natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I henhold til Zivilprozeßordnung's §§ 199 ff, jfr. den nederlandsk­tyske overens­komst af 30. august 1962 om yderligere forenkling af retssamkvemmet, Haagerkonven­tionen af 15. november 1965 om forkyndelse (artikel 15) samt artikel IV i protokollen til domskonventionen, skulle forkyndelse ske gennem statsadvokaturen, ad diploma­tisk eller konsulær vej eller gennem fremsendelse fra en offentligt godkendt person i Tyskland til en offentligt godkendt person i Nederlandene.
Under those provisions (Paragraph 199 et seq. of the Zivilprozeßord­nung (ZPO) [German Code of Civil Procedure] in conjunction with the Convention of 30 August 1962 on the further simplification of legal relations between the Netherlands and the Federal Republic of Germany, Article 15 of the Hague Convention of 15 No­vember 1965 on Service and Article IV of the Protocol to the Brussels Convention), ser­vice should have been effected through the Federal Prosecutor's Office, by diplomatic or consular channels, or by the forwarding of the relevant documents by a German judicial officer to a judicial officer in the Netherlands.
I det konkrete tilfælde kun­ne det dog ikke udelukkes, at indkaldelse var sket ved aflevering til postvæsenet, jfr. ZPO's §§ 175 og 213, hvilket dog ikke var forskriftsmæssigt.
In the case before it, however, the court was unable to exclude the possibility that the writ had been served through the post in accordance with Paragraphs 175 and 213 of the ZPO, which was not, however, permissible.
Da det imidlertid stod fast, at skyldneren havde givet møde personligt under genoptagelsessagen og åbenbart ikke
The Rechtbank then went on to examine whether service had been effected in sufficient time in view of the particular circumstances of the case.
Selv om det ikke var fuldstændig klart, hvornår fristen var begyndt at løbe, havde skyldneren ikke benyttet sig af mulig­heden for at reagere skriftligt forud for den mundtlige forhandling den 25. september 1985, som der også blev givet meddelelse om i indkaldelsen.
25 September 1985, as set out in the writ.
Retten fandt, at dette tids­rum på godt to måneder mellem modtagelsen af indkaldelsen og den mundtlige for­handling måtte anses for at være tilstrækkeligt til, at skyldneren kunne forberede vare­tagelsen af sine interesser under sagen.
The period of approximately two months be­tween receipt of the writ and the hearing was to be regarded as adequate for the debtor to prepare his defence.
De trufne retsafgørelser opfyldte herefter betin­gelserne i konventionens artikel 27, nr. 2.
The decisions adopted accordingly satisfied the requirements of Article 27(2) of the Convention.
Arrondissementsrechtbank udtalte endelig, at skyldneren ikke kunne påberåbe sig, at Amtsgericht savnede kompetence, fordi aftalen mellem parterne var en forbrugerkon­trakt, hvilket ville være en grund til at nægte anerkendelse i medfør af konventionens artikel 28, jfr. artikel 13—15.
In conclusion, the Rechtbank held that the debtor could not argue that the Amtsgericht lacked jurisdiction in view of the fact that the business between the parties related to a consumer contract and that this would constitute a ground of refusal under Article 28 of the Convention in conjunction with Articles 13, 14 and 15 thereof.
Som det fremgik af Domstolens dom i sag 150/77 (jfr. ovenfor under 1­13.0 — A 1), måtte artikel 14 fortolkes snævert.
As was clear from the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case 150/77 Bertrand ν Ott (supra, 1­13.0 — A 1), it was necessary to interpret Article 14 restrictively.
I det konkrete tilfælde havde skyldneren — i sin egenskab af bestyrer af en tennisklubs kantine — indgået en låneaftale med Deutsche Bank med henblik på køb af et tv­apparat. Som kantinebesty­rer hørte skyldneren ikke til den gruppe købere, der ifølge Domstolens dom har behov for beskyttelse.
In the present case, the debtor had entered into a credit agreement with the creditor for the purchase of a television set in connection with his work as the lessee of a canteen in a tennis club.
