natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — deliktsvæmeting — »det sted, hvor skadetilføjelsen er foregået« (artikel 5, nr. 3), — både det sted, hvor den skadegørende handling er foretaget, og det sted, hvor skaden er indtrådt
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict — "the place where the harmful event occurred" Article 5 (3)) — Place of the event giving rise to the damage and the place where the damage occurred.
Gartneriet Bier BV, som havde hjemsted i Nederlandene, og foreningen »Reinwater« — hvis vedtægtsmæssige formål var at fremme vandkvaliteten i rhinbassinet — havde under en ved Arrondissementsrechtbank Rotterdam mod Mines de Potasse d'Alsace SA, Mulhouse /Frankrig), anlagt sag rejst krav om betaling af erstatning for skade, der skulle være tilføjet firma Biers beplantninger på grund af forurenet vand fra Rhinen; denne forurening skulle være forårsaget af den franske virksomheds udledning af affaldssalte i Rhinen. Retten i Rotterdam fandt at mangle kompetence.
Bier B.V., a horticultural undertaking based in the Netherlands, and the Reinwater Foundation, which exists to promote the improvement of the quality of the water in the Rhine basin, brought an action in the Arrondissementsrechtbank, Rotterdam, against Mines de Potasse d'Alsace S.A., based in Mulhouse (France), seeking compensation for the damage allegedly caused to Bier's plantation by pollution of the Rhine. That pollu­tion was alleged to have been caused by the discharge of saline waste into the Rhine by the French undertaking.
Under appellen af denne afgørelse forelagde Gerechtshof Den Haag EF-Domstolen et spørgsmål om fortolkningen af ordene »det sted, hvor skadetilføjelsen er foregået« i konventionens ar tikel 5, nr. 3.
In the course of the appeal against that decision the Gerechtshof of The Hague referred to the Court of Justice of the European Communities a question on the interpretation of the words "place where the harmful event occurred" in Article 5 (3) of the Convention.
Domstolen henviste først til, at de værneting i artikel 5, som sagsøgeren kan vælge imellem, var indført af hensyn til en hensigtsmæssig sagsbehandling, idet der i visse til fælde består en særlig nær tilknytning mellem en tvist og den ret, hvor sagen kan anlæg ges.
The Court of Justice stated in the first place that the optional jurisdiction provided for in Article 5 was introduced having regard to the existence, in certain clearly defined si­tuations, of a particularly close connecting factor between a dispute and the court which might be called upon to hear it, with a view to the efficacious conduct of the proceed­ings.
Hertil hører artikel 5, nr. 3, hvorefter sagsøgeren i sager om erstatning uden for kon trakt kan anlægge sagen ved retten på det sted, »hvor skadetilføjelsen er foregået«. Dette begrebs betydning er uklar, når handlingsstedet og virkningsstedet ligger i for skellige stater.
Thus in matters of tort, delict or quasi-delict Article 5 (3) allowed the plaintiff to bring his case before the courts for "the place where the harmful event occurred".
Den i artikel 5, nr. 3, valgte formulering lader, når samtlige de sprog, konnventionen er affattet på, tages i betragtning, stå åbent, hviket af de to steder, der skal være afgørende, eller om der for så vidt må indrømmes sagsøgeren en valgmulighed. hed.
The form of words used in Article 5 (3), similar in all the language versions of the Conven­tion, left open the question as to which of the two places should be used as the connect­ing factor in such a case or whether the plaintiff had an option in that regard.
Begge de to steder kan efter omstændighederne have lige stor betydning som tilknytningsmoment ved udpegning af den kompetente ret.
Both of the places could, depending on the case, constitute a significant connecting fac­tor with regard to jurisdiction.
Det ville derfor være uhensigtsmæssigt kun at vælge det ene af de nævnte tilknytningsmomenter; dette ville være så meget desto mindre ønskeligt, som konventionens artikel 5, nr. 3, på grund af sin vide
Therefore it would be inappropriate to opt for one of the connecting factors mentioned to the exclusion of the other; to exclude one option appea­red all the more undesirable as by its comprehensive form of words Article 5 (3) of the
(fortsat 1) formulering omfatter en lang række forskellige former for ansvar.
Convention covered a wide diversity of kinds of liability.
Det pågældende ud tryk skal altså fortolkes således, at sagsøgeren efter eget valg kan anlægge sag enten på det sted, hvor skaden er indtrådt, eller på stedet for den skadevoldende begivenhed.
Thus the expression in ques­tion must be interpreted in such a way as to acknowledge that the plaintiff had an option to commence proceedings either at the place where the damage occurred or at the place of the event giving rise to it.
