natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
»Begrebet køb af løsøregenstande, hvor købesummen skal betales i rater, som nævnt i artikel 13 i Bruxelles-konventionen af 27. september 1968, kan ikke forstås således, at det omfatter et selskabs køb af en maskine hos et andet selskab mod betaling med veksler, der forfalder i rater.«
"The concept of the sale of goods on instalment credit terms within the meaning of Article 13 of the Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968 is not to be understood to extend to the sale of a machine which one company agrees to make to another com pany on the basis of a price to be paid by way of bills of exchange spread over a period."
I overensstemmelse med den af Domstolen trufne præjudicielle afgørelse, statuerede Cour de cassation, at begrebet køb, hvor købesummen skal betales i rater, i artikel 13, ikke kunne forstås således, at det omfattede det franske selskabs køb af maskinen hos det tyske selskab mod betaling med veksler, der forfaldt i rater.
Having regard to the preliminary ruling given by the Court of Justice, the Cour de Cas sation decided that the term "sale of goods on instalment credit terms" in Article 13 could not be construed as extending to the agreement whereby the German company had undertaken to sell a machine to the French company against bills of exchange pay able at different dates.
Følgelig stadfæstede Cour de cassation underinstansens afgørelse, idet den afviste det anbringende om, at ret ten i domsstaten savnede kompetence, som det franske selskab på grundlag af artikler ne 13, 14, stk. 2, og 28, stk. 1, havde fremsat vedrørende den afgørelse, hvorved der tillagdes en tyske dom eksequatur (dom af 23. 1. 1979, Journal du droit international 1979, s. 374).
The Cour de Cassation therefore dismissed the appeal, refusing to uphold the French company's submission that the German court had no jurisdiction on the basis of Articles 13, 14 (second paragraph) and 28 (first paragraph) (Judgment of 23 January 1979, Journal du Droit International 1979, p. 374).
Kompetence — enekompetence — sager om leje eller forpagtning affasi ejendom (artikel 16, nr. 1) — krav på leje — artikel 16, nr. 1, fandt anvendelse
Transitional provisions — Action commenced before the entry into force of the Con­vention — Convention held applicable
Konventionens fortolkning — protokollen af 3. juni 1971 — forelæggelse for Dom­stolen af et fortolkningsspørgsmål — rettens skøn (artikel 3, stk. 2)
Jurisdiction — Exclusive jurisdiction in proceedings concerned with the validity of patents — Breach of patent rights — Jurisdiction of the court for the place where the patent was deposited or registered
Retten udtalte, at artikel 16, nr. 1, også gælder for sager, som alene vedrører betaling af leje.
The Corte d'Appello, Milan, was required to give judgment, under Article 36 et seq. of the Convention, on an appeal against the enforcement of a judgment of the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Paris, of 25 June 1973.
Med den modsatte opfattelse, som var forsvaret i den sagkyndiges beretning vedrø­rende konventionen, oversås det, at bestemmelser i den nationale lejeret vedrørende genstanden for lejemålet eller forpagtningen kan være afgørende i sager om betaling af leje.
That judgment ordered the Italian undertaking "Frigomat" (the appellant) to pay a sum by way of interim damages in respect of its abuse of a patent properly registered in France by Poerio Carpigiani, an Italian national.
En sondring mellem sager, som udelukkende vedrører betaling af leje, og andre sager ville desuden i praksis føre til vanskelige afgrænsningsspørgsmål.
The French judgment stated that damages would be finally assessed on the basis of a technical and financial survey commissioned for that purpose.
Artikel 3, stk. 2, overlader denne afgørelse til rettens skøn.
The appeal was dismissed.
Skønt de tyske lovforarbejder inde­holdt en anden opfattelse end den, retten havde fremført, anså den det ikke for nødven­digt at forelægge EF­Domstolen et fortolkningsspørgsmål, idet den afvigende opfattelse ikke var nærmere begrundet.
The appellant had submitted in the first place that the Brus­sels Convention was inapplicable on the ground that the decision of the French court, in which the respondent had commenced proceedings before the entry into force of the Convention, did not satisfy the conditions laid down in the second paragraph of Article 54 for the recognition of decisions given after the entry into force of the Convention in actions commenced before that date.
Retten var ikke bekendt med retsafgørelser, som fulgte denne opfattelse og tillige begrundede den nærmere.
The Corte d'Appello held that the object of the ac­tion commenced by the respondent in the French court was not simply to establish the al­leged breach of the patent and that the action was also necessarily concerned with the va­lidity of the patent in question.
