natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Hans advokat anmodede imidlertid om tilladelse til at forsvare ham.
His counsel asked for leave to defend him.
Politierechter antog, i modsætning til indstillingen fra anklagemyndigheden, at tiltalte kunne gøre brug af beføjelsen i medfør af protokollens artikel II, stk. 1, og gav hans advokat tilladelse til at forsvare ham. Dommen over Rinkau lød på bødestraf med en dags hæfte som forvandlingsstraf samt konfiskation af radiosenderen.
Notwithstanding the opinion of the Public Prosecutor the Magistrate took the view that the accused should be allowed to avail himself of the right granted by the first paragraph of Article II of the Protocol and gave his counsel leave to defend him.
Anklagemyndigheden appellerede til Gerechtshof Arnhem, som ved deldom af 28. august 1979 antog, at protokollens artikel II fandt anvendelse i alle straffesager vedrørende en uagtsom lovovertrædelse, men at den strafbare handling, Rinkau var til talt for, ikke var uagtsom.
Following an appeal by the Public Prosecutor, the Gerechtshof [Regional Court of Ap peal], Arnhem, held in its interlocutory judgment of 28 August 1979 that Article II of the Protocol had application in all criminal proceedings concerning offences which were not intentionally committed but that the offence with which the accused was charged was not such an offence.
Retten gav følgelig ikke tiltaltes advokat tilladelse til at for svare ham under hans udeblivelse og stadfæstede ved dom af 11. september 1979 afgørelsen fra første instans i henhold til dens grunde.
The Gerechtshof accordingly decided not to grant the ac cused's counsel leave to defend him in his absence and, as regards the substance of the case, by a judgment of 11 September 1979 upheld the judgment given at first instance.
PROTOKOL TIL KONVENTIONEN ­ ARTIKEL 1 fortsat 1)
PROTOCOL TO THE CONVENTION - ARTICLE 1
Hoge Raad udsatte sagen og forelagde Domstolen følgende spørgsmål :
The Hoge Raad decided before making any further ruling to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice of the European Communities for an interpretation:
Omfatter begrebet 'uagtsom lovovertrædelse' i artikel II, stk. 1, i nævnte proto­kol enhver overtrædelse, hvis udførelse ifølge lovens definition ikke er betinget af et bestemt forsæt vedrørende et bestemt element i lovovertrædelsen, eller skal dette begreb forstås i den snævrere betydning, at det kun omfatter lovovertrædel­ser, ved hvilke der ifølge lovens definition på den ene eller anden måde er tale om culpa fra gerningsmandens side?
Must the expression 'an offence which was not intentionally committed' ap pearing in the first paragraph of Article II of the said Protocol be understood as including any offence for which the legal definition does not require specific in tent in regard to any element of the offence, or should the expression be under stood in a narrower sense as relating only to offences in the definition of which there is reference to some element of guilt (culpa) on the part of the offender?
Når betingelserne i artikel II i nævnte protokol er opfyldt, er den beføjelse, der ifølge nævnte bestemmelse tilkommer tiltalte, da uden begrænsninger, eller tilkommer beføjelsen kun den tiltalte, der må forsvare sig mod et civilretligt krav, som er rejst i den pågældende straffesag, eller dog i det mindste den tiltalte, hvis civilretlige interesser er berørt af afgørelsen i straffesagen?«
If the conditions set out in Article II of the said Protocol are fulfilled, does the right granted to 'the accused' by that article apply without restriction, or does the accused person have that right only where he has to defend himself against a civil claim made in the relevant criminal proceedings, or at any rate where the interests of the accused under civil law are affected by the outcome of the criminal proceedings?"
Domstolen udtalte herom (i præmisserne 5—21):
In reply the Court of Justice ruled as follows (paragraphs 5 to 21 of the decision):
»Generelle betragtninger
"General considerations
5 Protokollen udgør, ifølge konventionens artikel 65, en integrerende del heraf.
5 According to Article 65 of the Convention the Protocol forms an integral part thereof.
Konventionens anvendelsesområde, som fastlagt i artikel 1, er begrænset til borger­lige sager, herunder handelssager.
The scope of the Convention, which is defined in Article 1, is confined to civil and commercial matters.