Anerkendelse og fuldbyrdelse — grunde til nægtelse heraf — udeblivelsesdom — for­skriftsmæssig forkyndelse af det indledende processkrift i sagen — prøvelse af for­skriftsmæssigheden efter domsstatens ret i forbindelse med Haagerkonventionen om forkyndelse
Recognition and enforcement — Grounds for refusal — Judgment in default — Due service of the document which instituted the proceedings — Examination whether there was due service pursuant to the law of the State where judgment was given, in conjunc­tion with the Hague Convention on Service
Anerkendelse og fuldbyrdelse — grunde til nægtelse heraf — udeblivelsesdom — sag­søgtes udeblivelse — begreb — sagsøgtes begæring om udsættelse på grund af advoka­tens fravær — ikke omfattet af begrebet udeblivelse
Recognition and enforcement — Grounds for refusal — Judgment in default — Failure by the defendant to enter an appearance — Concept — Application for post­ponement by the defendant owing to the absence of his lawyer — Not a case of non­appearance
Rekvirenterne (som åbenbart var belgiere) havde hos en fredsdommer i Löwen opnået to afgørelser over rekvisiti W. og H. og begærede herefter afgørelserne erklæret eksigi­ble i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland.
The applicants (who were apparently Belgian) had obtained two decisions from a Jus­tice of the Peace in Louvain against the defendants W. and H. and subsequently sought an order for enforcement in the Federal Republic of Germany.
Den anden afgørelse var truffet, efter at rekvisiti var mødt op til retsmødet.
The second decision was given after the defendants had appeared at the hearing.
Der havde de forgæves begæret udsættelse på grund af deres advokats fravær.
They had on that occasion unsuccessfully applied for a postponement by reason of the ab­sence of their chosen lawyer.
Vedkommende Landgericht afslog i begge tilfælde at meddele fuldbyrdelsespåtegning og anførte som begrundelse, at der ikke forelå bevis for, at det indledende processkrift i sagen var forkyndt for de dengang udeblevne sagsøgte (konventionens artikel 33, stk. 3, og artikel 46, nr. 2).
The competent Landgericht refused in each case to issue the order for enforcement on the ground that there was no proof that the document instituting the proceedings had been served on the defendants then in default (third paragraph of Article 33 and Article 46(2)).
Rekvirenterne indbragte afgørelserne for Oberlandesgericht Köln, som delvis gav dem medhold.
The Oberlandesgericht Köln allowed in part the appeal brought by the appli­cants.
Retten udtalte, at Landgericht, forså vidt angik tilladelsen til fuldbyrdelse af udeblivel­sesdommen, med rette havde forlangt, at der skulle fremlægges et dokument, hvoraf det fremgik, at det indledende processkrift i sagen var blevet forkyndt for de udeblevne parter. Den erklæring om forkyndelsen, som var fremlagt under appelsagen, var ikke et bevis herfor.
So far as the order for enforcement of the decision given in default was concerned, the Oberlandesgericht ruled, the Landgericht had been correct to insist on production of a document proving that the document instituting the proceedings had been served on the parties default.
Med hensyn til rekvisitus W. var det ikke nødvendigt at tage stilling til, om den valgte fremgangsmåde efter national belgisk ret var en forskriftsmæssig forkyndelse.
With regard to defendant W., the court went on, it was immaterial whether the pro­cedure used constituted due service under domestic Belgian law.
Da rekvisitus W., som det fremgik af selve erklæringen om forkyndelsen, på det pågælden­de tidspunkt ikke længere var tilmeldt på sin tidligere bopæl i Belgien, men — som ret­ten fastslog — åbenbart allerede boede i Tyskland, skulle forkyndelsen i henhold til den mellem Belgien og Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland gældende overenskomst om yderligere forenkling af retssamkvemmet ske efter Haagerkonventionen af 1954 angå­ende civilprocessen.
In view of the fact that defendant W. (as was clear from the document of service itself) was at the material time no longer registered as re­siding at his previous place of residence in Belgium, but was apparently (as the court noted) already living in Germany, service had to be effected in accordance with the ap­plicable Belgian­German Convention on the further simplification of service abroad of judicial documents under the 1954 Hague Convention on Civil Procedure.
Denne overenskomst, som blev indgået i 1959, er stadig i kraft, jfr. artikel 24 i Haagerkonventionen af 1965 om forkyndelse.
That con­vention, which was concluded in 1959, had remained in force under Article 24 of the 1965 Hague Convention on Service.
I henhold til overenskom­stens artikel 1 fremsendes retslige dokumenter, som har deres oprindelse i en af de to stater, i borgerlige sager direkte; når de er bestemt for personer i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland, sendes de til præsidenten for den Landgericht, i hvis retskreds modtageren opholder sig.
Article 1 ofthat convention provided that judicial documents in civil cases emanating from one of the two States were to be sent directly and, if intended for persons in the Federal Republic of Germany, to the President of the Landgericht for the area in which the addressee was living.