Udsendelse 2/maj 1983
Indeed the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Paris, had com­ mue 2/May 1983
Kompetence — enekompetence — sager om rettigheder over fast ejendom (artikel 16, nr. 1) — sag om betaling af en konventionalbod på grund af misligholdelse af en aftale om køb af en fast ejendom — artikel 16, nr. 1, fandt ikke anvendelse
Therefore, irrespective of the domicile of the parties, the French courts had exclusive jurisdiction under Article 16(4) of the Convention as the courts of the Contracting State in which the patent had been depos­ited or registered.
To franske selskaber havde suspensivt betinget solgt en hollænder en fast ejendom, som lå i Frankrig.
The applicant contended further that the recognition of the French judgment — in so far as it ordered the appellant to pay interim damages — must be considered to be con­trary to Italian public policy.
En del af købesummen skulle betales ved betingelsens indtræden.
It argued that the order to pay interim damages was a final judgment only in form and that in substance it was contingent upon the subsequent deci­sion assessing the total damages, the exact amount of which — yet to be established — might even be lower than the interim damages.
Køberen betalte ikke og indstævnedes for sit hjemting til betaling af en konventionalbod.
It would therefore be contrary to public policy to recognize a foreign judgment which was not final and which ordered the pay­ment of an amount not yet established.
Retten anså sig for kompetent.
The Corte d'Appello rejected that argument.
Sagen angik ikke ejendomsretten til den faste ejendom i Frank­rig, men alene den obligationsretlige forpligtelse til betaling af en konventionalbod på grund af misligholdelse.
The order to pay interim damages entailed, in French law also, a definite and irrefutable finding on the part of the court that damage at least equal to that sum had been proved.
1­16.1 — B3 Hoge Raad der Nederlanden dom af 31. marts 1978, Sander mod van der Putte [Afgørelse i tilslutning til præjudiciel afgørelse fra EF­Domstolen]
Therefore the fact that the French court had not yet given a ruling on the total amount of damages did not preclude the recognition and enforcement of a judgment ordering the payment of interim damages which were themselves of a definite amount.
Kompetence — enekompetence — sag om leje ellerforpagtning affasi ejendom (artikel 16, nr. I) — forpagtning af en forretning — ikke »leje eller forpagtning« i artikel 16, nr. l's forstand
Moreover, a court which was called upon to enforce a foreign judgment was not allowed to distinguish between the "formal finality" and the "substantive finality" of the foreign judgment or of a part of it; otherwise the court would be reviewing the judgment as to its substance.
Denne afgørelse afsluttede den sag, i hvilken EF­Domstolen på Hoge Raad's anmod­ning afsagde dom af 14. december 1977 (sag 73/77, ovenfor under 1­16.1 — A 1, hvortil tillige henvises med hensyn til sagens omstændigheder og de forudgående retsforhand­linger). På grundlag af denne dom stadfæstede Hoge Raad Gerechtshof Arnhem's dom.
Finally, the same conclusion allowed the court also to reject the final ground of appeal, whereby the appellant submitted that Article 43 of the Convention was applicable.
Retten erklærede, at den havde kompetence til at træffe afgørelse i en sag mod en ejen­domsmægler, der havde bopæl i Belgien, hvori sagsøgerne krævede betaling af købesum­men for en fast ejendom beliggende i Frankrig, som sagsøgte havde givet tilsagn om at købe, og som sagsøgerne tilbød at overdrage.
Since the trade-mark in question had been internationally registered, it was protected, by virtue of Article 4 of the Madrid Agreement, in the same way as if it had been directly deposited in each of the countries belonging to the International Union for the Protection of Industrial Property.
Retten udtalte, at de franske domstole ifølge konventionens artikel 16, nr. 1, kun var enekompetente, når sagen vedrørte (ting­lige) rettigheder over fast ejendom.
Therefore, the appellants argued, the Belgian courts had exclusive jurisdiction, under Article 16 (4) of the Brussels Convention, as the courts of the State in which the trade-mark was deemed to have been deposited in ac­cordance with the provisions of an international convention.
Om dette var tilfældet afhang af kravets art. Da sagen angik betaling af en købesum, vedrørte den ikke rettigheder over fast ejendom, og sagsøgte kunne derfor sagsøges ved retten på det sted, hvor han havde bopæl.
The appellants argued that the licensor had in any event impliedly waived the benefit of the clause by submitting an interlocutory application closely connected with the present action to the President of the Tribunal de Commerce, Brussels.
