natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
23 Det må for det første konstateres, at Gerling Konzern-dommen vedrørte spørgsmålet, om en ved en forsikringsaftale begunstiget tredjemand, der ikke er identisk med forsikringstageren, kan påberåbe sig en væmetingsklausul over for forsikringsgiveren, når denne klausul, som Domstolen har anført, er begrundet i ønsket om at beskytte den forsikrede, som... 'er den økonomisk svage part'. De samme betragtninger gør sig ikke nødvendigvis gældende for søtransport.
If the jurisdiction clause has been the subject of a prior oral agreement between the parties expressly relating to that clause, in which case the bill of lading, signed by the carrier, must be regarded as confirmation in writing of the oral agreement: or
24 I det omfang, værnetingsklausulen i et konnossement er gyldig i henhold til kon ventionens artikel 17 i forholdet mellem afladeren og bortfragteren, og hvor den tredjemand, som er ihændehaveren af konnossementet, ved at erhverve konnossementet er indtrådt i afladerens rettigheder og forpligtelser i henhold til den nationale ret, der finder anvendelse, ville det være i strid med artikel 17's formål — at neutralisere virkningerne af kontraktsklausuler, som let kan overses — hvis man tillod en
If the bill of lading comes within the framework of a continuing business relationship between the parties, in so far as it is thereby established that that relationship is governed by general conditions containing the jurisdiction clause.
Jfr. ovenfor under 1-17.1.2 - A 3.
Goeminne Hout and the Commission are of
1968 - ARTIKEL 17, STK. I
1968 - ARTICLE 17 11)
(fortsat 5) tredjemand, der var ihændehaver af konnossementet, at unddrage sig værnetingsforpligtelsen i henhold til konnossementet, fordi han ikke havde givet sit samtykke til den.
(continued 4) the opinion that if the third party has not signed the bill of lading the jurisdiction clause appearing on it is not enforceable against him since the agreement between the parties is not established.
25 I det ovenfor nævnte tilfælde kan erhvervelse af konnossementet nemlig ikke give tredjemand flere rettigheder, end afladeren havde i henhold til det. Ihændehaveren får således både alle de rettigheder og alle de forpligtelser, der figurerer i kon nossementet, herunder også de af værnetingsaftalen flydende.
21 According to the Commission, an exception may be made to that rule only if the national legal order in question embodies a theory of assignment whereby the shipper assigns his rights and obligations to the third party.
26 Det følger af det anførte, at anden del af spørgsmålet vil være at besvare således, at en væmetingsklausul i et konnossement opfylder betingelserne i konventionens artikel 17, når klausulen anerkendes som gyldig i forholdet mellem afladeren og bortfragteren, og den tredjemand, som er ihændehaver af konnossementet, i henhold til den nationale ret, der finder anvendelse, ved at erhverve konnossementet er ind trådt i afladerens rettigheder og forpligtelser.«
22 The Governments of the Italian Republic and the United Kingdom consider that, in so far as the jurisdiction clause is valid as between the shipper and the carrier, it should also be valid as against a third party holding the bill of lading, on the ground that if. by acquiring the bill of lading, such a third party becomes entitled to exercise the rights mentioned therein he must at the same time also become subject to the obli­gations and limitations deriving therefrom ; both governments base their view on the judgment of the Court of 14 July 1983 in Case 201/82 (Gerling ν Amministrazione del Tesoro dello Stato [ 1983] EC R 2503 ). '
En væmetingsklausul, som findes i de trykte betingelser på et konnossement, opfylder betingelserne i konventionens artikel 17,
23 In this regard, it must be noted that the Gerling decision concerned a case in which a third party to an insurance contract, containing a stipulation made for his benefit by the insured, relied upon a jurisdiction clause as against the insurer, the clause being inspired, as the Court pointed out by a concern to protect the insured, who 'is in a weaker economic position'.
— hvis begge parters samtykke til konnossementets betingelser, herunder den nævnte klausul, er udtrykt skriftligt;
The same considerations are not necessarily relevant to the carriage of goods by sea.
— eller hvis værnetingsklausulen har været genstand for en tidligere mundt lig aftale mellem parterne, som udtrykkeligt omfatter denne klausul, og som det af bortfragteren underskrevne konnossement må anses for at være den skriftlige bekræftelse af;
24 In so far as a jurisdiction clause incorporated in a bill of lading is valid under Ar­ticle 17 of the Convention as between the shipper and the carrier, and in so far as a third party, by acquiring the bill of lading, has succeeded to the shipper's rights and obligations under the relevant national law, the fact of allowing the third party to remove himself from the compulsory jurisdiction provided for in the bill of lading on the ground that he did not signify his consent thereto would be alien to the pur­pose of Article 17, which is to neutralize the effect of jurisdiction clauses that might pass unnoticed in contracts.
