natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Dette forhold, som nødvendigvis må nævnes, er dog i denne sag kun mindre væsentligt, da anerkendelse og fyldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser er reguleret i ét og samme afsnit III i Bruxelles-konventionen.
In the present case, however, that necessary finding is of very limited scope. The recognition and enforcement of judicial decisions are both governed by Title III of the Brussels Convention.
Artikel 34, der omhandler fuldbyrdelse, fastslår, at en begæring om meddelelse af fuldbyrdelsespåtegning kun kan afslås af en af de i artiklerne 27 og 28 anførte grunde, og disse arti kler vedrører anerkendelse af retsafgørelser.
Article34, which is concerned with enforce ment, provides that an application for the issue of an enforcement order may be re fused only for one of the reasons specified in Articles 27 and 28, which are con cerned with the recognition of judicial decisions.
9 Spørgsmålet fra Bundesgerichtshof går således i det væsentlige ud på, om domstolen i anerkendelses- og fuldbyrdelsesstaten i medfør af Bruxelles-konventionens arti kel 27, nr. 2, kan nægte at anerkende eller meddele fuldbyrdelsespåtegning på en af gørelse, som er truffet af en ret i en anden konventionsstat, eller om førstnævnte domstol er bundet af det resultat, som retten i domsstaten er nået til i medfør af Bruxelles-konventionens artikel 20, stk. 3, jf. artikel 15 i Haag-konventionen af 15. november 1965.
9 Thus the question raised by the Bundesgerichtshof seeks in substance to ascertain whether, under the Brussels Convention, the court of the State in which enforcement is sought may rely on Article 27 (2) of the Convention in order to justify a refusal to recognize or enforce a judgment given by the court of another State which has ac ceded to the Convention, or whether it is bound by the conclusions which the adjudicating court drew from the application of the third paragraph of Article 20 of the Brussels Convention and Article 15 of the Hague Convention of 15 November 1965.
io Ifølge Bruxelles-konventionens artikel27, nr.2, kan retsafgørelser truffet af ret terne i andre kontraherende stater 'ikke anerkendes:... såfremt det indledende pro cesskrift i sagen ikke forskriftsmæssigt er blevet forkyndt for eller meddelt den ude blevne sagsøgte i så god tid, at han har kunnet varetage sine interesser under sagen'.
io Article 27 (2) of the Brussels Convention provides that a judgment given by a court of another Contracting State 'shall not be recognized ... where it was given in default of appearance, if the defendant was not duly served with the document which instituted the proceedings in sufficient time to enable him to arrange for his defence'.
Konventionens artikel 46, nr. 2, bestemmer i øvrigt, at den part, der i en kontraherende stat søger anerkendelse eller fuldbyrdelse af en udeblivelsesdom, afsagt i en anden kontraherende stat, skal fremlægge det originale dokument eller en bekræftet genpart, hvoraf det fremgår, at det indledende processkrift i sagen er blevet forkyndt for eller meddelt den udeblevne part.
Furthermore, Article 46 (2) of the same Convention requires a party seeking recogni tion or applying for enforcement, in one Member State, of a judgment given in de fault in another Member State to produce the original or a certified true copy of the document which establishes that the party in default was served with the document instituting the proceedings.
11 Bruxelles-konventionens artikel 20, stk. 2, bestemmer, at såfremt en sagsøgt, der har bopæl på en kontraherende stats område, er sagsøgt ved en ret i en anden kon traherende stat, ikke giver møde, skal retten udsætte påkendelsen, indtil det er fast slået, at sagsøgte har haft mulighed for at modtage sagens indledende processkrift i så god tid, at han har kunnet varetage sine interesser under sagen, eller at alle hertil fornøde foranstaltning har været truffet.