I en dom af 13. september 1979, i sagen NV Wulaco mod Schütter, udtalte Hofvan be­roep, Bruxelles, at en sag om betaling af en godtgørelse for forgæves bestræbelser for at afslutte en aftale om salg af en fast ejendom, ikke vedrørte rettigheder over fast ejendom i konventionens artikel 16, nr. l's forstand.
The Cour d'Appel, Paris, dismissed the appeal on the ground that, since Article 16(4) clearly applied only to actions concerned with the registration or validity of patents, trade-marks, designs or other similar rights requiring to be deposited or registered, such as licensing agreements, it was not applicable in the present action, which, apart from the acts of unfair competition alleged against one of the Belgian companies in particular, was concerned solely with breaches of the licensing agreement, without the validity of that agreement or of the trade-mark being contested or affirmed by any party.
Sagen vedrørte krav hidrørende fra et kom­missionsforhold, men da der ikke var kommet nogen aftale i stand om salg, var der ikke opstået rettigheder og forpligtelser på grundlag heraf.
Since there was no reason to apply Article 16 (4) it followed that the second paragraph of Arti­cle 17 ceased to be applicable by virtue of its very wording.
[kompetence i sager om industriel ejendomsret]
[Conditions and effects]
CD dom af 10. juli 1979, Frigomat sas mod Carpigiani, Il Foro padano 1979, I, spalte 213
1-17.1.1 — A 1 Judgment of 9 November 1978, Case 23/78, Meeth ν Glacetal [1978] ECR 2133 (Preliminary ruling requested by the Bundesgerichtshof) Advocate General: F. Capotorti (p.2144)
Fuldbyrdelse — hindringer for fuldbyrdelse (artikel 34, stk. 2) — modstrid med grundlæggende retsprincipper i fuldbyrdelsesstaten (artikel27, nr. 1) — dom til betaling af en foreløbig fastsat del af et samlet erstatningsbeløb afsagt af en fransk domstol — ikke i modstrid med grundlæggende italienske retsprincipper
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Agreement under which each party may be sued only in the courts of his State of domicile — Power to take into account a set­off connected with the legal relationship in dispute — Conditions
I denne sag skulle Corte d'appello di Milano tage stilling til et tilfælde, hvor en part i medfør af konventionens artikel 36 ff. havde indgivet begæring om genoptagelse af en afgørelse, der tillod fuldbyrdelse af en dom afsagt af Tribunal de grand instance de Paris den 25. juni 1973.
In that contract the parties had agreed inter alia: "If Meeth sues Glacetal the French courts alone shall have jurisdic­tion. If Glacetal sues Meeth the German courts alone shall have jurisdiction."
Den franske domstol havde tilpligtet det italienske firma Frigomat (der indgav begæringen om genoptagelse) at betale en foreløbig fastsat del af et samlet beløb, som firmaet skulle betale i erstatning for den skade, det havde forvoldt ved kræn­kelse af et patent, som en italiensk statsborger, Poerio Carpigiani, lovligt havde fået regi­streret i Frankrig.
When Meeth failed to pay for certain deliveries, the French undertaking commenced proceed­ings to recover the sums due in the Landgericht Trier (Federal Republic of Germany), which gave judgment for the plaintiff.
Den endelige opgørelse af skaden skulle ifølge den franske domstol fo­retages på grundlag af en teknisk og regnskabsmæssig sagkyndig erklæring, der skulle indhentes til dette formål.
In answer to Glacetal's claim Meeth had pleaded a set­off relating to the damage which it claimed to have suffered as a result of the French undertaking's late or defective performance of its contractual obligations.
Corte d'appello opretholdt imidlertid fuldbyrdelsespåtegnin­gen.
The Landgericht, however, refused to allow that claim to be set­off ¿gainst the purchase price claimed by Glacetal on the ground of insufficient proof.
Det italienske firma havde i første række gjort gældende, at domskonventionen ikke fandt anvendelse i det konkrete tilfælde, idet den franske domstols afgørelse — som var truffet i en sag, der var anlagt før konventionens ikrafttræden — ikke opfyldte betingelserne i artikel 54, stk. 2, om anerkendelse af retsafgørelser, som er truffet efter konventionens ikrafttræden i sager, der er anlagt før ikrafttrædelsen.