Til støtte herfor henviste Domstolen bl.a. til de løsninger, der er opstillet i de kontraherende staters nationale lovgivning og retspraksis, hvorefter der, om end i forskellige ret lige udformninger, samtidig er skabt mulighed for anvendelse af begge de omhandlege tilknytningsmomenter.
In this connexion the Court of Justice referred to the solutions adopted by national le­gislative provisions and national case-law with regard to the distribution of jurisdiction, showing that in the Contracting States, albeit by differing legal techniques, a place was found for both of the two connecting factors here considered.
Domstolens fortolkning har således den fordel, at de løsninger, der er udviklet i de forskellige nationale retssystemer ikke tilsidesættes, idet ensartetheden søges gennemført i overensstemmelse med konventionens artikel 5, nr. 3, ved en systematisering af løsninger, der principielt allerede er anerkendt i størstedelen af de på gældende stater.
In those circumstances the interpretation given by the Court of Justice had the advantage of avoiding any upheaval in the solutions worked out in the various national systems of law, since it looked to uni­fication, in conformity with Article 5 (3) of the Convention, by way of a systematization of solutions which as to their principle had already been established in most of the States concerned.
Domstolen besvarede herefter det præjudicielle spørgsmål således:
Accordingly, the Court of Justice gave the following answer to the preliminary ques­tion:
»Er det sted, hvor den handling, der kan medføre et ansvar uden for kontraktsforhold, og det sted, hvor denne handling har forårsaget en skade, ikke identiske, skal udtrykket »det sted, hvor skadetilføjelsen er foregået« i artikel 5, nr. 3, i konventionen ... forstås således, at det både omfatter det sted, hvor skaden er indtrådt, og det sted, hvor den skadegørende handling er foretaget.
"Where the place of the happening of the event which may give rise to liability in tort, delict or quasi-delict and the place where that event results in damage are not identical, the expression 'place where the harmful event occurred', in Article 5 (3) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judg­ments in civil and commercial matters, must be understood as being intended to cover both the place where the damage occurred and the place of the event giving rise to it.
Det følger heraf, at en person efter sagsøgerens valg kan sagsøges enten ved retten på det sted, hvor skaden er indtrådt, eller ved retten på det sted, hvor den til grund for denne skade liggende handling er foretaget.«
The result is that the defendant may be sued, at the option of the plaintiff, either in the courts for the place where the damage occurred or in the courts for the place of the event which gives rise to and is at the origin of that damage."
Den i tilknytning til denne dom trufne afgørelse i hovedsagen er omtalt under 1-5.3 — B4.
Note: For the decision given in the main action following this judgment see 1-5.3 — Β 4 infra.
(Jfr. også 1-5.1.1 - B 5 og 7)
(See also 1­5.1 ­ Β 5, 7)
To virksomheder med hjemsted i Belgien havde under en forbudssag for Arrondissementsrechtbank Arnhem påstået forbud nedlagt imod, at blandt andre en i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland bosiddende rekvisitus fremstillede og markedsførte bestemte trans portbeholdere af kunststof.
Two undertakings based in Belgium applied to the Arrondissementsrechtbank, Arnhem, seeking inter alia an interim injunction restraining the defendant, based in the Federal Republic of Germany, from manufacturing and marketing certain containers made of synthetic materials.
De gjorde gældende, at rekvisitus fremstillede disse beholdere i slavisk efterligning af sådanne transportbeholdere, som den ene rekvirent fremstillede i Belgien, og som den anden rekvirent havde solgt i Nederlandene i adskillige år.
They claimed that the defendant was manufacturing those con­tainers in exact imitation of containers which the first plaintiff manufactured in Belgium and which the second plaintiff had distributed in the Netherlands for a number of years.
Ar rondissementsrechtbank fandt, at den var kompetent i henhold til domskonventionens artikel 5, nr. 3, og udtalte, at ifølge det af rekvirenterne anførte var skadetilføjelsen, nem lig markedsforingen af de efterlignede beholdere af materialer af ringe kvalitet, sket i Nederlandene i den pågældende rets retskreds; herudover bestod faren for yderligere skadegørende handlinger i denne retskreds.
The Arrondissementsrechtbank held that it had jurisdiction under Article 5 (3) of the Brussels Convention and stated that, according to what was averred by the plaintiffs, the harmful event, namely the marketing of the imitation containers made of cheaper materials, had taken place in the Netherlands, and indeed in the district covered by the court; moreover, there was a danger of further harmful acts taking place within the court's district.
