natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Landgericht Hamburg anførte, at der ved dommen — der var afsagt i en handelssag, og på hvis fuldbyrdelse domskonven­tionen fandt anvendelse — ikke var sket domfældelse af rekvisitus, men af CIMA som agent for rekvisitus.
The judgment had been delivered in a commercial case and any order for its enforcement was governed by the Brussels Convention, but under the judgment it was CIMA in its capacity as agent of the respon­dent and not the respondent which was liable.
Ifølge artikel 288 i Codice della navigazione sammenholdt med arti­kel 2204, stk. 2, i Codice civile repræsenterer agenten også bortfragterens reder i retssa­ger, således at sager mod denne kan føres mod agenten.
Under Article 288 of the Codice della Na­vigazione, read in conjunction with Article 2204 (2) of the Codice Civile, the agent also
(fortsat 1) deren ifølge italiensk ret ifølge loven repræsenteredes af agenten i retssager, og rederen i et sådant tilfælde ikke kunne rejse indsigelse mod dommen, var det i strid med grundlæg­gende tyske retsprincipper, at en tysk debitor med hensyn til dommens virkninger i Tysk­land blev underkastet en sådan ordning.
Even if under Italian law a shipowner was represented in legal proceed­ings by his agent and the shipowner in such a case could not challenge the judgment, it was contrary to German public policy to make a German debtor subject to such rules in connexion with the effects of the judgment in Germany.
Rekvisitus havde ikke haft kendskab til sagen og havde heller ikke fået dommen for­kyndt.
The respondent had had no knowledge of the claim and had also not been served with the judgment.
Rekvisitus kunne dermed ikke sætte sig til modværge mod den passivitet, CIMA havde udvist ved ikke at svare i sagen.
The respondent was thus unable, in particular, to protect itself against the passive attitude adopted by CIMA, which had not entered an appearance in the action.
Det kunne ikke forventes, at en reder, der deltog i udlandsforretninger, havde kendskab til alle de specielle beføjelser, som i hver enkelt stat muligvis blev tillagt rederiagenter, og dermed at en legal repræsentation var i over­ensstemmelse med hans vilje. Den lettelse i de internationale retsforhold, som var tilsig­tet med artikel 288 i Codice della navigazione, fandt sin grænse dér, hvor den muligvis ikke længere var i overensstemmelse med en udenlandsk parts vilje.
A shipowner engaged in foreign trade could not be expected to acquaint himself with all the special powers which various States might possibly confer on shipping agents and to see that an agent appointed by the local legislature to represent him in legal pro­ceedings accorded with his wishes.
Fuldbyrdelse — hindringer for fuldbyrdelse (artikel 34, stk. 2) — undladelse af at svare i sagen — forskriftsmæssig forkyndelse af det indledende processkrift i sagen (ar­tikel 27, nr.2) — krav om oversættelse af det processkrift, der skal forkyndes — betingel­ser ¡forholdet mellem Frankrig og ForbundsrepubUkken Tyskland
Enforcement — Reasons for refusing enforcement (second paragraph of Article 34) — Defendant not entering an appearance — Due service of the document which instituted the proceedings (Article 27 (2)) — Need for translation of the document which has to be served — Requirements as between France and the Federal Republic of Ger­many
Fuldbyrdelse — hindringer for fuldbyrdelse (artikel 34, stk. 2) — modstrid med grundlæggende retsprincipper i fuldbyrdelsesstaten (artikel 27, nr. I) — dom til betaling af underholdsbidrag til barn født uden for ægteskab — fastslåelse af faderskabet på grundlag af moderens udsagn samt beviser til støtte herfor — ingen modstrid med grundlæggende franske retsprincipper
Enforcement — Reasons for refusing enforcement (second paragraph of Article 34) — Contrary to public policy in the State in which enforcement is sought (Article 27 (1)) — Order to pay maintenance f or an illegitimate child — Establishment of paternity on the basis of the mother's statement and supporting evidence — Not contrary to French public policy
Appellanten i denne sag gjorde indsigelse mod, at to domme afsagt af Amtsgericht Frei­burg im Breisgau (Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland), hvorved hans faderskab til et barn, C.Z., der var født uden for ægteskab, var fastslået, og hvorved han var blevet dømt til at betale underholdsbidrag, blev forsynet med fuldbyrdelsespåtegning i Frankrig.
The appellant appealed against an order for the enforcement in France of two judgments of the Amtsgericht Freiburg im Breisgau (Federal Republic of Germany).
Han gjorde desu­den gældende, at den tyske rets afgørelse, hvorved hans faderskab til det uden for ægte­skab fødte barn var fastslået, var i strid med fransk ordre public.
