natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ved kendelse af 1. oktober 1974 meddelte Corte d'appello di Roma i medfør af doms­konventionen fuldbyrdelsespåtegning på en retsafgørelse af 14. juni 1972 fra den en­gelske High Court of Justice, hvorved rekvirenten havde fået tillagt forældremyndighe­den over sine to mindreårige børn.
Applying the provisions of the Brussels Convention, the Corte d'Appello, Rome, made an order on 1 October 1974 for the enforcement of a judgment of the English High Court of Justice of 14 June 1972 whereby the applicant was awarded custody of her two children.
Denne fuldbyrdelsespåtegning anfægtede ægteman­den dels i medfør af konventionens artikel 36 ved Corte d'appello, dels ved kassations­anke for Corte di cassazione.
The husband appealed both to the Corte d'Appello under Article 36 of the Convention and to the Corte di Cassazione by way of an appeal in cassation.
Domskonventionen kunne ganske vist ikke finde an­vendelse på det foreliggende tilfælde, idet Det forenede Kongerige endnu ikke havde til­trådt den, selv om det var medlem af Det europæiske økonomiske Fællesskab.
It was true that the Brussels Convention did not apply to the present case since the United King­dom, although a Member State of the European Economic Community, had not yet ac­ceded to the Brussels Convention.
Heller ikke den italiensk­britiske konvention om anerkendelse og fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørel­ser i borgerlige sager, herunder handelssager, samt protokollen af 7. februar 1964/14. juli 1970, der var optaget i italiensk ret ved lov nr. 280 af 18. maj 1973, kunne finde anvendelse, da afgørelsen fra High Court var truffet før konventionens ikrafttræ­den (konventionens artikel II, stk. 1).
The Convention between Italy and the United King­dom of 7 February 1964 for the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters and the Protocol thereto of 14 July 1970, which had been adopted in Italy by Law No 280 of 18 May 1973, likewise did not apply since the judg­ment of the English High Court had been given before the law came into force (Arti­cle II (1) of the Convention).
Da Corte d'appello imidlertid, om end fejlagtigt, havde lagt til grund, at domskonventionen kunne finde anvendelse og i medfør heraf
Nevertheless, since the Corte d'Appello had held, albeit er­roneously, that the Brussels Convention applied and had made an order for the enforce­ment of the judgment of the English court on that basis, only the appeal provided for in Articles 36 and 37 of the Convention was available against that order and that appeal should be made to the Corte d'Appello in accordance with the rales governing proce­dure in contentious matters; the respondent had availed himself of that appeal. Simulta­
Udsendelse ¡/februar ¡981
Issue 1/February 1981
Fuldbyrdelse — fransk dom — dom til betaling af »renter efter loven ifølge den i handelssager gældende rentesats« — præcisering af rentesatsens størrelse foretaget af retten i fuldbyrdelsesstaten — ikke tilladt
Enforcement — French judgment — Order to pay "legal interest at the rate appli­cable in commercial matters" — Interest rate fixed more precisely by the court in the State in which enforcement was sought — Not permissible
Fuldbyrdelse — anfægtelse af fuldbyrdelsespåtegningen — spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt indsigelser mod selve kravet kan fremsættes — betingelser — reglerne i den tyske lov om gennemførelse af konventionen
Enforcement — Appeal against the order f or enforcement — Admissibility of objec­tions relating to the claim itself — Conditions — Provision made by the German law implementing the Convention
Et fransk selskab opnåede i Frankrig dom for, at den tyske modpart skulle betale be­stemte beløb »med renter efter loven ifølge den i handelssager gældende rentesats« mod tilbagelevering af fire køretøjer til brug ved bygge­ og anlægsarbejder.
A French company obtained in the French courts a judgment whereby the German de­fendants were ordered to pay certain sums of money plus the "legal interest at the rate applicable in commercial matters" on the plaintiffs returning four vehicles used in the construction industry.
