natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Udtrykket »det sted, hvor skaden er indtrådt« anvendes nemlig om det sted, hvor skadetilføjelsen (i betydningen tildragelsen) har fundet sted; det sted, hvor skaden for skadelidte har ført til en konkret formueforringelse (hvilket kan være samme sted eller et andet sted) har derimod overhovedet ingen betydning.
The court held in fact that the expression "place where the damage occurred" meant the place where the harmful circumstances came about and that no relevance whatsoever was to be attached to the place, whether identical or different, where that damage brought about the specific reduction in the assets of the vic­tim.
I det foreliggende tilfælde bestod skadetilføjelsen i det italienske firmas omsætningstilba­gegang som følge af de sagsøgte firmaers illoyale konkurrence.
In the present case the harmful circumstances consisted in the loss of business sus­tained by the plaintiff as a result of the unlawful conduct of the defendants.
Da denne skade var ind­trådt i Tyskland, statuerede Tribunale di Monza, at den savnede kompetence.
Since the damage had occurred in Germany, the Tribunale di Monza concluded that it must de­cline jurisdiction.
(fortsat 2) for erhvervsudøvelsen og at bestemme forbindelsen mellem tvistens genstand og begre­bet 'driften' i den ovenfor angivne betydning«.
(continued 2) it may be established that an effective place of business exists and to determine the legal position by reference to the concept of Operations' as above defined."
Den afgørelse, der i tilslutning til denne dom blev truffet i sagen for den nationale ret, er omtalt under 1­5.5 — Β 2.
For the decision given in the main action following the above judgment, see 1­5.5 — Β 2.
1­5.5 — A 2 Dom af 18. marts 1981 [tredje afdeling]1), sag 139/80, Blanckaert & Willems PVBA mod Trost (anmodning om præjudiciel afgørelse indgivet af Bundesgerichtshof) Sml. 1981, s. 819 (Forslag til afgørelse fra generaladvokat G. Reischl, s. 831) Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — »sager vedrørende driften af en filial, et agentur eller en lignende virksomhed« (artikel 5, nr. 5) — begrebet »agentur« eller »lig­nende virksomhed« — handelsagent efter tysk ret — ikke omfattet — betingelser
1­5.5 — A 2 Judgment of 18 March 1981 (Third Chamber),' Case 139/80, Blanckaert & Willems PVBA ν Trost [1981] ECR 819 (Preliminary ruling requested by the Bundesgerichtshof) Advocate General: G. Reischl (p. 831) Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — "Dispute arising out of the operations of a branch, agency or other establishment" (Article 5 (5)) — The terms "agency" and "other establish­ment" — Commercial agent under German law — Exclusion — Conditions
Den belgiske møbelfabrik firma Blanckaert & Willems, sagsøgte i hovedsagen (herefter benævnt Blanckaert) stod ifølge de af firmaet afgivne oplysninger fra 1960 i forretnings­forbindelse med det tyske møbelagentur (Möbelagentur) Hermann Bey (herefter be­nævnt Bey), der i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland skulle oprette et salgsnet for Blan­ckaert­møbler. Under udførelsen af denne opgave sluttede Bey i Blanckaert's navn med sagsøgeren Trost kontrakt om repræsentationer i området Rhein­Ruhr, Eifel, Süd­West­falen. Ifølge kontrakten skulle Trost indgå aftaler direkte i Blanckaert's navn, og ville fra Blanckaert modtage en provision på 5%. Kontrakten forpligtede Trost til at frem­sende de ordrer, som hun havde opnået for Blanckaert, via Bey i Aachen. For netop disse ordrer, som Blanckaert således fik tilsendt via Bey, fik Bey fra Blanckaert en »ekstra provision«, der sædvanligvis tildeles repræsentanter, der leder og kontrollerer andre af en virksomheds repræsentanter. I december 1976 opsagde Blanckaert kontrakten med Trost, hvilket førte til, at Trost an­lagde sag med påstand om betaling af provision og erstatning.
Blanckaert & Willems (hereinafter referred to as "Blanckaert"), a Belgian furniture manufacturer and the defendant in the main action, had according to its own statements had a business association since 1960 with the German undertaking Herman Bey (hereinafter referred to as "Bey"), a furniture agency (Möbelagentur), which it made re­sponsible for the establishment in the Federal Republic of Germany of a sales network for the furniture which Blanckaert manufactured. In performance of that obligation Bey, acting on behalf of Blanckaert, entered into a commercial agency with Trost, the plaintiff in the main action, for the Rhine and Ruhr, Eifel and South Westphalia area. Under the terms of that contract Trost was to work as the direct representative of Blanckaert and receive from the latter a commission of 5%. The contract stipulated that Trost was to transmit the orders she obtained from Blanckaert through Bey at Aachen. On any such orders transmitted to it through Bey Blanckaert would pay the latter the extra commission customarily given to commercial agents who are responsible for supervising other commercial agents of an undertaking. In December 1976 Blanckaert terminated its contract with Trost, leading to an action by the latter for payment of commission and agent's adjustment fees.
