natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
19 Det bemærkes endvidere, at Domstolen har antaget, at der bør anlægges en snæver fortolkning af begrebet 'afgørelse, der træffes i appel­ eller genoptagelsessagen', jfr. konventionens artikel 37, stk. 2, idet den i dom af 27. november 1984 (sag 258/83, Brennero mod Wendel, Sml. s. 3971, præmis 15)') har udtalt, at bestemmelsen efter konventionens almindelige opbygning og på baggrund af, at et af dens væsentligste formål er at forenkle proceduren i fuldbyrdelsesstaten, ikke kan udstrækkes, således at den også tillader et retsmiddel mod en anden afgørelse end den endelige afgørel­se i appel­ eller genoptagelsessagen, som f.eks. et retsmiddel mod en procesledende eller en foreløbig afgørelse om, at der skal foretages bevisførelse.
19 Secondly it should be noted that the Court has stated in the judgment in Case 258/83 (Brennero ν Wendel [1984] ECR 3971, paragraph 15),' that the concept of "judgment given on the appeal" appearing in the second paragraph of Article 37 of the Convention must be restrictively interpreted and has ruled that under the general scheme of the Convention, and in the light of one of its principal objectives which is to simplify procedures in the State in which enforcement is sought, that provision cannot be extended so as to enable an appeal in cassation to be lodged against a judgment other than that given on the appeal, for instance against a pre­liminary or interlocutory order requiring preliminary inquiries to be made.
20 Også i det sagkyndige udvalgs rapport vedrørende konventionen (EFT 1979 C 59, s. 1) understreges nødvendigheden af, at konventionens artikel 37, stk. 2, fortolkes strengt.
20 The committee of experts set up on the occasion of the drafting of the Convention (Official Journal 1979 C 59, p.
Det udtales således, at 'en ophobning af appel­ eller genoptagelsessager, som af den tabende part udelukkende ville kunne anvendes i den hensigt at forhale sagen, ville betyde en hindring af den med konventionen tilstræbte frie bevægelig­hed for domme'.
1) also emphasized the need for a strict interpretation of the second paragraph of Article 37 of the Convention. According to that report, "an excessive number of avenues of appeal might be used by the losing party purely
(fortsat 4) begæres fuldbyrdet — følger, at udtrykket 'afgørelse, der træffes i appel- eller gen optagelsessagen' i konventionens artikel 37, stk. 2, skal forstås således, at det alene omfatter retsafgørelser, hvorved der træffes realitetsafgørelse i en appel- eller genoptagelsessag vedrørende en afgørelse om tilladelse til fuldbyrdelse af en retsafgørelse, der er truffet i en anden kontraherende stat, og at afgørelser truffet i henhold til konventionens artikel 38 ikke er omfattet.
It follows from the foregoing that, since the object of the Convention is to facilitate the free movement of judgments by establishing a simple and rapid procedure in the Contracting State in which application is made for the enforcement of a foreign judgment, the expression "judgment given on the appeal" in the second paragraph of Article 37 of the Convention must be interpreted as denoting only judgments de ciding on the substance of the appeal lodged against an order for the enforcement of a judgment given in another Contracting State, to the exclusion of judgments given under Article 38 of the Convention.
22 Det bemærkes endvidere, at de procedurer, der er omhandlet henholdsvis i konven tionens artikel 36 og artikel 38 — også for det tilfælde, hvor afgørelsen om ikke at udsætte sagen eller om, at der skal stilles sikkerhed, er indeholdt i samme afgørelse som realitetsafgørelsen i appel- eller genoptagelsessagen vedrørende fuldbyrdelsestilladelsen — vedrører forskellige forhold.
It should be added that even where the decision refusing to stay the proceedings or requiring the provision of security is contained in the same judgment as the decision on the substance of the appeal against the enforcement order, the procedure under Article 36 and that under Article 38 nevertheless have a different object.
23 Den i artikel 36 indeholdte appel- eller genoptagelsesadgang vedrører således det retlige spørgsmål om, hvorvidt fuldbyrdelsestilladelse er blevet meddelt med rette, når henses til de grunde, der udtømmende er anført i konventionens artikel 27 og 28, mens afgørelsen om udsættelse eller sikkerhedsstillelse i henhold til artikel 38 er en accessorisk foranstaltning, der har til formål at regulere retssagens videre forløb, hvilket forudsætter en interesseafvejning i det indbyrdes forhold mellem fordrings haveren og skyldneren.