— eller hvis konnossementet indgår i et løbende forretningsforhold mellem parterne, og for så vidt det herved fremgår, at dette forhold reguleres af al mindelige betingelser, som indeholder den nævnte klausul.
25 In fact, in the circumstances outlined above, acquisition of the bill of lading could not confer upon the third party more rights than those attaching to the shipper under it.
1968 - ARTIKEL 17, STK. I
1968 - ARTICLE 17 (I)
(fortsat 6) tikel 17, for så vidt angik forholdet mellem afladeren og bortfragteren, at en sådan klausul endvidere ikke kunne forpligte den tredjemand, som var ihændehaver af kon nossementet, og at dette — for så vidt angik sidstnævnte — i hvert fald ikke opfyldte formkravene i artikel 17, var dens dom utilstrækkeligt begrundet.
(continued 5) party, upon acquiring the bill of lading, succeeded to the shipper's rights and obligations." tions."
Udsendelse 3/december 1985
The Court therefore ruled that:
Værnetingsklausulen kunne i øvrigt også gøres gældende over for Bangkok Internatio­nal Motors Ltd, da dette selskab ved at modtage varen mod forevisning af konnossemen­terne havde givet udtryk for, at det anerkendte konnossementerne og alle klausuler deri som bindende.
As regards the relationship between the carrier and a third party holding the bill of lading, the conditions laid down by Article 17 of the Convention are satisfied if the jurisdiction clause has been adjudged valid as between the carrier and the shipper and if, by virtue of the relevant national law, the third party, upon ac quiring the bill of lading, succeeded to the shipper's rights and obligations."
Anmærkning: Jfr. også 1­17.1.2 ­ B 3, 7, 14.
Note:
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — tilfælde, hvor det ville stride mod god forretnings­skik at gøre gældende, at en værnetingsaftale var ugyldig på grund af formmangler — be­tingelser — løbende forretningsforhold på grundlag af almindelige forretningsbetingelser med væmetingsklausul
Since in the judgment appealed against the appeal court had merely stated that a jurisdiction clause contained in a bill of lading did not fulfil the conditions of Article 17 of the Convention with regard to the relationship between the shipper and the carrier, that such a clause could not bind a third party hold ing the bill of lading and that with regard to the third party the bill of lading did not in any event comply with the formal requirements of Article 17. its judgment lacked legal foundation.
1968 ­ ARTIKEL 17, STK. 1
1968 ­ ARTICLE 17 (I
(fortsat 1) stilte sagsøgte varer hos sagsøgeren pr. telex.
(continued 1) the present case involved the first alternative (an agreement in writing), was no reason to decide the matter differently.
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — skriftlig f orm — væmetingsklausul i almin­delige forretningsbetingelser på bagsiden af kontraktsdokumentet — udtrykkelig hen­visning nødvendig
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Requirement of writing — Jurisdiction clause contained in general conditions of business on back of contract — Express refer­ence necessary
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — formkrav — affattelse af kontraktsdoku­mentet på et for den anden part fremmed sprog uden betydning
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Formal requirements drawn up in a language foreign to one of the parties — Irrelevant
Under en sag om kompetencespørgsmålet gjorde det sagsøgende selskab gældende, at en væmetingsklausul i de almindelige forretningsbetingelser, som var aftrykt på bagsi­den af kontraktsdokumentet, var ugyldig.
In proceedings on the issue of jurisdiction the plaintiff company argued that a jurisdic­tion clause contained in general conditions of business printed on the back of a contract was invalid.
Selskabet havde ikke, som det kræves i artikel 1341, stk. 2, i codice civile, accepteret klausulen udtrykkeligt og skriftligt.
It had not expressly accepted that clause in writing, as required by the sec­ond paragraph of Article 1341 of the Italian Civil Code.
Retten erklærede værnetingsaftalen for gyldig.
The court held that the agreement on jurisdiction was valid.
14. december 1976 i sag 24/76 (jfr. ovenfor 1­17.1.2 — A 1) krævede udtrykkelige henvis­ning til de almindelige forretningsbetingelser i den af begge parterne underskrevne kon­trakt.
All the conditions for its validity laid down in Article 17 of the Convention were met, in particular the express ref­erence to the general conditions of business in the contract signed by both parties, required by the Court of Justice of the European Communities in its judgment of 14 De­cember 1976 in Case 24/76 (supra, 1­17.1.2 — A I).
