natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Den i tilslutning til denne dom trufne afgørelse i hovedsagen er omtalt under 1­5.1.2 Β 9.
The decision given in the main action following this judgment may be found at 1-5.1.2 - Β 9.
(Jfr. også 1­17.1.2 ­ B 2, 5, 8; 1­57 ­ B 5)
(See also 1­17.1.2 ­ Β 2, 5, 8; 1­57 ­ Β 5)
Fortolkning af konventionen — generelle principper — selvstændig fortolkning uden hensyntagen til nationale retssystemers særegenheder
Interpretation of the Convention — General principles — Independent interpreta­tion without consideration of the peculiarities of national legal systems
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — opfyldelsesvæmeting — opfyldelsesste­det for betalingsforpligtelser — skyldnerens bopæl
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction of the courts for the place of per­formance — Place of performance of pecuniary obligations — The debtor's place of business
Sagsøgeren, et fransk selskab, havde drevet virksomhed i Frankrig som agent for sagsøg­te, en virksomhed med hjemsted i Tyskland.
The plaintiff, a French company, had acted in France as agents for the defendant, an undertaking based in Germany.
Sagsøgeren havde, efter at agenturaftalen var ophørt ved aftale, i overensstemmelse med aftalen tilbageleveret sin lagerbehold­ning til sagsøgte; denne nægtede at betale.
After termination of the agency contract by mutual agreement the plaintiff had returned its stocks to the defendant as agreed; the latter re­fused to pay for them.
Retten i første instans domfældte den under sagen udeblevne sagsøgte i overensstemmelse med påstanden.
The court of first instance gave judgment against the defendant, which was not represented in the action, in accordance with the statement of claim.
Sagsøgte ankede denne dom og fremsatte indsigelse mod franske retters kompetence.
The defendant appealed against that judgment, its submission being essentially that the French courts had no jurisdiction.
Cour d'appel gav appellanten medhold.
The Cour d'Appel allowed the appeal.
Den udtalte, at bestemmelserne i domskonven­tionen, som efter offentliggørelsen i Frankrig i henhold til den franske forfatnings arti­kel 55 har forrang for national lovgivning, var afgørende for kompetencen.
It held that jurisdiction was governed by the pro­visions of the Brussels Convention, which following its publication in France, took pre­cedence over internal laws in accordance with Article 55 of the French Constitution.
Konventio­nen, som har til formål at virkeliggøre EØF­traktatens målsætninger med hensyn til ret­ternes kompetence, kunne kun få fuld virkning, når den fortolkedes ud fra egne forud­sætninger uden hensyntagen til de særegenheder, som følger af nationale retssystemer. Under henvisning til konventionens artikel 2 og artikel 5, nr. 1, fandt Cour d'appel heref­ter, at franske retter manglede kompetence vedrørende betalingspåstanden.
The Convention, which sought to achieve the objectives of the EEC Treaty in the field of jurisdiction, could only attain its full effect if it were interpreted independently without consideration of the special features of the national legal systems.
Sagsøgeren havde nemlig ikke godtgjort, hvorfor — i mangel af en aftale mellem parterne vedrø­rende dette spørgsmål — sagsøgtes påståede forpligtelse skulle opfyldes i Frankrig.
The plaintiff had not shown why — in the absence of an agreement between the parties on the question — the defendant's alleged obligation had to be performed in France.
Som udgangspunkt skulle betalingen tværtimod ske på skyldnerens bopæl.
On the contrary, the pay­ment should in principle be made at the debtor's place of business.
Sagsøgeren kunne heller ikke påberåbe sig en værnetingsaftale ved fremmøde (arti­kel 18), da sagsøgte i første instans overhovedet ikke, og i anden instans kun var mødt for at bestride franske retters kompetence.
Nor could the plaintiff argue that the defendant had submitted to the jurisdiction by entering an appearance (Article 18), since at first instance the defendant had not ap­peared at all and at second instance had appeared solely in order to contest the jurisdic­tion of the French courts.
