natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Retten tog først stilling til forholdet mellem domskonventionens artikel 17 (værnetings­aftaler) og artikel 6, nr. 2 (værneting i regressager) og fastslog — under udtrykkelig hen­visning til rapporten vedrørende konventionen — at en gyldig værnetingsaftale i først­nævnte artikels forstand også giver grundlag for værneting ved den udpegede ret i sager om opfyldelse af en regresforpligtelse, der ellers i henhold til konventionens artikel 6, nr. 2, kunne indbringes for den ret, der behandler sagen mellem de oprindelige parter.
The court first studied the relationship between Article 17 (prorogation of jurisdiction) and Article 6 (2) (jurisdiction in third party proceedings) of the Brussels Convention and, expressly referring to the committee of experts' report on the Convention, stated that a valid jurisdiction agreement within the meaning of the first of the abovemen­tioned provisions would establish the jurisdiction of the designated court also in an ac­tion for an indemnity, which under Article 6 (2) of the Convention could otherwise be brought in the court seised of the original proceedings.
Retten undersøgte derefter rækkevidden af værnetingsklausulen i regresskyldnerens al­mindelige forretningsbetingelser og udtalte, at denne i henhold til sin ordlyd også gjaldt for regressøgsmål.
The court went on to consider the scope of the forum clause contained in the general conditions of business of the third party and decided that in view of its wording it was also applicable to claims for an in­demnity.
Retten bedømte derpå spørgsmålet om værnetingsaftalens gyldighed efter tysk ret, som var afgørende for det samlede kontraktsforhold.
The court then considered the validity of the jurisdiction agreement under Ger­man law, by which the entire contractual relationship was governed.
I henhold hertil var en værnetingsaftale mellem »handlende« (»Vollkaufleuten«) — som parterne — som udgangspunkt gyldig.
Under that law a ju­risdiction agreement between "Vollkaufleuten" [persons who have the full status of mer­
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — værnetingsklausul i konnossement — gyldighed — forskrifter i belgisk ret (sølovens art. 91) — forskrifter i domskonventionen (art. 17) — indbyrdes forhold
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Forum clause in a bill of lading — Va­lidity — Under Belgian law (Article 91 of the Maritime Law) — Under the Brussels Convention (Article 17) — Relationship between those provisions
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — begrebet »parterne« i artikel 17 — retssagens parter
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — The term "the parties" in Article 17 — Parties to the action
Den belgiske indehaver af konnossementet og dennes forsikringsselskab anlagde derpå erstatningssag ved Rechtbank van koophandel i Antwerpen mod bortfragteren og konnossementudstederen, et i Tyskland hjemmehørende selskab. Dette rejste indsigelse mod den belgiske rets kompetence og påberåbte sig herved bl.a. en bestemmelse i konnossementsbetingelserne, hvorefter »all disputes are to be decided according to German law and are exclusively to be put before the Hamburg Courts«.
The Belgian holder of the bill of lading and his insurer brought an ac­tion for damages in the Rechtbank van Koophandel, Antwerp, against the carrier and is­suer of the bill of lading, a company based in Germany.
Derudover henvistes i andre bestemmelser i konnossementet bl.a. til den internationale konvention af 25. august 1924 om konnossementer samt til De forenede Staters Carriage of Goods by Sea Act af 16. april 1936.
In addition reference was made in other clauses of the bill of lading to inter alia the International Convention of 25 August 1924 on the unification of rules on bills of lading and to the American Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1936.
Retten i første instans fandt at være kompetent og afsagde dom i overensstemmelse med sagsøgerens påstand.
The court of first instance declared that it had jurisdiction and gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff.
Sagen appelleredes derpå til Hofvan beroep, som stadfæstede afgørelsen.
The defendant appealed to the Hofvan Beroep without success.
En tredjemand, der som konnossementsindehaver støttede ret på konnossementet under retssagen, havde derimod ikke været medvirkende ved dokumentets tilvejebringelse.
The court ap­proved decisions holding that an agreement contained in a bill of lading conferring juris-
1968 - ARTIKEL 17, STK. 1
1968 - ARTICLE 17 (1)
(fortsat 1) mand, der var konnossementsindehaver.
Since in the present case the clauses on the application of law contained in the bill of lading did not refer to Article 91 of the Maritime Law and were in any case ambig­uous, the forum clause must be regarded as invalid.
I øvrigt udgjorde konnossementet selv i forholdet mellem aflader og bortfragter ikke en skriftlig aftale i konventionens forstand. Dette skyldtes konnossementets særlige karakter, idet konnossementet i første række måtte be tragtes som modtagelsesbevis for de varer, der skulle fragtes.
