natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Sagsøgeren anførte herved, at da sagsøgte havde nægtet at erlægge restkøbesummen, som aftalt, måtte opfyldelsesstedet for den på­gældende forpligtelse bestemmes efter reglerne i loven; heri bestemtes, at det i det fore­liggende tilfælde drejede sig om bringeskyld, der skulle erlægges på sagsøgerens hjem­sted.
In this connection it claimed that when the defendant had refused to pay the bal­ance of the purchase price as agreed the place of performance of the relevant obligation fell to be determined in accordance with the statutory provisions; according to those provisions, the present case concerned a debt payable at the address of the creditor which must be discharged at the plaintiffs seat.
Retten i første instans fandt at mangle kompetence.
The court of first instance declared that it had no jurisdiction.
Gerechthof udtalte, at en kompetence for den nederlandske ret i det foreliggende tilfælde alene kunne følge af domskonventionens artikel 5, nr. 1 ; en sådan kompetence forudsatte, at den kontraktslige forpligtelse, som søgsmålet vedrørte, skulle opfyldes in­den for denne rets stedlige kompetence.
The Gerechtshof stated that in the present case the Netherlands court could only have jurisdiction as a result of Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention; under that provision the contractual obligation to which the action related must have been performable within the area of jurisdiction ofthat court.
Parterne havde imidlertid aftalt, at sagsøgtes betalingsforpligtelse skulle opfyldes i Frankrig.
But the parties had agreed that the defend­ant's obligation to pay for the goods should be performed in France.
Ganske vist måtte det i overensstem­melse med sagsøgerens opfattelse lægges til grund, at aftalen var underkastet neder­landsk lov; forskriften i artikel 1429, stk. 2, i Burgerlijk Wetboek, hvorefter betalingen skal ske på kreditors bopæl, gjaldt dog kun, for så vidt parterne ikke havde aftalt andet.
Admittedly it was possible, in accordance with the plaintiffs view, to assume that the contract was gov­erned by the law of the Netherlands; however the provision laid down in Article 1429(2) of the Burgerlijk Wetboek, according to which payment must be made at the creditor's seat, applied only in so far as the parties had made no other agreement.
Retten forkastede sagsøgerens anbringende om, at aftalen om betalingsstedet uden vi­dere var bortfaldet som følge af sagsøgtes manglende betaling, idet det for kompetence­spørgsmålet alene var afgørende, hvad sagsøgte var forpligtet til i henhold til aftalens bestemmelser.
The court dismissed the plaintiffs objection that the agreement concerning the place of payment had automatically become void as a result of the defendant's failure to per­form the obligation : it held that the question of jurisdiction depended exclusively on what the defendant had undertaken to do on the basis of the contractual agreements.
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — opfyldelsesværneting — bestemmelse af opfyldelsesstedet efter den fælles opfattelse i de kontraherende stater
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction of the courts for the place of per­formance — Determination of the place of performance according to the proper law of the contract — Determination of the proper law — Subsequent choice of law in the context of the dispute as to jurisdiction allowed
Kompetence — visse former for kreditkøb og lån (artikel 13) — udbetaling på den senereforfaldende købesum — ikke »køb ... hvor købesummen skal betales i rater«
In support of the jurisdiction of the court before which the matter was brought — disputed by the defendant — the plaintiff relied on Article 5(1) and (5) of the Brussels Convention. The court held that it had no jurisdiction.
Den anførte, at fastlæggelsen af opfyldelsesstedet for de til grund for sagen liggende forpligtelser, hvilket sted var afgørende for spørgsmålet om værneting efter artikel 5, nr. 1, måtte ske efter den lov, som i henhold til de nederlandske lovvalgsregler fandt anvendelse på disse forpligtelser.
It held that the place of performance of the obligations comprising the subject­matter of the action, which was decisive in establishing jurisdiction under Article 5(1), must be determined in accordance with the law which governed those obligations under the Netherlands conflict rules.
Retten fastslog derimod, at de omstændigheder, sagsøgeren havde anført som grundlag for et lovvalg til fordel for tysk ret, ganske vist var utilstrækkelige.
The court found that the factors mentioned by the plaintiff in support of a choice of German law were insufficient.
