natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Det forholdt sig ifølge retten kun anderledes i de i artikel 17, stk. 2, udtømmende opregnede undtagel­sestilfælde.
The only exceptions to that rule were those exhaus­tively enumerated in the second paragraph of Article 17.
Eneforhandlingsaftaler hører ikke til de i artikel 12, 15 og 16 nævnte rets­områder, for hvilke prorogation er udelukket.
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.
Da gyldighedsbetingelserne (artikel 17, stk. 1) for en værnetingsaftale var opfyldt, var den af parterne udpegede ret kompetent med hensyn til enhver tvist vedrørende eneforhandlingsaftalen, herunder tvistigheder vedrørende dennes annullation, og enhver anden ret måtte erklære ikke at være kom­petent.
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.
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — værnetingsklausul i eneforhandlingsaftale — præceptive værnetingsregler i belgisk ret — aftalen gyldig
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Jurisdiction clause in exclusive distributor­ship agreement — Mandatory provision of Belgian law on jurisdiction — Validity of the agreement upheld
Under den påfølgende sag, hvor sagsøgeren fik medhold i to instanser, påstod sagsøgeren sagsøgte tilpligtet at anerkende, at aftalen var ophørt ved sagsøgerens opsigelse.
In the action pending, which had succeeded in two courts, the plaintiff asked for a declaration that the agreement had been terminated as a result of its having given notice.
Under revisionsanken påstod sagsøgte afvisning på grund af tyske retters manglende internationale kompetence. Bundesgerichtshof stadfæstede afgørelsen.
Appealing on a point of law the defendant asked for the action to be dismissed on the ground that the German courts did not have inter­national jurisdiction.
Sagsøgtes indsigelse om, at tysk kompe­tence var udelukket som følge af den belgiske lov af 27. juli 1961/13. april 1971 om ensi­dig ophævelse af eneforhandlingsaftaler af ubestemt varighed, kunne ikke lægges til grund.
The defendant's objection that the jurisdiction of the German courts had been excluded by the Belgian law of 27 July 1961/13 April 1971 on the unilateral termination of exclusive sales agreements for an indefinite period could not be upheld.
Selv om denne lov havde givet eneforhandlere mulighed for at anlægge sag ved yderligere et værneting, som i henhold til belgisk ret ikke kunne fraviges ved aftale, havde loven dog ikke forbudt værnetingsaftaler for det område, den omfattede.
Although that law estab­lished in favour of sole distributors an additional jurisdiction, which under Belgian law could not be excluded by agreement between the parties, it did not forbid agreements
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — begrebet »parterne« i artikel 17 — retssagens parter — værnetingsklausul i konnossement — ingen virkning til skade for den senere indehaver
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — The term 'the parties' in Article 17 — The parties to the action — Forum clauses in a bill of lading — Not valid against a subsequent holder
Denne sag angik en tvist mellem parterne om belgiske retters kompetence vedrørende et krav i henhold til en fragtaftale, på grundlag af hvilken gods var blevet befordret fra Moçambique til Antwerpen.
The parties were in dispute about the Belgian courts' jurisdiction to entertain an action under a contract for the carriage of goods from Mozambique to Antwerp by sea.
Sagsøgeren var indehaver af et af sagsøgte, et selskab med hjemsted i Nederlandene, udstedt konnossement, som bestemte, at alene retterne i Am­sterdam eller Rotterdam var kompetente.
The plaintiff was the holder of a bill of lading issued by the defendant, a company based in the Netherlands. The bill of lading conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the courts in Amsterdam or Rotterdam.
Retten i første instans fandt på grundlag af domskonventionen at mangle kompetence.
The court of first instance in Antwerp declined jurisdiction in application of the Brussels Convention.
Ankeinstansen ændrede denne afgørelse.
The plaintiffs appeal succeeded.
Et andet resultat kunne kun udle­des af konventionens artikel 17, hvis betingelser måtte fortolkes snævert under hensyn til værnetingsaftalers vidtrækkende virkninger.
A contrary conclusion could be derived only from Article 17 of the Convention and the require­ments laid down by that provision must be strictly construed in view of the far­reaching effects of jurisdiction agreements.
Da reglen krævede en »aftale« mellem parterne, måtte retten prøve, om en værnetingsklausul faktisk havde været udtryk for enighed mellem parterne.
Since the provision required an 'agreement' between the parties, the court must examine whether the jurisdiction clause was in fact the sub­ject of a consensus between the parties.
I en konvention om procesretlige spørgsmål måtte udtrykket »parterne« forstås således, at der var tale om »retssagens parter«.