When Article 17 spoke of an agreement between the "parties", that must be taken to mean, in a Convention dealing with questions of procedural law, the "parties to the action" ; a third party, who as holder of the bill of lading derived rights thereunder, was not involved in drawing up the document.
I praksis undertegnedes konnossementer oftest kun af kaptajnen eller rederens agent og indeholdt rederens al mindelige betingelser, som var fastsat på forhånd.
That was a result of the special nature of the bill of lad­ing, which should be regarded primarily as a receipt for the goods to be shipped and was in practice normally signed only by the captain or the shipping-line's agent and con­tained the general conditions laid down by the shipping-line.
Ensidigt fastsatte betingelser kunne derfor ikke antages at udgøre en sådan skriftlig aftale, som omhandledes i konventionen, idet aftalen i henhold hertil skulle være udtrykkelig og utvetydig.
The agreement in writing referred to in the Convention, which must be express and unambiguous, could not be in­ferred from conditions laid down unilaterally.
Domskonventionen regulerede i øvrigt heller ikke spørgsmålet om, hvilken lov der skulle anvendes ved afgørelsen af, om aftalen eller enkelte af dens bestemmelser i mate rielretlig henseende var gyldig.
Moreover, the Brussels Convention did not determine the question as to which law gov­erned the validity of the agreement or individual clauses thereof as a matter of substan­tive law.
Denne materielretlige be dømmelse skulle foretages af den ret, for hvilken aftalen blev påberåbt.
It was for the court in which reference was made to the agreement to examine it in the light of substantive law.
I det foreliggende tilfælde var værnetingsklausulen i konnossementet ugyldig p.g.a. den belgiske sø lovs artikel 91, idet den — som ovenfor anført — ikke frembød tilstrækkelig sikkerhed for, at konnossementsindehaveren faktisk også ville få den beskyttelse, han havde krav på i henhold til artikel 91.
In the present case the invalidity of the forum clause contained in the bill of lading re­sulted from Article 91 of the Belgian Maritime Law, for that clause, as was stated above, did not ensure that the holder of the bill of lading would in fact enjoy the protection of Article 91.
Retten fulgte ikke et af sagsøgerne fremført anbringende om, at konventionens artikel 17 måtte have forrang for sølovens artikel 91 ; det kunne nemlig ikke antages, at konventionen ifølge de kontraherende staters hensigt også skulle for trænge sådanne nationale forskrifter, som hørte til blandt relativt eller absolut ufravigelige retsregler (ordre public interne eller ordre public international).
Contrary to the plaintiffs submission Article 17 of the Convention did not take precedence over Article 91 of the Maritime Law; it could not be supposed that it was the intention of the Contracting States that the Convention should override nation­al provisions which were part of national or international public policy.
Anmærkning : Jfr. også 1-17.1.1 - B 9.
Note: See also 1-17.1.1 - Β 9.
I en dom af 19. november 1975 udtalte Rechtbank van koophandel Antwerpen, at den retspraksis, hvorefter en værnetingsaftale i et konnossement til fordel for en fremmed domstol kun var gyldig, såfremt det stod fast, at denne domstol ville anvende de præ ceptive bestemmelser i artikel 91 i lov af 21. august 1879 i overensstemmelse med fortolkningen heraf i belgisk praksis og teori, fra den 1. januar 1973 — tidspunktet for konventionens ikrafttræden — ikke længere kunne opretholdes over for en værnetingsaftale til fordel for en domstol i en medlemsstat, når i det mindste en af aftalens parter havde bopæl i en medlemsstat (Rechtskundig Weekblad 1976, spalte 2225).
In a judgment of 19 November 1975 the Rechtbank van Koophandel, Antwerp, held that after 1 February 1973, the date of the Convention's entry into force, decisions hold­ing that an agreement in a bill of lading conferring jurisdiction on a foreign court was valid only if it was certain that the foreign court would apply the mandatory provisions of Article 91 of the Law of 21 August 1879, as interpreted by Belgian case-law and com-
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — sagsøgte havde taget stilling til sagens rea­litetfor ikke­kompetent italienske ret — indsigelse mod rettens kompetence — subsidiær påstand om selvstændig dom for modfordring — ikke »underkastelse under italiensk jurisdiktion«
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Appearance entered before an Italian court lacking jurisdiction — Objection to the jurisdiction — Counterclaim pleaded in the alternative — No "submission to the jurisdiction of the Italian court"
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — opfyldelsesværneting (artikel 5, nr. 1) — bestemmelse af opfyldelsesstedet efter den lov, der efter lovvalgsregleme for den ret, hvor sagen er anlagt, finder anvendelse på den omtvistede forpligtelse
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction of the courts for the place of per­formance (Article 5 (1)) — Determination of the place of performance under the law which according to the conflict rules of the lex fori governs the disputed obligation
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence (artikel 17) — aftalens gyldighed bestridt af modparten — den angiveligt aftalte domstol kompetent i henhold til artikel 2 og arti­kel 5, nr. 1 — prøvelse af aftalens gyldighed ufornøden
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction (Article 17) — Validity of agreement on jurisdiction contested by opposite party — Court on which jurisdiction was allegedly conferred by agreement had jurisdiction under Articles 2 and 5 (1) — Not necessary to consider validity of agreement
En italiensk virksomhed havde anlagt sag ved Tribunale di Udine (Italien) mod et selskab med hjemsted i Frankrig til betaling for nogle varer, den italienske virksomhed havde leveret på grundlag af en mellem parterne truffet aftale; varerne skulle overgives i Frankrig, hvor købesummen skulle erlægges ved veksler.