Det må derfor først søges afklaret, hvorfor der i en konvention om borgerlige sager, herunder handelssager, er indføjet en straffepro­cessuel bestemmelse som protokollens artikel II, der lyder således :
The question to be asked at the outset, therefore, is why a rule of criminal procedure like Article II of the Protocol came to be inserted in a Convention on civil and commercial matters. That article reads:
'Med forbehold af mere gunstige nationale bestemmelser kan personer, der har bopæl i en kontraherende stat, og mod hvem der indledes retsforfølgning for en uagtsom lovovertrædelse ved retter kompetente i straffesager i en anden kontra­herende stat, hvor de pågældende ikke er statsborgere, selv når de ikke personligt giver møde, til deres forsvar vælge personer, der er bemyndiget hertil.
'Without prejudice to any more favourable provisions of national laws, persons domiciled in a Contracting State who are being prosecuted in the criminal courts of another Contracting State of which they are not nationals for an offence which was not intentionally committed may be defended by persons qualified to do so, even if they do not appear in person.
Den ret, der behandler sagen, kan dog bestemme, at den pågældende skal give møde personligt; såfremt dette ikke sker, skal den afgørelse, der er truffet med hensyn til et borgerligt krav, uden at den pågældende har haft mulighed for at varetage sine interesser under sagen, ikke anerkendes eller fuldbyrdes i de øvrige kontraherende stater'.
However, the court seised of the matter may order appearance in person; in the case of failure to appear, a judgment given in the civil action without the person concerned having had the opportunity to arrange for his defence need not be recognized or enforced in the other Contracting States.'
6 I den rapport, som blev forelagt regeringerne samtidig med konventionsudkastet (EFT C 59, 1979, s. 1), blev udstrækningen af konventionen til det strafferetlige om­råde begrundet med de eventuelle civil­ og handelsretlige følger, som en afgørelse fra en kriminalretlig instans kan have, hvilke følger henhører under konventionens anvendelsesområde.
6 In the report submitted to the national governments at the same time as the draft Convention (Official Journal 1979, C 59, p. 1) that extension to the criminal field is justified by reference to the consequences which a judgment of a criminal court may entail in civil and commercial matters if those consequences themselves come within the ambit of the Convention.
II-2 - A 1 fortsat 2) xembourg om retternes kompetence, om konkurs samt om gyldighed og fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser, voldgiftsafgørelser og officielt bekræftede dokumenter.
Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg on Jurisdiction, Bankruptcy and the Validity and Enforcement of Judgments, Arbitration Awards and Authentic Instru­ments.
Sidstnævnte artikel bestemmer:
That provision in fact provides:
'Med forbehold af mere gunstige nationale bestemmelser kan statsborgere i en af de tre stater, som har bopæl i deres hjemstat, give møde for retterne i de to andre stater ved en særlig befuldmægtiget, såfremt de retsforfølges for en lovovertrædelse, der ikke er [forsætlig]'.
'Without prejudice to any more favourable provisions of national laws the na­tionals of any one of the three countries who are resident in their country may appear before the courts of the other two countries by special attorney if they are being prosecuted there for an offence other than one which was intentionally committed'.
Den til udarbejdelse af udkastet til Benelux-traktaten nedsatte kommission forklarede i sin rapport, at det efter dens opfattelse var 'væsentligt' for de tiltalte 'at kunne varetage forsvaret under straffesagen', uden selv at behøve at give personligt møde.
The commission responsible for drawing up the draft Benelux Treaty explained in its report that it believed that it was 'essential' that the accused 'should be able to con­duct his defence during the criminal stage of the proceedings' without having to ap­pear in person.
8 Den samme begrundelse genfindes i rapporten vedrørende Bruxelles-konventio-nen i bemærkningerne til artikel II i den protokol, der er knyttet som bilag til kon ventionen.
8 That same reason is also cited in the report on the Brussels Convention in con­nection with Article II of the Protocol annexed to the Convention.
Ifølge denne kan kun den, der er tiltalt for en 'uagtsom lovovertrædelse', udnytte beføjelsen efter konventionen.
However, that right is conferred by the Convention only on accused persons being prosecuted for an 'offence which was not intentionally committed'.
Dette begreb er ikke yderligere defineret eller uddybet i konventionen.
That concept is not further de­fined or clarified in the Convention.
Det understreges imidlertid i nævnte rapport, at begrebet omfatter 'trafikulykker', der således synes at være et særlig vigtigt anvendelsesområde for protokollens artikel II.