Da imidlertid sagsøgeren dels havde påstået tysk ret lagt til grund, og sagsøgte ikke havde fremført indsigelse herimod under forma­litetsproceduren, og da der dels af sagens faktiske omstændigheder [som retten indled­ningsvis havde foretaget en udførlig gennemgang af] ikke kunne udledes nogen over­vejende tilknytning hverken til det nederlandske eller til det tyske retsområde, kunne man her tale om et begrænset »efterfølgende lovvalg«, som ganske vist ikke i alminde­lighed uden videre kunne være afgørende, men som dog var af udslagsgivende betyd­ning for det for værnetinget afgørende spørgsmål om, hvor opfyldelsesstedet for de for­pligtelser, der lå til grund for sagen, var beliggende.
Since, however, on the one hand the plaintiff relied on German law and the defendant had not challenged that in the context of the preliminary issue of jurisdiction, and, on the other hand, the facts of the case (already fully investigated by the court) did not display any predominant connection either with the territory subject to Netherlands law or the territory subject to German law, it was possible to speak of a limited 'subsequent choice of law'. Al­though in general such a choice could not in itself be decisive, none the less it was of crucial importance in resolving the question, on which jurisdiction depended, of where the place of performance of the obligations comprising the subject­matter of the action was situated.
Dette spørgsmål skulle ifølge det tidligere anførte besvares efter tysk lov.
In view of the considerations dealt with above that question had to be answered by reference to German law.
I henhold hertil var — som retten detaljeret gjorde rede for — opfyldelsesstedet for de omtvistede forpligtelser sagsøgtes hjemsted i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland.
Under German law — as the court had already determined — the place of performance of the disputed obligations was the place where the defendant had its seat in the Federal Republic of Germany.
Ifølge nederlandsk ret kunne sagsøgeren ikke anses for sagsøgtes handelsagent.
Under the law of the Netherlands the plaintiff could not be regarded as the defendant's agent.
Videre forelå der i det for retten foreliggende tilfælde heller ikke et agentur i den nævnte bestemmel­ses forstand.
Further, in the present case there was no agency within the meaning of the said provision.
Dette begreb var karakteriseret ved, at virksomheden var underkastet ho­vedvirksomhedens ledelse og kontrol, hvilket ikke var tilfældet, da sagsøgeren optrådte helt på egen hånd.
One of the essential features of that concept was that the agent should be subject to the super­vision and direction of the principal, which was not so in the present case since the plaintiff had acted wholly independently.
Da det nævnte kendetegn også var gældende for begreberne filial og lignende virksomhed, kunne rettens kompetence ikke støttes på konventionens arti­kel 5, nr. 5.
As that was also a feature of the concepts of 'branch' and 'other establishment', Article 5(5) could not be relied on in order to estab­lish the jurisdiction of the court before which the matter had been brought.
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — opfyldelsesværneting — begrebet »forpligtel­se« i artikel 5, nr. 1, — EF­Domstolens fortolkning — fastlæggelse af opfyldelsesstedet — kontraktstatuttet afgørende
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction of the courts for the place of perform­ance — The term 'obligation ' in Article 5(1) — Interpretation by the Court of Justice of the European Communities — Determination of the place of performance — Governed by the proper law of the contract
Sagsøgeren, en i Storhertugdømmet Luxembourg bosiddende handlende, havde solgt et parti skrot til sagsøgte, en handlende i Trier (Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland).
The plaintiff, a trader domiciled in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, sold a quantity of scrap metal to the defendant, a trader from Trier (Federal Republic of Germany).
Efter at have aftaget en første levering erklærede sagsøgte, at han ikke længere agtede at opfyl­de aftalen.
After accepting an initial delivery the defendant declared that he no longer wished to fulfil the contract.
Sagsøgeren anlagde derpå sag i Luxembourg og påstod dels betaling af et beløb svarende til merværdiafgiften for den første levering, dels skadeserstatning for uretmæssig annullation af kontrakten. Sagsøgte rejste under henvisning til domskon­
The plaintiff thereupon commenced proceedings in Luxembourg, claiming (i) an amount in respect of the value­added tax on the first delivery, and (ii)
(fortsat 1) ventionens artikel 5, nr. 1, indsigelse mod rettens kompetence.
(continued 1)
Retten erklærede sig ved mellemdom kompetent.
Zimmer entered an appearance and lodged an objection as to jurisdiction.
I appelinstansen stadfæstedes afgørelsen.
In the course of the proceedings it made an application to the Corte di cassazione on the ques­tion of international jurisdiction.
Cour supérieure de justice udtalte, at retten i første instans i henhold til konventionens artikel 5, nr. 1, havde kompetence til at pådømme sagen, da opfyldelsesstedet for den omtvistede forpligtelse lå i Luxembourg.
