natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Retten an­tog, at transporten til søs og transporten til lands var underkastet forskellige, selvstæn­dige — nationale eller internationale — forskrifter.
The court took the view that the carriage by sea and the overland transportation were each subject to particular provisions, national or international.
For transporten til lands var bestem­melserne i konventionen om fragtaftaler ved international godstransport ad landevej (CMR) afgørende. Denne konventions artikel 31 bestemte, at sagsøgeren ikke alene kunne anlægge sag ved de af parterne udpegede retter, men også ved retterne i den stat, hvor varerne skulle overtages eller leveres. Ifølge CMR artikel 41 kunne denne bestem­melse ikke fraviges ved aftale.
The overland trans­portation was governed by the provisions of the Convention on the Contract for the In­ternational Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR), Article 31 of which allowed the plaintiff to take proceedings not only in the courts designated by agreement between parties, but also in the courts of the State in which the goods were to be taken over by the carrier or delivered.
Domskonventionens artikel 17, der gav de af parterne ud­pegede retter en eksklusiv kompetence, fandt ikke anvendelse på aftaler om transport ad landevej, da CMR som lex specialis ifølge domskonventionens artikel 57 fortrængte denne.
Article 17 of the Brussels Convention, which conferred exclusive jurisdiction upon the courts designated by agreement, did not apply to the contract for overland transportation, since by virtue of Article 57 of the Brussels Convention the CMR took precedence over the Brussels Convention as a lex specialis.
1977, Haeger & Schmidt GmbH mod Compagnie française de navigation rhénane SA, Nederlandse Jurisprudentie — Uitspraken in burgerlijke en strafzaken 1978, nr. 62 Forholdet til andre konventioner — de reviderede akter af 17. oktober 1868 om rhinskibsfarten (Mannheim­akterne) — kompetenceregler — forrang for domskonventio­nens kompetenceregler
Haeger & Schmidt GmbH ν Compagnie Française de Navigation Rhénane SA Nederlandse Jurisprudentie — Uitspraken in Burgerlijke en Strafzaken 1978, No 62 Relationship to other conventions — Revised Convention for the Navigation of the Rhine of 17 October 1868 (Convention of Mannheim) — Jurisdiction rules — Precedence over the jurisdiction rules of the Brussels Convention
I en retssag mellem et tysk og et fransk selskab angående et skibssammenstød på Rhinen havde rhinskibsfartsretten i Arnhem (Nederlandene) erklæret sig for kompetent i med­før af domskonventionens artikel 5, nr. 3, fordi sammenstødet var sket inden for rettens stedlige kompetenceområde.
In a dispute between a German company and a French company concerning a ship col­lision on the Rhine, the Rhine Navigation Court at Arnhem (Netherlands) held that it had jurisdiction under Article 5 (3) of the Brussels Convention because the collision had taken place within its district.
Efter at denne afgørelse var blevet appelleret til appelkam­meret for rhinskibsfartens centralkommission, stadfæstede sidstnævnte ret afgørelsen og erklærede underinstansen for kompetent. Den anførte imidlertid i sin afgørelse, at rhinskibsfartsretten urigtigt havde støttet sin kompetence på domskonventionens arti­kel 5, nr. 3.
On appeal from the judgment of the court of first instance, the Court of Appeal of the Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine affirm­ed the jurisdiction of the Rhine Navigation Court, but held that it had been wrong to base its jurisdiction on Article 5 (3) of the Brussels Convention.
Det fremgik derimod af konventionens artikel 57, at retternes kompetence i rhinskibsfartssager ikke reguleredes af konventionen, men af de reviderede rhinskibs­fartsakter.
It was clear from Arti­cle 57 of the Brussels Convention that jurisdiction in Rhine navigation matters was gov­erned not by the Brussels Convention but by the revised Convention for the Navigation of the Rhine.