However, the report does say that it 'includes road accidents' which thus appear to be a particularly important area of application of Article II of the Protocol.
9 Det bemærkes endvidere, at tiltaltes ret til at lade sig forsvare uden selv at give personligt møde ikke indskrænker rettens adgang til at bestemme, at tiltalte skal give møde personligt, således som det også udtrykkeligt fastslås i den pågældende be stemmelse.
9 It is necessary to stress once more that, as Article II expressly provides, the right granted to the accused person to be defended without appearing in person does not prejudice the court's power to order appearance in person.
Hvis tiltalte på trods heraf ikke møder personligt, kan retten afsige dom uden at give tiltaltes advokat tilladelse til at forsvare denne.
If, notwithstanding such an order, the accused person does not appear, the court may deliver judgment with­out granting the accused's counsel leave to defend him.
Følgen af, at der ikke finder et sådant forsvar sted, er da ifølge protokollens artikel II, stk. 2, at afgørelsen med hensyn til det civilretlige krav ikke vil kunne anerkendes eller fuldbyrdes i de øvrige kontraherende stater.
The result of the absence of a defence, according to the second paragraph of Article II of the Protocol, is that a judgment given in the civil action need not be recognized or enforced in the other Contracting States.
io Det er ud fra disse betragtninger, at de spørgsmål, Nederlandenes Hoge Raad har forelagt, skal besvares.
io The questions framed by the Hoge Raad of the Netherlands must be answered in the light of those various considerations.
11 Selv om begrebet uagtsom lovovertrædelse ikke er defineret i selve konventionen, må begrebet imidlertid — for i videst mulig omfang at sikre ligheden og ensartetheden af de rettigheder og forpligtelser, som følger af konventionen for de kontrahe rende stater og de personer, der er berørt heraf — anses for et selvstændigt begreb, der må fastlægges under hensyn dels til konventionens formål og system, dels til de generelle principper i de nationale retssystemer som helhed.
The concept of an 'offence which was not intentionally committed' π Although the concept of an 'offence which was not intentionally committed' is not defined in the Convention, in order to ensure as far as possible that the rights and obligations of the Contracting States and of the persons concerned arising from the Convention are equal and uniform, it must nevertheless be regarded as an inde­pendent concept which must be explained by reference, first, to the objectives and scheme of the Convention and, secondly, to the general principles which the nation­al legal systems have in common.
Det er desto mere nødvendigt, når der, som den foreliggende sag viser, er terminologiske forskelle mellem de sproglige versioner af konventionen.
That is all the more necessary where, as in this case, terminological differences exist between the various language versions of the Convention.
PROTOKOL TIL KONVENTIONEN ­ ARTIKEL II fortsat 3) som er forbeholdt gerningsmænd til visse lovovertrædelser, klart tilsigter herfra at udelukke personer, som er tiltalt for lovovertrædelser, hvis grovhed gør det beretti­get.
Another more general guide is the fact that by restricting the right to be defended without appearing in person, which is made available to persons who have commit­ted certain offences, the Convention clearly seeks to deny that right to persons being prosecuted for offences which are sufficiently serious to justify its denial.
13 Det må derfor undersøges, om der i de kontraherende staters retssystemer som helhed findes et kriterium, der gør det muligt at sondre mellem lovovertrædelser efter deres grovhed, og hvorefter om ikke alle, så dog de fleste af de lovovertrædelser, som er forbundet med trafikulykker, kan henføres til kategorien mindre alvorlige lov­overtrædelser.
13 It is therefore necessary to ascertain whether there is a criterion for classification which is common to the national legal systems of all the Contracting States, by which offences may de distinguished according to their seriousness and on the basis of which most, if not all, of the offences connected with road accidents may be classified amongst the less serious offences.
14 I de fleste kontraherende staters nationale ret gælder der, under forskellige for­mer, en sondring mellem lovovertrædelser begået forsætligt og af uagtsomhed.
14 The national laws of most of the Contracting States distinguish in one way or another between offences committed intentionally and those not so committed.
Denne sondring fører ganske vist til en inddeling i kategorier af lovovertrædelser, hvis gerningsindhold kan variere stærkt fra det ene retssystem til det andet, men den kan dog anvendes til de ovennævnte formål.
Even though that distinction may lead to the classification of offences into categories of which the content may vary appreciably from one legal system to another, it still serves the aforementioned purpose.