Den franske dom blev efter begæring erklæret eksigibel i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland, idet rentetilsva­ret ifølge dommen — på grundlag af det franske selskabs oplysninger — i fuldbyrdelses­påtegningen blev nærmere fastlagt.
On application being made, an order was made for the enforce­ment of the French judgment in the Federal Republic of Germany.
Denne afgørelse blev anfægtet i medfør af konven­tionens artikel 36, bl.a. med hensyn til fastlæggelse af rentesatsen.
The order for enfor­cement determined the interest rate more precisely on the basis of information supplied by the French company.
For så vidt angik de i dommen nævnte pengebeløb, gjorde appellanten gældende, at han havde ret til at holde sin ydelse tilbage, idet de fire køretøjer, som det franske selskab skulle tilbagelevere, var værdiløse.
In their appeal against that decision under Article 36 of the Brussels Convention the defendants objected inter aliato the fixing of the rate of interest and submitted further that they were entitled to withhold the sums of money specified in the judgment since the four vehicles which the French company had to return were worthless.
Appellanten fik imidlertid kun delvis medhold.
The appeal was only partially successful.
Oberlandesgericht anførte, at appellanten fandtes at måtte gives medhold, for så vidt angik den omstændighed, at rentetilsvaret ifølge den franske dom var blevet nærmere fastlagt i fuldbyrdelsespåtegningen.
The Oberlandesgericht held that the appeal was well-founded only in so far as the in­terest rate specified in the judgment which was to be enforced was fixed more precisely in the order for enforcement.
Dette var i strid med bestemmelserne i §§ 7 og 8 i den tyske gennemførelseslov til domskonventionen, hvorefter det, der var givet dom for, eller den forpligtelse, der skulle fuldbyrdes, alene skulle gengives på tysk; der kunne ikke antages at være mulighed for at præcisere dommen.
That was contrary to the provisions of Articles 7 and 8 of the German law implementing the Brussels Convention, which stated that the order or obligation to be enforced was merely to be reproduced in the German language; there was no place for clarification of the judgment.
Hertil kom, at renten »efter loven ifølge den i handelssager gældende rentesats« ifølge fransk et først kunne fastsæt­tes endeligt i forbindelse med selve tvangsfuldbyrdelsen, idet rentefoden afhang af Banque de France's skiftende diskontosats.
Furthermore, it would not be possible to determine finally the level of legal interest at the rate applicable in commercial matters under French law until enforcement was carried out, because that rate depended on the fluctuating discount rate of the Banque de France.
Afgørelsen kunne derimod ikke anfægtes, for så vidt appellanten påberåbte sig, at de køretøjer, som ifølge den franske dom samtidigt skulle udleveres, var blevet værdiløse.
On the other hand, the appeal was unfounded in so far as the appellants sought to rely on the fact that the vehicles which were supposed to be delivered in exchange for pay­ment had turned out to be worthless.
I henhold til domskonventionens artikel 36 sammenholdt med § 14 i den tyske gennem­førelseslov kunne anfægtelsen af afgørelsen kun gyldigt støttes på, at erlæggelse af mod­ydelsen var umulig, på garanti eller på ret til at træde tilbage, såfremt disse forhold først var opstået efter det tidspunkt, hvor den retsafgørelse, der skulle fuldbyrdes, var truffet.
Under Article 36 of the Convention, in conjunc­tion with Article 14 of the German implementing law, an appeal could validly be found­ed on the impossibility of the performance by the other party or on claims for breach of warranty or condition or on rights of withdrawal only if such matters arose after the de-
(fortsat 1)
(continued 1) livery of the judgment which was to be enforced.
Det fremgik imidlertid af den franske dom, at køretøjerne allerede da var behæftet med mangler.
But it was clear from the French judg­ment that the vehicles were already defective at that time.
Appellanten havde derfor i sagen for den franske ret gjort gældende, at køretø­jerne var i ringe stand.
Thus the appellants had plead­ed the poor condition of the vehicles in the proceedings in the French court.