An Italian undertaking brought an action against a French company in the Tribunale di Udine (Italy) for payment under a contract between the parties whereby the Italian undertaking was to supply certain goods; the goods were to be delivered in France and the purchase price paid there by bill of exchange.
Sagsøgte rejste indsigelse mod rettens kompetence og anførte, at Tribunal de la Seine (Frankrig) var kompetent, enten fordi den tilgrundliggende aftale var indgået i Frankrig og skulle opfyldes dér, eller på grundlag af en værnetingsklausul i aftalen, som udpegede den nævnte franske ret som kompetent vedrørende eventuelle tvister.
The defendant objected to the jurisdic­tion of the court in Udine and declared that the Tribunal de la Seine (France) had juris­diction, either because the contract was concluded in France and was to be performed there, or by virtue of a forum clause contained in the contract to the effect that the said French court should have jurisdiction in any dispute.
Subsidiært påstod sagsøgte frifindelse under henvisning til, at sagsøgeren ubeføjet havde annulleret kontrakten, og påstod selvstændig dom til betaling af skadeserstatning.
In the alternative, the defendant asked for the action to be dismissed as unfounded on the ground that the contract had been rescinded, and counterclaimed for damages.
Da det umiddelbart fulgte af lovregler, at den franske ret var kompetent, var det ikke nødvendigt at tage stilling til den af sagsøgte påberåbte værnetingsaftale, hvorefter Tribunal de la Seine skulle pådømme sagen.
As the French court had jurisdiction directly under statutory provisions, it was not necessary to examine the agreement conferring jurisdiction on the Tribunal de la Seine upon which the defendant relied.
Afslutningsvis tilføjede Corte di cassazione, at Haag-konventionerne af 15. juni 1955 og 1. juli 1964 om internationale løsørekøb ikke kunne finde anvendelse, enten da Frankrig ikke havde ratificeret dem, eller da domskonventionen under alle omstændigheder måtte have forrang som lex specialis.
Finally, the Corte di Cassazione added that the Hague Conventions of 15 June 1955 and 1 July 1964 on the international sale of goods were not relevant, either because they had not been ratified by France or because on the question of jurisdiction the Brussels Con­vention contained more specific provisions.
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — værnetingsklausul i en arbejdsaftale — ugyldig i henhold til national ret — domskonventionens artikel 17 havde forrang
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Jurisdiction clause in a contract of employ­ment — Void under national law — Precedence taken by Article 17 of the Brussels Conven­tion
En i Belgien bosiddende funktionær i et selskab med hjemsted i Frankrig sagsøgte selskabet for arbejdsretten Bruxelles og gjorde krav i henhold til arbejdsaftalen gældende.
An employee of a French company who had his domicile in Belgium commenced pro­ceedings against his employer in the Tribunal du Travail, Brussels, and pleaded certain claims arising out of the contract of employment.
Sagsøgte rejste indsigelse mod rettens kompetence og påberåbte sig en klausul i arbejdsaftalen, hvorefter retterne i Lille (Frankrig) skulle være enekompetent med hen syn til tvister vedrørende aftalen.
The defendant objected to the jurisdic­tion of the court, relying on a clause contained in the contract of employment to the ef­fect that the courts in Lille (France) should have exclusive jurisdiction over disputes aris­ing out of the contract.
Heroverfor gjorde sagsøgeren gældende, at værnetingsklausuler i arbejdsaftaler var ugyldige i henhold til artikel 81 i det franske dekret af 22. december 1958.
In answer to that the plaintiff argued that under Article 81 of the French Decree of 22 December 1958 jurisdiction clauses in contracts of employment were void.
