natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Den udtalte endvidere, at selv hvis voldgiftsaftalen ville have været gyldig efter tysk ret, ville det ikke stride mod grundlæggende retsprincipper (konventionens artikel 27, nr. 1), hvis en ret i domsstaten efter sin egen lovgivning fandt, at aftalen var ugyldig.
On that question the appeal court — which had taken the view that the matter depended on the place of performance of the defendant's obligation to pay damages, which, in German law also, was situated in Naples — must make further findings of fact.
Ganske vist blev en af parterne dermed frataget muligheden for at gennemføre sagen for en ikke­statslig ret.
Should it emerge from those findings that the Italian courts had jurisdiction as the courts for the place of performance, the Convention would be applicable.
De stridende parters mulighed for at opnå retsbeskyttelse blev imidlertid ikke påvirket så afgørende heraf, at dette ville stride mod grundlæggende retsprincipper i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland.
The defendant could not then contend that the agreement conferring jurisdiction on the arbitration tribunal in Hanover created exclusive jurisdiction under Article 17.
Parterne opnåede tværtimod retsbeskyttelse gennem domstolene.
That provision referred only to "a court or the courts of a Contracting State" and did not apply to arbitration tribu­nals, which were not courts set up by the State.
Jfr. også ovenfor under 1­5.1.2 — B 11.
The Bundesgerichtshof observed further that the Italian courts had held that the arbitra­tion agreement was not valid under Italian law.
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — sager vedrørende driften af en filial af en uden­landsk bank i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland — udelukkelse af de tyske retters kompe­tence — gyldig
Citing the third paragraph of Article 34 of the Convention, the appeal court had refused to review the Italian courts' decision that the arbitration agreement was not valid under Italian law.
I en tvist mellem et tysk factoringselskab og en bank med hjemsted i Frankrig, som drejede sig om førelsen af sagsøgerens konto i sagsøgtes tyske filial, gjorde banken gæl­dende, at den tyske ret, ved hvilken sagen var anlagt, savnede kompetence; banken på­beråbte sig i den forbindelse bl.a. sine franske almindelige forretningsbetingelser, som var aftalt med sagsøgerens forgænger, og hvori Strasbourg var udpeget som værneting.
The court had also held that, even if the arbitration agreement was valid under German law, it was not contrary to public policy (Article 27(1) of the Convention) if a court in the adjudicating State held the agreement invalid under its own laws.
Sagsøgerens forgænger og sagsøgtes tyske filial havde endvidere i 1975 vedtaget nogle al­mindelige forretningsbetingelser på tysk, hvori det forretningssted, hvor kontoen blev ført, var aftalt som opfyldelsessted, og hvori det endvidere var bestemt, at banken i tvi­ster mellem den og kunden kun kunne sagsøges ved opfyldelsesværnetinget.
It was true that one party was thereby deprived of the possibility of having the dispute settled before a private arbitrator. However, that did not impair the parties' ability to obtain legal protection so drastically as to offend against the public policy of the Federal Republic of Germany.
I øvrigt på­beråbte sagsøgte sig, at det som følge af en yderligere aftale fra 1975 ikke var domstole­ne, men en voldgiftsret, der havde kompetence til afgøre den foreliggende tvist.
On the contrary, the par­ties obtained legal protection through the public courts.
(fortsat 1) melsens stk. 3 ikke finder anvendelse, for så vidt internationale aftaler står hindrende i vejen herfor.
A German factoring company brought an action against a French bank concerning the manner in which its account at the bank's branch in Germany had been managed.
Aftalen af 1971 var imidlertid blevet afløst af aftalen af 1975.
The defendant also contended that as a result of a further agreement made in 1975 the present dispute should be submitted, not to the public courts, but to an arbi­tration tribunal.
Derimod anså Oberlandesgericht — ligesom retten i første instans — voldgiftsaftalen for gyldig og stadfæstede den af retten i første instans afsagte dom om afvisning af sagen.
The Oberlandesgericht followed the lower court in holding the arbitration agreement valid and dismissed the appeal against the judgment whereby the lower court had dis­missed the action.
Bundesgerichtshof tilsluttede sig den opfattelse, at værnetingsafta­len af 1975 var gyldig. §53, stk. 3, i love om udlånsvirksomhed stod ikke hindrende i vejen herfor, allerede fordi det var aftalt, at de retter, der havde kompetencen med hen­syn til sagsøgtes filial i Frankfurt, skulle være kompetente.