Zimmer argued in particular that under Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention the Bel­gian, and not the Italian, courts had jurisdiction to hear the dispute.
Ifølge EF­Domstolens dom af 6. oktober 1976 i sagen De Bloos mod Bouyer (sag 14/76; ovenfor under 1­5.1.1 — A 1) skulle ved »for­pligtelse« i artikel 5, nr. 1, forstås den forpligtelse, der lå til grund for sagen.
The place of per­formance of the obligation in question constituting the subject­matter of the proceed­ings was Brussels and not Milan, since the sale, albeit to be effected against documents, was to take place at prices agreed 'franco Bruxelles'.
I den før­ste del af påstanden krævedes der betaling af restkøbesummen for varer, som var leve­ret i henhold til en købekontrakt.
In addition, the sale in question had to be regarded as being governed by the Hague Convention of 1 July 1964 on the Uniform Law on the International Sale of Goods.
Da parterne var enige om, at luxembourgsk lovgiv­ning skulle finde anvendelse på retsforholdet, skulle opfyldelsesstedet for den nævnte kontraktslige forpligtelse fastlægges efter dette lands lov.
Article 19(2) of the Hague Conven­tion provides that where a contract of sale involves carriage of goods and no other place of delivery has been agreed upon, delivery is to be effected by handing over the goods to the carrier for transmission to the buyer.
Ifølge artikel 1651 i [den luxembourgske] code civil havde sagsøgte — da parterne ikke havde aftalt andet — været forpligtet til at betale varerne på leveringsstedet, dvs. i Luxembourg.
The Corte di cassazione rejected those arguments. It observed that, according to what the parties had expressly agreed, the products in question were to be sold against docu­ments, whilst payment was to be effected by international bills of exchange payable within 60 days of the handing over of the documents.
Da samme principper var afgørende, for så vidt sagsøgeren herudover krævede skades­erstatning for uretmæssig annullation — som bestod i, at sagsøgte nægtede at betale den aftalte købesum.
The Corte di cassazione went on to state that the Italian courts also had jurisdiction with regard to the part of the contract to be performed wholly in Italy which related to the mandate conferred on the Italian company to distribute, and develop the market for, the Belgian company's products in certain regions of northern Italy.
I en sag vedrørende følgerne af et kontraktsbrud fra køberens side var den forpligtelse, der var afgørende for anvendelsen af artikel 5, nr. 1, den forplig­telse fra køberens side, på hvis manglende opfyldelse sælgeren støttede sine krav på skadeserstatning eller ophævelse af aftalen.
The Italian courts clearly also had jurisdiction to entertain the alternative claims for the termination of the contract and damages, since in order to determine jurisdiction with regard to them it was also necessary to have regard to the contractual obligation the non­performance of which was relied on in support of those claims.
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — retten på opfyldelsesstedet for den forpligtel­se der ligger til grund for sagen — eneforhandlingsaftale — den relevante forpligtelse — leverandørens erstatningsforpligtelse trådt i stedet for forpligtelsen til at overholde kon­trakten — opfyldelsessted — kontrakt gældende for Frankrig — opfyldelsesstedet belig­gende i Frankrig
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction of the courts for the place of perform­ance — Determination of the place of performance prior to notification of the main obliga­tion — Unreliable — Contract of representation — Determinant nature of the obligation characterizing the contract — Determination of the place of performance pursuant to na­tional law
Tribunal de commerce gav leverandøren, det tyske selskab, medhold i, at retten savnede kompetence. Selskabet havde anført, at retten på det sted, hvor forpligtelsen var opfyldt, eller skulle opfyldes, jfr. konventionens artikel 5, nr. 1, var den tyske domstol på selska­bets hjemsted, idet den forpligtelse, der sigtedes til i bestemmelsen, i det foreliggende til­
The 'place of performance of the obligation in question' had to be determined in accordance with the law which governed the obligations in question according to the rules of conflict of laws of the court before which the matter was brought (judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 October 1976 in Case 12/76 Tessili ν Dunlop, supra, 1­5.1.2 — A 1).
(fortsat I) tikel 19, stk. 2, en aftale, der medfører forsendelse af varen, opfyldes ved, at varen overgives til fragtføreren, såfremt der ikke er aftalt et andet leveringssted.
The place of performance of the work, the Bundesarbeitsgericht held, was the plain­tiffs place of residence.
I det forelig­gende tilfælde skulle varen overgives til fragtføreren i Bruxelles.
In accordance with the reciprocal intention of the parties, Ger­man labour law was to govern the substance of their legal relations.