Retten udsatte derpå sagen i henhold til konventionens artikel 20, stk. 2, da det ikke var fastslået, at den tyske rekvisitus, der ikke var repræsenteret under retsmødet, havde haft kendskab til sagens indledende processkrift, selv om rekvirenternes advokat havde til sendt ham en kopi af indkaldelsen ved almindeligt brev.
The court then stayed proceedings pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 20 of the Convention because it had not been established that the German defendant, which had not entered an appearance within the prescribed period, had had notice of the document instituting the proceedings, although the plaintiffs' lawyer had sent it a copy of the docu­ment by ordinary post.
Artikel 20, stk. 2, fandt anvendelse, uanset at der ikke i nederlandsk ret var foreskrevet et bestemt varsel for indkaldelsen i forbudssager.
The second paragraph of Article 20 was applicable notwithstand­ing the fact that under the law of the Netherlands no particular period is prescribed for the service of process in applications for an interlocutory injunction.
Retten overlod det herefter til rekvirenterne at indlede den fremgangsmåde, som er fast sat i artikel IV, stk. 2, i protokollen til konventionen, med henblik på forkyndelsen af dommen.
The court then invited the plaintiffs to consider the procedure laid down in the second paragraph of Article IV of the Protocol to the Convention for service of the judgment.
En tysk fabrikant havde solgt nogle ruller filt til en nederlandsk virksomhed, som havde videresolgt en del af dem til en tredje virksomhed, i hvis lagerlokaler de brød i brand ved selvantændelse.
A German manufacturer had sold some rolls of felt to a Netherlands undertaking which resold part thereof to a third undertaking, in whose warehouses they caught fire sponta­neously.
Den skadelidte virksomheds forsikringsselskab, som var indtrådt i virksomhedens krav, indstævnede den tyske fabrikant og den nederlandske mellem­handler for retten i Zwolle, som erklærede sig kompetent til at pådømme sagen mod den tyske fabrikant i henhold til domskonventionens artikel 5, nr. 3.
The insurer of the undertaking suffering the loss, who had been subrogated to its claims, sued the German manufacturer and the Netherlands dealer in the court at Zwolle, which decided that it had jurisdiction to entertain the action brought against the German manufacturer under Article 5 (3) of the Brussels Convention.
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — deliktsværneting — det sted, hvor ska­detilføjelsen er foregået (artikel 5, nr. 3) — både stedet for den skadegørende handling og stedet for skadens indtræden — sagsøgerens valgmulighed
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi­delict — Place at which the harmful event occurred (Article 5 (3)) — Place where the original event occurred as well as the place at which the damage arose — Plaintiffs choice of jurisdiction
Indbyrdes sammenhængende krav — definition (artikel 22, stk. 3) — fare for mod­stridende afgørelser — ingen sådanfare, selv om der under to særskilte retssager skulle blive krævet erstatning for samme skade
Related actions — Definition (third paragraph of Article 22) — Danger of irreconci­lable judgments — No such danger in the hypothetical case of compensation being sought for the same damage in separate proceedings
Den italienske Montedisonkoncern driver en fabrik i nærheden af Livorno (Italien), i hvilken der fremstilles titandioxyd.
Montedison, an Italian undertaking, operates a factory near Livorno (Leghorn) in Italy in which titanium dioxide is manufactured.
De herved opståede affaldsprodukter blev fra april 1972 ledt ud i Middelhavet.
From April 1972 the waste products arising from that activity were discharged into the Mediterranean Sea.
Prud'homie des pêcheurs de Bastia, en erhvervsorganisation for korsikanske fiskere, anlagde i januar 1976 under anbringende af, at den herved forårsagede forurening af havvandet havde ført til en formindskelse af fiskefangsterne, sag mod det italienske selskab ved Tribunal de grande instance de Bastia med påstand om erstatning for den skade, der var opstået for fiskerne.
Alleging that the pollu­tion of the maritime waters caused thereby had led to a reduction in catches, in January 1976 the Prud'homie des Pêcheurs de Bastia, a trade association of fishermen in Corsi­ca, brought an action against the Italian company in the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Bastia, in which it claimed compensation for the loss suffered by the fishermen.
De to korsikanske departe­menter indtrådte i denne sag og nedlagde påstand om erstatning for de skader, der skulle være opstået for turismen og fulkesundheden som følge af vandforureningen.
Both the Corsican "départements" intervened in the case with claims for compensation for the damage allegedly caused to the tourist trade and public health by the pollution of the sea.