The Bundesgerichtshof reaffirmed the validity of the jurisdiction agreement concluded in 1975. Paragraph 53(3) of the Law on the Credit System could not in any event alter that conclusion because the agreement conferred jurisdiction on the courts in Frankfurt, where the defendant's branch was situated.
Det var derfor ikke nødven­digt at tage stilling til, om §53, stk. 3, var uanvendelig i medfør af stk. 4 i samme bestem­melse.
Therefore the ques­tion whether Paragraph 53 (3) was inapplicable as a result of Paragraph 53 (4) could re­main open.
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — konventionsbestemmelsernes forrang for nationale lovregler — ordre public­reglen kunne ikke gøres gældende imod konventio­nens regler
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Primacy of the rules of the Convention over national legislation — Considerations of public policy cannot be pleaded against the rules of the Convention
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — det aftalte værnetings forrang for opfyldel­sesvæmetinget i henhold til artikel 5, nr. 1
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Jurisdiction of the court stipulated in the contract prevails over the jurisdiction of the court for the place of performance under Article 5(1)
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — opfyldelsesværneting — et selskabs for­pligtelse overfor en bank til at finansiere en af dennes kunder — opfyldelsessted — ban­kens og kundens hjemsted
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Court for the place of performance — Agree­ment between a company and a bank whereby the company undertakes to finance a customer of the bank — Place of performance — Domicile of the bank and of the customer
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — flere sagsøgte — kompetence for ret­ten på det sted, hvor en af de sagsøgte har bopæl
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Plurality of defendants courts at the place where one of the defendants is domiciled
En person med bopæl i Tyskland, Ottmar Mosbacher, havde over for Banque nationale de Paris kautioneret for SA l'Alsacienne, der havde hjemsted i Paris; kautionsaftalen in­deholdt en maskinskrevet værnetingsaftale til fordel for retterne i Paris, som var bekræf­tet ved en parafering og sluttede med en trykt klausul, hvorefter kautionistens bopæl skulle være opfyldelsessted for kautionsaftalen.
Mr Mosbacher, who was resident in Germany, had undertaken with the Banque Natio­nale de Paris to guarantee the debts of l'Alsacienne SA, a company having its registered office in Paris. The contract contained a typewritten, initialled clause conferring juris­diction on the courts in Paris and a final printed clause stating that any disputes would be settled at the guarantor's place of residence.
Desuden havde selskabet Uniputz, som havde hjemsted i Tyskland, over for samme bank påtaget sig at finansiere l'Alsacienne.
In addition, the Germany company "Uniputz" had entered into an undertaking with the same bank to finance l'Alsacienne.
Banken anlagde sag mod de to skyldnere ved Tribunal de commerce de Paris med på­
The bank brought an action in the Tribunal de Commerce, Paris, against Mr Mosbacher and Uniputz, claiming sums owed to it by l'Alsacienne.
(fortsat 1) stand om betaling af de fordringer, den havde på selskabet l'Alsacienne.
(continued 1)
Med hensyn til Mosbacher's kæremål udtalte Cour d'appel, at værnetingsaftalen som en særlig bestemmelse i kautionsaftalen måtte gå forud for den trykte klausul i de almin­delige forretningsbetingelser om bestemmelse af opfyldelsesstedet.
Giving judgment on Mr Mosbacher's appeal, the Cour d'Appel held in the first place that the agreement on a choice of forum must, as a special condition in the contract of guarantee, prevail over the printed clause contained in the general conditions.
Konventionen havde nemlig ifølge artikel 55 i den franske forfat­ning, som behørigt ratificeret og offentliggjort traktat, forrang for nationale love alle­rede fra offentliggørelsen.
As a treaty prop­erly ratified and published, the Convention acquired, as from the date of its publication, an authority superior to that of domestic laws by virtue of Article 55 and of the French Constitution.
Retten forkastede dernæst Mosbacher's indsigelse om, at an­vendelsen af artikel 17 var i strid med ordre public, idet den anførte, at selv om denne indsigelse ganske vist kunne fremsættes over for anvendelsen af en udenlandsk lov, som var i strid med grundlæggende franske retsprincipper, indebar den omstændighed, at den franske lov var ufravigelig, ikke nødvendigvis, at en kompetenceregel i en interna­tional konvention, som netop har en højere rang end den nationale lov, ikke skulle an­vendes.