15 Mens de såkaldte forsætlige lovovertrædelser således ikke kan straffes, med­mindre gerningsmanden har haft forsæt til at begå den ulovlige handling, kan lovovertrædelser begået af uagtsomhed være en følge af uforsigtighed, forsømme­lighed eller blot en objektiv krænkelse af en lovbestemmelse.
15 Whereas offences which were intentionally committed, if they are to be punish­able, require an intent to commit them on the part of the person concerned, offences which were not intentionally committed may result from carelessness, negligence or even the mere objective breach of a legal provision.
Det fremgår således, dels at de uagtsomme lovovertrædelser, i kraft af selve deres art, almindeligvis er mindre grove, dels at de omfatter de fleste lovovertrædelser i forbindelse med trafikulykker, som oftest skyldes uforsigtighed, forsømmelighed eller en rent materiel overtrædelse af en lovbestemmelse.
They are therefore, first, gener­ally less serious in nature and, secondly, cover most offences connected with road ac­cidents which are to be ascribed to carelessness, negligence or the mere actual breach of a legal provision.
16 Det første spørgsmål fra Hoge Raad må derfor besvares således, at der ved uagt­som lovovertrædelse i artikel II i den protokol, der er knyttet som bilag til konven­tionen af 27. september 1968 om retternes kompetence og om fuldbyrdelse af retsaf­gørelser i borgerlige sager, herunder handelssager, forstås enhver lovovertrædelse, som ifølge lovens definition hverken udtrykkeligt eller efter den pågældende over­trædelses art forudsætter, at tiltalte har haft forsæt til den strafbare handling eller undladelse.
16 Consequently the answer to the first question of the Hoge Raad must be that the expression 'an offence which was not intentionally committed' within the meaning of Article II of the Protocol annexed to the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Ju­risdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters should be understood as meaning any offence the legal definition of which does not require, either expressly or as appears from the nature of the offence defined, the ex­istence of intent on the part of the accused to commit the punishable act or omission.
Det andet spørgsmål π Det andet spørgsmål fra Hoge Raad er, om den beføjelse, der ifølge protokollens artikel II tilkommer tiltalte, gælder i alle straffesager, hvor tiltaltes civilretlige inter­esser er berørt, eller udelukkende i de straffesager, hvor kriminaldommeren også skal træffe afgørelse om et civilretligt krav.
The second question π The Hoge Raad asks in the second place whether the right granted to the accused by Article II of the Protocol has application in all criminal proceedings which affect the accused's interests at civil law or only in those in which a criminal court has to decide a civil claim at the same time.
18 Den nederlandske regering har i sit indlæg understreget, at konventionens anven­delsesområde er begrænset til borgerlige sager, herunder handelssager.
18 The Netherlands Government points out in its observations that the scope of the Convention is restricted to civil and commercial matters.
Protokollens artikel II må derfor fortolkes under hensyntagen til disse begrænsninger, hvilket også fremgår af stk. 2.
It considers that that re­striction should be borne in mind when Article II of the Protocol is construed, as ap-
H-2 - A 1 fortsat 4)
(continued 4) pears from the second paragraph of that article.
Kommissionen bestrider ikke, at formålet med protokollens artikel II er at ind føre en straffeprocessuel bestemmelse for det tilfælde, at en straffesag kan have følger for tiltaltes civilretlige interesser.
19 The Commission does not deny that the aim of Article II of the Protocol is to lay down a rule of criminal procedure in so far as criminal proceedings may have an effect on the accused's interests at civil law.
Ud fra den betragtning, at en straffeprocessuel bestemmelse, som er til fordel for tiltalte, må fortolkes vidt, og under hensyn til, at det ofte vil være vanskeligt at afgøre, om en straffesag kan have følger for tiltaltes civilretlige interesser, mener Kommissionen imidlertid, at beføjelsen i henhold til protokollens artikel II tilkommer tiltalte i enhver straffesag.
However, having regard to the fact that a rule of criminal procedure which is for the benefit of the accused should receive a wide interpretation and in view of the difficulty which frequently exists, in the Com mission's view, in deciding whether or not criminal proceedings are likely to affect the accused's interests at civil law, the Commission considers that the right granted to the accused by Article II of the Protocol must apply in all criminal proceedings.