Den italienske koncern gjorde subsidiært gældende, at retten også måtte erklære ikke at være kompetent, fordi der ved en ret i Livorno verserede en straffe­sag mod selskabets ledende medarbejdere, hvori Prud'homie des pêcheurs de Bastia som »parte civile« ligeledes havde nedlagt påstand om skadeserstatning. Koncernen an­
In the alternative, it submitted that the court must also declare that it had no jurisdiction because criminal proceedings against senior employees of its company
Udsendelse 1/februar 1981
Issue 1/Februan 1981
(fortsat 1) førte, at der var indbyrdes sammenhæng mellem de to sager.
(continued li were pending in Livorno in which the Prad'homie des Pêcheurs de Bastia was also claim­ing damages as a "partie civile"; it was submitted that the proceedings were related.
Tribunal de grande in­stance forkastede ved dom anbringendet om manglende kompetence og indsigelsen om sagernes sammenhæng.
In a preliminary ruling the Tribunal de Grande Instance dismissed the objection to its juris­diction and the plea that the two actions were related.
Montedison appellerede denne afgørelse og gentog for apel­instansen sine tidligere anbringender.
In an appeal against that ruling Montedison reiterated its previous submissions.
Cour d'appel stadfæstede den indankede afgørelse og udtalte, at ifølge konventionens artikel 5, nr. 3, var Tribunal de grande instance de Bastia stedlig kompetent.
In its decision the Cour d'Appel dismissed the appeal as unfounded and held that the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Bastia, had jurisdiction under Article 5 (3) of the Con­vention.
Dette fulgte af EF­Domstolens fortolkning af denne bestemmelse i dommen af 30. november 1976 (sag 21/76, Bier/Mines de Potasse d'Alsace; ovenfor under 1­5.3 — A 1).
That followed from the interpretation given to that provision by the Court of Justice of the European Communities in its judgment of 30 November 1976 in Case 21/76 Bierv Mines de Potasse d'Alsace (supra 1­5.3 — A 1).
Udtrykket »det sted, hvor skadetilføjelsen er foregået« skulle ifølge dommen forstås således, at det både omfattede det sted, hvor skaden var indtrådt, og det sted, hvor den skadegørende hand­ling var foretaget; sagsøgte kunne derfor efter sagsøgerens valg sagsøges ved retten på det sted, hvor skaden var indtrådt, eller ved retten på det sted, hvor den skadegørende handling var foretaget.
The term "place where the harmful event occurred" must be interpreted as meaning both the place where the da­mage occurred and the place where the event causing it occurred; thus the defendant could at the plaintiffs election be sued in the court for the place where the damage oc­curred or in the court for the place where the event causing the damage occurred.
Det samme fulgte desuden af artikel 46 i den nye code de procé­dure civile.
More­over, the same result was reached under Article 46 of the new Code de Procédure Civile.
Retten forkastede indsigelsen om, at der i forhold til den i Livorno verserende sag skulle foreligge indbyrdes sammenhængende krav efter konventionens artikel 22. For så vidt angik litispendensvirkningen ifølge artikel 21, var denne ikke blevet gjort gældende af sagsøgte.
The objection concerning related actions under Article 22 of the Convention in view of the proceedings pending in Livorno — the defendant itself had not pleaded lis alibi pen­dens under Article 21 — was dismissed by the court.
Retten gik herved ud fra definitionen af indbyrdes sammenhængende krav i artikel 22, stk. 3, og fastslog, at selv om begge sager skulle vedrøre erstatning for den samme skade — hvilket ikke var bevist — så var der ikke af den grund alene fare for, at de særskilte afgørelser af de to sager, i hvilke de sagsøgte i øvrigt ikke var de samme, kunne føre til indbyrdes modstridende resultater.
In this regard the court based its de­cision on the definition of related actions in the third paragraph of Article 22 and held that even if compensation for the same damage was at issue in both actions, which had not been shown, that could not by itself establish the existence of a danger that separate decisions in the two actions, in which moreover the defendants were not identical, might lead to irreconcilable conclusions.
Retten henviste desuden udtrykkeligt til, at begrebet »god retspleje«, som sagsøgte havde påberåbt sig, intet havde at gøre med begrebet indbyrdes sammenhængende krav.
In addition the court expressly stated that the con­cept of "the proper administration of justice", on which the defendant relied, had noth­ing to do with the concept of related actions.
Udsendelse l/februar 1981
Issue 1/Febnian 1981
I denne sag havde retten forelagt EF­domstolen et spørgsmål om fortolkningen af or­dene »det sted, hvor skadetilføjelsen er foregået« i konventionens artikel 5, nr. 3, som Domstolen besvarede med dom af 30. november 1976 (sag 21/76; ovenfor 1­5.3 — A 1, hvortil der henvises med hensyn til sagens næmere omstændigheder samt de forudgå­ende retsforhandlinger).