Efter parternes udtrykkelige aftale skulle salget af de pågældende varepartier ske mod dokumenter, mens købesummen skulle betales ved hjælp af internationale veksler, der forfaldt til betaling 60 dage efter overgivelsen af dokumenterne.
Under the (alleged) contract of employ­ment, the plaintiff was required to carry out his work, which was to consist of visits to jewellers and the conclusion with them of contracts of sale, throughout a large area in the south of Germany rather than in one specific place.
Følgelig stod det fast, at salget skulle gennemføres i Mi­lano, hvor Cremascoli havde hjemsted, da sælgeren ifølge artikel 1527 i Codice civile, som indeholder reglerne om køb mod dokumenter, frigøres for pligten til levering, når det dokument, der repræsenterer varen, overgives til køberen.
In cases such as the present, the court held, the decisive factor was that the rep­resentative had been allocated a specific, clearly demarcated area in which he worked from his place of residence, to which he regularly returned and in which he carried out his tasks as well as attending to correspondence with clients and employer, thereby ful­filling significant obligations under the contract of employment.
De italienske retter havde også kompetencen med hensyn til den del af aftalen — som fuldt ud skulle opfyldes i Italien — hvorefter det italienske firma fik til opgave at afsætte og indføre det belgiske firmas produkter på markedet i nogle områder i Nord­italien.
In contrast to this were cases in which the employee was engaged to work for the undertaking and was constantly sent out from the registered office to various external places in order there to perform tasks, as, for instance, in the case of installation operatives or drivers working for travel companies.
Det stod også klart, at de italienske retter havde kompetencen til at påkende Cremasco­lis subsidiære påstand om ophævelse af aftalen og om skadeserstatning.
In the case of such dispatch subject to instructions, the focal point of the service was the seat of the company.
Også i den henseende måtte der nemlig, hvad fastlæggelsen af kompetencen angik, lægges vægt på den kontraktlige forpligtelse, på hvis misligholdelse påstanden støttedes.
If, on the other hand, the employee had been allocated a clearly specified area which he covered from his place of residence rather than from the company seat, then the place of residence had at any rate to be treated as the focal point of the service.
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — opfyldelsesværneting — bestemmelse af op­fyldelsesstedet, inden det undersøges, hvilken forpligtelse der er den relevante — ikke til­ladt — repræsentantkontrakt — den forpligtelse, der er karakteristisk for kontrakten, er afgørende — bestemmelse af opfyldelsesstedet efter national ret
In a decision of 18 February 1988 (2 AZR 590/87) dealing with similar facts, the Bun­desarbeitsgericht had to identify the determinant obligation in a case where the rep­resentative was seeking a declaration that the notice given by the employer had not put an end to the existing employment relationship.
En tysk sagsøger, som havde bopæl i Arbeitsgericht Mainz' retskreds, havde indgået en aftale med sagsøgte, en fransk virksomhed med hjemsted i Lyon, som solgte smykker, om, at han skulle virke som repræsentant i et større område i Sydtyskland.
The direct subject­matter of the dispute in this case was the question whether the employment relationship continued to exist.
Efter at sag­søgeren havde udstået en prøvetid, uden at det kom til en endelig overtagelse af virk­somheden, krævede sagsøgeren betaling af sin faste løn, den provision, han var gået glip af, feriegodtgørelse og rejseudgifter.
It was for that reason necessary to focus on the employee's contractual duties which depended on that continued existence, in which the obligation to carry out work char­acterized the contract.
Sagsøgte bestred, at der var indgået en aftale, og gjorde indsigelse mod Arbeitsgericht Mainz' internationale og stedlige kompetence.
In its determination of the place of performance, the court con­firmed the above decision.
Bundesarbeitsgericht udtalte, at artikel 5, nr. 1, i Bruxelles­konventionen, som var den eneste bestemmelse, der kunne komme i betragtning, også fandt anvendelse, når der — som i den konkrete sag — mellem parterne var tvist om eksistensen af den aftale, som det indtalte krav støttedes på (Domstolens dom af 4. marts 1982, sag 38/81, jfr. ovenfor under 1­5.1.1 — A 2).
A dispute relating to goods supplied arose between the supplier, a French undertaking, and its Belgian client. The Belgian purchaser instituted proceedings before the Recht­bank van koophandel, Antwerp, seeking damages on the ground of hidden defects.