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — opfyldelsesvæmeting (artikel 5, nr. 1) — be­stemmelse af opfyldelsesstedet efter kontraktstatuttet — parternes aftale har forrang for lovregler
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction of the courts for the place of performance (Article 5 (1)) — Determination of the place of performance in accordance with the proper law of the contract — Agreement between the parties takes precedence over statutory rules
Sagsøgte, et fransk selskab, havde hos sagsøgeren, som var hjemmehørende i Nederlan­dene, bestilt et større parti kartoner.
The defendant, a French company, had ordered a large consignment of cardboard boxes from the plaintiff, a company based in the Netherlands.
Betalingen skulle ifølge en særskilt aftale ske ved sagsøgtes accept af veksler, der skulle være betalbare i en bank i Amiens (Frankrig).
Payment was to be effected, in accordance with a separate agreement, by acceptance by the defendant of bills of ex­change which were to be payable at a bank in Amiens (France).
Efter levering og betaling efter aftalen for en del af varerne annullerede sagsøgte ensi­digt kontrakten.
After part of the goods had been delivered and paid for in accordance with the agreement the defendant unilate­rally repudiated the contract.
Sagsøgeren anlagde derefter sag ved sit hjemting i Nederlandene med påstand om betaling af restkøbesummen.
The plaintiff thereupon brought an action for payment of the balance of the purchase price in the court at its seat in the Netherlands.
Sagsøgeren anførte herved, at da sagsogte 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 con­nexion 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.
Sagsøgeren fik ikke medhold under sin appel af denne afgørelse.
The plaintiffs appeal was unsuccessful.
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 plaintiff's 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 — visse former for kreditkøb og lån — udbetaling på den senere forfal­dende købesum — ikke »køb... hvor købesummen skal betales i rater«
Jurisdiction — Instalment sales — Contract of sale — Payment on account, bal­ance of purchase price becoming due later — No "sale on instalment credit terms"
Den tyske sagsøger havde indgået en aftale med sagsøgte, der havde hjemsted i Frankrig, om køb af et parti benklæder.
The German plaintiff had entered into a contract with the French-based defendant for the purchase of a quantity of trousers.
Under anbringende af, at varen ikke var blevet leveret, anlagde sagsøgeren sag ved Landgericht Oldenburg og krævede tilbagebetaling af den udbetaling på købesummen, han havde erlagt, samt godtgørelse af udlæg, han havde haft til en rejse til Paris i forbindelse med afslutningen af købekontrakten.
Alleging that the trousers had not been delivered, he brought an action in the Landgericht Oldenburg and claimed repayment of an amount which he had paid on account and reimbursement of his expenses in respect of a journey to Paris in connexion with the contract of sale.
Kompetence kunne ikke støttes på konventionens artikler 13 og 14 vedrørende visse former for kreditkøb og lån, da forhol­det ikke kunne anses for omfattet af den i artikel 13 fastlagte definition af »køb..., hvor købesummen skal betales i rater« allerede fordi køberen havde udbetalt en del af den kø­besum, som forfaldt ved varens levering.
It could not be derived from Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention concerning jurisdiction in matters relating to instalment sales, as the requirements of a sale on instalment credit terms in Article 14 could not be fulfilled simply because the buyer had made a payment on account towards the purchase price payable on delivery of the goods.
Sagen angik ganske vist et krav i kontraktsforhold efter konventionens artikel 5, nr. 1 ; efter denne bestemmelse var det nemlig uden betydning, om den af sagsøgeren påståede hævebeføjelse støttedes på en kontraktsbestemmelse eller på en retsregel. Forpligtelsen til at tilbagebetale udbetalingen skulle imidlertid ikke opfyldes i Landgericht Olden­burg's område.
Admittedly, the action was concerned with a claim relating to a contract within the meaning of Article5 (1) of the Convention; for under that provision it made no diffe­rence whether the right of withdrawal claimed by the plaintiff rested on a contractual agreement or on a statutory provision.
Begrebet opfyldelsessted i artikel 5, nr. 1, skulle ikke bestemmes efter de tyske internationale civilprocesretlige regler, men efter den i de kontraherende stater herskende, overensstemmende opfattelse af dette begreb.