Præsidenten for Landgericht foranlediger herefter i henhold til overens­komstens artikel 3 forkyndelsen efter bestemmelserne i artikel 2—5 i Haagerkonventio­nen af 1954 angående civilprocessen.
The President of the Landgericht was then required under Article 3 of the Convention to effect service in ac­cordance with Articles 2 to 5 of the 1954 Hague Convention on Civil Procedure.
Denne form var ikke overholdt i det foreliggende tilfælde, og begæringen om meddelelse af fuldbyrdelsespåtegning måtte derfor afslås i henhold til konventionens artikel 34, stk. 2, og artikel 27, nr. 2.
That requirement had not been complied with in the present case and the order for enforce­ment had accordingly to be refused under the second paragraph of Article 34 and Ar­ticle 27(2) of the Brussels Convention.
For så vidt angik meddelelsen af fuldbyrdelsespåtegning på den anden afgørelse, kun­ne begæringen herom derimod ikke afslås med den af Landgericht givne begrundelse.
With regard, on the other hand, to the question of the order for enforcement of the sec­ond decision, the relevant application could not be dismissed on the grounds given by the Landgericht.
Det skal nemlig kun undersøges, om artikel 46, nr. 2 — der som en formel forskrift sup­plerer den materielle regel i artikel 27, nr. 2 — er blevet fulgt, når sagsøgte er udeblevet.
Article 46(2), which as a formal provision supplements the substantive rule contained in Article 27(2), could be considered only 'in default of appearance' of the defendant.
Fremmøde i artikel 27, nr. 2's forstand er enhver forhandling i sagen, hvoraf det frem­går, at sagsøgte har fået kendskab til den sag, der er indledt mod ham, og at han vil for­svare sig mod sagsøgerens angreb, medmindre han nøjes med at gøre indsigelse mod, at sagen fortsættes, fordi forkyndelsen ikke er sket forskriftsmæssigt eller er sket for sent.
Appearance for the purposes of Article 27(2) was constituted by any conduct which tended to prove that the defendant had become aware of the proceed­ings instituted against him and that he intended to defend himself against the charges of the plaintiff, unless his submissions were limited to objecting to the continuation of the proceedings on the ground that due service had not been effected or that service had not been effected in sufficient time.
Den begæring om udsættelse, rekvisiti fremsatte under retsmødet for fredsdommeren, kunne imidlertid ikke anses for udeblivelse i den nævnte forstand, da begæringen om udsættelse ikke blev fremsat på grund af en mangel ved forkyndelsen, men på grund af, at rekvisiti advokat var fraværende.
The defendants' request during the hearing be­fore the Justice of the Peace for postponement of the proceedings, however, could not be regarded as failure to enter an appearance within the above meaning in view of the fact that the postponement had been applied for, not because of any defect in service, but because of the absence of the defendants' lawyer.
Sag 145/86,
Judgment of 4 February 1988,' Case 145/86
Hoffmann mod Krieg (anmodning om præjudiciel afgørelse indgivet af Nederlandenes Hoge Raad) Sml.
Hoffmann ν Krieg [1988] ECR 645 (Preliminary ruling requested by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden) Advocate General: M. Darmon (p. 654)
Anerkendelse (artikel 26) — rækkevidden af anerkendelse af retsafgørelser — samme virkninger i den stat, begæringen rettes til, som i domsstaten
Recognition (Art. 26) — Scope of recognition of judgments — Same effects in the State in which enforcement is sought as in the State in which judgment was given
Fuldbyrdelse (artikel 31) — afgørelse om betaling af hustrubidrag, der forudsatte, at ægtefællerne levede adskilt, og som var forsynet med fuldbyrdelsespåtegning — skilsmisse i den stat, begæringen rettes til — ingen fortsættelse af fuldbyrdelsen
Enforcement (Art. 31) — Order for the enforcement of a maintenance order made when spouses separated — Divorce decreed in the State in which enforcement is sought — Enforcement not to be continued
Anerkendelse og fuldbyrdelse — grunde til nægtelse heraf — uforenelighed med en i fuldbyrdelsesstaten truffet afgørelse — udenlandsk afgørelse om underholdspligt mellem ægtefæller — skilsmissedom afsagt i den stat, begæringen rettes til — der forelå uforenelighed
Recognition and enforcement — Grounds for refusal — Judgment irreconcilable with a judgment in the State of enforcement — Foreign judgment making a monthly main­tenance order in favour of a separated spouse — Decree of divorce granted in the State in which enforcement is sought — Irreconcilability upheld
Fuldbyrdelse — anfægtelse af afgørelsen, der tillader fuldbyrdelse, ved appel eller gen optagelse (artikel 36) — ikke sket inden for fristen i artikel 36 — grunden til nægtelse først fremført ifuldbyrdelsesfasen — skulle afvises ex officio — undtagelser fra denne regel
Enforcement — Appeal against the judgment authorizing enforcement (Art. 36) — Ap­peal not lodged within the period laid down in Article 36 — Grounds for refusal sub­mitted only at the stage of execution of the judgment — Issue of inadmissibility to be examined of its own motion by the court seised — Exceptions to this rule
Hovedsagen vedrørte fuldbyrdelse i Nederlandene af en kendelse afsagt af Amtsgericht Heidelberg.