In fact the appeal procedure envisaged by Article 36 relates to the legal question of whether, regard being had to the reasons exhaustively specified in Articles 27 and 28 of the Convention, the enforcement order has been lawfully issued, whereas the decision relating to a stay of proceedings or the provision of security under Article 38 constitutes a subsidiary measure designed to settle the subsequent course of the procedure, which implies a balancing of the respective interests of the creditor and the debtor.
24 Af disse grunde kan en afgørelse i henhold til konventionens artikel 38 ikke sidestilles med en afgørelse, hvorved en appel- eller genoptagelsesbegæring vedrørende en fuldbyrdelsestilladelse tages til følge eller forkastes, heller ikke selv om afgørelsen i henhold til artikel 38 formelt set indgår som en del af samme retsafgørelse.
In those circumstances, a judgment given under Article 38 of the Convention can not be assimilated to a judgment allowing or dismissing the appeal lodged against the order for enforcement despite the fact that in form it constitutes part of the same judgment.
25 Heraf følger, at selv hvor en afgørelse i henhold til konventionens artikel 38 er inde holdt i samme retsafgørelse som den, hvorved der træffes realitetsafgørelse i en ap pel- eller genoptagelsessag vedrørende en fuldbyrdelsestilladelse, kan en sådan af gørelse ikke anses for at være en 'afgørelse, der træffes i appel- eller genoptagelsessagen', jfr. konventionens artikel 37, stk. 2, og afgørelsen kan således ikke anfægtes ved kassationsappel.
It follows that, even when a decision based on Article 38 of the Convention appears in the same judgment as the decision on the substance of the appeal lodged against the enforcement order, such a decision is not to be regarded as a "judgment given on the appeal" within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 37 of the Convention and cannot therefore be the subject of an appeal in cassation.
26 Den forelæggende rets første og andet spørgsmål bør derfor besvares med, at kon ventionens artikel 37, stk. 2, skal fortolkes således, at en afgørelse i henhold til kon ventionens artikel 38, hvorved den ret, der behandler appel- eller genoptagelsessagen vedrørende tilladelse til fuldbyrdelse af en i en anden kontraherende stat truffen retsafgørelse, har truffet beslutning om ikke at udsætte sin afgørelse samt om, at den, der har opnået fuldbyrdelsestilladelse, skal stille sikkerhed, ikke er en 'afgørelse, der træffes i appel- eller genoptagelsessagen', som omhandlet i konventionens artikel 37, stk. 2, hvorfor den ikke kan anfægtes ved en kassationsappel eller et til svarende retsmiddel.
The answer to the first and second questions of the court of reference should there fore be that the second paragraph of Article 37 of the Convention is to be inter preted as meaning that a decision taken under Article 38 of the Convention by which the court with which an appeal has been lodged against an order for the en forcement of a judgment given in another Contracting State has refused to stay the proceedings and has ordered the party to whom the enforcement order was granted to provide security does not constitute a "judgment given on the appeal" within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 37 of the Convention and may not, therefore, be contested by an appeal in cassation or similar form of appeal.
Det har ingen betydning for besvarelsen af dette spørgsmål, om den afgørelse, der er truffet i henhold til konventionens artikel 38, og den 'afgørelse, der træffes i appel- eller genoptagelsessagen', jfr. konventionens artikel 37, stk. 2, er indeholdt i samme retsafgørelse.
The po sition is the same where the decision taken under Article 38 of the Convention and the "judgment given on the appeal" within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 37 of the Convention are in fact given in a single judgment.
(fortsat 5)
(continued 5)
Spørgsmål 3
The third question
27 Med det tredje spørgsmål ønsker den forelæggende ret i det væsentlige oplyst, om konventionens artikel 38, stk. 1, skal fortolkes således, at den ret, der behandler ap pel- eller genoptagelsessagen vedrørende en tilladelse til fuldbyrdelse af en i en an den kontraherende stat truffen retsafgørelse, ved påkendelsen af en begæring om udsættelse af sagen i henhold til samme bestemmelse kun kan tillægge de anbringender betydning, som den part, der har indgivet begæringen, ikke kunne have gjort gældende for retten i domsstaten, eller om retten ved en sådan afgørelse ligeledes kan tage hensyn til anbringender, der tidligere er gjort gældende for den uden landske retsinstans, samt anbringender, som denne ikke havde kendskab til, da den traf sin afgørelse, fordi den part, der har anlagt appel- eller genoptagelsessagen, undlod at gøre dem gældende.