M The second paragraph of Article 20 of the Brussels Convention provides that, where a defendant domiciled in one Contracting State is sued in a court of another Contracting State and does not enter an appearance, the court must stay the proceed ings so long as it is not shown that the defendant has been able to receive the document instituting the proceedings in sufficient time to enable him to arrange for his de fence, or that all necessary steps have been taken to that end.
I medfør af artikel 20, stk. 3, træder bestemmelserne i artikel 15 i Haag-konventionen af 15. november 1965 i stedet for de sidst nævnte regler, såfremt det indledende processkrift i sagen skal fremsendes i medfør af denne konventions regler.
The third paragraph of Article 20 provides that the aforegoing provisions are to be replaced by those of
13 Bruxelles-konventionens bestemmelser skal uden at harmonisere medlemsstater nes forskellige ordninger vedrørende forkyndelse af retslige dokumenter i udlandet sikre en effektiv beskyttelse af sagsøgtes rettigheder.
Although they do not seek to harmonize the different systems of service abroad of legal documents which are in force in the Member States, the provisions of the Brussels Convention are designed to ensure that the defendant's rights are effectively protected.
Af hensyn til denne sikring er prøvelsen af, at det indledende processkrift i sagen er forskriftsmæssigt forkyndt, be troet såvel retten i domsstaten som domstolen i anerkendelses- og fuldbyrdelsesstaten.
For that reason, jurisdiction to determine whether the document introduc­ing the proceedings was properly served was conferred both on the court of the origi­nal State and on the court of the State in which enforcement is sought.
Det med Bruxelles-konventionens artikel 27 forfulgte formål kræver følgelig, at domstolen i anerkendelses- og fuldbyrdelsesstaten foretager den i artikel 27, nr. 2, foreskrevne efterprøvelse, uanset hvilken afgørelse retten i domsstaten måtte have truffet i henhold til artikel 20, stk. 2 og 3. Denne prøvelse er kun underkastet en enkelt be grænsning, nemlig den som er angivet i konventionens artikel 34, stk. 3, hvorefter den udenlandske afgørelse i intet tilfælde kan efterprøves med hensyn til sagens reali tet.
Thus, in ac­cordance with the objective of Article 27 of the Convention, the court of the State in which enforcement is sought must examine the questions posed by paragraph (2) of that article, notwithstanding the decision given by the court of the original State on the basis of the second and third paragraphs of Article 20.
14 Spørgsmålet fra Bundesgerichtshof må derfor besvares med, at domstolen i anerkendelses- og fuldbyrdelsesstaten kan afslå at anerkende og fuldbyrde en retsafgørelse, når den anser betingelserne i Bruxelles-konventionens artikel 27, nr. 2, for op fyldt, selv om retten i domsstaten i medfør af bestemmelserne i konventionens arti kel 20, stk. 3, jf. artikel 15 i Haag-konventionen af 15. november 1965, har anset det for godtgjort, at den udeblevne sagsøgte har haft mulighed for at modtage sagens ind ledende processkrift i så god tid, at han har kunnet varetage sine interesser under sa gen.«
Accordingly, the answer to the question submitted by the Bundesgerichtshof must be that the court of the State in which enforcement is sought may, if it considers that the conditions laid down by Article 27 (2) of the Brussels Convention are fulfilled, refuse to grant recognition and enforcement of a judgment even though the court of the State in which the judgment was given regarded it as proven, in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 20 ofthat Convention in conjunction with Article 15 of the Hague Convention of 15 November 1965, that the defendant, who failed to en­ter an appearance, had an opportunity to receive service of the document instituting the proceedings in sufficient time to enable him to make arrangements for his de­fence."