The main proceedings related to the enforcement in the Netherlands of a judgment of the Amtsgericht Heidelberg.
Parterne var tyske statsborgere, som havde indgået ægteskab i 1950.
The parties were German nationals who had married in 1950.
I 1978 ophævede rekvisitus samlivet, forlod Tyskland og tog bopæl i Nederlandene. Ved ken delse afsagt af Amtsgericht Heidelberg den 21. august 1979 blev han pålagt at betale hustrubidrag (Unterhalt bei Getrenntleben) til rekvirenten.
In 1978 the maintenance debtor moved out of the family home in Germany and settled in the Netherlands.
På begæring af rekvisitus opløste Arrondissementsrechtbank den 1. maj 1980 ægteskabet ved en udeblivelsesdom under anvendelse af tysk ret i henhold til de nederlandske lovvalgsregler.
On application by the debtor, the Arrondissementsrechtbank Maastricht granted on 1 May 1980 a decree of divorce given in default of appearance.
Den 19. au gust 1980 fik dommen retskraft i Nederlandene ved indførelse i personregistret i Haag.
Under the Netherlands
(fortsat 1)
(continued 1) rules on the conflict of laws, German law was applied.
På begæring af rekvirenten erklærede Arrondissementsrechtbank, Almelo, ved kendelse af 29. juli 1981 den af Amtsgericht Heidelberg afsagte ken delse eksigibel.
Upon application by the creditor, the Arrondissementsrechtbank Almelo granted an order on 29 July 1981 for the enforcement of the judgment of the Amtsgericht Heidelberg pursuant to Article 31 of the Convention.
Rekvisitus anfægtede ikke denne afgørelse, som blev meddelt ham i april 1982.
The debtor did not appeal against that order, which was notified to him in April 1982.
Den 28. februar 1983 gjorde rekvirenten udlæg i hans fordringer mod ar bejdsgiveren. Rekvisitus fremsatte herefter begæring om, at udlægget blev ophævet el ler stillet i bero.
On 28 February 1983 the creditor ob tained an attachment of the debtor's earnings paid by his employer, whereupon the debtor applied for the discharge or at least the suspension of the attachment of earnings order.
Begæringen blev ikke taget til følge af appelinstansen, Gerechtshof, Arnheim.
That application was dismissed on appeal by the Gerechtshof Arnhem.
Rekvisitus indbragte ved kassationsappel denne afgørelse for Hoge Raad, som forelagde Domstolen følgende spørgsmål til præjudiciel afgørelse:
The debtor appealed in cassation against that judgment to the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, which referred the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
'Indebærer artikel 26, stk. 1, i konventionen om retternes kompetence og om fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser i borgerlige sager, herunder handelssager (Bruxelles-konventionen), hvorefter de kontraherende stater skal anerkende retsafgørel ser, der er truffet i en anden kontraherende stat, at disse afgørelser i de andre kontraherende stater skal tillægges samme virkning, som de har ifølge den stats ret, hvor de er afsagt, og betyder det, at de derfor også kan fuldbyrdes i de sam me tilfælde som dér?'
Does the obligation imposed on the Contracting States to recognize a judgment given in another Contracting State (Article 26 of the Brussels Convention) mean that such a judgment must be given the same effect in the other Contracting States as it has under the law of the State in which it was given and does this mean that it is therefore enforceable in the same cases as in that State?
Hvis det første spørgsmål svares bekræftende,
If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
'skal Bruxelleskonventionens artikel 26, sammenholdt med artikel 31, da fortol kes således, at forpligtelsen til at anerkende en i en kontraherende stat truffet retsafgørelse indebærer, at retsafgørelsen, fordi den fortsat kan fuldbyrdes i henhold til den stats ret, hvor den er truffet, også i sådanne tilfælde kan fuldbyr des i den anden kontraherende stat?'