The Oberlandesgericht, to which the case came on appeal, found that the French undertaking's claim was in prin­ciple entitled to succeed and rejected the set­off pleaded against that claim on the ground that the jurisdiction clause contained in the contract did not permit a set­off to
(fortsat I) næst pålagt Frigomat at betale erstatning på grundlag af bevisførelsen. Uanset parternes bopæl måtte det følge af konventionens artikel 16, nr. 4, at den franske domstol var ene­kompetent, da Frankrig var den kontraherende stat, på hvis område deponeringen eller registreringen var foretaget.
(continued 1) be pleaded in the German courts.
Dette måtte efter Frigomat's opfattelse indebære, at en udenlandsk retsafgørelse, som ikke var endelig, og som gik ud på betaling af et beløb af ubestemt størrelse, ikke kunne anerken­des.
That applied particularly where the parties had by such an agreement reciprocally conferred jurisdiction on the courts specified in the general rule laid down by Article 2 of the Convention.
Corte d'appello kunne ikke tage dette anbringende til følge, men udtalte, at en dom til betaling af en foreløbig fastsat del af et samlet beløb efter fransk ret forudsatte, at der for retten var ført sikkert og ubestrideligt bevis for, at der var indtrådt en skade af mindst denne størrelse. Derfor kunne den omstændighed, at den franske domstol endnu ikke havde fastslået skadens samlede størrelse, ikke være til hinder for anerkendelse og fuld­byrdelse af en — efter sin karakter — endelig dom til betaling af en foreløbig fastsat del af et samlet beløb.
In answer to the second question the Court of Justice ruled that the question of the extent to which a court before which a case was brought pursuant to a reciprocal jurisdiction clause, such as that appearing in the contract between the parties, had jurisdiction to de cide on a set-off claimed by one of the parties on the basis of the disputed contractual ob ligation must be determined with regard both to the need to respect individuals' rights of independence and the need to avoid superfluous procedure, which formed the basis of the Convention as a whole.
I øvrigt kunne retten i fuldbyrdelsesstaten ikke anlægge en sondring mellem, om en udenlandsk retsafgørelse eller en del af afgørelsen »formelt« eller »mate­rielt« var endelig, idet den derved ville tage stilling til realiteten. Dette er den udtrykke­lig afskåret fra i medfør af artikel 34, stk. 2 og 3.
In the light of both of those objectives, it was held, Article 17 could not be interpreted as preventing a court before which proceedings had been instituted pursuant to a clause conferring jurisdiction of the type described above from taking into account a set-off connected with legal relationship in dispute if such court con sidered that course to be compatible with the letter and spirit of the clause conferring jurisdiction. risdiction.
Af samme grunde udtalte Corte d'appello endelig, at heller ikke Frigomat's sidste an­bringende om, at konventionens artikel 43 fandt anvendelse, kunne tages til følge.
Accordingly, the Court of Justice gave the following answers to the questions referred to it by the Bundesgerichtshof:
Kompetence — enekompetence — sager om registrering eller gyldighed af indu­strielle ejendomsrettigheder — begreb — ikke tillige sag om opfyldelse af en varemær­kelicensaftale
Where there is a clause conferring jurisdiction such as that described in the reply to the first question the first paragraph of Article 17 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 cannot be interpreted as prohibiting the court before which
Et selskab med hjemsted i Frankrig havde overdraget sit varemærke (firmanavn) for Be­nelux, Tyskland, Italien og Schweiz til et selskab med hjemsted i Belgien.
(continued 2) a dispute has been brought in pursuance of such a clause from taking into account a set-off connected with the legal relationship in dispute."
Da artikel 16, nr. 4, ikke fandt anvendelse, kunne artikel 17, stk. 2, allerede ifølge ordlyden heller ikke finde an­vendelse.
Note: For the decision given in the main action following this judgment, see 1-17.1.1 — Β 13.
Firma Meeth med hjemsted i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland havde indgået en kontrakt med det i Frankrig hjemmehørende selskab Glacetal, hvorefter det franske firma skulle levere glas til det tyske.
The Pretore held that that clause was void as being contrary to a mandatory rule of law, since according to the principle contained in Article 2 of the Codice di Procedura Civile the jurisdiction of the Italian courts could not be excluded by agreement.
Kontrakten indeholdt bl.a. følgende passus: »Hvis firmaet Meeth sagsøger firmaet Glacetal, skal dette ske ved en fransk ret. Hvis Glacetal sagsøger firmaet Meeth, skal dette ske ved en tysk ret.« Da Meeth ikke betalte for visse leveringer fra Glacetal, anlagde det franske firma sag med påstand om betaling ved Landgericht Trier (Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland), som dømte det tyske firma til betaling.