In this regard the expression 'parties', in a con­vention on matters of procedural law, must be taken to mean the 'parties to the action'.
Sagsøgeren, der som nuværende indehaver gjorde rettigheder i henhold til konnossementet gældende, havde ikke været med til at bringe konnossementet i stand, således at der ikke kunne være tale om en fælles vilje vedrørende værnetingsklausulen.
The plaintiff, which as current holder of the bill of lading sought to enforce rights thereunder, had not participated in its formation, with the result that there could be no question of a consensus as regards the jurisdiction clause.
Belgiske retter havde derfor fortsat kompetence til at pådømme sagen.
Therefore the jurisdiction of the Belgian courts was not disturbed by it.
Retten har i domme af 28. februar 1979, BV Imparma Shipping mod Portugal Presiden­te Compania de Seguras m.fl. (R.H.Antw. 1979­80, 261) og af 21. november 1979, Re­derij van Swieten NV mod The General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corp. Ltd m.fl. (R.H.Antw.
The court has delivered a number of judgments confirming its view that a jurisdiction clause contained in the general conditions of a bill of lading in favour of the courts of another Contracting State cannot prevent the holder of the bill of lading from bringing an action in Belgium: see the judgment of 28 February 1979 in BV Imparma Shipping v Portugal Presidente Compania de Seguras and Others (R.H.Antw.
1979­80, 346) samt i flere domme af 12. december 1979, Rederij Hapag­Lloyd (m.fl.) mod NV La Brabançonne m.fl. fastholdt sin praksis, hvorefter en værnetingsklausul i de almindelige betingelser i et konnossement, til fordel for retterne i en anden kontraherende stat, ikke kan gøres gældende over for en konnossements­indehaver, der anlægger sag i Belgien.
1979­80, 346) and a number of judgments of 12 December 1979, Rederg Hapag Lloyd v NV La Brabançonne and Others.
Overgangsbestemmelser (artikel 54) — anerkendelse og fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser truffet efter konventionens ikrafttræden — afgørelsen i første instans truffet før kon­ventionens ikrafttræden — appelrettens afgørelse truffet efter konventionens ikrafttræden — konventionen fandt anvendelse
Transitional provisions (Art. 54) — Recognition and enforcement of decisions given after the entry into force of the Convention — Decision at first instance given before entry into force — Decision on appeal given after entry into force — Convention held applicable
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — aftale om en voldgiftsrets kompetence — artikel 17fandt ikke anvendelse
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Agreement conferring jurisdiction on an arbitrator — Article 17 held inapplicable
En tysk sagsøgt blev ved dom afsagt af Tribunale, Napoli, den 15. december 1971 til­pligtet at betale erstatning for misligholdelse af en kontrakt om levering aflæggekartof­ler til den italienske sagsøger.
The German defendant had been ordered by a judgment of the Tribunale di Napoli dated 15 December 1971 to pay damages for failure to perform a contract for the sup­ply of seed potatoes to the Italian plaintiff.
Sagen blev appelleret til Corte d'appello, Napoli, som ved dom af 20. april 1973 stadfæstede den af retten i første instans afsagte dom.
The defendant's appeal was dismissed by a judgment of 20 April 1973 in which the Corte d'appello, Naples, upheld the judgment of the lower court.
Den italienske part fremsatte herefter begæring om tilladelse til fuldbyrdelse af den italien­ske dom i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland.
The plaintiff thereupon applied for an order for the enforcement of the Italian judgments in the Federal Republic of Germany.
Rekvisitus (den tyske part) rejste indsigelse herimod og gjorde især gældende, at de italienske domstole savnede international kom­petence; da parterne havde vedtaget, at en voldgiftsret i Hannover (Forbundsrepublik­ken Tyskland) skulle være kompetent, var denne enekompetent i sagen i medfør af konventionens artikel 17. Landgericht afslog begæringen.
The defendant opposed the application and contended in particular that the Italian courts lacked international jurisdiction; according to the defendant, it was a case of exclusive jurisdiction under Article 17 of the Convention since the parties had conferred jurisdiction on an arbitra­tion tribunal in Hanover (Federal Republic of Germany).
Afslaget blev indbragt for Oberlandesgericht Celle, som tillod fuldbyrdelse. Der blev herefter indgivet »Rechts­beschwerde« til Bundesgerichtshof, som ophævede Oberlandesgerichts afgørelse og hjemviste sagen til denne.
The appeal court authorized the enforcement of the Italian judgments.