The court then dismissed the public policy argument put forward by the appellant against the application of Article 17; it held that, although such an argument might indeed be pleaded in order to prevent the application of a foreign law which was contrary to fundamental principles of French law, the fact that the French law in ques­tion concerned a matter of public policy did not require the courts to disregard a jurisdic­tion rule contained in an international treaty whose authority was superior to that of a domestic law.
Da værnetingsaftalen i kautionsaftalen skulle anvendes, var det ikke nødvendigt at tage stilling til spørgsmålet om anvendelse af konventionens artikel 5, nr. 1, idet værnetings­aftalen i hvert fald gik forud for denne.
Since the jurisdiction clause inserted in the contract of guarantee must be applied, it was not necessary, in the court's opinion, to consider the application of Article 5 (1) of the Convention, which would in any event be overridden by the jurisdiction clause.
Retten gav heller ikke selskabet Uniputz medhold i dets kæremål; værnetingsaftalen kunne ikke gøres gældende over for Uniputz, da det ikke var part i kautionsaftalen.
The court also dismissed the appeal lodged by Uniputz, against which the jurisdiction clause could not be relied on since it was not a party to the contract of guarantee.
Ret­ten udtalte, at den finansiering af selskabet l'Alsacienne, som Uniputz havde påtaget sig over for banken, skulle opfyldes i Paris, hvor det nævnte selskab havde haft sit hjem­sted, og hvor banken havde sit hjemsted. Følgelig var det retterne i Paris, der i medfør af artikel 5, nr. 1, havde kompetence til at træffe afgørelse i den af banken anlagte sag.
That appeal was dismissed on the ground that the undertaking which Uniputz had given to the bank concerning the financing of l'Alsacienne was to have been performed in Paris, where that company and the bank had their registered offices; therefore, by virtue of Ar­ticle 5(1), the courts in Paris had jurisdiction to entertain the action brought by the bank.
Appelretten udtalte for fuldstændighedens skyld, at disse retter ligeledes var kompetente i medfør af artikel 6, nr. 1, hvorefter en person, der har bopæl på en kontraherende stats område, kan sagsøges i en anden kontraherende stat ved retten i den retskreds, hvor en af de andre sagsøgte har bopæl ; Uniputz hæftede nemlig for samme ydelse som Mosba­cher, om end i henhold til en anden retshandel, og kunne derfor sagsøges ved den ret, der havde kompetence til at påkende bankens krav mod denne.
The court observed ad abundantiam that the courts in Paris also acquired jurisdiction by virtue of Article 6(1), which provides that a person domiciled in a Contracting State may be sued in the courts for the place where one of his co-defendants is domiciled in another Contracting State. Since Uniputz had become liable for the same debt as Mosbacher by separate instruments, it could be sued in the court which had jurisdiction in the action brought by the bank against the co-guarantor.
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — værnetingsaftale, hvorefter parterne kun kan sag­søges ved retterne i deres hjemstat — gyldighed — retsvirkninger — udelukkelse af modreg­ning, der står i forbindelse med det omtvistede retsforhold — betingelser
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Agreement under which each party may be sued only in the courts of his own State — Permissible — Effects — Exclusion of a set-off connected with the legal relationship in dispute — Conditions
I denne sag havde Bundesgerichtshof forelagt EF­Domstolen to spørgsmål om fortolk­ningen af konventionens artikel 17, stk. 1, som Domstolen besvarede ved dom af 9. no­vember 1978 (sag 23/78; jfr. ovenfor under 1­17.1.1 — A 1, også vedrørende de faktiske omstændigheder og sagens hidtidige forløb).
In this case the Bundesgerichtshof had referred two questions to the Court of Justice of the European Communities on the interpretation of the first paragraph of Article 17 of the Convention. The Court of Justice answered those questions in its judgment of 9 No­vember 1978 (Case 23/78, supra 1-17.1.1 — A 1, where a summary of the facts and pre­vious procedure may be found).
Appelretten havde udtalt, at der ikke under sagen kunne foretages modregning over for hovedfordringen, da modregning var udelukket ifølge den værnetingsaftale, der var indgået mellem parterne.
That court had held that the set-off pleaded by the defendant was inadmissible because it had been contractually excluded by the jurisdiction agree­ment between the parties.
Bundesge­richtshof tiltrådte dette synspunkt og udtalte, at spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt der kunne fo­retages modregning under sagen, var et processuelt spørgsmål, som kun kunne bedøm­mes efter tysk procesret.
The Bundesgerichtshof confirmed that view and held that the admissibility of a set-off was a question of procedural law and as such was governed solely by German law.