Den franske ret havde imidlertid ikke lagt de indsigelser mod pro­ceskravet, som afledtes heraf, til grund.
But the ob­jections which they had relied on in that regard in answer to the plaintiffs claim had been rejected by the French court.
Jfr. om spørgsmålet om fuldbyrdelseserklæring vedrørende et ubestemt rentekrav over­for under 1­31 ­B5.
On the question of the enforceability of a claim for interest where the rate of interest is not specified, see 131 — Β 5 supra.
[ordinær appel eller genoptagelse i domsstaten]
[Ordinary appeal lodged in the State in which judgment was given]
Fuldbyrdelse — anfægtelse af fuldbyrdelsespåtegningen ved appel eller begæring om genoptagelse — den ret, der behandler appellen eller begæringen om genoptagelse kan kun kræve sikkerhedsstillelse (artikel 38, stk. 2), hvis der er indgivet ordinær appel eller begæring om genoptagelse af retsafgørelsen i domsstaten — kassationsanke i fransk ret er ikke ordi­nær appel eller begæring om genoptagelse
Enforcement — Appeal against the issue of an order for enforcement — Order for the pro­vision of security by the court dealing with the appeal (second paragraph of Article 38) only if an ordinary appeal has been lodged against the judgment in the State in which that judg­ment was given — Appeal in cassation in France is not an "ordinary" appeal
I denne sag havde Landgericht Koblenz givet fuldbyrdelsespåtegning på en dom fra Cour d'appel de Paris, som den tyske sagsøgte havde iværksat kassationsanke mod.
In this case the Landgericht Koblenz had made an order for the enforcement of the judg­ment of the Cour d'Appel, Paris, against which the German defendant had appealed to the Cour de Cassation.
Kassationsanken var endnu ikke afgjort, da Oberlandesgericht traf sin afgørelse.
That appeal in cassation was still awaiting a decision at the time of the decision of the Oberlandesgericht.
Ober­landesgericht stadfæstede afgørelsen om meddelelsen af fuldbyrdelsespåtegning, fordi dommen fra Cour d'appel efter fransk ret både var »retskraftig og eksigibel«.
The Oberlandesgericht dismissed the defen­dant's appeal against the order for enforcement because under French law the judgment of the Cour d'Appel was "final and enforceable".
Heller ikke sagsøgtes subsidiære påstand om at gøre fuldbyrdelsen betinget af, at der blev stillet en sikkerhed (domskonventionens artikel 38, stk. 2), blev taget til følge.
An alternative submission that enforcement should be conditional upon the provision of security (second paragraph of Article 38 of the Brussels Convention) was also rejected.
Oberlandesgericht anførte, at artikel 38 angik det tilfælde, at den udenlandske afgørelse i domsstaten allerede var anfægtet ved ordinær appel eller genoptagelse.
Article 38 applied where an ordinary appeal had been lodged against the foreign judg­ment in the State in which it was given.
Kassationsanken forudsatte, at de ordinære retsmidler var udtømt. Den havde ikke op­sættende virkning, og hindrede altså ikke, at retskraften indtrådte.
Since the appeal in cassa­tion presupposed the exhaustion of the ordinary means of appeal and had no suspensive effect, it did not affect the finality of the judgment.
Fuldbyrdelse — anfægtelse af fuldbyrdelsespåtegningen ved appel eller genoptagelse —, sikkerhedsstillelse (artikel 38, stk. 2) — betingelser — udsættelse af afgørelsen (artikel 38, stk. 1) — betingelser
Enforcement — Appeal against order for enforcement — Provision of security (second paragraph of Article 38) — Conditions — Stay of proceedings (first paragraph of Article 38) — Conditions
Et italiensk firma havde ved Tribunale civile e penale di Mantua opnået en foreløbigt eksigibel dom over et tysk firma til betaling af 4 000 000 LIT med renter og sagsomkost­ninger. Vedkommende tyske ret meddelte efter anmodning den italienske dom fuldbyr­delsespåtegning.