Trost anlagde sagen ved Landgericht Aachen i den formening, at Bey var et agentur eller en filial af Blanckaert, således at tvisten kunne indbringes for retten på det sted, hvor agenturet eller filialen er beliggende.
Trost brought the action before the Landgericht Aachen, on the ground that Bey was an agency or branch of Blanckaert and therefore the dispute could be brought before the court of the place in which that agency or branch was established.
5 fortsat 1) for Blanckaert efter betydningen i konventionens artikel 5, og fordi de krævede beløb hidrørte fra agenturets drift.
(continued 1) tional jurisdiction of the Landgericht Aachen were fulfilled because Bey was an agency of Blanckaert's within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention and because the amounts claimed were attributable to the operation of that agency.
Under den herpå følgende revisionsankesag fastslog Bundesgerichtshof først, at Oberlandesgericht Köln med føje havde antaget, at både firma Bey og firma Trost havde ar bejdet for Blanckaert som »repræsentant (Handelsvertreter), nærmere bestemt som han delsagent (Vermittlungsvertreter), dvs. at begge som selvstændige erhvervsdrivende, jfr. Handelsgesetzbuch, §84, stk. 1, til stadighed havde til opgave at formidle forretninger for en virksomhed, sagsøgte«, hvorefter det udtaltes, at Domstolen endnu ikke har af gjort spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt driften af et agentur eller en lignende virksomhed efter betydningen i konventionens artikel 5, nr. 5, omfatter repræsentanter, herunder navnlig en mellemmands (Vermittlungsvertreter) virksomhed efter betydningen i den oven nævnte tyske retsforskrift.
Hearing the appeal on a point of law, the Bundesgerichtshof held that the Oberlandesgericht Köln had rightly established that both Bey and Trost had worked for Blanckaert "as a commercial agent [Handelsvertreter] and more specifically as a business negotiator [Vermittlungsvertreter], that is to say, both were charged on a permanent basis with negotiating business on behalf of an undertaking, namely the defendant, as independent businessmen within the meaning of the first paragraph in Article 84 of the German Commercial Code [Handelsgesetzbuch]", and ruled that the question whether the opera tions of an agency or other establishment within the meaning of Article 5 (5) of the Con vention include the activities of a commercial agent, and more particularly those of a business negotiator within the meaning of the above-quoted provision of German law, had yet to be decided by the Court of Justice.
Bundesgerichtshof forelagde derefter Domstolen følgende spørgsmål :
The Bundesgerichtshof therefore decided to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice :
»l.Må det antages, at en mellemmand (Vermittlungsvertreter), jfr. Handelsgesetzbuch, § 84 ff, skal betragtes som et 'agentur' eller en 'lignende virksomhed', jfr. artikel 5, nr. 5, i Det europæiske Fællesskabs konvention af 27. september 1968 om ret ternes kompetence og om fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser i borgerlige sager, herunder handelssager (herefter benævnt konventionen)?
"Lis a commercial agent [Handelsvertreter] who is a business negotiator [Vermittlungsvertreter] within the meaning of Article 84 et seq. of the Commercial Code [Handelsgesetzbuch] to be considered as an 'agency' or 'other establishment' within the meaning of Article 5 (5) of the European Communities' Convention on Jurisdic tion and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters of 27 September 1968?
Såfremt spørgsmål 1 besvares bekræftende:
If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative
b) Såfremt spørgsmål 2, litra a) besvares benægtende: Omfatter begrebet 'sager vedrørende driften af... et agentur eller en lignende virksomhed', jfr. fuldbyrdelseskonventionens artikel 5, nr. 5, tvister mellem bedriften og agenturet eller den lignende virksomhed om disses provision og kompensation for goodwill?«
(a) Is there a dispute 'arising out of the operations' of an agency or other establishment within the meaning of Article 5 (5) of the Convention if the agency or other establishment, acting under the authority of the undertaking in respect of which it operates as commercial agent, appoints a third person as an additional commercial agent for the undertaking, accepts against payment of a commission the documents relating to transactions negotiated by the third person and trans mits them to the undertaking, and instructs and supervises the third person and if a dispute arises out of the activities ofthat third person in his capacity as a com mercial agent between the undertaking and himself concerning his entitlement to commission and payment by way of adjustment on termination of the agency agreement?