The concept of the place of performance in Article 5 (1) did not fall to be defined according to the rules of German international law relating to civil procedure but according to the prevailing consensus of opinion in the Contracting States on that concept.
Opfyldelsesstedet for penge­skyld var herefter skyldnerens faktiske bopæl eller hans firmas hjemsted.
Accordingly, in the case of money debts the decisive factor was the debtor's actual place of residence or registered office.
De omstændig­heder, hvorunder skyldneren skulle betale på et andet sted end sin bopæl eller sit firmas hjemsted, var undergivet forskellige regler i medlemsstaterne; alene skyldnerens fak­tiske bopæl eller hans firmas hjemsted kunne være et for opfattelsen i alle de kontrahe­rende stater fælles kriterium for det sted, hvor betalingen skal ske.
The conditions under which the debtor was required to make money payments at a place other than his residence or registered office differed in the Con­tracting States ; a feature common to all the Contracting States in relation to the concept of the place at which payment must be made could be found only in the actual residence or registered office of the debtor.
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — kompetence grundet på fremmøde (arti­kel 18) — betingelser
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction founded on the entry of appearance (Article 18) — Conditions
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — opfyldelsesvæmeting — bestemmelse af opfyldelsesstedet i henhold til den på forholdet anvendelige materielle lov
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction of the courts for the place of per­formance — Determination of the place of performance according to the substantive law applicable.
Oberlandesgericht stadfæstede en afgørelse, hvorved der var givet tilladelse til fuld­byrdelse af en dom af 13. juni 1973 fra appelretten i Brescia. Den oprindelige sag dre­
The Oberlandesgericht dismissed the appeal against a decision granting an order for the enforcement of a judgment of the Corte d'Appello, Brescia, of 13 June 1973.
(fortsat I) jede sig om den tyske skyldners forpligtelse til at levere og opstille et støbeanlæg i rekvi­rentens virksomhed i Brescia.
The sub­ject-matter of the original action was the German defendant's obligation to deliver and instai foundry equipment at the Italian plaintiffs factory in Brescia.
Den italienske rets kompetence kunne ikke støttes på artikel 18, da skyldneren ikke havde givet møde uden forbehold.
The Italian court did not acquire jurisdiction under Article 18, as the defendant had not entered an appearance unconditionally.
Ganske vist havde pågældende, efter at kassations­retten i Rom endeligt havde forkastet indsigelsen mod rettens kompetence, uden forbe­hold forhandlet sagens realitet, men heri lå ingen anerkendelse af de italienske domsto­les kompetence.
Admittedly, after the Corte di Cassazione, Rome, had finally rejected its objection to the jurisdiction it had taken part in the main action without reservation, but that did not amount to submission to the jurisdiction of the Italian courts.
Der kunne ikke være tale om, at sagsøgte havde anerkendt kompeten­cen, når en indsigelse mod den udenlandske rets kompetence ikke kunne støttes på lan­dets lovgivning og således på forhånd var udsigtsløs.
It was not possible to regard the defendant as having submitted to the jurisdiction when a challenge to the jurisdiction of the foreign court under that court's law would have been unfounded and therefore pointless from the outset.
Det måtte udledes af materiel ret, hvor opfyldelsesstedet for en ydelse lå.
It was necessary to ascer­tain according to substantive law where the place of performance of an obligation was situated.
De internationale priva­tretlige bestemmelser var afgørende vedrørende spørgsmålet om, hvilken materiel lov­givning der i det konkrete tilfælde skulle finde anvendelse; spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt domsstatens internationale privatret skulle inddrages i overvejelserne, lod retten henstå, da tvisten i begge tilfælde skulle løses i henhold til italiensk materiel ret.
Private international law determined which substantive law should be applied to the case; the court left open the question whether the private international law of the State in which the judgment was given should be used for that purpose, since in both cases the legal relationship in question was governed by the substantive law of Italy.
