natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Form kravet i artikel 17 skulle forhindre, at værnetingsklausuler ubemærket indføjedes i aftalen. Som følge heraf kunne en værnetingsaftale ikke blive del af kontrakten ved stiltiende accept — som f.eks. ved opfordringen til at påbegynde arbejdet.
The very purpose of the formal requirements laid down by Article 17 was to put a stop to abuses which had arisen from the insertion of jurisdiction clauses in conditions printed on invoices.
(fortsat I) hvorefter tyske retter skulle være kompetente.
(continued 1)
Retten erklærede sig for kompetent og anførte, at parterne havde indgået en efter doms­konventionens artikel 17, stk. 1, gyldig værnetingsaftale. Værnetingsklausulen indgik i aftalen, da den var »dækket« af underskrifterne på ordrebekræftelsen. Landgericht Hamburg var i øvrigt også kompetent i henhold til konventionens artikel 5, nr. 1, som opfyldelsesvæmeting.
The German undertaking Wiest, which had been sued in an Italian court for its failure to supply goods under a contract of sale, objected to the jurisdiction of the court and requested a decision on jurisdiction from the Corte di Cassazione under Article 41 of the Codice di Procedura Civile.
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — værnetingsklausul i almindelige forretningsbetin­gelser på bagsiden af ordrebekræftelse — ikke en gyldig aftale efter artikel 17, stk. 1 — tidli­gere forretningsforbindelse på grundlag af disse almindelige forretningsbetingelser uden be­tydning
The agree­ment conferring jurisdiction on a German court, on which the applicant relied, did not satisfy the requirements of Article 17 of the Convention since the clause in question, which was contained in a "confirmation of order", was neither signed by the parties nor confirmed by means of an exchange of letters or telegrams.
Ved Arrondissementsrechtbank Amsterdam var der anlagt sag mod et nederlandsk selskab angående visse krav ifølge kontraktsansvar.
However, the jurisdiction of the Italian courts was not derived from the special provi­sions of the Convention on instalment sales.
Det nederlandske selskab anlagde under påberåbelse af domskonventionens artikel 6, nr. 2, regressøgsmål ved samme ret mod et i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland hjemmehørende selskab.
The payment terms under the contract for the sale of the machine stipulated that two thirds of the price was to be paid before deliv­ery, the balance being payable in several instalments on taking delivery and on expiry of the period of guarantee.
Parterne i regressagen søgte først afklaret, om Arrondissementsrechtbank Amsterdam var kompetent, hvilket sagsøgte bestred under henvisning til en værnetingsaftale, der udpegede tyske retter.
That was not a sale on instalment credit terms within the mean­ing of Article 13 et seq. of the Convention.
Parterne, som allerede i 1966 og 1967 havde haft forretningsforbindelse, havde i begyn­delsen af 1971 indgået en aftale, hvorefter sagsøgte skulle levere visse varer til sagsøge­ren.
The Italian court's jurisdiction to entertain the action for the rescission of a contract of sale was derived from Article 5 (1) of the Convention.
Sagsøgtes ordrebekræftelse indeholdt en henvisning til sagsøgtes almindelige salgs­og leveringsbetingelser, der var aftrykt på bagsiden af skrivelsen, og i hvis § 21 Frankfurt am Main anførtes som »værneting«.
In the contract the German seller had undertaken to install the machine in the buyer's factory in Italy; in that case the place of performance of the obligation to supply the goods sold was the place where the installation should have been carried out and not the place where the machine was handed over to the carrier for delivery.
1968 ­ ARTIKEL 17, STK. I
1968 - ARTICLE 17(1)
(fortsat 1) opfyldte ikke formkravene i artikel 17, stk. 1.
(continued 1)
Denne bestemmelse havde netop som for­mål at udelukke, at en værnetingsaftale kunne komme i stand på grundlag af en af par­ternes passivitet.
The Belgian courts did not acquire jurisdiction under the conditions contained in the de fendant's bill of lading, which stipulated that the courts in Antwerp should have jurisdiction.
Det var i det foreliggende tilfælde uden betydning, at sagsøgeren alle­rede i 1970 havde været bekendt med de omhandlede forretningsbetingelser som følge af forretningsforholdet i 1966 og 1967, og som følge af at sagsøgeren havde fået tilsendt sagsøgtes katalog, hvori de almindelige forretningsbetingelser var aftrykt.
Even if those conditions formed part of the contract between the parties, the agree ment on jurisdiction did not take the form prescribed by the first paragraph of Article 17. Since the conditions in the bill of lading did not contain any statement by the plaintiff and since the plaintiff had not expressed any opinion on those conditions in writing, there was no statement by the plaintiff in the requisite form.
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — formkrav i henhold til artikel 17 — udtrykkelig og speciel accept ikke nødvendig — værnetingsklausul i konnossement — gyldig med virk­ning tilligefor og imod de oprindelige kontraktsparters successorer
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction clause in a confirmation of order — Acceptance implied from conduct — Not effective under Article 17
Et parti træ, for hvilket der var udstedt konnossement, blev befordret med M/S »Ulysse« fra Abidjan til Port St. Louis du Rhône, hvortil det ankom i beskadiget stand.
The German plaintiff claimed payment from the Netherlands defendant for work car ried out in connexion with fire-proofing.
I henhold til denne klausul skulle alle sager an­lægges ved Tribunal de commerce de Marseille, hvis enekompetence »afladeren, den der gør en ret gældende, og enhver anden anerkender... «.