I nærværende sag var retten i Amhem som rhinskibsfartsret kompetent i med­før af akternes artikler 34 og 35.
In the instant case the court in Arnhem had jurisdiction as the Rhine Navi­gation Court under Articles 34 and 35 ofthat Convention.
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — ordrebekræftelse, i hvilken der henvises til almindelige forretningsbetingelser, herunder en værnetingsklausul, modtaget uden re­klamation — ingen aftale i artikel 17, stk. l's forstand
Jurisdiction — Agreement on jurisdiction — Acceptance without objection of confir­mation of order containing reference to general conditions of sale which included a jurisdiction clause — No agreement within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 17
Et italiensk selskab havde anlagt sag ved sit hjemting i Italien mod et i Tyskland hjem­mehørende selskab på grund af misligholdelse af to købekontrakter, hvorefter det tyske selskab skulle levere maskiner til det italienske.
An action was brought against a German company by an Italian company in the Italian court for the place where the Italian company had its offices.
Det tyske selskab gjorde gældende, at den italienske ret savnede kompetence og henviste til støtte herfor til en værnetings­klausul i sine almindelige forretningsbetingelser, hvorefter Landgericht Ravensburg var
In the action, which arose out of the non­performance of two contracts of sale whereby the German company had undertaken to supply machines, the Italian company claimed to be entitled to have the contracts rescinded and sought damages.
Udsendelse l/februar 1981
The German defendant objected to the juris­ lssue 1/February 1981
(fortsat 1) enekompetent. I sagsøgtes ordrebekræftelse var der optaget en henvisning til disse al­mindelige forretningsbetingelser, og sagsøgeren havde ikke gjort indsigelse herimod.
(continued 1) diction of the Italian court in reliance on a jurisdiction clause in its general conditions of business which stated that the Landgericht Ravensburg had exclusive jurisdiction.
Artikel 7, stk. 2, i den uniforme købeaftalelov, der var gældende såvel i Italien som i Forbundsrepublikken, bestemte, at svar på tilbud, som giver sig ud for et antagende svar, men indeholder tillæg eller indskrænkninger, som ikke væsentligt ændrer de i tilbudet fastsatte vilkår, anses... som antagende svar, med­mindre tilbudsgiveren uden ugrundet ophold gør indsigelse mod afvigelserne; gør han ikke det, gælder de i tilbudet fastsatte vilkår med de afvigelser, der er indeholdt i det an­tagende svar.
The defendant submitted that under Article 7 (2) of the Uniform Law on the Formation of Contracts for the International Sale of Goods adopted by the Hague Convention of 1 July 1964 the jurisdiction clause had become part of the contract as a result of the plain­tiffs silence with regard to the acceptance of the order; Article 7 (2) of the Uniform Law, which was in force both in Italy and in the Federal Republic of Germany, provided that "a reply to an offer which purports to be an acceptance but which contains additional or different terms which do not materially alter the terms of the contract shall constitute an acceptance unless the offerer promptly objects to the discrepancy; if he does not object, the terms of the contract shall be the terms of the offer with the modifications contained in the acceptance".
Kompetencespørgsmålet blev indbragt for Corte di cassazione, som forkastede sagsøgtes indsigelse.
In preliminary proceedings concerned with the jurisdiction of the Italian court the Corte di Cassazione dismissed the objection raised by the defendant.
Haag­konventionen af 1. juli 1964 omhandlede købekontrakters materielret­lige aspekter. Med hensyn til spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt der forelå en gyldig værnetings­aftale, måtte domskonventionens artikel 17 som lex specialis have forrang.
The Hague Convention of 1 July 1964 was concerned with the substantive aspects of the contract of sale; as re­gards the question of valid agreement on clauses conferring jurisdiction, Article 17 of the Brussels Convention was the more specific provision and therefore took precedence.