»Domstolen i anerkendelses- og fuldbyrdelsesstaten kan, når den anser betingelserne i Bruxelles-konventionens artikel 27, nr. 2, for opfyldt, afslå at anerkende og fuld byrde en retsafgørelse, selv om retten i domsstaten i medfør af bestemmelserne i konventionens artikel 20, stk. 3, jf. artikel 15 i Haag-konventionen af 15. november 1965, har anset det for godtgjort, at en udebleven sagsøgt har haft mulighed for at modtage sagens indledende processkrift i så god tid, at han har kunnet varetage sine interesser under sagen.«
"The court of the State in which enforcement is sought may, if it considers that the conditions laid down by Article27 (2) of the Brussels Convention are fulfilled, refuse to grant recognition and enforcement of a judgment, even though the court of the State in w hich the judgment was given regarded it as proven, in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 20 ofthat Convention in conjunction with Article 15 of the Hague Convention of 15 November 1965, that the defendant, who failed to enter an
Endvidere kunne appellanten ikke støtte nogen indsigelse alene på det forhold, at stæv­ningen og indkaldelsen var affattet på nederlandsk.
(continued 4) appearance, had an opportunity to receive service of the document instituting the proceedings in sufficient time to enable him to make arrangements for his defence."
Rekvisitus måtte først have ladet foretage en oversættelse af dokumentet, hvilket imidlertid ingenlunde ville have været tilstrække­ligt til at forstå det. En tysker, som ikke var fortrolig med belgisk ret, ville — især på grund af de historiske betingede udtryk og vendinger, der var anvendt i indkaldelsen og stævningen — ikke uden videre have kunnet forstå, at der var tale om et indledende pro­cesskrift i sagen, som der skulle reageres på.
Enforcement — Judgment in default — Reasons f or refusing enforcement (second para­graph of Article 34) — Due service in sufficient lime of the document which instituted the proceedings (Article 27 (2)) — Service of a statement of claim which was not translated — Consideration of "sufficient time" as between Belgium and Italy
En tysk part måtte efter modtagelsen af et så­dant dokument i det mindste have lejlighed til at skaffe sig klarhed over dokumentets be­tydning og formål ved at søge bistand hos en sagkyndig.
The appellant challenged the issue of an order for the enforcement of a judgment given against it by default in Belgium.
Efter at have indhentet en over­sættelse og de nødvendige forklaringer måtte rekvisitus via en tysk advokat engagere en belgisk advokat, som skulle have de nødvendige oplysninger.
The appellant contended that the statement of claim and summons had not been served upon it in sufficient time to enable it to arrange for its defence and, moreover, that no Italian translation had accompanied the document, which was in Dutch.
Tretten dage var for kort tid til alt dette.
The appeal was dismissed.
I øvrigt var indkaldelsen og stævningen heller ikke gyldig forkyndt, da Forbundsrepu­blikken Tyskland havde taget forbehold over for den forkyndelse gennem postvæsenet, som der var hjemmel for i artikel 6, stk. 1, nr. 1, i Haag­civilproceskonventionen af 1. marts 1954, som fandt anvendelse i det foreliggende tilfælde.
The Court stated that if the Belgian judgment in this case were not to be enforceable that could only be as a result of Article 27 (2) of the Brussels Convention. The regularity of the service of the document which instituted the proceedings was not disputed by the ap­pellant and service had been effected "in sufficient time" within the meaning of that provision.
Anerkendelse og fuldbyrdelse — grunde til nægtelse heraf — det indledende proces­skrift i sagen ikke forskriftsmæssigt og rettidigt forkyndt f or den udeblevne sagsøgte — det indledende processkrift i sagen — begreb — betalingspålæg (Zahlungsbefehl)
In so far as the appellant thereby sought to question whether there had been due service within the meaning of Article 27 (2) of the Convention, such a course was not open to it since it had not raised that objection in the manner prescribed by the rules of procedure.
Kurator i et tysk selskabs konkursbo havde udvirket, at den tyske ret på selskabets hjem­sted udstedte et betalingspålæg over for et fransk selskab for en fordring hidrørende fra levering af varer.