Det »sted, hvor den pågældende forpligtelse er opfyldt eller skal opfyldes«, skal bestemmes i henhold til den lov, der er anvendelig på den omtvistede forpligtelse i medfør af lovkonfliktreglerne ved den ret, sagen er indbragt for (dom af 6. oktober 1976, sag 12/76, jfr. ovenfor under 1­5.1.2 — A 1).
The Rechtbank declared that it had jurisdiction to rule on the claim, a decision against which the defendant appealed on the ground that its invoices contained a jurisdiction clause in favour of the French courts.
Dette princip vedrører dog kun spørgsmålet om, hvor opfyldelsen skal finde sted.
The Hof van beroep upheld the judgment of the Rechtbank.
Der må imidlertid sondres mellem dette spørgsmål og det spørgsmål, der forinden skal tages stilling til, nemlig hvilken forpligtelse der i henhold til artikel 5, nr. 1, er afgørende for bestemmelsen af den internationale kompetence.
It ruled that the jurisdic­tion clause set out on the reverse side of the defendant's invoices did not meet the re­quirements of Article 17 of the Convention in view of the fact that the defendant had not demonstrated that the plaintiff had agreed in writing to the clause, whether on the invoices or by a separate document, or that there had been an oral agreement relating expressly to the clause and confirmed by the plaintiff in writing.
Dette spørgsmål skal udelukkende besvares på grund­lag af konventionen, og det er ukorrekt umiddelbart at lægge vægt på begrebet »opfyl­delsessted« ved besvarelsen.
On the contrary, the plaintiff had referred, when placing its orders, to the jurisdiction of the courts within the judicial area of Antwerp.
Dette kan først bestemmes, når det står fast, hvilken for­pligtelse der er afgørende for den internationale kompetence.
With regard to Article 5(1) of the Convention, the Hofvan beroep began by pointing out that according to Article 5 of the Hague Convention of 15 June 1955 on the law ap­plicable to the international sale of movable property French law was applicable to the contract of sale.
Ifølge Domstolens prin­cipielle afgørelse (dom af 6. oktober 1976, sag 14/76, jfr. ovenfor under 1­5.1.1 — A 1) er den relevante forpligtelse den, som ligger til grund for søgsmålet.
The French and Belgian legal provisions, however, were in agreement as regards the principles of law applicable in determining the obligation on which the claim was based.
I den konkrete sag var det arbejdsydelsen, som sagsøgeren skulle præstere for at opfylde den aftale, som (angiveligt) var indgået.
According to those principles, the vendor was under a duty to supply and a duty to guarantee the goods supplied, each duty being separately enforceable.
I tilfælde af krav, der som her støttes på forskellige forpligtel­ser med grundlag i en repræsentantkontrakt indgået mellem en ikke­selvstændig ar­bejdstager og en virksomhed, er det nemlig ifølge Domstolens praksis (dom af 26. maj 1982, sag 133/81, jfr. ovenfor under 1­5.1.1 — A3) den forpligtelse, som er karakteris­tisk for kontrakten, der skal tages i betragtning.
The fact that the plaintiff had in the present case raised the duty of guarantee by bring­ing a claim for damages did not mean that the claim was based on a financial duty de­volving on the vendor which was subject to the rules governing debts recoverable only at the debtor's address.
Opfyldelsesstedet for arbejdsydelsen var sagsøgerens bopæl.
The obligation on which the claim was based was, rather, the duty to guarantee against hidden defects in the goods purchased which prevented their being used in the manner intended or at least restricted such use.
Efter parternes overens­stemmende vilje skulle retsforholdet mellem dem være undergivet tysk materiel ar­bejdsret. I overensstemmelse hermed skulle opfyldelsesstedet bestemmes efter § 269 i Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGB).
That obligation was to be performed at the place in which the purchaser used the goods supplied.
Hvad sådanne arbejdsforhold angår, er det den almindelige op­fattelse i teorien og appelinstansernes praksis, at der i henhold til § 269, stk. 1, i BGB må antages at gælde et fælles opfyldelsessted for alle parternes forpligtelser.
The Rechtbank van koophandel, Antwerp, accordingly had jurisdiction to rule on the dispute under Article 5(1) of the Conven­tion.
Er der derimod tildelt arbejdstageren et fast område, som han ikke betjener fra virksomhedens hjemsted, men fra sin bopæl, skal bopælen i hvert fald anses for tyng­depunktet i arbejdsydelsen.
1­5.1.2 — Β 50 Cour d'appel, Paris, Judgment of 24 February 1989, Svedex Holding BV y Banque Nationale de Paris and Société de Développement Régional du Sud­Ouest TOFINSO SA