1968 - ARTIKEL 17, STK. I
1968 - ARTICLE 17 (1)
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — aftale til fordel for retterne på »sagsøgerens hjemsted« — ugyldig
Under the jurisdiction agreement con­tained in the contract, which was valid under Article 17 of the Brussels Convention, the courts in Lille had exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the action.
I en handelsagenturaftale havde parterne, en tysk agent og en italiensk virksomhed, af talt, at der for »enhver tvist« skulle være værneting »på sagsøgerens hjemsted«.
On the question of the in­compatibility of Article 17 with the aforesaid provision contained in the French decree, the court held that provisions of international law took precedence over provisions of national law even when the latter were of a mandatory nature.
Under påberåbelse heraf havde forhandleren ved Landgericht Wiesbaden anmodet om foretagelse af arrest på gods mod den italienske virksomhed. Landgericht afviste at være kom petent med hensyn til den begærede afgørelse, da den nævnte værnetingsaftale var ugyldig. dig.
Moreover, since the plain­tiff had performed his duties exclusively in Belgium, if there were any doubt about the matter it would be necessary to consider the compatibility of the Convention and Bel­gian law, rather than French law; however, Belgian law did not contain any provision against jurisdiction agreements which corresponded to the French rule.
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — begrebet »parterne« i artikeln — retssagens parter — værnetingsklausul i konnossement — ingen virkning til skade for den senere in dehaver
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Agreement in favour of the courts for "the plaintiff s place of domicile" — Jurisdiction declined
Denne sag angik en tvist mellem parterne om belgiske retters kompetence vedrørende et krav i henhold til en fragtaftale, på grundlag af hvilken gods var blevet befordret fra Moçambique til Antwerpen.
In an agency agreement the parties, a German agent and an Italian undertaking, had agreed that "the courts for the plaintiffs place of domicile should have jurisdiction in the event of any disputes arising".
Retten i første instans fandt på grundlag af domskonventionen at mangle kompetence.
In reliance on that term the agent applied to the Landgericht Wiesbaden for an order for the attachment of the Italian undertaking's assets.
Ankeinstansen ændrede denne afgørelse.
The Landgericht declined jurisdiction on the ground that the jurisdiction agree­ment was void.
Et andet resultat kunne kun udledes af konventionens artikel 17, hvis betingelser måtte fortolkes snævert under hensyn til værnetingsaftalers vidtrækkende virkninger.
It held that a valid jurisdiction agreement within the meaning of Article 17 of the Brussels Convention had not been created, since the agreement between the parties had failed to determine with sufficient precision the venue for settling disputes, it depending in each case on which of the parties to the contract assumed the role of plaintiff.
Da reglen krævede en »aftale« mellem parterne, måtte retten prøve, om en værnetingsklausul faktisk havde været udtryk for
That was pre­cisely what Article 17 sought to prevent by providing that exclusive jurisdiction could be conferred on a court or the courts of a Contracting State. Nor could the applicant derive
1968 ­ ARTIKEL 17, STK. 1
1968 - ARTICLE 17 (1)
(fortsat 1) enighed mellem parterne.
(continued 1) any benefit from the third paragraph of Article 17, since the parties' agreement on juris­diction had not been concluded "for the benefit of' the applicant.
I en konvention om procesretlige spørgsmål måtte udtrykket »parterne« forstås således, at der var tale om »retssagens parter«.
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — The term "the parties" in Article 17 — The parties to the action — Forum clauses in a bill of lading — Not valid against a subsequent holder
Belgiske retter havde derfor fortsat kompetence til at pådømme sagen.
The court of first instance declined jurisdiction in application of the Brussels Convention.
Jfr. vedrørende spørgsmålet om gyldigheden af værnetingsklausuler i konnossementer allerede samme rets afgørelse af 15. juni 1979, ovenfor under 1­17.1.1 — B 5.
The appeal court held that the Belgian courts had jurisdiction under Article 5 (1) of the Convention, since, as the port of destination, Antwerp, was the place for the per­formance of the carrier's obligation to deliver the goods in proper condition.
Retten har i domme af 28. februar 1979, BV Imparma Shipping mod Portugal Presidente Compania de Seguras m.fl., og af 21. november 1979, Rederij van Swieten NV mod The General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corp. Ltd m.fl., samt i flere domme af 12. december 1979, Rederij Hapag Lloyd mod NV La Brabançonne m.fl. (AR 1957, 1958, 1959/77) og Rederij Hapag Lloyd m.fl. mod NV La Brabançonne m.fl.
A contrary conclusion could be derived only from Article 17 of the Convention and the require­ments laid down by that provision must be strictly construed in view of the far-reaching effects of jurisdiction agreements.