Ifølge denne kan modregning udelukkes ved en gyldig aftale mellem parterne.
Under German law a set-off could be excluded by a valid agree­ment between the parties.
Appelretten havde med føje opfattet aftalen om, at hver af de to parter kun kunne sagsøges ved retterne i deres bopælsstat, som en sådan aftale om udelukkelse af modregning.
The Oberlandesgericht had rightly seen such a contractual exclusion of a set-off in the agreement whereby each of the parties could be sued only in the courts of its own State.
Ifølge den præjudicielle afgørelse fra EF­Domstolen var konventionens artikel 17 ikke til hinder for en sådan værnetingsaftale; ifølge Domstolens afgørelse måtte det bero på en fortolkning af aftalen, om det også var udelukket at foretage mod­regning med en af aftalen omfattet fordring ved en anden ret end den, der havde kompe­tencen til at behandle sagen.
According to the preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice, Article 17 of the Convention permitted such a jurisdiction agreement. The question whether such an agreement prevented a set-off connected with the original claim from being pleaded was, according to the judgment of the Court of Justice, to be determined by interpretation of the agreement.
Om end det i det foreliggende tilfælde ikke fremgik helt klart af aftalens ordlyd alene, at modregning var udelukket, havde parterne dog utvetydigt givet udtryk for deres hen­sigt og deres interesse i kun at kunne sagsøges ved retterne i deres bopælsstat i sager ved­rørende købekontrakten.
Although in the present case the wording of the agreement alone did not unambiguously state that a set-off could not be pleaded, the parties had none the less clearly expressed their intention that in any dispute arising out of the contract each party should be sued only before the courts of its own State.
Denne interesse måtte gå forud for den almindelige interesse, der muligvis kunne være i, at alle stridsspørgsmål blev afgjort under ét i en enkelt sag.
That intention must take precedence over the gen­eral interest which might exist in the uniform determination of all matters in issue in a single action.
For at udelukke modregning talte også, at der i modsat fald ville opstå en dobbelt ulempe for den part, der først anlagde sag; denne part, der ifølge aftalen allerede var tvunget til at anlægge sag ved en fremmed ret, måtte, hvis modregning blev tilladt, også afværge modpartens krav ved den fremmede ret, selv om disse krav ifølge aftalen kun kunne gøres gældende ved en ret i førstnævntes bopælsstat.
A further argument against allowing a set-off to be pleaded was provided by the twofold disadvantage which would otherwise be inflicted on the original plaintiff: in addition to being compelled, by virtue of the agreement, to sue in a foreign court, it must also, if the defendant were allowed to plead a set-off, defend itself in the foreign court against claims made by the other party which, under the agreement, were actionable only in the courts of its own State.
I96X ­ ARTIKEL 17, STK. I
1968 - ARTICLE 17 (1)
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — overtagelse af en betalingsforpligtelse ved aftale — en værnetingsklausul aftalt mellem parterne i det underliggende forretnings­forhold fandt ikke anvendelse
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Contract whereby one party under­takes to pay a debt owed to the other party — No application of a jurisdiction clause agreed upon between the parties to the original transaction
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — retten, for hvilken sagsøgte gav møde, sav­nede kompetence — påberåbelse af den manglende kompetence — utilladelig retsud­øvelse — betingelser
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Appearance entered before a court which lacks jurisdiction — Want of jurisdiction pleaded — Improper exercise of a right — Conditions
Sagsøgte, et selskab med hjemsted i Frankrig, havde ved skriftlig aftale af 28. maj 1973 over for sagsøgeren påtaget sig en betalingsforpligtelse, som hidrørte fra sagsøgerens forretningsforbindelse med et andet fransk selskab, hvis direktør var den samme som direktøren for det sagsøgte selskab.
The defendant, a French company, had undertaken with the plaintiff, in a written agree­ment of 28 May 1973, to pay it a sum of money which was owed as a result of previous transactions with another French company which had the same manager as the defen­dant.
Da der ikke fandt nogen betaling sted, anlagde sag­søgeren sag ved Landgericht Frankfurt am Main under henvisning til en værnetings­klausul i sine almindelige forretningsbetingelser.
No payment took place and the plaintiff brought an action in the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main in reliance on a jurisdiction clause in its general conditions of busi­ness.
Landgericht erklærede sig kompetent med den begrundelse, at sagsøgte sammen med den hidtidige skyldner hæftede for den fordring, der var blevet gjort gældende, og som følge heraf kunne sagsøges dér, hvor den hidtidige skyldner kunne have været sagsøgt.
