the French courts.
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — opfyldelsesværneting — bestemmelse af op­fyldelsesstedet efter kontraktstatutlet — parternes aftale har forrang for lovregler
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction of the courts for the place of perform­ance — Determination of the place of performance in accordance with the proper law of the contract — Agreement between the parties takes precedence over statutory rules
Betalingen skulle ifølge en særskilt aftale ske ved sagsøgtes accept afveksler, der skulle være betalbare i en bank i Amiens (Frankrig).
Payment was to be ef­fected, in accordance with a separate agreement, by acceptance by the defendant of bills of exchange which were to be payable at a bank in Amiens (France).
Ef­ter levering og betaling efter aftalen for en del af varerne annullerede sagsøgte ensidigt kontrakten.
After part of the goods had been delivered and paid for in accordance with the agreement the de­fendant unilaterally repudiated the contract.
Sagsøgeren anlagde derefter sag ved sit hjemting i Nederlandene med på­stand om betaling af restkøbesummen.
The plaintiff thereupon brought an action for payment of the balance of the purchase price in the court at its seat in the Nether­lands.