Must Articles 26 and 31 of the Brussels Convention, read together, be inter preted as meaning that the obligation to recognize a judgment given in a Con tracting State requires that, because the judgment remains enforceable under the law of the State in which it was given, it is also enforceable in the same cases in the other Contracting State?
Såfremt det andet spørgsmål svares bekræftende,
If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative :
'kan det i et tilfælde som det foreliggende da gøres gældende, at den tyske ken delse om hustrubidrag er i strid med den senere nederlandske skilsmissedom el ler med grundlæggende retsprincipper, jfr. Bruxelleskonventionens artikel 27?'
In a case such as this, is it possible to plead that the German maintenance order is irreconcilable with the subsequent Netherlands divorce decree or to plead public policy (Article 27(1) and (3) of the Brussels Convention)?
'Må der af (ordningen ifølge) Bruxelles-konventionen udledes en regel om, at såfremt den part, mod hvem der begæres fuldbyrdelse af en i en anden kontra herende stat truffet retsafgørelse, ikke — i forbindelse med, at han anfægter af gørelsen om at tillade fuldbyrdelse — fremsætter en indsigelse, som han har fået kendskab til inden udløbet af den i Bruxelleskonventionens artikel 36, stk. 1, fastsatte frist, og som er til hinder for, at fuldbyrdelsen gennemføres, kan han ikke under en senere fuldbyrdelsessag, hvorunder han anfægter (fortsættelsen af) fuldbyrdelsen, påberåbe sig denne indsigelse?'
Does (the scheme of) the Brussels Convention require acceptance of the rule that, if the party against whom enforcement is sought of a judgment given in an other Contracting State fails to plead, in the appeal against the order for en forcement of the judgment, matters of which he was aware before the end of the period referred to in the first paragraph of Article 36 of the Brussels Convention and which preclude (further) enforcement of that judgment, he may no longer plead those matters in subsequent execution proceedings in which he is appeal ing against (continued) enforcement?
Hvis det fjerde spørgsmål besvares bekræftende,
If Question 4 is answered in the affirmative :
'må det af (ordningen ifølge) Bruxelles-konventionen da udledes, at den i fjerde spørgsmål nævnte regel under en senere anlagt fuldbyrdelsessag skal anvendes ex officio af retten i den stat, hvor der er givet tilladelse til fuldbyrdelse, også selv om dette ikke er muligt ifølge national ret?'«
Does (the scheme of) the Brussels Convention require it to be assumed that the court of the State in which an enforcement order is issued must apply of its own motion the rule referred to in the fourth question in subsequent execution pro- lssue ¡/February 1993
(fortsat 2)
(continued 2) ceedings, even if its own law makes no provision for the application of such a rule?'
Domstolen udtalte herom (i præmisserne 9—34):
In reply to those questions, the Court of Justice held as follows (paragraphs 9 to 34 of the decision):
»9 Med det første spørgsmål ønsker den nationale ret afgjort, om en udenlandsk rets afgørelse, som anerkendes i medfør at konventionens artikel 26, principielt skal tillægges samme virkning i den stat, fuldbyrdelsesbegæringen rettes til, som i doms staten.
'9 The national court's first question seeks, in essence, to establish whether a foreign judgment, which has been recognized pursuant to Article 26 of the Convention, must in principle have the same effects in the State in which enforcement is sought as it does in the State in which judgment was given.
io Det bemærkes, at der ved konventionen i så vid udstrækning som muligt skal etableres »fri bevægelighed for domme«, og at konventionen skal fortolkes i overens stemmelse hermed.
10 In that regard it should be recalled that the Convention "seeks to facilitate as far as possible the free movement of judgments, and should be interpreted in this spirit".
Gennem anerkendelsen skal afgørelse tillægges de virkninger, som tilkommer dem i den stat, på hvis område de er truffet (rapport om konventionen om retternes kompetence og om fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser i borgerlige sa ger, herunder handelssager, EFT 1979, C 59, s. 42 og 43).
Recognition must therefore "have the result of conferring on judgments the authority and effectiveness accorded to them in the State in which they were given" (Jenard Report on the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judg ments in Civil and Commercial Matters, Official Journal 1979 C 59, pp. 42 and 43).
n Følgelig skal den nationale rets første spørgsmål besvares således, at en udenlandsk retsafgørelse, der er anerkendt i henhold til konventionens artikel 26, i princippet skal have samme virkninger i den stat, begæringen rettes til, som den har i domsstaten. ten.
11 It follows that the answer to be given to the national court's first question is that a foreign judgment which has been recognized by virtue of Article 26 of the Convention must in principle have the same effects in the State in which enforcement is sought as it does in the State in which judgment was given.