The court held that it had jurisdiction on the ground that the defendant was jointly liable with the previous debtor and could therefore be sued where the previous debtor could have been sued.
Sagsøgerens almindelige forretnings­betingelser, hvorefter Frankfurt var værneting, var blevet en del af aftalen i forhold til den hidtidige skyldner.
The plaintiffs general conditions of business, which conferred ju­risdiction on the courts in Frankfurt, had been incorporated into the contract with the previous debtor.
Bortset herfra var det utilladeligt, at sagsøgte påberåbte sig ret­tens manglende kompetence uden at have realitetsindsigelser.
Apart from that, it was held to be improper of the defendant to plead want of jurisdiction when it had no substantive defence.
Sagsøgte blev herefter dømt til at betale nogle nærmere bestemte beløb.
The defendant was ordered to pay certain sums of money.
Sagsøgte ankede dommen og fik medhold.
An appeal against that judgment was successful.
Oberlandesgericht udtalte, at de tyske retter savnede kompetence, da sagsøgte ifølge konventionens artikel 2 skulle sagsøges i Frank­rig.
The Oberlandesgericht held that the German courts had no jurisdiction since the defendant must be sued in France in ac­cordance with Article 2 of the Convention.
Der var ikke kommet nogen værnetingsaftale i stand mellem parterne i artikel 17's forstand.
There was no jurisdiction agreement between the parties within the meaning of Article 17 of the Convention.
Det var ubestrideligt, at der ikke var indgået en udtrykkelig, skriftlig værne­tingsaftale.
It was common ground that no express agreement in writing had been entered into.
Den skriftlige aftale af 28. maj 1973 indeholdt hverken en aftale om, hvor der skulle anlægges sag i tilfælde af tvister, eller en udtrykkelig henvisning til sagsøge­rens almindelige forretningsbetingelser. Det kunne heller ikke antages, at forretningsbe­tingelserne var accepteret stiltiende, bortset fra at en sådan accept ikke kunne anses for en gyldig aftale i henhold til artikel 17. Det var heller ikke aftalt, at opfyldelsesstedet skulle være Frankfurt am Main, og der var derfor heller ikke værneting dér ifølge arti­kel 5, nr. 1.
The written agreement of 28 May 1973 contained neither a provision stating where proceedings were to be brought in the event of a dispute nor an express reference to the plaintiffs general conditions of business.
Den omstændighed, at sagsøgerens almindelige forretningsbetingelser — hvori det var fastsat, at opfyldelsesstedet skulle være Frankfurt am Main — havde været gældende i det oprindelige forretningsforhold, bevirkede ikke, at de også fandt anven­delse på sagsøgtes betalingspligt, så meget mere som der ikke i øvrigt havde været forret­ningsforbindelse mellem parterne.
The fact that the plaintiffs general conditions of business, stipulating Frankfurt as the place of per­formance, had applied to the original transaction did not render them applicable to the defendant's obligation to pay the debt, the more so as no previous business relationship had existed between the parties.
(fortsat 1) om retsmisbrug i det foreliggende tilfælde være så meget strengere, som det ikke drejede sig om en anden rets stedlige kompetence, men om en udenlandsk rets kompetence.
Moreover, the requirements which determined when it might be said that a right was being abused must be interpreted particularly strictly in the present case, since it was not the jurisdiction of another domestic court which was postulated, but that of a foreign court.
1968 - ARTIKEL 17, STK. 1
1968 ­ ARTICLE 17 (1)
(Jfr. også 1-5.1.2 - A 2; 1-18 - A 1)
(See also 1­5.1.2 ­ A 2; 1­18 ­ A 1)
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — gyldighedsbetingelser — snæver fortolkning ning
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Conditions for validity — Strictly construed
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — skriftlighed — betingelser — værnetings klausul i almindelige forretningsbetingelser trykt på bagsiden af kontraktsdokumentet — udtrykkelig henvisning i aftaleteksten nødvendig
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — In writing — Requirements — Juris­diction clause in general conditions of business on the back of the contract — Express reference in the text of the contract required
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — skriftlighed — betingelser — værnetings klausul i almindelige forretningsbetingelser — henvisning i tidligere tilbud — kontraktsafslutning under henvisning hertil — udtrykkelig henvisning nødvendig
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — In writing — Requirements — Juris­diction clause in general conditions of business — Mentioned in previous offers — Contract concluded by reference thereto — Express reference required