Ifølge det princip, der er opstillet i denne dom, kan der træffes en gyldig værne­tingsaftale ved en skriftlig kontrakt, som giver tilstrækkelig sikkerhed for, at den part, som ikke er ophavsmand til den pågældende klausul, bevidst har tiltrådt den.
According to the principle laid down in that judgment a valid agreement on jurisdiction can be made by means of a written contract which makes it sufficiently clear that the party who did not insert the clause did in fact accept it.
Derfor var et »særligt skriftligt samtykke« til en sådan klausul, således som det kræves i artikel 1341, stk. 2, i codice civile, ikke nødvendigt.
It is not necessary that such a clause should be "specifically approved in writing" asis required by the second paragraph of Article 1341 of the Civil Code.
Endelig anførte retten, at det i konventionens artikel 17 foreskrevne særlige formkrav skal sikre, at parterne faktisk er enige om værnetingsklausulen, for at forhindre, at en part indføjer en sådan klausul i aftalen uden den anden parts vidende.
Finally, the Court held that the special formal requirements laid down in Article 17 of the Convention were intended to ensure the actual agreement of the parties to the juris­diction clause and to prevent one party from inserting such a clause in the contract with­out the knowledge of the other party.
Set fra dette synspunkt var det uden betydning, at kontrakten i det foreliggende tilfælde var affattet på fransk og ikke også på italiensk.
From that point of view it was irrelevant that in this case the contract was drawn up in French and not also in Italian.
Med samme begrundelse har Corte di Cassazione, Sezioni unite, i to domme af 18. sep­tember 1982, nr.4910, Bludau mod Ditta Imitalia sne, og nr.4911, Ebeling mod Ditta Imitalia sne (jfr. vedrørende sidstnævnte II Foro Italiano 1983, spalte 1012), i sager om kompetencespørgsmålet tiltrådt de principper, der er gengivet ovenfor, og navnlig endnu en gang fastslået, at det i henhold til konventionens artikel 17 ikke er nødvendigt med et »særligt samtykke« til værnetingsklausulen, således som det kræves i codice civi­le's artikel 1341, stk. 2. Alligevel statuerede den i begge tilfælde, at værnetingsklausu­lerne var ugyldige, fordi en af parterne ikke havde underskrevet kontraktsdokumentet, og erklærede de italienske retter kompetente i henhold til konventionens artikel 5, nr. 1, som retten på det sted, hvor den omtvistede forpligtelse skulle opfyldes.
In two judgements on issues of jurisdiction given on l8September 1982, No49IO, Blu­dau v Ditta Imitaba sne. and No 491 1, Ebeling ν Dilla /mitalia sne (the latter reported in // Foro Italiano 1983, Col. 1012), the Corte di Cassazione, Sezioni Unite, relying on the same reasoning, confirmed the principles set out above and held in particular that under Article 17 of the Convention the "specific approval" of the jurisdiction clause, as re­
1968 ­ ARTIKEL 17, STK. 1
1968 - ARTICLE.
Ved dom af 5. februar 1980, nr. 785, Klöckner & C. mod Tazzetti & C. SpA (Giustizia civile 1980,1, s. 798) traf Corte di Cassazione, Sezioni unite, afgørelse om kompetencen til at påkende en sag om opfyldelse af en international købekontrakt, for hvilken reg­lerne i den uniforme lov om internationale løsørekøb af 1. juli 1964 var gældende (det drejede sig især om fortolkningen af begrebet »betaling mod dokumenter« i lovens arti­kel 59). Retten fastslog, at en blot henvisning til almindelige forretningsbetingelser, der var fastlagt ensidigt af den ene part, og som snarere måtte anses for et udtryk for de mul­tinationale selskabers praksis end for en kontraktlig aftale, ikke kunne anses for en gyl­dig aftale om kompetencen i henhold til konventionens artikel 17. CD
Nlo6189, Argentox GmbH & Co. KG ν Dosa SpA, that in a case where the general condi­ions of business were not attached to the contract signed by the parties but were handed 0 the other party separately the signing of the contract did not in itself amount to a valid agreement on jurisdiction ; that was true in particular of general conditions of business Λ­hich, unlike conditions contained in generally available texts such as the handbooks of .'ommercial practice issued by Chambers of Commerce, were drawn up by one party to iuit its own requirements.
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — væmetingsklausul i almindelige forretningsbetin­gelser, der var vedlagt som bilag til et tilbud — skriftlig accept af tilbudet — klausulen anset for gyldig
No 785, Klöckner & Co. ν Tazzetti & Co. SpA (Giusti­ria Civile 1980, I, p. 798) the Corte di Cassazione, Sezioni Unite, decided the issue of urisdiction over a dispute regarding the performance of an international sales contract governed by the provisions of the Uniform Law on the International Sale of Goods of 1 July 1964 (concerning in particular the interpretation of the phrase "payment against documents" in Article 59 ofthat law).