Efter Dom­stolens praksis vedrørende denne bestemmelse (sag 24/76 [dom af 14.12. 1976, jfr. oven­for under 1­17 1.2 — A 1]) skulle værnetingsaftalen foreligge skriftligt, idet der i forbin­delse med en parts anvendelse af værnetingsklausuler skulle være sikkerhed for, at mod­parten havde erklæret sig indforstået med den.
According to a decision of the Court of Justice of the European Communities on that provision (Judgment of 14 December 1976 in Case 24/76 Estasis Salottiv RÜWA [1976] ECR 1831 ; 1­17.1.2 — A 1, supra), the agreement conferring jurisdiction must be in writ­ing and where jurisdiction clauses are used by one party it must be established that the other party knowingly expressed its agreement to that clause.
En almindelig passivitet over for en ord­rebekræftelse, i hvilken der henvistes til almindelige forretningsbetingelser, herunder en værnetingsklausul, opfyldte ikke disse betingelser.
Mere silence in response to an acceptance of an order which refers to general conditions of business containing a jurisdiction clause does not satisfy those requirements.
Helt bortset fra spørgsmålet om værnetingsaftalens ugyldighed nåede Corte di cassa­zione under sagens videre behandling imidlertid til det resultat, at det ikke var den ita­lienske ret, men retten ved den tyske sagsøgtes hjemting, der var kompetent. Der ville kun have kunnet være værneting i Italien i medfør af konventionens artikel 5, nr. 1.
In spite of the invalidity of the agreement conferring jurisdiction, on further considera­tion the Corte di Cassazione came to the conclusion that the Italian court in which the ac­tion had been brought did not have jurisdiction and that, on the contrary, only the court for the place where the German defendant had its seat had jurisdiction.
Sagsøgtes leveringsforpligtelse, hvis misligholdelse dannede grundlag for de ved søgsmålet rejste krav, skulle i medfør af den uniforme købelovs artikel 19, stk. 2, have været opfyldt ved sagsøgtes hjemsted.
The obligation to supply the goods, the non­performance of which by the de­fendant was the basis of the claims put forward in the action, should have been perform­ed at the defendant's place of business by virtue of Article 9 (2) of the Uniform Law on the International Sale of Goods.
(fortsat 1) den 12. september 1974, under skilsmissesagen, var afsagt af Tribunal de grande in­stance de Verdun (Frankrig), hvorved retten konstaterede, at mægling havde været resul­tatløs (ordonnance d'inconciliation), dels for en af samme ret afsagt skilsmissedom af 12. december 1974, dog alene i det omfang rekvisitus ved afgørelserne var blevet tilplig­tet at betale nærmere bestemte månedlige underholdsbidrag til de mindreårige fælles­børn.
The applicant, the divorced wife of the respondent, sought a declaration that an order made on 12 September 1974 by the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Verdun (France), in divorce proceedings between the parties which recorded that a reconciliation was not possible (ordonnance d'inconciliation) and a divorce decree pronounced on 12 Decem­ber 1974 by the same court were enforceable in Belgium under the Brussels Convention in so far as the respondent was thereby ordered to pay monthly amounts for the mainte­nance of the children of the marriage.
Retten afslog imidlertid begæringen med den begrundelse, at domskonventionen ifølge artiklerne 55 til 57 ganske vist var trådt i stedet for den belgisk­franske konven­tion af 8. juli 1899 — som rekvirenten først havde påberåbt sig — men at dette ikke gjaldt Haag­konventionen af 15. april 1958 om anerkendelse og fuldbyrdelse af afgørel­ser vedrørende underholdspligten over for børn, som således skulle lægges til grund i det foreliggende tilfælde.
The court dismissed the application. It held that the Convention, by virtue of Articles 55 to 57 thereof, replaced the Convention of 8 July 1899 between Belgium and France (on which the applicant had primarily based her ap­plication) but not, however, the Hague Convention of 15 April 1958 on the recognition and enforcement of decisions relating to maintenance obligations towards children, which was therefore applicable to the present case.