The judgments established his paternity of an illegitimate child, C.Z., and ordered him to pay main­tenance for that child.
Appellanten fik imidler­tid ikke medhold.
The appellant had not entered an appearance in the proceedings
(fortsat 1)
(continued 1) before the German court.
Cour d'appel fastslog, at domskonventionen fandt anvendelse på fuldbyrdelsessagen, og anførte, at spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt processkrifterne var forskriftsmæssige og for­kyndelsen af dem var sket på forskriftsmæssig måde måtte afgøres i henhold til Haag­civilproceskonventionen af 1. marts 1954 og den tysk­franske tillægsoverenskomst af 6. maj 1961.
The Cour d'Appel held, first, that the Brussels Convention applied to the enforcement proceedings and then stated that the regularity of the procedural documents and their service was to be considered having regard to the Hague Convention on civil procedure of 1 March 1954 and the Franco­German Supplementary Agreement of 6 May 1961.
Da stævningen var fremsendt direkte, jfr. tillægsoverenskomstens artikel 1, var en oversættelse ikke nødvendig, som tilfældet ville have været i medfør af Haag­kon­ventionens artikel 3, stk. 2.
Since the statement of claim ("Klageschrift") had been transmitted directly in accor­dance with Article 11 of the supplementary agreement a translation, which would have been required in the case of formal service under the second paragraph of Article 3 of the Hague Convention, was not necessary.
Desuden fremgik det af forkyndelsesbegæringen, at en over­sættelse var vedlagt processkriftet; appellanten, der erkendte at have modtaget proces­skrifterne, havde ikke kunnet bevise, at han, som han senere hævdede, ikke havde mod­taget en oversættelse.
Moreover, it appeared from the application for service that a translation had accompanied the document to be served. The appellant, who acknowledged receipt of the document, had not been able to prove his subsequent assertion that he did not receive any translation.
Den således foretagne forskriftsmæssige forkyndelse af det indle­dende processkrift i sagen var også sket rettidigt, nemlig næsten seks måneder før rets­mødet; dette tidsrum havde i givet fald også været tilstrækkeligt til oversættelsen af de tyske processkrifter.
Service of the document which insti­tuted the proceedings had accordingly been regular and had been made in sufficient time, in fact, almost six months before the date of the oral procedure. If necessary, that period would have been sufficient for translation of the documents which were written in German.
Cour d'appel anførte endvidere, at appellanten med urette hævdede, at den tyske ret i strid med fransk ordre public havde fastslået hans faderskab til et barn født uden for æg­teskab alene på grundlag af moderens udtalelser.
The appellant was not correct in his contention that the German court had based its finding of his paternity of the illegitimate child only on the mother's statement and thus in a way which was contrary to French public policy.
Retten havde tværtimod bestemt, at der skulle foretages en sammenlignende blodtypeundersøgelse af moderen, barnet og appellanten, men denne undersøgelse havde ikke kunnet foretages, alene fordi appellan­ten ikke havde svaret i sagen.
Rather, the court had, in addition, ordered a comparative investigation of the blood groups of the mother, the child and the appellant and it was entirely the result of the appellant's failure to take part in the proceedings that the investigation had not been carried out.
Den tyske ret havde frit kunnet bedømme appellantens holdning under sagen samt moderens forklaring, der blev afgivet under ed.
It was open to the German court to make its own assessment ofthat conduct on the part of the appellant as well as the evidence given by the mother on oath.
De to tyske retsafgørelser kunne derfor fuldbyrdes i medfør af domskonventionens bestemmelser.
An order for the enforcement of the German judgments could therefore be issued in accordance with the provisions of the Brussels Convention.
(fortsat 1) som støttedes på, at domskonventionens artikel 27, nr. 1 og 2, ikke var overholdt, fri­fandtes indstævnte ved Cour d'appel de Reims.
An appeal against that order on the ground that Article 27 (1) and (2) of the Brussels Convention had been infringed was dismissed by the Cour d'Appel, Reims.
Derimod fik appellanten medhold under den følgende kassationsappel.
The appeal in cassation brought against that decision was successful.
En forskriftsmæssig forkyndelse i konventionens artikel 27, nr. 2's forstand forudsatte ikke, at det indledende processkrift i sagen var affattet på modtagerens sprog eller var oversat til dette sprog.
Due service within the meaning of Article 27 (2) of the Convention did not require the document which instituted the proceedings to be in the language of the addressee or to be translated into that language.