Ifølge arti­kel 1182 i codice civile skulle rekvisiti forpligtelse i hvert fald delvis have været opfyldt i Italien.
Under Article 1182 of the Codice Civile the defendant's obligation was to be performed at least partially in Italy.
Tilladelsen til tvangsfuldbyrdelse var endvidere ikke stridende mod grundlæggende retsprincipper i Forbundsrepublikken (artikel 27, nr. 1).
Further, the enforcement of the judgment was not contrary to public policy in the Federal Republic (Article 27 (1)).
Der var navnlig ikke tale om en sådan modstrid, blot fordi appelretten i Brescia under anvendelse af italiensk ret var nået til det resultat, at rekvisiti forretningsbetingelser, som i tilfælde af mangelfuld levering begrænsede køberens rettigheder til afhjælpning og omlevering og afskar vide­regående krav, ikke var blevet bestanddel af parternes kontraktsforhold.
In particular, public policy was not contravened by vir­tue of the fact that the appeal court in Brescia, applying Italian law, had expressed the view that the defendant's conditions of business, which limited the buyer's rights in the event of defective delivery by excluding claims for the repair or replacement of the goods, did not form part of the contractual relations between the parties.
Den italienske sagsøger havde hos det sagsøgte tyske firma bestilt dele til et industrianlæg, som skulle opstilles i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland, og havde i overensstemmelse med kontrakten fået dem leveret til den tyske byggeplads.
The Italian plaintiff had ordered from the defendant German undertaking parts for in­dustrial installations to be set up in the Federal Republic of Germany and taken delivery of them at the German building site in accordance with the agreement.
Sagsøgeren anlagde under an bringende af, at delene var unanvendelige, sag ved sit hjemting i Italien med påstand om annullation af kontrakten og skadeserstatning.
It brought an ac­tion in the court at the place of its registered office in Italy for rescission of the contract and damages on the ground that the parts were unserviceable.
Sagsøgte fremsatte indsigelse mod den pågældende rets kompetence.
The defendant submitted that the court did not have jurisdiction.
Retten tog indsigelsen til følge.
The court declined jurisdiction.
Den fastslog under henvisning til domskonventionen, at den under de foreliggende omstændigheder alene kunne besidde kompetence som op fyldelsesvæmeting (artikel 5, nr. 1).
In application of the Brussels Convention it found that in the circumstances of the case it could acquire jurisdiction only as the court for the place of performance (Article 5(1)).
Samtlige forpligtelser ifølge kontraktsforholdet mellem parterne skulle imidlertid opfyldes i Tyskland.
However, all the obligations resulting from the con­tractual relationship between the parties had to be performed in Germany.
Da stridens årsag måtte søges i mangler ved opfyldelsen af sagsøgtes leveringsforpligtelse, var proceskravet alene et surrogat for denne forpligtelse.
Since the causa petendi must be regarded as the failure by the defendant to perform its obligation to supply the goods, the plaintiffs claim itself merely constituted a substitute for that obligation.
Afgørende for værnetinget var derfor opfyldelsesstedet for den oprindelige forpligtelse og ikke opfyldelsesstedet for de forpligtelser, der var opstået som følge af den manglende opfyldelse.
Thus the place of performance of the original obligation was decisive with re­gard to jurisdiction and not the place of performance of the obligations arising from the failure to perform the contract.
Sagsøgeren havde desuden påberåbt sig konventionens artikel 18 og gjort gældende, at da sagsøgte også havde ytret sig med hensyn til realiteten og ikke blot havde fremsat ind sigelse mod rettens kompetence, var denne blevet kompetent.
The plaintiff had in addition relied upon Article 18 of the Convention and claimed that since the defendant had also joined issue on the substance of the case and had not merely objected to the jurisdiction, the court had acquired jurisdiction.
Retten forkastede dette an bringende og udtalte, at artikel 18 ikke fandt anvendelse, da sagsøgte udtrykkeligt og principalt havde gjort manglende kompetence gældende og alene for at være på den sikre side havde taget stilling til realiteten.