Retten fremhævede i øvrigt, at begæring om fuldbyrdelsespå­tegning i medfør af domkonventionen skulle fremsættes ifølge den procedure, der var omhandlet i konventionens artikel 31, hvorimod det fulgte af Haag­konventionens arti­kel 6, at anmodninger om fuldbyrdelsespåtegning reguleredes af fuldbyrdelsesstatens al­mindelige processuelle regler, dvs. i Belgien artikel 700 i code judiciaire. Begæringen måtte derfor afvises i det omfang, den støttedes på domskonventionen.
Moreover, it had also to be noted that under the Brussels Convention the order for enforcement should be applied for by the procedure under Article 31 of the Convention, whereas under Article 6 of the Hague Convention applications for enforcement were governed by the general provisions of procedural law of the enforcing State, that was to say, in the case of Belgium, Article 700 of the Code Judiciaire.
Ved kendelse af 10. februar 1978 i sagen Matthyse mod Matthyse erklærende Rechtbank van 1ste aanleg Tongeren en dom afsagt den 28. oktober 1975 af Arrondissementsrecht­bank Maastricht (Nederlandene), hvorved rekvisitus var blevet tilpligtet at betale under­holdsbidrag til sine mindreårige børn, for eksigibel i Belgien i medfør af domskonventio­
By order of 10 February 1978 in Matthysev Matthyse the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg, Tongeren, held that a judgment of the Arrondissementsrechtbank, Maastricht (Nether­lands), of 28 October 1975 which ordered the respondent to pay maintenance for his children was enforceable under the Brussels Convention.
Ved kendelse afsagt af Tribunal de 1ère instance de Nivelles den 5. december 1978 i sagen Garçon mod List blev fuldbyrdelsespåtegning på en dom afsagt den 12. januar 1978 af Tribunal de grande instance de Rennes (Frankrig) om rekvisiti underholdspligt over for sit mindreårige barn meddelt under henvisning til Haag­konventionen af 15. april 1958, uagtet at begæring var indgivet i medfør af domskonventionens art. 31 ff.
By an order of 5 December 1978 in Garçon ν Lis/the Tribunal de Première Instance, Ni­velles, granted an application under Article 31 et seq. of the Brussels Convention for the enforcement of a judgment of the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Rennes (France), of 12 January 1978 dealing with the respondent's obligation to pay maintenance for his child on the basis of the Hague Convention of 15 April 1958.
En dom afsagt den 27. juni 1976 af Amtsgericht Heinsberg (Forbundsrepublikken Tysk­land), hvorved rekvisitus i fuldbyrdelsessagen var blevet tilpligtet at betale underholds­bidrag til sine mindreårige børn, blev ved kendelse afsagt den 6. september 1978 af Rechtbank van 1ste aanleg, Bruxelles, i sagen Janssen mod Geers erklæret eksigibel i Belgien i medfør af Haag­konventionen af 15. april 1958, den belgisk­tyske anerkendel­ses­ og fuldbyrdelseskonvention af 30. juni 1958 samt domskonventionen.
By an order of 6 September 1978 in Janssen ν Geers the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg, Brussels, declared that a judgment of the Amtsgericht Heinsberg (Federal Republic of Germany) of 27 June 1976 which ordered the respondent to pay maintenance for his children was enforceable under the Hague Convention of 15 April 1958, the Belgian­German Convention of 30 June 1958 on recognition and enforcement and the Brussels
Forholdet til andre konventioner — Haag­civilproceskonventionen af 1.3. 1954 — bestem­melser om fuldbyrdelse af afgørelser vedrørende sagsomkostninger — forrang for domskon­ventionens bestemmelser
Relationship to other conventions — Hague Convention ofl March 1954 on civil procedure — Provisions on the enforcement of orders as to costs — Precedence over the rules of the Brussels Convention
Rekvirenterne i denne sag, der var advokater i Hannover (Forbundsrepublikken Tysk­land), havde repræsenteret rekvisitus — der havde bopæl i Belgien — i en retssag for Landgericht Hannover.