En anerkendelse af en udenlandsk retsafgørelse, som var afsagt uden angivelse af grunde, var imidlertid i strid med fransk ordre public i det omfang, der ikke blev forelagt dokumenter, som kunne erstatte den manglende begrundelse, og som kunne tjene som grundlag for at fastslå, at betingelserne for anerkendelsen var op­fyldt, særlig med henblik på iagttagelsen af de grundlæggende retsprincipper.
However, recognition of a foreign judgment which did not state the grounds upon which it was based was con­trary to French public policy where no documents were tendered which could take the place of the missing statement of grounds and enable it to be established that the condi­tions for recognition, in particular those relating to the observance of public policy, were satisfied.
Medde­lelse af fuldbyrdelsespåtegning — under henvisning til, at den i den belgiske dom inde­holdte konstatering af, at påstanden fandtes at burde tages til følge, opfyldte kravene i medfør af fransk ordre public — var derfor ikke i overensstemmelse med konventionens artikel 27, nr. 1.
The issue of the order for enforcement on the basis that the requirements of French public policy were satisfied by the statement in the Belgian judgment that the order sought was justified was therefore contrary to Article 27 (1) of the Convention.
(fortsat 1) petence til at træffe afgørelse i sagen.
The applicant, a company based in Belgium, was formerly the respondent's exclusive distributor.
Retten anførte, at det ganske vist fulgte af de almindelige bestemmelser, at de franske retter på det sted, hvor sagsøgte havde bopæl, var enekompetente, således at uden­landske retter, når sagsøgte havde hjemsted i Frankrig, ikke var kompetente, men dette forudsatte, at sagsøgte udtrykkeligt havde gjort denne manglende kompetence gælden­de.
The court stated first that although it was true that exclusive jurisdiction was conferred by the general provisions on the French courts for the place of the defendant's domicile, with the result that where the defendant was domiciled in France foreign courts had no jurisdiction, none the less it was necessary for the defendant expressly to plead want of jurisdiction.
Da rekvisitus havde undladt dette, kunne den manglende kompetence ikke påberå­bes under fuldbyrdelsessagen.
Since the respondent had omitted to do so, the lack of jurisdiction could no longer be relied upon by the respondent in the proceedings for enforcement.
I øvrigt fremgik det af domskonventionens artikel 5, nr. 1, at en person, som har bopæl i en kontraherende stat, også kan sagsøges ved ret­terne i en anden kontraherende stat, nemlig i sager om kontraktsforhold ved retten på det sted, hvor den forpligtelse, der ligger til grund for sagen, er opfyldt eller skal opfyl­des.
Moreo­ver, under Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention a defendant domiciled in a Contract­ing State could also be sued in the courts of another Contracting State, namely, in mat­ters relating to contact, in the courts for the place of performance.
Dette havde EF­Domstolen udtrykkeligt anerkendt for eneforhandlingsaftalers ved­kommende.
That had been ex­pressly confirmed in the case of exclusive distributorship agreements by the Court of Jus­tice of the European Communities.
Med hensyn til rekvisiti indsigelse om modstrid med fransk ordre public anførte retten, at det var korrekt, at fransk ret ikke kendte de belgiske retsbegreber »monopole de droit« og »concession exclusive« i den betydning, der dér var lagt til grund, men at det forhold, at retssystemerne var forskellige, ikke i sig selv førte til, at der forelå modstrid med fransk ordre public.
In regard to the incompatibility with French public policy contended for by the respon­dent, the court stated that French law did not recognize the concepts of "monopole de droit" and "concession exclusive" in the sense in which they were employed in Belgian law. Mere differences between the laws involved did not, however, lead to incompatibi­lity with French public policy.
Fransk ordre public var principielt ikke til hinder for, at privatretlige retspositioner, som var erhvervet i udlandet, havde virkning i indlandet.
That policy did not in principle prevent positions reach­ed in private law abroad from having effect in France.
I øvrigt indeholdt domskonventionen i artikel 27 en ordre public klausul, som svarede til den, der gjaldt i fransk ret, men som dog kun fandt anvendelse i undtagelsestilfælde.
Moreover, although the Brussels Convention also contained in Article 27 a public policy proviso corresponding to that in French law, it only took effect in exceptional cases.
Det var ikke rettens opgave at afgøre, om den udenlandske afgørelse var i strid med landets ordre public, men at afgøre, om anerkendelsen af retsafgørelsen var i strid med ordre public.
It was not the task of the court to as­sess the compatibility of the foreign judgment with domestic public policy but rather to consider whether recognition of that judgment offended against public policy.