Domstolen udtalte herom (i præmisserne 8—14):
(b) If the answer to Question 2(a) is in the negative:
(fortsat 2)
"First question
8 I det spørgsmål spørges det i det væsentlige, om en mellemmand (Vermittlungs­vertreter), jfr. Handelsgesetzbuch, artiklerne 84 ff, må antages at være et 'agentur' eller en 'lignende virksomhed' efter betydningen i konventionens artikel 5, nr. 5.
8 The first question asks in substance whether a commercial agent [Handelsvertre­ter] who is a business negotiator [Vermittlungsvertreter] within the meaning of Article 84 et seq. of the German Commercial Code is to be considered as an 'agency' or 'other establishment' within the meaning of Article 5 (5) of the Convention.
9 Som den nationale ret med føje har bemærket, fastslog Domstolen i dommen af 6. oktober 1976 (De Bloos, sag 14/76, Sml., s. 1497) '), at et af de væsentligste kende­tegn for en filial eller et agentur er, at virksomheden er underkastet hovedvirksomhe­dens ledelse og kontrol.
9 As the national court correctly observes, the Court stated in its judgment of 6 Oc­tober 1976 (Case 14/76 De Bloos ν Bouyer[1976] ECR 1497)' that one of the essential characteristics of the concept of a branch or agency is the fact of being subject of the direction and control of the parent body.
io I den pågældende dom havde Domstolen ikke lejlighed til at præcisere, hvilke faktorer der i givet fald kunne være afgørende for det spørgsmål, om en virksomhed eller et firma var undergivet hovedvirksomhedens ledelse eller kontrol, da hovedsa­gen angik retsforholdet mellem et firma og dennes eneforhandler, og da den natio­nale ret havde fastslået, at eneforhandleren ikke var undergivet leverandørens kon­trol eller ledelse.
io The Court did not have occasion in that decision to identify the factors enabling it to be determined whether or not an undertaking or other business concern is sub­ject to the direction and control of a parent body, because the main dispute con­cerned the relationship between the grantor and the grantee of an exclusive sales con­cession, and the national court had stated that the grantee was not subject to either the direction or the control of the grantor.
n Edvidere fastslog Domstolen i dommen af 22. november 1978 (Somafer, 33/78, Sml., s. 2183)2), at 'begrebet filial, agentur eller en lignende virksomhed forudsætter, at der foreligger et centrum for erhvervsudøvelsen, som udadtil varigt fremtræder som en repræsentation for hovedvirksomheden, med en ledelse og materielt udstyret således, at det kan forhandle med tredjemand, således at denne, skønt han ved, at der eventuelt opstår en retlig forbindelse med den i udlandet hjemmehørende ho­vedvirksomhed, ikke behøver at henvende sig direkte til denne, men kan indgå afta­ler på det centrum for erhvervsudøvelsen, som repræsentantionen udgør'.
n Furthermore, in its judgment of 22 November 1978 (Case 33/78 Somafer [1978] ECR 2183),2 the Court stated that 'the concept of a branch, agency or other establish­ ment implies a place of business which has the appearance of permanency, such as the extension of a parent body, has a management and is materially equipped to ne­gotiate business with third parties so that the latter, although knowing that there will if necessary be a legal link with the parent body, the head office of which is abroad, do not have to deal directly with such parent body but may transact business at the place of business constituting the extension'.
12 Det følger af disse to domme, navnlig af det kriterium, hvorefter en 'filial, [et] agentur eller en lignende virksomhed', jfr. artikel 5, nr. 5, i tredjemands øjne uden større besvær skal kunne anses for en del af hovedvirksomhedens repræsentation, at det bånd, der består i den fra denne virksomhed udøvede ledelse og kontrol, ikke er tilvejebragt, når hovedvirksomhedens repræsentant 'i det væsentlige frit [kan] indrette sin virksomhed og sin arbejdstid' (Handelsgesetzbuch, § 84, stk. 1, in fine), uden at hovedvirksomheden kan give ham anvisninger i så henseende, når han ikke samtidig lovligt kan repræsentere flere firmaer, der konkurrerer på området for pro­duktion og salg af identiske eller lignende produkter, og når han ikke effektivt har del i afviklingen og udførelsen af forretningerne, men i det væsentlige begrænser sig til at videresende ordrer til det firma, han repræsenterer. Disse tre forhold udeluk­ker, at et firma med de pågældende kendetegn kan bedømmes som et centrum for erhvervsudøvelsen, som udadtil varigt fremtræder som en repræsentation for hoved­virksomheden.