I. In a judgment of 29 September 1978 given in the case of Officina Construzioni Meccaniche v Els.
Efter at den eneste deltager i det selskab, der stod som kreditor, var død, be­talte hans arvinger fordringerne. Derefter blev konkursboet sluttet, og aktiverne i selska­
Jean ¡vens SA the Corte d'Appello, Milan, held that a period of 14 days could not be regarded as sufficient fora defendant based in Milan to arrange for its defence to an action brought in the Tribunal de Commerce, Liège (Belgium).
1­27.2 ­ Β 12 fortsat 2)
'continued
Desuden var det ifølge fransk procesret kun afgørelser, der blev truffet efter begæring om genoptagelse, der skulle begrundes, og under alle omstændigheder kunne en mang­lende begrundelse i en udenlandsk dom ikke i sig selv være til hinder for, at dommen blev tillagt eksequatur, da retten i anerkendelses­ og fuldbyrdelsesstaten på grundlag af de aktstykker, der var fremlagt i sagen, kunne bedømme, om afgørelsen var i strid med grundlæggende franske retsprincipper.
In that regard, account had been taken of the fact that the defendant had had to have the statement of claim and summons translated before it had been able to arrange for its defence by instructing an Italian lawyer as well as one practising in the State in which the judgment was given.
Cour de cassation stadfæstede denne afgørelse ved dom af 10. marts 1981 (Revue cri­tique de droit international privé 1981, s. 553). Den tiltrådte Cour d'appel's udtalelse om, at der ifølge konventionen ikke skal foretages en prøvelse af forskriftsmæssigheden af den procedure, der er fulgt i udlandet, ud over, om betingelserne i artikel 27, nr. 2, og artikel 47, nr. 1, er opfyldt.
In a judgment of 25 June 1980 given in the case of Standers & Zoon ν Legua (Rivista di Diritto Internazionale Privato e Processuale 1980, p.644), the same court held that a period of seven days between the service of notice and the bringing of an action before a court in Antwerp (Belgium) was also inadequate for the purpose of enabling the Italian defendant to arrange for his defence. CD
Fuldbyrdelse — udeblivelsesdom — hindringer for fuldbyrdelse (artikel 34, stk. 2) — retti­digforkyndelse af det indledende processkrift i sagen (artikel 27, nr. 2) — prøvelse af retti­digheden — kriterier — en konvention mellem de to stater fandt ikke anvendelse
Enforcement — Grounds for refusal (second paragraph of Article 34) — Judgment in de­fault — Defendant nol duly served in sufficient time with the document instituting proceed­ings — Establishment by the court addressed of the existence of appeal procedures in the original Stale and of the effective use thereof by the defendant in default of appearance
På begæring af Durull, der var likvidator for det franske selskab Anciens Etablissements Camille Duceux, meddelte Corte d'appello di Bari fuldbyrdelsespåtegning på en udebli­velsesdom afsagt af Tribunal de commerce, Saint Dié, hvori fru Capezzone var blevet til­pligtet at betale et nærmere bestemt beløb.
A court of first instance in Rotterdam had given a judgment in default ordering a French company to pay a sum of money to a company which had its registered office and head­quarters in London and other offices in Rotterdam. The President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Pontoise, granted an order for the enforcement of that judgment in France.
Skyldneren, fru Capezzone, indgav begæring om genoptagelse og gjorde under henvisning til konventionens artikel 34, stk. 2, og arti­kel 27, nr. 2, gældende, at anerkendelsen af den franske udeblivelsesdom var sket med urette, da det indledende processkrift i sagen ikke var forkyndt i så god tid, at hun kunne have varetaget sine interesser under sagen.
The French company appealed against that order to the Cour d'Appel. Paris, pursuant to Article 36 of the Convention, on the ground that, contrary to Article 27(2). the document instituting the proceedings had not been served on it in sufficient time to enable it to arrange for its defence, since it had received notice of the writ only six days before judgment was given.