Fuldbyrdelse — udeblivelsesdom — hindringer for fuldbyrdelse (artikel 34, stk. 2) — forskriftsmæssig og rettidig forkyndelse af det indledende processkrift i sagen (arti­kel 27, nr. 2) — krav om oversættelse af det processkrift, der skal forkyndes — betingel­ser ¡forholdet Frankrig/Belgien
Enforcement — Judgment given in default — Reasons for refusing enforcement (se­cond paragraph of Article 34) — Due service in sufficient time of document which in­stituted the proceedings (Article 27 (2)) — Need for translation of the document which has to be served — Requirements as between France and Belgium
Fuldbyrdelse — hindringer for fuldbyrdelse (artikel 34, stk. 2) — modstrid med grundlæggende retsprincipper i fuldbyrdelsesstaten (artikel 27, nr. 1) — aftale om renter på 14% og en konventionalbod på 20% affakturabeløbet — ingen modstrid med grund­læggende franske retsprincipper
Enforcement — Reasons for refusing enforcement (second paragraph of Article 34) — Contrary to public policy in the State in which enforcement is sought (Article 27(1)) — Contractual agreement for payment of interest at the rate of14% p.a. and a penalty amounting to 20% of the sum due — Not contrary to French public policy
Ved dom, afsagt af en belgisk ret, var appellanten i denne sag, et fransk selskab, som ikke havde svaret i sagen for den belgiske ret, blevet tilpligtet at betale et pengebeløb samt renter og omkostninger.
The appellant company, which was based in France, had been ordered by a judgment of a Belgian court to pay a certain sum of money together with interest and costs.
Dommen blev forsynet med fuldbyrdelsespåtegning i Frankrig.
The appellant had not entered an appearance in the proceedings.
En oversættelse var ifølge artikel 3, stk. 2, i Haag­konven­tionen af 1. marts 1954 derimod kun påkrævet, når modtageren nægtede at modtage de processkrifter, der fremsendtes uden egentlig forkyndelse, eller den myndighed, der an­modede om forkyndelse, ønskede en formel forkyndelse ifølge de interne retsregler i den stat, hvor forkyndelse skulle foretages. Da adressaten havde taget imod det formløst fremsendte processkrift, og der ikke var fremsat begæring om formel forkyndelse, var en oversættelse ikke påkrævet, og forkyndelsen var derfor sket forskriftsmæssigt.
Against the issue ofthat order the appellant appealed, claiming that Article 27 (1) and (2) of the Brussels Convention had not been complied with since the document which instituted the proceedings had not been duly served in respect that it was only in Dutch and not translated into French and, moreo­ver, had not been served in sufficient time.
I øv­rigt havde appellanten modtaget det anbefalede brev med stævningen 27 dage før rets­mødet. Dette var tilstrækkeligt til at lade processkriftet oversætte og til at varetage for­svaret i sagen.
The appellant further contended that the judgment was contrary to French public policy since the liquidated damages stipulated in the contract of sale in question together with the contractually agreed interest amount­ed to the extortionate rate of 34%.
Forkyndelsen var således sket rettidigt.
The appeal was unsuccessful.
Parterne havde i købekontrakten aftalt, at køberen, såfremt forfaldne fakturaer ikke blev betalt, skulle svare renter med 14% p.a. samt — i tilfælde af, at betaling uden skellig
The Cour d'Appel stated that due service within the meaning of Article 27 of the Brussels Convention was to be determined having regard to the Hague Convention on civil pro­cedure of 1 March 1954, the Franco-Belgian Convention on reciprocal legal assistance
(fortsat 1) grund ikke fandt sted — skulle erlægge en bod på 20% af fakturabeløbet.
That was sufficient time in which to obtain a translation and to arrange for a defence. Service was therefore effected in sufficient time.
Cour d'appel anførte, at en konventionalbod, som pålægges en debitor i et sådant tilfælde, ikke er i strid med fransk ordre public; ifølge artikel 1152 i code civil kan retten kun nedsætte eller forhøje boden.
The court stated that the placing of a contractual penalty on a debtor who had acted in bad faith was not contrary to French public policy. Under Article 1152 of the Code Civil the court could merely reduce or increase the penalty.
At pålægge appellanten at betale renter med 14% p.a. af de ikke­be­talte beløb samt at betale konventionalboden kunne ikke anses som en idømmelse af ågerrenter af det skyldige beløb og var ikke i modstrid med fransk ordre public.
Ordering the appellant to make pay­ment of the contractual penalty could not be regarded as ordering payment of extortio­nate interest on the principal debt and was not contrary to French public policy.