I en sag ved Tribunale di Modena om opfyldelse af en forpligtelse i henhold til en købe­kontrakt var parterne i det væsentlige uenige om, hvorvidt en væmetingsklausul, der var indeholdt i de almindelige forretningsbetingelser, var gyldige i henhold til konven­tionens artikel 17.
The court held that the simple reference to the gen­:ral conditions of business laid down by one of the parties, which should be regarded as ì practice of multinational corporations rather than a contractual agreement, could not ■ > e considered a valid agreement on jurisdiction under Article 17 of the Convention.
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — væmetingsklausul i almindelige forretningsbetin­gelser, der gælder f or hele branchen — medtagelse i aftaler mellem virksomheder inden for branchen — betingelser — værnetingsaftalers tilladte indhold — kun konventionen gælder
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Jurisdiction clause contained in general con­ditions of business common to a sector of industry — Inclusion in contract between under­takings in that sector — Conditions — Permissible contení of agreements on jurisdiction — Convention applicable to the exclusion of other rules
Parterne havde siden 1976 stået i forretningsforbindelse med hinanden. Grundlaget for deres forretninger var »Standardvilkår for den tyske tekstilindustri«, men kun med hen­syn til betalingsmåden.
The parties had done business with each other since 1976.
I juni 1978 bestilte sagsøgeren, en tysk virksomhed, et større parti stoffer hos sagsøgte, en virksomhed med hjemsted i Italien.
In June 1978 the plaintiff, a German undertaking, ordered a substantial quantity of material from the defendant, an undertaking whose seat was in Italy.
Den af sagsøgtes be­fuldmægtigede udfyldte bestillingsformular indeholdt en håndskreven tilføjelse, hvoref­ter de nævnte standardvilkår skulle danne grundlaget for handelen.
The order form completed by the defendant's agent contained a handwritten addition ac­cording to which the above­mentioned uniform conditions were to be applicable to the transaction.
Selve vilkårene fore­lå ikke.
The text of those conditions was not attached.
I forbindelse med bestillingen meddelte sagsøgte en »ordrebekræftelse« uden henvisning til de nævnte vilkår.
The defendant confirmed the order without referring to the conditions.
På sagsøgerens forespørgsel sendte sagsøgte senere denne et telex, hvori det udtrykkeligt blev bekræftet, at vilkårene var gældende, uden at det dog blev specificeret nærmere. § 2 i vilkårene bestemmer : »Værneting... er retten på det sted, hvorfra sagsøgers handelsvirksomhed udøves, eller på det sted, hvor den kom­petente faglige organisation har hjemsted...«.
On the plaintiffs request the defendant subse­quently sent a telex expressly confirming that the conditions were applicable, without further specification. Paragraph 2 of the conditions conferred jurisdiction on the courts for the place where the plaintiffs business was established or where its trade or cartel organization had its seat.
I 1979 anlagde sagsøgeren sag mod sag­søgte ved Landgericht Koblenz med påstand om erstatning for forsinket og mangelfuld levering af de bestilte stoffer.
In 1979 the plaintiff brought a claim for damages against the defendant before the Landgericht Koblenz for delays and deficiencies in the deliveries of the material.
Sagsøgte gjorde indsigelse mod denne rets kompetence og gjorde gældende, at den almindelige henvisning til standardvilkårene ikke var tilstræk­kelig til at binde sagsøgte til den deri indeholdte værnetingsaftale. Landgericht erklæ­rede sig kompetent.
The defendant objected that the court had no jurisdiction, arguing that
1968 ­ ARTIKEL 17, STK. I
1968 - ARTICLE 17 (I)
Ifølge EF­Domstolen er det til­strækkeligt, hvis medkontrahenten ved tidligere tilsendte forretningsbetingelser har haft mulighed for at tage dem til efterretning ; den anser også en væmetingsklausul i de almin­delige forretningsbetingelser for aftalt, selv om anvendelsen af vilkårene ikke har været genstand for særlige kontraktsforhandlinger.
I) the general reference to the uniform conditions was not sufficient to make the juris­diction clause contained therein binding on it.
Den i § 38, stk. 2, tredje punktum, i Zivilprozessordnung indeholdte be­grænsning — hvorefter der, når en af parterne har et indenlandsk hjemting, ved værne­tingsaftale kun kan vælges en ret i indlandet, hvor denne part har hjemting, eller hvor der er stiftet et særligt værneting — kan under ingen omstændigheder gøre krav på gyl­dighed inden for konventionens artikel 17's anvendelsesområde.