27 In its third question, the court of reference seeks substantially to determine whether the first paragraph of Article 38 of the Convention is to be interpreted as meaning that the court with which the appeal is lodged against an order for the enforcement of a judgment given in another Contracting State may take into consideration, in its decision concerning an application for the proceedings to be stayed under that paragraph, only such submissions as the appellant was unable to make before the court of the State in which the judgment was given, or whether that court may also take into consideration in such a decision submissions which were already before the foreign court, as well as arguments of which the court was unaware at the time of its judgment because the party lodging the appeal had failed to put them before it.
28 Med henblik på besvarelsen af dette spørgsmål bemærkes for det første, at konven tionens artikel 31, stk. 1, indeholder et princip om, at de i en kontraherende stat trufne retsafgørelser, som er eksigible i den pågældende stat, kan fuldbyrdes i en anden kontraherende stat, også selv om de ikke har opnået formel retskraft.
28 It must first be pointed out that the first paragraph of Article 31 of the Convention lays down the principle that a judgment given in a Contracting State and enforce able in that State may be enforced in another Contracting State even if it has not yet become res judicata.
29 Der er gjort undtagelse fra dette princip ved den adgang til at udsætte sagen, der ved konventionens artikel 38, stk. 1, er indrømmet den ret, der behandler appeleller genoptagelsessagen vedrørende en tilladelse til fuldbyrdelse af en retsafgørel se, der er truffet i en anden kontraherende stat.
29 An exception is made to that principle by the power to stay the proceedings, con ferred by the first paragraph of Article 38 of the Convention on the court with which the appeal was lodged against an order for the enforcement of a judgment given in another Contracting State.
Ifølge rapporten fra det sagkyndige udvalg, der blev nedsat i forbindelse med udarbejdelsen af konventionen, er det med denne undtagelse tilsigtet at 'beskytte den, mod hvem fuldbyrdelse begæres, mod ulemper, som eventuelt ville kunne affødes af fuldbyrdelsen af afgørelser, som endnu ikke har fået retskraft, og som måtte blive ændret'; dette er således modstykket til den ensidighed, der er karakteristisk for den i konventionens artikel 31 ff. omhandlede eksekvaturproces.
As may be seen from the report of the committee of experts prepared on the occasion of the drafting of the Convention, the object of that exception is to protect the party against whom enforcement is sought against any damage which might result from the enforcement of a judgment which has not yet become res judicata and might be amended, and it therefore serves as a counter balance to the unilateral nature of the procedure for enforcement laid down by Ar ticle 31 et seq. of the Convention.
30 Under hensyn til, at konventionens artikel 38, stk. 1, er en undtagelse, følger det heraf, at bestemmelsen skal fortolkes snævert, da der ellers er risiko for, at der gøres indgreb i den virkning, der er tilsigtet med konventionens artikel 31, og at man ikke opnår det tilsigtede formål, nemlig at sikre den frie bevægelighed for domme ved at tillade, at eksigible retsafgørelser, der er afsagt i én kontraherende stat, kan fuldbyr des i en anden kontraherende stat.
30 It follows that the first paragraph of Article 38 of the Convention, since it con stitutes a derogation, must be strictly interpreted so as not to prejudice the effective ness of Article 31 of the Convention and detract from its object, namely to permit the free movement of judgments by allowing judgments given in a Contracting State and enforceable in that State to be enforced in another Contracting State.
31 Det bemærkes endvidere, at konventionens artikel 34, stk. 3, fastslår et grund læggende princip om, at en afgørelse, der er truffet i domsstaten, i intet tilfælde kan efterprøves med hensyn til sagens realitet af retterne i den stat, hvor fuldbyrdelsen begæres.
3i It should next be recalled that the basic principle of the third paragraph of Article 34 of the Convention is that a foreign judgment may in no circumstances be re viewed as to its substance by the courts of the State in which enforcement is sought.
32 Såfremt den ret, som behandler sagen, ved sin afgørelse af en begæring om udsættelse, jfr. konventionens artikel 38, stk. 1, kunne tillægge anbringender, der tidligere var blevet fremført for den udenlandske retsinstans, betydning, ville der være en reel risiko for, at retten direkte eller indirekte foretog en efterprøvelse af den udenlandske retsafgørelses realitet, hvilket konventionen udtrykkeligt forbyder.
32 If the court with which the appeal is lodged were able to take into consideration, in giving its decision on an application for a stay of proceedings under the first paragraph of Article 38 of the Convention, submissions already put before the foreign court, there would be a real risk of its proceeding, directly or indirectly, to review the foreign judgment as to its substance, which is expressly prohibited by the Con vention.