[beskyttelse af sagsøgte i udeblivelsestilfælde]
[Safeguards for defendants where an appearance is not entered]
(Jfr. også 1­27.1 ­ B 2, 3, 4, 6; 1­27.3 ­ B 1)
(See also 1­27.1 ­ Β2, 3, 4, 6; I 27.3 ­ Β 1)
Fuldbyrdelse — udeblivelsesdom — hindringer for fuldbyrdelse (artikel 34, stk. 2) — retti­digforkyndelse af det indledende processkrift i sagen (artikel 27, nr. 2) — meddelelse om udmeldelse af sagkyndig samt om afholdelse af syns­ og skønsforretning to dage før den herfor berammede dato — ikke rettidig i artikel27, nr. 2's forstand
Enforcement — Judgment given in default — Reasons for refusing enforcement (second paragraph of Article 34) — Service in sufficient time of the document which instituted the proceedings (Article 27 (2)) — Notice of the appointment of an expert and of a site inspection two days before it was due to take place — Insufficient time within the meaning of Article 27 (2)
Den i Nederlandene bosatte sagsøgte var ved udeblivelsesdom, afsagt af fredsdommeren i Mol (Belgien), blevet pålagt at betale erstatning for skade, som vilde kaniner havde for­voldt på sagsøgerens jagtterræn.
By a judgment given in default by the Vrederechter in Mol (Belgium) the defendant, who was resident in the Netherlands, was ordered to pay compensation for damage caused by wild rabbits in the plaintiffs hunting­grounds.
Sagen, der førte til denne domfældelse, var — på grundlag af den belgiske jagtlov — startet på den måde, at dommeren på sagsøgerens an­modning ved kendelse af 7. august 1973 havde udmeldt en sagkyndig og berammet syns­og skønsforretningen til den 10. august 1973.
In accordance with Belgian hunting law, the proceedings leading to this judgment were set in motion on 7 August 1973 when, on the plaintiffs application, the Vrederechter ordered the appointment of an expert and a site inspection which was to take place on 10 August 1973.
Denne kendelse bekendtgjorde stævnings­manden for sagsøgte ved anbefalet brev af 8. august 1973 samt ved telegram afsendt samme dag.
The clerk of the court gave the defendant notice of this order by means of a registered letter of 8 August 1973 and a telegram of the same date.
Under forretningen var sagsøgte ikke til stede.
The defendant was not present at the site inspection.
Udeblivelsesdommen blev af­sagt den 6. november 1973, og efter anmodning blev den gjort eksigibel i Nederlandene.
Enforcement of the judgment given in default on 6 November 1973 was authorized in the Netherlands in accordance with an application therefor.
Sagsøgte appellerede afgørelsen om at meddele fuldbyrdelsespåtegning og fik medhold.
The defendant's appeal against the issue of the order for enforcement was successful.
Arrondissementsrechtbank anførte, at det indledende processkrift i sagen ikke var ble­vet forkyndt for sagsøgte i så god tid, at han havde kunnet varetage sine interesser under sagen, hvorfor det var udelukket at fuldbyrde udeblivelsesdommen efter domskonven­tionen, jfr. dennes artikel 34, stk. 2, og artikel 27, nr. 2.
In the view of the Arrondissementsrechtbank, the document which instituted the proceedings was not served on the defendant in sufficient time for him to be able to ar­range for his defence and consequently enforcement of the judgment given in default was excluded by the second paragraph of Article 34 and Article 27 (2) of the Brussels Convention.
Enten stævningsmandens anbefa­lede brev til sagsøgte af 8. august 1973 eller telegrammet af samme dato måtte antages at udgøre sagens indledende processkrift.
Either the registered letter sent to the defendant by the clerk of court on 8 August 1973 or the telegram of the same date had to be treated as the document which instituted the proceedings.
Dette fulgte af, at sagens tyngdepunkt måtte an­tages at være syns­ og skønsforretningen.
This was because the proceedings turned on the site inspec­tion.
I henhold til artikel 7a, stk, 3, i den belgiske jagtlov — på hvilken retssagen beroede — skulle parterne fremføre samtlige søgsmåls­grunde og indsigelser senest under syns­ og skønsforretningen.
Under the third paragraph of Article 7 bis of the Belgian hunting law on which the proceedings were based, the parties were bound to present their whole claims and defen­ces no later than the time of the site inspection.
Bortset fra, at sagsøgte først modtog det anbefalede brev i september 1973, var fristen mellem telegrammets af­sendelse den 8. august og syns­ og skønsforretningen den 10. august 1973 for kort til, at sagsøgte havde kunnet varetage sine interesser på forskriftsmæssig vis.
Apart from the fact that the defendant re­ceived the registered letter only in September 1973, the period between the dispatch of