Under hensyn til konventionens artikel 54, stk. 2, hvorefter en retsafgørelse, som er truffet efter konventionens ikrafttræden, under visse forudsætninger kan anerkendes og fuldbyrdes efter dennes bestemmelser, også når den er truffet i en sag, der er anlagt før dette tidspunkt, udtalte Bundesgerichtshof først og fremmest, at den retsafgørelse, der var afgørende efter denne bestemmelse, i det foreliggende tilfælde først var truffet med den af appelretten afsagte dom; også ifølge italiensk ret kunne appelretten nemlig efterprøve alle tvistepunkterne i sagen, når en dom afsagt af en ret i første instans anfægtedes i fuldt omfang.
With regard to the second paragraph of Article 54 of the Convention, which provides that judgments given after the date of entry into force of the Convention in proceedings instituted before that date may be recognized and enforced in accordance with the pro­visions of the Convention in certain circumstances, the Bundesgerichtshof held in the first place that in the present case the decisive judgment for the purposes of that provi­sion was the judgment given on appeal, since under Italian law, as under German law, in the event of an appeal the whole case was reviewed by the appeal court if the judg­ment at first instance was contested on the merits.
Dermed afhang konventionens anvendelighed — ifølge de krav til den internationale kompetence for retterne i domsstaten, som yderligere stilles i artikel 54, stk. 2 — af, om de italienske retter var kompetente ifølge konventionens arti­kel 5, nr. 1.
Therefore the applicability of the Convention depended — in accordance with the requirements contained in the second paragraph of Article 54 concerning the jurisdiction of the adjudicating courts — on the question whether the Italian courts had jurisdiction under Article 5(1) of the Conven­tion.
Efter EF­Domstolens praksis var dette kun tilfældet, hvis de italienske ret­ter ifølge italienske kollisionsnormer kunne begrunde deres kompetence med, at de var retterne på opfyldelsesstedet for den kontraktsmæssige forpligtelse, hvis misligholdelse påberåbtes som grundlag for påstandene i stævningen.
According to the Court of Justice of the European Communities, that was the case only if the Italian courts could have acquired jurisdiction, under Italian private inter­national law, as the courts for the place of performance of the contractual obligation whose non­performance was pleaded as the foundation of the action.
Dette spørgsmål måtte Oberlan­desgericht — som havde givet udtryk for, at det afgørende var opfyldelsesstedet for den tyske parts forpligtelse til at betale erstatning, som også efter tysk ret var Napoli — tage stilling til.
On that question the appeal court — which had taken the view that the matter depended on the place of performance of the defendant's obligation to pay damages, which, in German law also, was situated in Naples — must make further findings of fact.
(fortsat 2) søgeren havde anført, at Rechtbanks kompetence til at træffe afgørelse i den mod Manuport anlagte sag fulgte af artikel 6, nr. 1, på grund af sagens sammenhæng med de sager, der samtidig var anlagt mod de to andre sagsøgte.
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Primacy of the rules of the Convention over national legislation — Considerations of public policy cannot be pleaded against the rules of the Convention
Aftalen om købet af skibsskruerne indeholdt en klausul, hvorefter retterne på sælgers hjemsted skulle have kompetence til at påkende tvister.
Mr Mosbacher, who was resident in Germany, had undertaken with the Banque Na­tionale de Paris to guarantee the debts of l'Alsacienne SA, a company having its regis­tered office in Paris.
Efter at der var op­stået skader på skruerne, anlagde Progemar ved Tribunal de commerce de Paris sag om erstatning mod CAP, som på sin side adciterede Voith GmbH som den ansvarlige for skruerne.
The contract contained a typewritten, initialled clause conferring jurisdiction on the courts in Paris and a final printed clause stating that the place of performance was to be the guarantor's place of residence.
Voith GmbH gjorde gældende, at retten savnede kompetence, og henviste til den med CAP indgåede værnetingsaftale.
In addition, the Germany company 'Uniputz' had entered into an undertaking with the same bank to finance l'Alsacienne.
Tribunal de commerce forkastede denne ind­sigelse under henvisning til artikel 333 i Nouveau Code de procédure civile, men fri­fandt Voith GmbH.
The bank brought an action in the Tribunal de commerce, Paris, against Mr Mosbacher and Uniputz, claiming sums owed to it by l'Alsacienne.
Cour d'appel de Paris, som denne afgørelse blev indbragt for, stadfæstede afgørelsen om kompetencen, men gav CAP medhold i kravet mod Voith GmbH.
The court held that it had jurisdiction and Mr Mosbacher and Uniputz appealed to the Cour d'appel, Paris, which upheld the judgment of the lower court.
Voith GmbH indbragte denne dom for Cour de cassation, som gav selskabet medhold.