An Italian firm obtained a provisionally enforceable judgment for the payment of 4 million Lire, plus interest and costs, in the Tribunale Civile e Penale, Mantua, against a German company; on application the competent German court made an order for en­forcement.
Dette appellerede det tyske firma til Oberlandesgericht Köln, hvor det gjorde gældende, at det i mellemtiden havde appelleret dommen fra den italienske dom­stol til Corte d'appello di Brescia.
The German company appealed against the order to the Oberlandesgericht Köln, stating that it had in the meantime appealed against the judgment of the Italian
(fortsat 1) firma, om hvis soliditet det tyske firma ingen pålidelige oplysninger havde, hvorfor det nedlagde påstand om, at Oberlandesgericht Köln skulle udsætte sin afgørelse i appelsa­gen efter artikel 38, stk. 1, indtil den italienske appelsag var afsluttet, og om, at tvangs­fuldbyrdelsen af underinstansens dom skulle gøres betinget af en sikkerhedsstillelse.
(continued 1) court of first instance to the Corte d'Appello di Brescia. It considered that it would be an undue hardship for it to have to pay the Italian firm, on whose financial status it had no reliable information, before the judgment became final and therefore sought a stay of proceedings under the first paragraph of Article 38 until the appeal had been decided and asked for enforcement of the judgment of the court of first instance to be made conditional on the provision of security.
Den bestemte, at det italienske firma skulle stille sikkerhed, idet den anførte, at en ubetinget tvangsfuldbyrdelse kunne være til alvorlig ulempe for det tyske firma, såfremt afgørelsen i første instans måtte blive ændret, og idet det i øvrigt også måtte tages i betragtning, at det italienske firmas formueforhold ikke forelå oplyst.
The Oberlandesgericht ordered the provision of se­curity by the Italian firm on the ground that unconditional authorization of enforce­ment, especially having regard to the uncertain financial status of the Italian judgment creditor, could seriously prejudice the German judgment debtor in the event of the judg­ment of the court of first instance being varied.
Derimod afviste Oberlandesgericht at udsætte sin afgørelse og anførte, at en udsættelse — under hensyn til reglen i konventionens artikel 39 — ville have den virkning, at der alene kunne anvendes sikrende retsmidler, men ikke gennemføres en eksekution.
The court dismissed the wider application for a stay of proceedings, holding that in view of Article 39 of the Convention the result of such a stay would be that in the meantime no enforcement measures could be taken other than protective measures.
Denne løsning ville være i strid med formålet med den foreløbige eksigibilitet, der netop i prin­cippet skulle give kreditor mulighed for fyldestgørelse — og ikke blot en sikkerhed — uden hensyn til eventuelle retsmidler mod den trufne afgørelse.
This was con­trary to the whole purpose of provisional enforcement, which was intended to give the successful party, irrespective of any appeal, the possibility of satisfaction, and not mere­ly a security.
En sådan opsættelse af tvangsfuldbyrdelsen ville kun kunne ske, såfremt der forelå særlige grunde hertil, eksem­pelvis hvis der netop ved tvangsfuldbyrdelsen til fordringshaverens fyldestgørelse ville opstå sådanne ulemper for skyldneren, som ikke kunne opvejes i tilstrækkeligt omfang af en eventuel sikkerhedsstillelse.
Such a postponement of enforcement could be granted only where there were good reasons, as would be the case, for instance, where prejudice would be caused to the judgment debtor by enforcement and such prejudice could not be guarded against by the provision of security.
Dette fremgik af almindelige fogedretlige principper, også selv om konventionen ikke indeholdt særlige forskrifter i så henseende.
This resulted from general principles of the law of enforce­ment, even if the Convention itself did not contain any specific provisions to that effect.
I det fore­liggende tilfælde havde det italienske firma intet fremført om, at der skulle foreligge så­danne særlige risici eller ulemper.