Even if it were held that the invalidity of the clause was cured by the entry into force of the first para­graph of Article 17 of the Convention, the Italian court had still to declare itself to have jurisdiction.
Ved Landgericht Trier havde Meeth gjort en fordring gældende over for Glacetal for den skade, som Meeth angav at have lidt som følge af det franske firmas forsinkede eller mangel fulde opfyldelse af sine kontraktmæssige forpligtelser.
That provision took precedence over Law No 804 of 21 June 1971 rati­fying the Convention, in so far as it was possible under the Convention to exclude the ju­risdiction of the Italian courts by agreement in the matters indicated in Article 409 of the Codice di Procedura Civile.
Denne dom blev anket til Bundesgerichtshof, der til brug for sagen forelagde EF-Domstolen følgende spørgsmål til præjudiciel afgørelse:
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Jurisdiction clause in exclusive dealership agreement — Mandatory provision of Belgian law on jurisdiction — Convention takes precedence
Dette gælder i særdeleshed, såfremt parterne ved en sådan klausul gensidigt har vedtaget, at de i den almindelige bestemmelse i kon­ventionens artikel 2 udpegede retter skal være kompetente.
Exclusive distributorship agreements were not one of the fields of law mentioned in Articles 12, 15 and 16 in which agreements on jurisdiction were precluded.
I lyset af denne dobbelte målsætning kunne artikel 17 ikke fortolkes således, at den forhindrer den ret, som en sag er blevet indbragt for i medfør af en værnetingsaftale som den foreliggende, i at tage hensyn til en modregning med en fordring, der står i forbindelse med det omtvistede retsforhold, når retten skønner dette foreneligt med ordlyden af og meningen med værnetingsaftalen.
As the conditions governing the validity of a jurisdiction agreement (first paragraph of Article 17) were satisfied, the court named by the parties had exclusive jurisdiction in all disputes arising in connection with the exclusive distrib­utorship agreement in question, including disputes resulting from its termination. Any other court had to decline jurisdiction.
Den i tilslutning til denne dom trufne afgørelse i sagen for den nationale ret er omtalt nedenfor under 1­17.1.1 — Β 13.
The agreement, contained in the contract between the parties, conferring jurisdiction on a German court was valid under the first paragraph of Article 17 of the Convention.
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — »tvister i anledning af et bestemt retsfor­hold« (artikeln, stk. 1) — regressag (artikel6, nr.2) — tvister i artikel 17, stk. l's forstand — den ret, som behandler sagen mellem de oprindelige parter, har ikke kom­petence til at pådømme regreskravet, når de parter, mellem hvem tvisten om dette be­står, har truffet anden aftale
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — "any disputes ... which may arise in connection with a particular legal relationship" (first paragraph of Article 17) — "action on a warranty or guarantee or in any other third party proceedings" (Article 6 (2)) — "Dispute" within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 17 — The court seised of the original proceedings does not have jurisdiction if an agreement to the contrary exists between the defendant in that action and the third party
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — værnetingsklausul i almindelige forret­ningsbetingelser — gyldighed afgøres i henhold til kontraktstatuttet — løbende forret­ningsforhold på grundlag af almindelige forretningsbetingelser
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Jurisdiction clause in general condi­tions of business — Validity thereof depends on the proper law of the contract — Con­tinuous business relations on the basis of general conditions of business
I en for retten i Leeuwarden verserende sag mellem et i Hongkong hjemmehørende selskab og indehaveren af et nederlandsk handelsselskab vedrørende forpligtelser i hen­hold til en købekontrakt havde sagsøgte på sin side rejst et regreskrav mod en virksom­hed med hjemsted i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland.
A Hong Kong company brought an action in the Leeuwarden court against the proprie­tress of a business based in the Netherlands, claiming that goods supplied under a con­tract of sale were defective. The defendant claimed an indemnity against her supplier, a German undertaking with a registered office in the Federal Republic.
Den tyske virksomhed rejste indsi­gelse mod den nederlandske rets kompetence og påberåbte sig en værnetingsklausul i sine almindelige forretningsbetingelser, hvorefter »værneting for alle krav« skulle være Braunschweig (Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland).
The German un­dertaking objected to the jurisdiction of the Netherlands court, invoking a forum clause in its general conditions of business which provided that Braunschweig (Brunswick, Fed­eral Republic of Germany) was to be the "venue for all claims".
Retten afviste regreskravet.
The court dismissed the claim for an indemnity.