12 From the grounds given in those two judgments, and especially from the rule that a 'branch, agency or other establishment' within the meaning of Article 5 (5) must appear to third parties as an easily discernible extension of the parent body, it is clear that the dependency on the direction and control ofthat parent body is not established when the representative of the parent body is 'basically free to organize his own work and hours of work' (Article 84(1), last sentence, of the German Com­mercial Code) without being subject to instructions from the parent body in that re-
') Jfr. ovenfor under 1­5.1.1 —Al.
1 — See 1-5.1.1 — A 1, supra.
2) Jfr. ovenfor under 1­5.5 — A 1.
2 — See 1-5.5 — A 1, supra.
(fortsat 3) repræsenterer flere konkurrende selskaber inden for samme produktions- eller han delssektor, og såfremt han desuden blot videresender ordrer til hovedvirksomheden uden at have del i ordrernes afvikling eller opfyldelse, foreligger der ikke kendetegnene for en filial, et agentur eller en lignende virksomhed, jfr. konventionens artikel 5, nr. 5.
The reply to the first question must therefore be that an independent commercial agent who merely negotiates business [Handelsvertreter (Vermittlungsvertreter)], in asmuch as his legal status leaves him basically free to arrange his own work and de cide what proportion of his time to devote to the interests of the undertaking which he agrees to represent and whom that undertaking may not prevent from represent ing at the same time several firms competing in the same manufacturing or marketing sector, and who, moreover, merely transmits orders to the parent undertaking without being involved in either their terms or their execution, does not have the character of a branch, agency or other establishment within the meaning of Article 5 (5) of the Convention.
Andet spørgsmål
Second Question
14 Da det andet spørgsmål kun er blevet stillet for det tilfælde, at der svares bekræftende på det første, skal det ikke besvares.«
The second question is asked only if the reply to the first question should be in the affirmative.
Efter afsigelsen af denne dom blev den retstvist, der lå til grund for sagen for den nationale ret, sluttet ved, at sagen blev hævet.
Note: After this ruling the main action was discontinued.
(Jfr. også 1­5.1.1 ­ B6; 1­5.1.2 ­ B 16)
(See also 1-5.1.1 - Β 6; 1-5.1.2 - Β 16)
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — opfyldelsessted for den omtvistede for­pligtelse (artikel 5, nr. 1) — bestemmes efter den lov, som skal lægges tilgrund i henhold til lovvalgsreglerne ved den ret, hvor sagen er anlagt
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Place of performance of the obligation in ques­tion (Article 5 (1)) — To be ascertained under the law applicable according to the conflict rules of the lex fori
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — det sted, hvor en filial, et agentur eller en lignende virksomhed er beliggende — begrebet filial — »et andet centrum for den pågældende virksomhed« (bestemmes efter den lov, der gælder for den ret, hvor sagen er anlagt)
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Place of the branch, agency or other establish­ment — The term "branch " — "Other centre of the undertaking in question " (deter­mined according to lex forij
Retten tog først stilling til, om den var kompetent efter artikel 5, nr. 1, hvilket den be­nægtede; ved bestemmelsen af den relevante »forpligtelse« samt ved undersøgelsen af opfyldelsesstedet i artikel 5, nr. l's forstand blev EF­Domstolens praksis (jfr. ovenfor 1­5.1.1 — A 1 samt 1­5.1.2 — A 1 ) lagt til grund.
The Court first considered whether it had jurisdiction under Article 5 (1) and came to the conclusion that it did not; in identifying the decisive "obligation" and in ascertaining the place of performance within the meaning of Article 5 (1) it had regard to the decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Communities (supra 1-5.1.1 — A 1 and 1-5.1.2 - A 1).
En tysk virksomhed havde anlagt sag ved Landgericht Heidelberg mod et italiensk ak­tieselskab med hjemsted i Milano med påstand om betaling af et beløb i henhold til en værkslejeaftale.
A German undertaking commenced proceedings in the Landgericht Heidelberg against an Italian company based in Milan in order to recover payment for work done.
Som begrundelse for denne rets kompetence påberåbte sagsøgeren sig blandt andet domskonventionens artikel 5, nr. 5, og hævdede, at sagsøgte drev en filial i Heidelberg.
In support of its contention that the Landgericht had jurisdiction the plaintiff relied inter alia on Article 5 (5) of the Brussels Convention and stated that the defendant maintained a branch in Heidelberg.