The court rejected that submission, on the ground that Article 18 did not apply since the defendant had ex­pressly raised the preliminary objection that the court did not have jurisdiction and had only adopted a position with regard to the substance of the case as a precaution.
Ifølge italiensk civilprocesret (artiklerne 167 og 187 i Codice di procedura civile) skulle svarskriftet desuden — også selv om retten inden behandlingen af realiteten skulle tage stilling til sin kompetence — angive alle sag søgtes realitetsindsigelser.
Under Italian procedural law (Articles 167 and 187 of the Codice di Procedura Civile) the de­fence must, moreover, even if the court has to give a preliminary decision on jurisdic­tion, contain all the grounds relied on by the defendant with regard to the substance of the case.
Artikel 18 kunne derfor ikke fortolkes således, at sagsøgte skulle løbe den risiko ikke længere at kunne forsvare sig med hensyn til realiteten, hvis indsigelsen forkastedes. En sådan fortolkning ville være i strid med den italienske forfatnings bestemmelser om sagsøgtes rettigheder (artikel 24).
Therefore Article 18 must not be interpreted as meaning that the defendant must take the risk that if his objection is dismissed he can no longer defend himself with regard to the substance of the case.
Sagsøgeren, et tysk firma med hjemsted i Hof (Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland) havde under henvisning til en påstået værnetingsaftale anlagt sag ved Landgericht Bayreuth med krav om betaling for et parti tjekkiske kirsebær, som sagsøgeren havde leveret i Nederlandene til sagsøgte, et nederlandsk firma. Landgericht erklærede, at den ikke var kompetent.
In reliance upon an alleged agreement on jurisdiction, the plaintiff, a German under­taking with its seat in Hof (Federal Republic of Germany), brought an action in the Landgericht Bayreuth against an undertaking based in the Netherlands. The action sought payment of the purchase price of a consignment of Czech sour cherries which the plaintiff had delivered in the Netherlands.
I appelinstansen fastholdt sagsøgeren kravet, men påstod subsidiært sagen henvist til Landgericht Hof.
The plaintiff pursued its claim in the appeal court, but applied in the alterna­tive for the proceedings to be referred to the Landgericht Hof.
Oberlandesgericht tog denne subsidiære påstand til følge og udtalte, at der ikke i det for retten foreliggende tilfælde var truffet nogen værnetingsaftale efter domskonventionens artikel 17, hvorved Landgericht Bayreuth havde fået tillagt kompetence; derimod var Landgericht Hof i henhold til konventionens artikel 5, nr. 1, kompetent som opfyldelsesværneting. Ganske vist skulle opfyldelsesstedet som udgangspunkt bestemmes efter den lov, der i henhold til tyske lovvalgsregler skulle finde anvendelse.
The Oberlandesgericht granted the alternative application and stated that no agreement conferring jurisdiction on the Landgericht Bayreuth had been concluded in accordance with Article 17 of the Brussels Convention; on the other hand, the Landgericht Hof had jurisdiction as the court for the place of performance under Article 5 (1) of the Conven­tion.
Tyske lovvalgsregler kunne dog ikke i det foreliggende tilfælde finde anvendelse, da den uniforme lov om in ternationale løsørekøb skulle lægges til grund med hensyn til kontraktsforholdet mellem parterne. Ifølge denne lovs artikel 2 kunne den internationale privatrets regler ikke bringes i anvendelse.
However, in the present case the German rules on conflict of laws did not apply since the disputed contractual relation­ship between the parties was governed by Uniform Law on the International Sale of Goods, Article 2 of which excluded the rules of private international law.
Ifølge den uniforme købelovs artikel 59, stk. 1, skulle køberen be tale sælgeren købesummen på dennes forretningssted.
Under Arti­cle 59 (1) of that Law the buyer must pay the purchase price to the seller at the seller's place of business.
Opfyldelsesstedet efter domskonventionens artikel 5, nr. 1, var således sagsøgerens forretningssted, som lå i Landgericht Hofs retskreds.
Therefore the place of performance within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention was the plaintiffs place of business which was situated with­in the district of the Landgericht Hof.