The applicants, who were lawyers in Hannover (Federal Republic of Germany), had re­presented the respondent, who was domiciled in Belgium, in litigation in the Landge­richt Hannover.
Salærkravene og kravene på godtgørelse af udlagte beløb i denne anledning lod advokaterne senere fastsætte af Landgericht Hannover ved kendel­se.
The applicants subsequently obtained an order from the Landgericht Hannover determining the amount of their fees and expenses payable by the respondent in connexion with that representation.
Den derpå — over for Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Veume — fremsatte begæring om fuldbyrdelsespåtegning i Belgien blev taget til følge, idet retten støttede tilladelsen til fuldbyrdelse på artikel 19 i Haag­civilproceskonventionen af 1. marts 1954.
An application to the Rechtbank van Eerste Aan­leg, Veurne, for the enforcement ofthat order in Belgium was granted. The court grant­ed the order for enforcement on the basis of Article 19 of the Hague Convention of 1 March 1954 on civil procedure.
Retten an­førte, at det af domskonventionens artikler 56 og 57 fremgik, at bestående konventioner om anerkendelse og fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser på sagsområder, hvor domskonven­tionen ikke fandt anvendelse, bevarede deres gyldighed.
It held that the Brussels Convention, by the terms of Articles 56 and 57 thereof, did not affect existing conventions which contained rules on the recognition and enforcement of judgments relating to matters to which the Brussels Convention did not apply.
Ved Landgericht Hannover's kendelse var der sket en fastsættelse af en advokats krav på salær og godtgørelse af udlæg mod en tidligere klient i forbindelse med en retssag, og spørgsmål af denne art var reguleret af Haag­konventionen af 1. marts 1954.
The order of the Landgericht Hannover dealt with the deter­mination of costs and expenses owed to a lawyer by his former client in respect of his re­presentation in a litigation; that matter was governed by the Hague Convention of 1 March 1954.
Anmærkning : Jfr. også ovenfor under 1­27.2 — B 7
Note: See also 1-27.2 — Β 7 supra
Konventionens gyldighedsområde — Surinam — konventionen gælder ikke i forhold til Nederlandene — spørgsmålet om gyldigheden ¡forhold til andre kontraherende stater ikke løst, heller ikke efter Surinam's uafhængighed
Territorial scope of the Convention — Surinam — Convention not applicable in relation to the Netherlands — Question of its applicability in relation to other Contracting States after Surinam's independence left open
I denne sag nægtede retten at imødekomme en anmodning i henhold til domskonven­tionen om meddelelse af fuldbyrdelsespåtegning på en afgørelse fra Kantongerecht i Pa­ramaribo (republikken Surinam) af 3. maj 1976.
The court dismissed an application under the Brussels Convention for the enforcement of a judgment of the Kantonrechter, Paramaribo (Republic of Surinam), of 3 May 1976.
I sin tid havde Nederlandene dog i henhold til artikel 60, stk. 2, erklæret, at konventionen var gældende for Surinam.
It was true that the Netherlands had declared under the second paragraph of Article 60 that the Convention applied to Surinam.
Efter at Surinam den 24. november 1975 var blevet selvstændig, havde republikken den 29. no­vember 1975 over for De forenede Nationer erklæret, at den ville undersøge, hvilke af de traktater, som Nederlandene havde indgået med virkning for Surinam, den ville over­tage, og at bestående traktater fortsat skulle anses for at være i kraft, indtil republikken afgav anden erklæring.
After it gained independence on 25 November 1975 the Republic of Surinam declared to the United Nations on 29 November 1975 that it wished to review which of the treaties concluded by the Netherlands and extending to Surinam it would adopt and that existing treaties would be regarded as continuing in force until a declaration to the contrary.