(AR 917/78) fastholdt sin praksis, hvorefter en værnetingsklausul i de almindelige betingelser i et konnossement, til fordel for retterne i en anden kontraherende stat, ikke kan gøres gældende over for en konnossementsindehaver, der anlægger sag i Belgien.
In this regard the expression "parties", in a conven­tion on matters of procedural law, must be taken to mean the "parties to the action".
Jfr. vedrørende spørgsmålet om den form værnetingsklausuler i konnossementer skal have for at være gyldige, nedenfor under 1­17.1.2 — B 3, 7, 14, 17.
Therefore the jurisdiction of the Bel­gian courts was not disturbed by it.
1968 ­ ARTIKEL 17, STK. 1
1968 ­ ARTICLE 17 (1)
(fortsat 1) imod og gjorde især gældende, at de italienske domstole savnede international kompe­tence; da parterne havde vedtaget, at en voldgiftsret i Hannover (Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland) skulle være kompetent, var denne enekompetent i sagen i medfør af konven­tionens artikel 17. Landgericht afslog begæringen.
(continued 1) vember 1979), Rederij Hapag Lloyd v NV La Brabançonne (A.R. 1957, 1958, 1959/77) (12 December '979) and Rederij Hapag Lloyd y NV La Brabançonne (A.R. 917/78) (12 December 1979).
Afslaget blev indbragt for Oberlan­desgericht Celle, som tillod fuldbyrdelse. Der blev herefter indgivet »Rechtsbeschwer­de« til Bundesgerichthof, som ophævede Oberlandesgericht's afgørelse og hjemviste sagen til denne.
On the question of the formal validity of jurisdiction clauses in bills of lading, see further 1­17.1.2 — Β 3, 7, 14, 17, infra.
Efter EF­Domstolens praksis var dette kun tilfældet, hvis de italienske retter ifølge ita­lienske kollisionsnormer kunne begrunde deres kompetence med, at de var retterne på opfyldelsesstedet for den kontraktsmæssige forpligtelse, hvis misligholdelse påberåbtes som grundlag for påstandene i stævningen.
The German defendant had been ordered by a judgment of the Tribunale di Napoli dated 15 December 1971 to pay damages for failure to perform a contract for the supply of seed potatoes to the Italian plaintiff.
Dette spørgsmål måtte Oberlandesgericht — som havde givet udtryk for, at det afgørende var opfyldelsesstedet for den tyske parts forpligtelse til at betale erstatning, som også efter tysk ret var Napoli — tage stilling til.
The defendant's appeal was dismissed by a judg­ment of 20 April 1973 in which the Corte d'Appello, Naples, upheld the judgment of the lower court.
Skulle det derefter vise sig, at de italienske retter havde kompetencen som retterne på opfyldelsesstedet, fandt konventionen anvendelse.
The plaintiff thereupon applied for an order for the enforcement of the Ital­ian judgments in the Federal Republic of Germany.
Rekvisitus kunne derefter ikke på­beråbe sig, at der ifølge aftalen om, at voldgiftsretten i Hannover skulle være kompetent, forelå en enekompetence i henhold til artikel 17.
The defendant opposed the applica­tion and contended in particular that the Italian courts lacked international jurisdic­tion; according to the defendant, it was a case of exclusive jurisdiction under Article 17 of the Convention since the parties had conferred jurisdiction on an arbitration tribunal in Hanover (Federal Republic of Germany).
Denne bestemmelse gælder kun en ret eller retterne i en stat og finder ikke anvendelse på voldgiftsretter, som ikke er domstole.
The court of first instance dismissed the ap­plication.
Bundesgerichtshof henviste desuden til, at de italienske retter havde udtalt, at vold­giftsaftalen var ugyldig ifølge italiensk ret. Dette kunne de gøre, fordi det kun var de for­melle bestemmelser i italiensk ret, som var afgørende, og som de — forudsat at de havde den internationale kompetence — skulle anvende.
The appeal court authorized the enforcement of the Italian judgments.
Oberlandesgericht afviste under henvisning til konventionens artikel 34, stk. 3, at efterprøve de italienske retters afgørelse, hvorefter
Therefore the applicability of the Con­vention depended — in accordance with the requirements contained in the second para­ tone 2/Mar 1983
1968 ­ ARTIKEL 17, STK. 1
1968 - ARTICLE 17 (I)
(fortsat 2) voldgiftsaftalen ikke var gyldig.
(continued 1) graph of Article 54 concerning the jurisdiction of the adjudicating courts — on the ques­tion whether the Italian courts had jurisdiction under Article 5 (1) of the Convention.