Selv om det ikke udtrykkeligt bestemmes i protokollens artikel II, stk. 1, at tiltalte udelukkende har adgang til den heri omhandlede beføjelse i straffesager, hvor tiltalte civilretligt drages til ansvar som følge af gerningselementer i den lovovertrædelse, han er tiltalt for, eller hvor et sådant ansvar senere vil kunne gøres gældende imod ham, må det dog ikke overses, at dette var formålet med at indføje den pågældende bestemmelse i protokollen.
20 Although it is not expressly provided by the first paragraph of Article II of the Protocol that the right therein granted to the accused applies only during criminal proceedings in which his liability at civil law (arising from the elements of the offence for which he is being prosecuted) is in question or on which such liability might sub sequently be based, it should nevertheless not be forgotten that that was the actual in tention behind the insertion in the Protocol of the provision in question.
Dette formål er til hinder for, at beføjelsen til at lade sig forsvare uden selv at give møde udstrækkes til andre straffesager end dem, hvor der rejses civilretligt krav mod tiltalte under de ovennævnte omstændigheder.
That intention precludes the right to be defended without appearing in person from having ap plication in criminal proceedings in which the accused is not open to a civil claim in the circumstances described above.
Det andet spørgsmål fra Hoge Raad må derfor besvares således, at tiltalte har ret til i medfør af artikel II i den protokol, der er knyttet som bilag til konventionen af 27. september 1968 om retternes kompetence og om fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser i borgerlige sager, herunder handelssager, at lade sig forsvare uden personligt at give møde i enhver straffesag vedrørende en uagtsom lovovertrædelse, for så vidt han civilretligt drages til ansvar som følge af gerningselementer i den lovovertrædelse, han er tiltalt for, eller et sådant ansvar senere vil kunne gøres gældende imod ham.«
2i The answer to the second question of the Hoge Raad should therefore be that the accused's right to be defended without appearing in person, granted by Article II of the Protocol annexed to the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commerical Matters, applies in all criminal proceedings concerning offences which were not intentionally committed, in which the accused's liability at civil law, arising from the elements of the offence for which he is being prosecuted, is in question or on which such liability might subsequently be based."
I tilslutning til denne dom stadfæstede Hoge Raad den af Gerechtshof Arnhem trufne afgørelse (dom af 17.11. 1981, Nederlandse Jurisprudentie 1982, nr. 269).
Following this judgment the Hoge Raad dismissed the accused's appeal (Judgment of 17 November 1981, Nederlandse Jurisprudentie 1982, No 269).
Ganske vist var Rinkau tiltalt for »en uagtsom lovovertrædelse«, jfr. artikel II i protokollen til kon ventionen, således som denne var fortolket af Domstolen, idet den afgørende strafferetlige bestemmelse (artikel 3 quater sammenholdt med artikel 20, stk. 1, litra e), i Telegraaf- en Telefoonwet 1 904) ikke forudsatte noget bestemt forsæt til at realisere et ger ningsindhold.
It was true that the ac cused was charged with an "offence which was not intentionally committed" within the meaning of Article II of the Protocol to the Brussels Convention, as construed by the Court of Justice, since the criminal provision in question (Article 3 quaterm conjunction with Article 20 (l)(e)ofthe Telegraaf-en Telefoonwet 1904) did not require an intention to commit any particular act.
I den foreliggende straffesag var der imidlertid ikke tale om, at tiltalte civilretligt blev draget til ansvar, og Gerechtshof havde — efter hvad der fremgik af sa gens akter — heller ikke haft anledning til at efterprøve, om et sådant ansvar senere ville kunne gøres gældende mod ham som følge af gerningselementer i den lovovertrædelse, han var tiltalt for.
However, the accused's civil liability was not at issue in those proceedings and the Gerechtshof had not had any occasion to examine whether his civil liability arising from the elements of the offence charged might subsequently be in issue.
Derfor havde Gerechtshof med føje nægtet tiltaltes advokat tilladelse til at forsvare ham, uden at han var til stede.
Therefore the Gerechtshof had rightly held that the accused could not be de fended in absentia by his lawyer.
Anerkendelse — tilkendelse af erstatning i straffesager — tiltaltes fravær — hindringer f or 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
I anledning af ulykken rejste de italienske påtalemyndigheder sigtelse mod føreren af et andet motorkøretøj, sagsøgte 1 i denne retssag.
As a result of that accident the Italian prosecuting authorities instituted proceedings against the driver of another vehicle, the first defendant in the present action.