In this case the court had submitted a question to the Court of Justice of the European Communities on the interpretation of the words "place where the harmful event occur­red" in Article 5 (3) of the Convention, which the Court of Justice answered by judg­ment of 30 November 1976 (Case 21/76, supra 1­5.3 — A 1, where a summary of the facts and previous procedure may be found).
På grundlag af Domstolens præjudicielle afgørelse nåede Gerechtshof Den Haag til det resultat, at Arrondissementsrechtbank Rotterdam var kompetent til at træffe afgørelse i sagen, og hjemviste den derfor til denne ret.
On the basis of the preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Commu­nities the Gerechtshof of The Hague came to the conclusion that the Arrondissements­rechtbank, Rotterdam, had jurisdiction to entertain the action commenced there and remitted the case to that court.
1977, Geobra Brandstätter GmbH & Co. KG mod Big Spielwarenfabrik v/Dipl. Ing. Ernst Α. Bettag Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — det sted, hvor skadetilføjelsen er foregået (ar­tikel 5, nr. 3) — både det sted, hvor den skadegørende handling er foretaget, og det sted, hvor skaden er indtrådt — sagsøgerens valg — sagen anlagt på det sted, hvor den skadegø­rende handling er foretaget — senere sagsanlæg på det sted, hvor skaden er indtrådt, ikke tilladt
1­5.3 — Β 5 Arrondissementsrechtbank, Amsterdam, Judgment of 15 June 1977, Geobra Brandstätter GmbH & Co. KG ν Big Spielwarenfabrik Dipl. Ing. Ernst Α. Bettag Jurisdiction — Special Jurisdiction — Place where the harmful event occurred (Article 5 (3)) — Both the place where the event causing the damage occurred and the place where the da­mage itself occurred — Plaintiffs choice of forum — Action commenced at the place where the event causing the damage occurred — Inadmissibility of a subsequent action at the place where the damage itself occurred
Parterne i denne sag, to selskaber med hjemsted i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland, fremstillede legetøjsfigurer af kunststof, der bl.a. også solgtes i Nederlandene.
The parties to this action, two companies established in the Federal Republic of Ger­many, manufactured plastic toys which they marketed in various countries including the Netherlands.
Sagsøge­ren hævdede, at de af sagsøgte fremstillede figurer, der solgtes under betegnelsen »Play­big«, var en efterligning af de af sagsøgeren fremstillede figurer, »Playmobil«.
The plaintiff maintained that the toys manufactured by the defendant and marketed under the name "Playbig" were imitations of the toys manufactured by it, which were marketed under the name "Playmobil".
Under retssagen ved Arrondissementsrechtbank, Amsterdam, krævede sagsøgeren i det væsent­lige sagsøgte dømt til at afstå fra at sælge figurerne »Playbig« i Nederlandene samt til at betale erstatning.
In the action which it brought in the Arrondissementsrechtbank, Amsterdam, the plaintiff sought, essentially, an injunction restraining the defendant from marketing the toys in the Netherlands and damages.
Allerede før sagen blev anlagt i Nederlandene, havde sagsøgeren ved Landgericht Düsseldorf (Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland) påstået sagsøgte tilpligtet at undlade at fremstille figurerne og at bringe dem i omsætning, samt at betale erstatning.
Be­fore commencing proceedings in the Netherlands the plaintiff had already brought an action in the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Federal Republic of Germany), seeking an injunc­tion restraining the defendant from manufacturing and marketing the toys, together with damages.
Ved dom af 22. juli 1976 havde sagsøgeren fået medhold. Sagsøgte appellerede dommen til Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, hvor sagen stadig verserede på det tidspunkt, hvor der blev anlagt sag i Nederlandene. I den nederlandske sag gjorde sagsøgte gældende, at Ar­rondissementsrechtbank ikke var kompetent, og påberåbte sig subsidiært den i Tysk­land verserende sags litispendensvirkning.
Judgment was given in favour of the plaintiff on 22 June 1976.
Udsendelse l/februar 1981
The defen­ lssue 1/February 1981
(fortsat 1) med forstås såvel det sted, hvor den skadegørende handling er foretaget, som det sted, hvor skaden er indtrådt, hvorfor sagsøgeren har valget mellem disse to værneting.
According to the interpretation of that provision by the Court of Justice of the European Communities by Judgment of 30 November 1976 in Case 21/76 Bier ν Mines de Potasse d'Alsace (supra 1­5.3 — A 1), that expression must be understood as being intended to cover both the place where the damage occurred and the place of the event giving rise to it, with the result that the plaintiff could choose between those two possibilities.