Heroverfor gjorde det italienske selskab gældende, at der i Heidelberg alene fandtes et »kontor« for dets datterselskab, et tysk GmbH (Gesellschaft mit be­schränkter Haftung), som havde hjemsted i Hamburg.
In reply the Italian company argued that in Heidelberg there was merely an "office" of its subsidiary company, a com­pany incorporated under German law and based in Hamburg.
For den italienske virksomhed tjente kontoret alene som en »postadresse«. Landgericht afviste sagen, og efter sagsøge­rens appel stadfæstede Oberlandesgericht afgørelsen.
So far as the Italian undertaking was concerned the office merely had the function of a "post-box".
Retten antog i denne forbindelse — igen på grundlag af tysk ret — at en filial ikke er en underordnet og uselvstændig afdeling af modervirksomheden, men derimod »et
In this connection the Court held, again on the basis of German
(fortsat 1) andet centrum for den pågældende virksomhed«.
(continued 1) law, that a branch is not a subordinate and dependent department of the principal es­tablishment but "another centre of the undertaking in question".
Filialen måtte være indrettet således, at den ved modervirksomhedens eventuelle bortfald fortsat kunne bestå som en selv­stændig handelsvirksomhed.
The branch must be es­tablished in such a way that if the principal establishment were to be removed the branch could continue as an independent trading establishment.
Dette krævede, at den havde en udadtil selvstændig ledelse med generelle beføjelser, at den havde en særskilt kapital, og at den skulle kunne frem­vise et selvstændigt regnskab.
That meant that it must have a management ostensibly independent and endowed with general authority, that it must possess its own business assets and keep its own accounts.
RIW/AWD ­ Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft 1980, s. 796 [afgørelse truffet i tilslutning til præjudiciel afgørelse fra EF­Domstolen]
796 [Decision given following a preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Communities]
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — værneting i »sager vedrørende driften af en filial, et agentur eller en lignende virksomhed« — et fransk selskabs »repræsentation for Tyskland« — sag anlagt på repræsentationsstedet med påstand om betaling for ydelser præsteret i Tyskland
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction in disputes "arising out of the observa­tions of a branch, agency or other establishment" — French company's "representation for Germany" — Action at the place of the "representation" in respect of work performed in Germany
I denne sag havde Oberlandesgericht forelagt EF­Domstolen nogle spørgsmål vedrø­rende fortolkningen af konventionens artikel 5, nr. 5, som Domstolen besvarede ved dom af 22. november 1978 (sag 33/78; jfr. ovenfor under 1­5.5 — A 1, også vedrørende de faktiske omstændigheder og sagens tidligere forløb).
In this case the Oberlandesgericht Saarbrücken had referred several questions to the Court of Justice of the European Communities on the interpretation of Article 5 (5) of the Convention. The Court of Justice replied to those questions by judgment of 22 No­vember 1978 (Case 33/78, supra 1­5.5 — A 1, where a summary of the facts and previous procedure may be found).
Den af Landgericht afsagte mellemdom, hvori retten havde erklæret sig kompetent, blev af sagsøgte appelleret til Oberlandesgericht, som stadfæstede dommen. Det fulgte ganske vist ikke af konventionens artikel 5, nr. 1, at retten i første instans var kompetent.
The Oberlandesgericht now dismissed the defendant's appeal against the interlocutory judgment whereby the Landgericht had held that it had jurisdiction.
Under henvisning til EF­Domstolens praksis (jfr. ovenfor under 1­5.1.1 —Al; 1­5.1.2 — A 1) nåede retten til det resultat, at opfyldelssesstedet for sagsøgtes kontrakts­mæssige forpligtelse, som var underlagt tysk ret, var sagsøgtes hjemsted i Frankrig.
On the basis of the previous decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Communities (su­pra 1­5.1.1 — A 1; 1­5.1.2 — A 1) the court came to the conclusion that the place of perfor­mance of the relevant contractual obligation of the defendant, which was governed by German law, was the place where the defendant had its seat in France.
Derimod måtte betingelserne i konventionens artikel 5, nr. 5, anses for opfyldt under hensyn til Domstolens præjudicielle afgørelse i sagen.
On the other hand, if regard was had to the preliminary ruling delivered by the Court of Justice in this case, it could be seen that the requirements of Article 5 (5) of the Con­vention were fulfilled.
Bevisførelsen for Oberlandesge­richt havde nemlig vist, at sagsøgte havde oprettet et centrum for erhvervsudøvelsen — således som dette var defineret af Domstolen — i B. i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland.
It was clear from the evidence heard by the Oberlandesgericht that the defendant had set up in B. (Federal Republic of Germany) a place of business of the type described by the Court of Justice.