The defendant's appeal against that judgment, in which it argued in addition that the jurisdiction clause was incompatible with the third sentence of Paragraph 38(2) of the German Code of Civil Procedure, was unsuccessful.
Sagsøgte, en tysk virksomhed, bestilte i februar 1979 i alt 657 pullovere hos sagsøgeren, der var indehaver af et italiensk tekstilfirma.
That was not necessary, however, where — as in this case — the buyer's conditions of busi­ness were already known to the seller, from earlier transactions with the same partner or with others who had applied the same uniform conditions of business to their transac­tions.
Parterne anvendte sagsøgerens bestillings­formular, som nederst på forsiden indeholdt en henvisning til salgsbetingelserne, som var trykt på bagsiden.
In such a case it was sufficient that express reference should be made to the condi­tions of business, which were familiar to both parties and no longer required disclosure.
Ifølge punkt 13 i disse betingelser skulle værnetinget være retten på det sted, hvor leverandørens firma lå.
Furthermore, regardless of whether or not the uniform conditions, including the juris­diction clause, were already known to the defendant, those conditions must be held to have been agreed upon, since a separate exchange of letters took place in respect of them.
Sagsøgeren anlagde senere sag ved Landgericht München med påstand om betaling af købesummen. Sagsøgte gjorde gældende, at virk­somheden i henhold til salgsbetingelsernes punkt 13 kun kunne sagsøges på sagsøgerens hjemsted i Italien.
Where, in reply to an ex­press and specific inquiry, a merchant declared that uniform conditions of business cur­rent in the sector and used to some degree also in his own country formed part of the con­tract he must be treated as having made that declaration in full knowledge of the content of the conditions, and could not subsequently be heard to say that he was not familiar with them.
Landgericht udtalte, at den havde kompetence; afgørelsen blev ind­bragt for Oberlandesgericht og stadfæstet.
That was true in particular with regard to provisions which were normally to be expected, such as jurisdiction clauses.
Oberlandesgericht anførte først, at værnetingsaftalens gyldighed alene skulle bedømmes efter konventionens artikel 17. Ganske vist kan værnetingsaftaler mellem handlende
The restriction contained in the third sentence of Para­graph 38(2) of the German Code of Civil Procedure, according to which where one of the parties had its seat or domicile in Germany jurisdiction could be conferred by agree­ment only on the court for that party's seat or domicile or a court which had jurisdiction on another basis, was inapplicable where Article 17 of Convention applied.
Den modsatte opfattelse er uforenelig med konventionens formål, nemlig at skabe en klar og ensartet retsstilling.
— Oral agreement evidenced in writin¡
Oberlandesgericht udtalte derefter, at den foreliggende værnetingsaftale på grund af sin form var ugyldig.
In February 1979 the defendant, a German company, ordered a total of 657 pullover: from the plaintiff, the proprietor of an Italian textile firm.
For det første var der ikke blevet truffet en skriftlig aftale, da de betin­gelser, som § 126, stk. 2, i den tyske Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch opstiller, for at en kon­trakts skriftlige form er i overensstemmelse med loven, ikke var opfyldt.
The parties used the plaintiff order form, at the foot of which there was a reference to conditions of sale printed oi the back. Paragraph 13 of those conditions conferred jurisdiction on the courts for thi place of business of the supplier.
For det andet kunne sagsøgtes underskrivelse af bestillingsformularen ikke anses for en gyldig skrift­lig bekræftelse af en mundtlig værnetingsaftale — selv forudsat at en sådan faktisk var kommet i stand.
The form was filled in by the plaintiff but not signed The defendant's representative signed the form on the front with his name and the de fendant's firm name.
Ganske vist har Domstolen i sine afgørelser af 14. december 1976 (jfr. ovenfor 1­17.1.2 — A 1 og 2) modificeret de strenge formkrav i artikel 17 noget i betragt­ning af de internationale handelssædvaner og skik og brug i forretningsforhold.
The plaintiff subsequently brought proceedings before the Landge rieht München for the payment of the purchase price. The defendant argued that unde Paragraph 13 of the conditions of sale proceedings could be brought only in the court for the plaintiffs seat in Italy.
Sag­søgte kunne imidlertid ikke påberåbe sig Domstolens afgørelse i sag 25/76 (jfr· ovenfor 1­17.1.2 — A 2).
The Landgericht held that it had jurisdiction; an appea against that decision was unsuccessful.