Det samme ville være tilfældet, såfremt retten havde adgang til at foretage en be-
The position would be the same if that court were empowered to assess the chances of success of an ordinary appeal lodged or to be lodged in the State in which the judgment was given.
(fortsat 6) dømmelse af udsigten til, at der gives medhold i en ordinær appel- eller genoptagelsessag, som allerede er anlagt eller vil blive anlagt i domsstaten.
(continued 6)
33 Af disse grunde kan konventionens artikel 38, stk. 1, ikke fortolkes således, at den ret, der behandler appel- eller genoptagelsessagen, ved sin påkendelse af en begæring om udsættelse af afgørelsen kan tage hensyn til anbringender, der allerede er blevet gjort gældende for den udenlandske domstol.
33 In those circumstances, the first paragraph of Article 38 of the Convention cannot be interpreted as meaning that the court with which the appeal is lodged may take into consideration, in a decision concerning an application for a stay of proceed­ings, submissions already put before the foreign court.
34 Med hensyn til spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt den ret, der behandler appel- eller genoptagelsessagen, ved sin påkendelse af en begæring om udsættelse af afgørelsen i hen hold til konventionens artikel 38, stk. 1, kan tillægge anbringender, som den uden landske retsinstans ikke havde kendskab til, da den traf sin afgørelse, som følge af, at den part, der har anlagt appel- eller genoptagelsessagen, undlod at gøre dem gældende, bemærkes, at Domstolen i dom af 4. februar 1988 (sag 145/86, Hoffmann mod Krieg, Sml. s. 645)') vedrørende konventionens artikel 36 har fastslået, at den part, som ikke har anfægtet en afgørelse, ikke senere kan fremsætte en indsigelse, som kunne være gjort gældende til støtte herfor.
34 As regards the question whether the court with which the appeal is lodged may take into consideration, in a decision concerning an application for a stay of proceed­ings under the first paragraph of Article 38 of the Convention, arguments unknown to the foreign court at the time of its judgment because the appellant had failed to put them before it, it should be remembered that in its judgment in Case 145/86 (Hoffmann ν Krieg [1988] ECR 645)' the Court ruled, in connection with Article 36 of the Convention, that a party who had not appealed was precluded, at a later stage in the proceedings, from relying on a ground which he could have pleaded in such an appeal.
Konventionens systematik og navnlig princippet om fri bevægelighed for domme, der er et af konventionens hovedformål, er således til hinder for, at en part, der har undladt at gøre anbringender gældende for den uden landske retsinstans, senere kan gøre dem gældende for den ret, der i henhold til arti kel 38, stk. 1, skal påkende en begæring om udsættelse af afgørelsen i appel- eller genoptagelsessagen vedrørende fuldbyrdelsestilladelsen.
The scheme of the Convention and in particular the principle of the free movement of judgments, which is one of the Convention's es­sential objects, prevents a party from invoking before the court called upon to de­cide, under the first paragraph of Article 38, upon an application for a stay of the proceedings in the appeal lodged against the enforcement order, grounds which he could have pleaded before the foreign court.
36 Konventionens artikel 38, stk. 1, kan derfor heller ikke fortolkes således, at den ret, der behandler appel- eller genoptagelsessagen, ved sin påkendelse af en begæring om udsættelse af afgørelsen i henhold til denne bestemmelse, kan tage hensyn til anbringender, som den udenlandske retsinstans ikke havde kendskab til, da den traf sin afgørelse, som følge af, at den part, der har anlagt appel- eller genoptagelsessagen, undlod at gøre dem gældende.
36 Accordingly, the first paragraph of Article 38 of the Convention cannot be inter­preted, either, as meaning that the court with which the appeal is lodged can take into consideration, in a decision regarding a stay of proceedings under that para­graph, submissions which were not known to the foreign court at the time of its judgment because the appellant had failed to put them before it.
37 Af det således anførte følger, at den forelæggende rets tredje spørgsmål må besvares med, at konventionens artikel 38, stk. 1, skal fortolkes således, at den ret, der be handler appel- eller genoptagelsessagen vedrørende en tilladelse til fuldbyrdelse af en i en anden kontraherende stat truffen retsafgørelse, ved påkendelsen af en begæring om udsættelse af sagen i henhold til denne bestemmelse kun kan tillægge de anbringender betydning, som den part, der har indgivet begæringen, ikke kunne have gjort gældende i domsstaten.«
37 It follows from all the foregoing considerations that the answer to the third question from the court of reference must be that the first paragraph of Article 38 of the Con­vention is to be interpreted as meaning that a court with which an appeal is lodged against an order for the enforcement of a judgment given in another Contracting State may take into consideration, in a decision concerning an application for the proceedings to be stayed under that paragraph, only such submissions as the appel­lant was unable to put before the court of the State in which the judgment was given.'