In the present case the Italian judgment creditor had not claimed to be in danger of suf­fering any such prejudice.
Fuldbyrdelse — meddelelse af fuldbyrdelsespåtegning — begæring — betingelser — valg af processuel bopæl — undladelse heraf — retlige konsekvenser — national ret af­gørende
Enforcement — Order for enforcement — Application — Conditions — Failure to give an address for service of process — Legal consequences — Governed by national law
Fuldbyrdelse — anfægtelse af fuldbyrdelsespåtegningen ved appel eller genoptagelse — udsættelse af af gøreisen i tilslutning til en anfægtelse ved »ordinær appel eller genop­tagelse« i domsstaten (artikel 38) — begreb — EF­Domstolens fortolkning — kassa­tionsanke i fransk ret — ordinær appel eller genoptagelse i artikel 38 's forstand.
Enforcement — Appeal against the issue of an order for enforcement — Stay of proceedings where an "ordinary appeal" is lodged in the State in which the judgment was given (Article 38) — Concept — Interpretation by the Court of Justice of the Euro­pean Communities — Appeal in cassation under French law — Ordinary appeal within the meaning of Article 38
Appellanten, et belgisk selskab, var ved dom af 19. december 1975 afsagt af Tribunal de commerce de Paris samt ved dom af 2. februar 1977 afsagt af Cour d'appel de Paris ble­vet tilpligtet at betale indstævnte, et i Frankrig hjemmehørende selskab, bestemte penge­beløb.
By judgment of the Tribunal de Commerce, Paris, dated 19 December 1975, and by judgment of the Cour d'Appel, Paris, dated 2 February 1977, the appellant, a Belgian
(fortsat 1) sagen nu anfægtede.
(continued 1) company, was ordered to pay certain sums to the respondent, a French company.
Retten anførte, at begæringen om fuldbyrdelsespåtegning ganske vist ikke indeholdt en angivelse af en processuel bopæl i henhold til domskonventionens artikel 33, men dog en udnævnelse af en rettergangsfuldmægtig.
The court found that although the application for enforcement did not give an address for service of process as required by Article 33 of the Brussels Convention, a representa­tive ad litem had been appointed thereby.
Konventionen indeholdt ingen bestemmel­ser om retsvirkningen — og navnlig ikke om ugyldighed — i tilfælde af, at forpligtelsen i artikel 33 ikke var overholdt. Ifølge artikel 860 i code judiciaire kunne et processkridt kun erklæres ugyldigt, såfremt der var udtrykkelig lovhjemmel herfor.
The Convention did not prescribe any legal consequences, still less invalidity, for failing to comply with the requirements of Arti­cle 33.
I øvrigt kunne ret­ten ifølge artikel 861 i code judiciaire kun statuere ugyldighed, såfremt det undladte eller urigtige processkridt var til skade for den part, der påberåbte sig ugyldigheden.
Further, under Article 861 of the Code Judiciaire the court could only make a finding of invalidity if the omission of the proce­dural step or the failure to perform it properly occasioned prejudice to the party who sought to reply on that matter.
I det foreliggende tilfælde havde appellanten ikke lidt skade som følge af, at der ikke var valgt en processuel bopæl.
In the instant case the respondent had not been handicap­ped by the failure to give an address for service of process.
Fuldbyrdelsespåtegningen kunne således ikke af denne årsag anses for at være ugyldig.
Therefore the order for en­forcement was not invalid on that ground.
Appellanten fik derimod medhold i sin påstand om udsættelse i medfør af artiklerne 30 og 38.
On the other hand, the court granted the application for a stay under Articles 30 and 38.
Indstævnte havde ganske vist gjort gældende, at kassationsanken ifølge fransk procesret ikke var en ordinær appel eller genoptagelse i de nævnte artiklers forstand.
It was true that the respondent had argued that under French procedural law an appeal in cassation was not an ordinary appeal within the meaning of those Articles.