Skyldneren havde bl.a. anført, at domskonventionen ikke indeholdt noget kriterium for prøvelsen af rettidighe­den, og at de relevante bestemmelser i den fransk­italienske konvention af 3. juni 1930 om fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser i civile og kommercielle sager derfor i det foreliggende tilfælde skulle anvendes analogt.
Consequently, it invited the parties to produce to the court the provisions of Nether­lands law on appeal procedures in civil matters, in particular procedures for having judgments in default set aside, and any documents which might enable the court to ascer­tain whether or not the French company had availed itself of such a procedure.
Indkaldelsen til at give møde for den luxem­bourgske ret samt en genpart af stævningen var blevet sendt til den tyske sagsøgte i anbe­falet brev med modtagelsesbevis.
(continued D causes of action (optional joinder; see Corte di Cassazione, Sezioni Unite, judgment of 6 November 1975, No 3718, supra 16 - Β 2).
Oberlandesgericht udtalte, at reglerne om forkyndelse af processkriftet i 1977 fandtes i Haag­civilproceskonventionen af 1. marts 1954 samt den tysk­luxembourgske konven­tion af 1. august 1909 til yderligere forenkling af retshjælpsordningen.
The second ground of appeal was held to be equally unfounded, as regards both the sub­mission that the document instituting the proceedings was not duly served and the sub­mission that the appellant was not allowed sufficient time to arrange for its defence.
Ifølge disse kon­ventioner var der ikke mulighed for forkyndelse gennem postvæsenet i forholdet mel­lem Luxembourg og Tyskland.
The Corte d'Appello held that, in accordance with Article 797 (2) of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure, the requirement of due service of the writ must be considered on the basis of the law in force at the place where the action was tried.
Den luxembourgske rets konstatering af, at sagsøgte var blevet behørigt indstævnt, var hverken i faktisk eller retlig henseende bindende for ret­ten i anerkendelses­ og fuldbyrdelsesstaten ; denne skulle tværtimod selv foretage en prø­velse i henhold til konventionens artikler 34, stk. 2, og 27, nr. 2.
Neither French nor Italian law laid down any requirement that documents to be served abroad must be translated into the language of the addressee.
Manglerne ved den formelle forkyndelse var heller ikke afhjulpet ved, at det anbefalede brev var nået frem til sagsøgte.
Moreover, such a requirement was not even laid down by Article 2 of Law No 4 of 3 March 1957, which ratified the Hague Convention of 1 March 1954.
En afhjælpning af mangler ved forkyndelsen i det inter­nationale retssamkvem kom ikke i betragtning, når der ikke var hjemmel hertil i de rele­vante internationale konventioner. Den beskyttelse af en skyldner, som ikke bor i doms­staten, som artikel 27, nr. 2, tilsigter, ville i vidt omfang blive gjort værdiløs, hvis for­
Furthermore, with reference to the latter provision, the appellant's submission that recognition of the French judgment would be repugnant to the Constitution was manifestly unfounded, since the right to a fair hearing — which was expressly protected by Article 24 of the Italian Constitution — was not prejudiced by the fact that the defend­ant might, as in the present case, incur the not unconscionable expense of employing the services of a translator in order to understand the contents of the document served on him.
1­27.2 ­ Β 14 fortsat 1) dringshaveren kunne gøre gældende, at skyldneren på anden måde rettidigt havde mod­taget det processkrift, der skulle forkyndes, eller havde fået kendskab til sagen fra anden side i så god tid, at han kunne have varetaget sine interesser under sagen eller i hvert fald have taget et retsmiddel i anvendelse. Reglen i artikel 2, litra c), nr. 2, i den tysk­neder­landske konvention af 30. august 1962, hvorefter manglende forkyndelse af indkaldel­sen ikke er til hinder for anerkendelse af en afgørelse, når sagsøgte ikke har taget et rets­middel i anvendelse mod afgørelsen, selv om han har haft kendskab til den, havde netop ikke fundet indpas i konventionen.