Giving judgment on Mr Mosbacher's appeal, the Cour d'appel held in the first place that the agreement on a choice of forum must, as a special condition in the contract of guarantee, prevail over the printed clause specifying the place of performance con­tained in the general conditions.
Cour de cassation anførte, at en værnetingsaftale, der var gyldig i henhold til konven­tionens artikel 17, gik forud for enhver anden kompetence, medmindre der udtrykke­ligt var taget forbehold.
The court then held that Article 48 of the new French Code of Civil Procedure, which was relied on by the appellant and which deemed unwritten any jurisdiction clause which had not been, as in the present case, agreed upon between persons all acting in their capacity as businessmen, could not in any event override Article 17 of the Con­vention, which admitted of no restriction on the application of such clauses and in ac­cordance with which the forum clause had been accepted by the guarantor.
En sådan aftale bevirkede dermed, at både hovedreglen om kompetencen i artikel 2 og de specielle kompetenceregler i artiklerne 5 og 6, ikke fandt
As a treaty properly ratified and published, the Convention acquired, as from the date of its publi­cation, an authority superior to that of domestic laws by virtue of Article 55 and of the
KONVENTION AF 27.9.1968 ­ ARTIKEL 17, STK. I
CONVENTION OF 27. 9.
(fortsat 1) anvendelse.
(continued 1)
Da appelretten ikke havde fastslået, at det var parternes ønske, at værne­tingsklausulen ikke skulle omfatte regressager, måtte dens afgørelse ophæves, fordi konventionens artikler 6, nr. 2, og 17, var tilsidesat.
French Constitution. The court then dismissed the public policy argument put forward by the appellant against the application of Article 17; it held that, although such an ar­gument might indeed be pleaded in order to prevent the application of a foreign law which was contrary to fundamental principles of French law, the fact that the French law in question concerned a matter of public policy did not require the courts to disre­gard a jurisdiction rule contained in an international treaty whose authority was su­perior to that of a domestic law.
Cour de cassation henviste sagen til Cour d'appel d'Amiens, som ved dom af 1. juli 1985 under ophævelse af førsteinstansens dom statuerede, at de franske retter savnede kompetence til at træffe afgørelse om CAP's krav mod Voith GmbH, samt udtalte, at de tyske retter havde kompetence hertil.
The court also dismissed the appeal lodged by Uniputz, against which the jurisdiction clause could not be relied on since it was not a party to the contract of guarantee.
Den mellem parterne indgåede værnetingsaf­tale gjaldt også for de krav, der blev gjort gældende af CAP; der var intet, der talte for, at regressager efter parternes ønske skulle være undtaget fra aftalen, som på grund af sin generelle formulering omfattede enhver form for sagsanlæg.
That appeal was dismissed on the ground that the undertaking which Uniputz had given to the bank concerning the financing of l'Alsacienne was to have been performed in Paris, where that company and the bank had their registered offices; therefore, by virtue of Article 5(1), the courts in Paris had jurisdiction to entertain the action brought by the bank.
Ifølge artikel 333 i Nouveau code de procédure civile kan en tredjemand, som adciteres under en verserende sag, ikke bestride, at den ret, der behandler den oprindelige sag, har stedlig kompetence, heller ikke under påberåbelse af en værnetingsaftale til anden side.
The court observed ad abundantiam that the courts in Paris also acquired jurisdiction by virtue of Article 6(1), which provides that a person domiciled in a Contracting State may be sued in the courts for the place where one of his co­defendants is domiciled in another Contracting State.
Det franske selskab Compagnie Méridionale de Navigation (CMN) var ejer af et skib, som var forsynet med motorer fremstillet af den tyske virksomhed Maschinenfabrik Augsburg Nürnberg (MAN).
In this case the Bundesgerichtshof had referred two questions to the Court of Justice of the European Communities on the interpretation of the first paragraph of Article 17 of the Convention.
Da der tre måneder senere indtrådte en ny skade, an­lagde CMN og Compagnie Méridionale d'Armement (CMA), som havde chartret ski­bet, sag mod Sud­Marine, MAN og BME ved Tribunal de commerce de Marseille.
The Court of Justice answered those questions in its judgment of 9 No­vember 1978 (Case 23/78 Meeth ν Glacetal, supra, 1­17.1.1 — A 1, where a summary of the facts and previous procedure may be found).
MAN fremsatte indsigelse om, at retten savnede kompetence, hvilket virksomheden bl.a. begrundede med, at dens forretningspapirer indeholdt en værnetingsklausul til for­del for Landgericht Augsburg.