Retten tog stilling til dette spørgsmål på grundlag af EF­Domstolens dom af 22. novem­ber 1977 i sag 43/77 [ovenfor under 1­25.0 — A 2] og nåede under anvendelse af de i dom­men nævnte kriterier til det resultat, at kassationsanken — som skulle indgives inden for bestemte frister, og hvorved der var mulighed for at opnå en ændret afgørelse — var en »ordinær appel eller genoptagelse« i konventionens forstand.
The court examined that question on the basis of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the Euro­pean Communities of 22 November 1977 in Case 43/77 Industrial Diamond Supplies ν Riva (supra 1-25.0 — A 2) and, applying the criteria laid down in the judgment, came to the conclusion that an appeal in cassation, which had to be lodged within a particular period and which could result in the variation of the decision appealed against, was an ordinary appeal within the meaning of the Convention.
Begæringen om udsæt­telse fandtes også at burde tages til følge.
In addition, the application for a stay was justified.
Retten udsatte sin afgørelse »indtil det tidspunkt, hvor de domme, der var genstand for begæringen, fik retskraft i domsstaten«.
The court stayed proceedings "until such time as the judgments comprising the subjectmatter of the application become final in the State in which they were given".
Retten traf endvidere bestemmelse om, at appel­lanten skulle stille en sikkerhed.
It also or­dered the appellant to provide security.
I denne sag havde retten forelagt EF­Domstolen to spørgsmål om fortolkningen af be­grebet »ordinær appel eller genoptagelse« i domskonventionens artikler 30 og 38.
In this case the court giving judgment had requested the Court of Justice of the European Communities to deliver a preliminary ruling on two questions on the interpretation of the concept of an "ordinary appeal", employed in Articles 30 and 38 of the Brussels Convention.
EF­Domstolen besvarede spørgsmålene ved dom af 22. november 1977 (sag 43/77; jfr. ovenfor under 1­25.0 — A 2).
The Court of Justice answered those questions in its judgment of 22 No­vember 1977 ([1977] ECR 2175; see 1-25.0 — A 2, supra).
I sin afgørelse vedrørende den af rekvisitus foretagne an­fægtelse af fuldbyrdelsespåtegningen og vedrørende samme parts begæring om udsæt­telse af afgørelsen anførte retten følgende:
In its subsequent judgment on the respondent's appeal against the issue of an order for enforcement and request for a stay of the proceedings in accordance with Article 38 of the Convention, the court in Antwerp held as follows:
På baggrund af Domstolens besvarelse af de præjudicielle spørgsmål måtte rekvisiti kassationsanke i Italien betragtes som en ordinær appel eller genoptagelse, som om­handlet i konventionens artikler 30 og 38. Den af retten i Torino afsagte dom, som be­gæredes fuldbyrdet, var eksigibel i Italien uanset kassationsanken.
In light of the answers supplied by the Court of Justice to the questions submitted to it, the appeal in cassation which the respondent had brought in Italy was to be regarded as an ordinary appeal within the meaning of Articles 30 and 38 of the Convention.
Rekvirenten måtte betragtes som økonomisk solid, hvorimod samme spørgsmål for rekvisiti vedkom­mende måtte betragtes som tvivlsomt.
The financial circum­stances of the applicant appeared to be sound whereas those of the respondent were questionable.
Under rimeligt hensyn til begge parters rettighe­der fandtes fuldbyrdelse at kunne tillades, mod at der blev stillet sikkerhed.
In order to preserve the rights of the parties in an appropriate manner, en­forcement could be authorized subject to the making of an order for the provision of se­curity.
Retten stadfæstede følgelig den anfægtede afgørelse, idet den dog bestemte, at rekviren­ten skulle stille en nærmere bestemt sikkerhed.
The court accordingly confirmed the decision appealed against subject to the provision by the applicant of a certain sum as security.
Afdeling 3 ­ FÆLLES BESTEMMELSER (artikel 46—artikel 49)
Section 3 ­ COMMON PROVISIONS (Articles 46 to 49)