As regards the sufficiency of the period referred to in Article 27(2) of the Convention, the Corte d'Appello observed that it was not required to verify whether the rules of French procedure had been scrupulously observed and held that a period of 50 days was undoubtedly sufficient for the protection of the defendant's right to a fair hearing, which constituted the principle underlying the rules contained in Article 797(2) of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure and Article 27 (2) of the Convention.
Fuldbyrdelse — fremgangsmåde — efterprøvelse af kompetencen for retterne i doms­staten — bestemmelse af disse retters kompetence i medfør af artikel 6, nr. 1 — begrebet »flere sagsøgte«
Enforcement — Judgment in default — Reasons for refusing enforcement (second paragraph of Article 34) — The document which instituted the proceedings not duly served, owing to the infringement of the rules of the State in which lhe judgment was given — No review by lhe court of the Stale in which enforcement is sought
Fuldbyrdelse — hindringer for fuldbyrdelse (artikel 34, nr.2) — forskriftsmæssig for­kyndelse eller meddelelse af det indledende processkrift i sagen (her: kravet om oversæt­telse af det processkrift, der skal forkyndes eller meddeles) — efterprøvelse på grundlag af loven på det sted, hvor afgørelsen er truffet
Enforcement — Judgment in default — Reasons for refusing enforcement (second paragraph of Article 34) — Service in sufficient lime of the document which instituted the proceedings (Article 27 (2)) — Review by lhe court of the Stale in which enforcement is sought — Criteria — Factual circumstances of the individual case — Procedural law of the State in which the judgment was given and lhe State in which enforcement is sought irrelevant
11.1975) [jfr. ovenfor under 1­6 ­ B 2].
(continued 1)
Et italiensk selskab var ved dom afsagt af Tribunal de commerce de Nivelles (Belgien) blevet dømt til at betale et belgisk selskab et pengebeløb.
It had regarded 22 days' notice as sufficient, even though a longer period was provided for in such cases by Article 163 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure.
Endvidere gjorde det italienske selskab gældende, at Corte d'appello havde dekreteret arrest på gods, selv om de betingelser, der er foreskrevet i italiensk ret for anvendelse at et sådant retsmiddel, ikke var opfyldt.
The Italian undertaking also submitted that the Corte d'Appello had made a distraint order even though the conditions prescribed for such an order under Italian law were not satisfied.
Begæringen om genoptagelse blev ikke imødekommet.
The appeal was dismissed.
Med hensyn til den første indsi­gelse anførte Corte d'appello, at den fuldbyrdende ret i medfør af konventionens artik­ler 27, nr. 2, og 46 kun skal konstatere, om den udeblevne part har fået meddelelse om sagsanlægget og det retsmøde, hvor forhandlingen skal finde sted, i så god tid, at han har kunnet forberede sit forsvar (artikel 27, nr. 2).
On the first submission the Corte d'Appello stated that ac­cording to Articles 27 (2) and 46 of the Convention the court in which enforcement was sought was required only to ascertain whether the party in default was notified of the action brought against him and of the date of the hearing in sufficient time to enable him to arrange for his defence (Article27 (2)).
Derudover påhviler det ikke den fuld­byrdende ret at foretage en yderligere prøvelse, hverken af et præjudicielt spørgsmål eller af sagens realitet, hvilket fremgår af forbudet i artikel 29.
Consequently, the court in which enforcment was sought was not required to consider any other matter, involving either a preliminary question or the merits of the judgment, as was in any case clear from the prohibition laid down in Article 29.
Den fuldbyrdende ret var altså ikke berettiget til at efterprøve, om det indledende processkrift i sagen var for­kyndt i overensstemmelse med forskrifterne, dvs. inden for de i belgisk ret fastsatte fri­ster.
Therefore the court in which enforcement was sought was not per­mitted to examine whether the document which instituted the proceedings was properly served as regards the time-limits prescribed by Belgian law.