The Bundesgerichtshof now dismissed the appeal on a point of law against the judgment of the Oberlandesgericht.
Efter at Finanziaria Commerciale i to andre sager, som vedrørte samme faktiske omstændigheder, havde fremsat anmodning om en afgørelse af kompetencespørgsmå­let, afsagde Corte di cassazione samme dag to domme, som er i overensstemmelse med foranstående dom: dom nr. 2242, Finanziaria Commerciale mod Sartor (Giust.civ. 1985, I, 1592; Riv.dir.int.priv.proc.
The Rechtbank held that on the basis of Article 5(1) of the Convention it had jurisdic­tion, as the court for the place of performance, with regard to the obligations of Schiller & Köpke KG and its general partner arising out of the contract of carriage (in particu­lar the obligation to deliver the goods, undamaged, in Rotterdam). Manuport's argument that the Rechtbank had no jurisdiction to hear claims against it was based on Article I of the Protocol of 27 September 1968.
1986, 863, kommenteret af Bariatti, 819; kommen­tar af Jayme/Aull i IPRax 1989, 80, og dom nr. 2244, Finanziaria Commerciale mod Elegance Italia.
Since that firm, whose seat was in Luxembourg, was sued before the Rechtbank on the basis of Article 5(1) of the Convention it was correct to argue that the court had no jurisdiction.
Under en sag vedrørende de samme faktiske omstændigheder nåede Oberlandesgericht München den 13. februar 1985 frem til det modsatte resultat i for­hold til det, der fremgår af ovenstående dom (jfr. nedenfor under 1­21 — B 10).
The plaintiff argued that the Rechtbank had jurisdiction to hear the claim against Manuport on the basis of Article 6(1) because of its connection with the concurrent claim against the other two defendants.
Hvis dette havde været parternes hensigt, burde de have anført, hvilken ret eller hvilke retter der skulle være kompetente til at påkende en allerede opstået eller fremtidig tvist vedrørende den omhandlede kontrakt.
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Effects — Precedence over jurisdiction of court hearing proceedings in the course of which a claim against a third party is raised (Art. 6(2)) — Conditions
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — værnetingsklausul i en købekontrakt — tredje­mands indtræden i sælgers rettigheder og forpligtelser — spørgsmålet, om klausulen kun­ne gøres gældende overfor tredjemanden
The French company Chantiers et Ateliers de la Perrière (CAP) had bought two ships' screws from Voith GmbH, whose seat was in the Federal Republic of Germany, and had fitted them to a tug built for the Société Provençale de Gestion Maritime (Proge­mar).
To belgiske selskaber havde indgået en købekontrakt.
A provision in the sales contract covering the screws gave jurisdiction over dis­putes to the courts for the seat of the seller.
I ordren, der blev afgivet til sælgeren, henviste køber til, at kontrakten var undergivet købers almindelige forret­ningsbetingelser, som indeholdt en værnetingsklausul, hvorefter der var værneting på købers hjemsted.
The screws were found to be defective and Progemar brought an action for damages before the Tribunal de commerce, Paris, against CAP, which in turn brought a third­party claim against Voith GmbH in the same proceedings.
Sælger erklærede sig skriftligt indforstået med denne klausul.
Voith objected that the court seised had no jurisdiction, under its agreement on jurisdiction with CAP.
Senere blev sælger imidlertid erklæret konkurs, og i stedet indtrådte et fransk selskab i kon­trakten.
The Tribunal de commerce rejected the objection, referring to Article 333 of the Nouveau Code de procédure civile, but held that the third­party claim was unfounded.
Efter at der var opstået en tvist mellem parterne, anlagde det belgiske selskab sag ved Tribunal de commerce de Bruxelles med påstand om ophævelse af kontrakten samt er­statning.
On appeal by the parties, the Cour d'appel, Paris, in a judgment of 15 January 1981, confirmed the dismissal of the objection on jurisdiction and upheld the third­party claim.
Det franske selskab gjorde under henvisning til konventionens artikel 2 gældende, at den ret, ved hvilken sagen var anlagt, savnede kompetence. Efter sagsøge­rens opfattelse fulgte det imidlertid af værnetingsaftalen i den oprindelige kontrakt, som stadig var gældende, at retten var kompetent.
In the view of the Cour d'appel the lower court had jurisdiction under Article 6(2) of the 1968 Convention; that provision continued to be applicable where, as in this case, jurisdiction was conferred by agreement on another court, since Voith GmbH had not shown that Progemar had brought proceedings be­fore the Paris court with the sole object of removing Voith GmbH from the jurisdiction of the German courts.