Det var derfor muligt, anførte retten, at en retsafgørelse fra Suri­nam stadig kunne anerkendes og fuldbyrdes i konventionsstaterne, bortset fra Nederlan­dene, i medfør af konventionen.
It was therefore conceivable, the court said, that a judgment from Surinam could still be recognized and enforced under the Convention in the Contracting States with the exception of the Netherlands.
Konventionen havde imidlertid aldrig været gældende i Nederlandene for så vidt angik anerkendelse og fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser fra Suri­nam.
The Convention, however, had never applied to the recognition and enforcement of judgments from Surinam in the Netherlands.
Dette spørgsmål var indtil Surinam's selvstændighed omhandlet i artikel 40 i Sta­tuut voor het Koninkrijk.
Until Surinam became independent such matters had been governed by Article 40 of the Sta­tuut voor het Koninkrijk.
En konvention, som den 27. august 1976 var indgået mellem republikken Surinam og Nederlandene, om anerkendelse og fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørel­ser og officielt bekræftede dokumenter var endnu ikke trådt i kraft.
A convention on the recognition and enforcement of judg­ments and authentic instruments concluded between the Republic of Surinam and the Netherlands on 27 August 1976 had not yet come into force.
1954, nr. 503) kan domme og visse andre afgørelser, der er afsagt af domstole i Nederlandene, Surinam, De neder­landske Antiller eller i nederlandsk Ny Guinea, fuldbyrdes i hele kongeriget efter de på stedet gældende regler.
1954 No 503) provides that the judg ments, and certain other decisions, of courts in the Netherlands, Surinam, the Netherlands Antilles or Dutch New Guinea may be enforced throughout the realm, subject to local law.
Den i retsafgørelsen nævnte konvention mellem republikken Surinam og Nederlandene er offentliggjort i Tractatenblad 1976, nr. 144.
The Convention between the Republic of Surinam and the Netherlands referred to in the judgment was published in Tractatenblad 1976 No 144.
[særlige bestemmelser om straffesager og om afgørelser vedrørende borgerlige retskrav i straffesager]
[Special provisions relating to criminal proceedings and to judgments given in civil matters by criminal courts]
Anerkendelse — tilkendelse af erstatning i straffesager — tiltaltesfravær — hindringer for anerkendelse — manglende muligheder for forsvar samt manglende forskriftsmæssig for­kyndelse af det indledende processkrift i sagen
Recognition — Compensation order in criminal proceedings — Absence of the accused — Grounds for refusing recognition — No opportunity to arrange for defence and no proper service of the document instituting the proceedings
Sagsøgeren blev i 1972 kvæstet ved en færdselsulykke i Italien.
The plaintiff was injured in a road accident in Italy in 1972.
I anledning af ulykken rejste de italienske påtalemyndigheder sigtelse mod føreren af et andet motorkøretøj, sagsøgte 1 i denne retssag.
As a result ofthat accident the Italian prosecuting authorities instituted proceedings against the driver of another vehicle, the first defendant in the present action.
Ved retskraftig dom af 8. april 1975 afsagt af Pretura Caprino Veronese blev sagsøgte 1, som ikke havde givet møde i sagen, som udebleven idømt en fængselsstraf samt på begæring af sagsøgeren, der var indtrådt i sagen som »parte civi­le«, tilpligtet at erstatte den ved den strafbare handling forvoldte skade.
By a judgment of the Pretura, Caprino Veronese, of 8 April 1975 which had become final, the first defendant, who had not taken part in the proceedings, was sentenced in his absence to a term of imprisonment and in addition he was ordered, pursuant to an application by the plaintiff, who had taken part in the proceedings as "parte civile", to pay compensation for the damage caused by the wrongful act.
Det bestemtes endvidere i dommen, at skaden skulle opgøres under en særskilt sag.
In the judgment it was also decided that the damages should be assessed in separate proceedings.