Domstolen kendte herefter for ret:
Accordingly, the Court of Justice held as follows:
Artikel 37, stk. 2, i konventionen af 27. september 1968 om retternes kompetence og om fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser i borgerlige sager, herunder handelssager, i) Jfr. ovenfor under 1-27.3 — A 1.
The second paragraph of Article 37 of the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters is to be interpreted as meaning that a decision taken under Article 38 of the Convention by which the court with which an appeal has been lodged against an order for the enforce­
(fortsat 7) skal fortolkes således, at en afgørelse i henhold til konventionens artikel 38, hvorved den ret, der behandler appel- eller genoptagelsessagen vedrørende tilladelse til fuldbyrdelse af en i en anden kontraherende stat truffen retsafgørelse, har truffet beslutning om ikke at udsætte sin afgørelse samt om, at den, der har opnået fuldbyrdelsestilladelse, skal stille sikkerhed, ikke er en 'afgørelse, der træffes i appel- eller genoptagelsessagen' som omhandlet i konventionens arti kel 37, stk. 2, hvorfor den ikke kan anfægtes ved en kassationsappel eller et til svarende retsmiddel.
(continued 7) ment of a judgment given in another Contracting State has refused to stay the proceedings and has ordered the party to whom the enforcement order was granted to provide security does not constitute a "judgment given on the ap peal" within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 37 of the Convention and may not, therefore, be contested by an appeal in cassation or similar form of appeal.
Det har ingen betydning for besvarelsen af dette spørgsmål, om den afgørelse, der er truffet i henhold til konventionens artikel 38, og den 'afgørelse, der træffes i appel- eller genoptagelsessagen', jfr. konventionens artikel 37, stk. 2, er indeholdt i samme retsafgørelse.
The position is the same where the decision taken under Article 38 of the Convention and the "judgment given on the appeal" within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 37 of the Convention are given in a single judgment.
Konventionens artikel 38, stk. 1, skal fortolkes således, at den ret, der behandler appel- eller genoptagelsessagen vedrørende en tilladelse til fuldbyrdelse af en i en anden kontraherende stat truffen retsafgørelse, ved påkendelsen af en begæring om udsættelse af sagen i henhold til denne bestemmelse kun kan tillægge de anbringender betydning, som den part, der har indgivet begæringen, ikke kunne have gjort gældende for retten i domsstaten.«
The first paragraph of Article 38 of the Convention is to be interpreted as meaning that a court with which an appeal is lodged against an order for the en forcement of a judgment given in another Contracting State may take into con sideration, in a decision concerning an application for the proceedings to be stayed under that paragraph, only such submissions as the appellant was unable to make before the court of the State in which the judgment was given.'
I tilslutning til Domstolens dom afviste Hoge Raad kassationsappellen (dom af 15. maj 1992; NJ 1992, nr. 585, kommenteret af Schultsz; NIPR 1992, nr. 256; RvdW 1992, nr. 139).
Following the judgment of the Court of Justice, the Hoge Raad declared the appeal in cassation to be inadmissible (judgment of 15 May 1992; NJ 1992, No 585, Note: Schultsz; NI PR 1992, No 256; RvdW 1992, No 139).
Kassationsappellen var nemlig kun rettet mod den i Arrondissementsrechtbanks dom indeholdte afgørelse om ikke at udsætte sagen i medfør af konventionens artikel 38.
It held that the appeal in cassa tion was directed only at the decision contained in the judgment of the Arrondissementsrechtbank to the effect that the proceedings could not be stayed pursuant to Ar ticle 38 of the Convention.
En sådan afgørelse skulle imidlertid — som Domstolen havde kendt for ret — ikke anses for en »afgørelse, der træffes i appel- eller genoptagelsessagen« som om handlet i konventionens artikel 37, stk. 2. Den kunne derfor ikke anfægtes ved en kassationsappel. sationsappel.
Such a decision, however, as the Court of Justice had correctly noted, could not be regarded as a 'judgment given on the appeal' within the meaning of Article 37(2) of the Convention and the legal remedy of an appeal in cassa tion could for that reason not be used against it.