The Oberlandesgericht, upholding the decision of the Landgericht, dismissed the claim as inadmissible on the ground that the Ger man courts did not have international jurisdiction.
Den omstændighed, at sagens parter — som bestemmelsen tog sigte på — ikke var de samme som de oprindelige parter i fragtaftalen, var uden betydning, da rettigheder og pligter efter kontrakten efter aner­kendt sædvane kunne overgå til tredjemand.
Contrary to the plaintiffs submission, the defendant's request that the work should be commenced could not be treated as an effective declaration that it wished to have the terms of delivery and payment incorporated into the contract.
Modsat det af sagsøgeren anførte var der i øvrigt tale om en »skriftlig« aftale i artikel 17, stk. l's forstand.
In principle, jurisdiction clauses could be agreed under Article 17 by reference to general conditions of business.
Heller ikke efter Jenard­rapporten var en sær­lig accept af netop den i betingelserne indeholdte værnetingsklausul nødvendig.
However, it was essential that such reference should be unequivocally covered by the declared intention of the parties to the contract.
Det af­gørende argument mod et sådant yderligere krav fremgik af artikel 1, stk. 2, i protokol­len til konventionen, der bestemmer, at »enhver aftale om kompetence, som nævnt i arti­kel 17, får kun gyldighed for en person, der har bopæl i Luxembourg, såfremt den pågæl­dende udtrykkeligt og specielt bar accepteret aftalen«.
The formal requirements laid down by Article 17 were intended to prevent the surreptitious insertion of jurisdiction clauses into contracts.
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — værnetingsklausul på bagsiden af kontraktsformular — udtrykkelig henvisning påkrævet
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Requirement of writing — Confirmation of order signed by both parties — Jurisdiction clause at the foot of the form below the signatu­res — Agreement valid
Den belgiske ret antog, at den ikke havde kompetence til af afgøre en sag vedrørende betalingen af købesummen, som et belgisk selskab havde anlagt mod et selskab med hjemsted i Frankrig.
Thereupon the German undertaking repudiated the contract and claimed damages. The defendant chal­lenged the jurisdiction of the Hamburg court in which the plaintiff had brought the ac­tion.
Der var ikke indgået en gyldig værnetingsaftale i domskonventionens artikel 17's forstand, da aftalen ikke udtrykkeligt henviste til en værnetingsklausul i sagsøgerens almindelige forretningsbetingelser, der stod på bagsiden af kontraktsformularen.
The court ruled that it had jurisdiction and stated that the parties had concluded an agreement on jurisdiction which was valid under the first paragraph of Article 17 of the Brussels Convention. The jurisdiction clause had become part of the contract as it was covered by the signatures on the confirmation of order.
Retten anså sig heller ikke for opfyldelsesvæmeting i konventionens artikel 5, nr. 1 's forstand.
Moreover, the Landgericht Hamburg also had jurisdiction under Article 5 (1) of the Convention as the court for the place of performance.
Sagsøgeren havde ikke godtgjort, at betalingerne ifølge kontrakten skulle have været erlagt i Belgien.
The contractual relations between the parties were governed by the Uniform Law on the International Sale of Goods of 17 June 1973 enacted pursuant to the corresponding Hague Convention of 1 July 1964.
Opfyldelsesstedet for sagsøgtes betalingsforpligtelse lå således i Frankrig.
Under Article 59 ofthat law the place where the price was payable, and thus the place where an action for damages should be brought in case of non­payment, was the habitual residence of the seller — in the present case Hamburg.
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — skriftlighed — aftale — indgåelse under henvisning til tidligere tilbud — henvisning til almindelige forretningsbetingelser — udtrykkelig henvisning nødvendig
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Jurisdiction clause in general conditions of sale on back of confirmation of order — No valid agreement under the first paragraph of Article 17 — Previous transactions on the basis of the same general conditions of sale irrelevant
Denne retssag vedrørte spørgsmålet, om Landgericht Köln var kompetent til at afgøre en sag, som en virksomhed med hjemsted i denne rets retskreds havde anlagt mod en italiensk virksomhed på grund af manglende opfyldelse af en kontrakt om levering af maskiner fra den tyske til den italienske virksomhed. Leveringen var blevet aftalt i en skriftlig aftale, der var underskrevet på den tyske virksomheds brevpapir.
In an action pending before the Arrondissementsrechtbank, Amsterdam, in which claims based on contractual liability were made against a Netherlands company, the lat­
1968 - ARTIKEL 17, STK. I
1968 ­ ARTICLE 17(1)
Efter at spørgsmålet, om der i dette tilfælde forelå en gyldig værnetingsaftale, var blevet besvaret forskelligt af underinstanserne, forelagde Bundesgerichtshof EF-Domstolen en række spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af domskonventionens artikel 17 til præjudiciel afgørelse.
(continued 1) ter, in reliance on Article 6 (2) of the Brussels Convention claimed an indemnity in the same court against a company having its seat in the Federal Republic of Germany. There was a preliminary issue between the parties to the action for an indemnity as to the court's jurisdiction, which the defendant challenged in reliance on an agreement con­ferring jurisdiction on the German courts.
EF-Domstolen besvarede disse spørgsmål ved dom af 14. december 1976 (sag 24/76, ovenfor under 1-17.1.2 — A 1) og udtalte bl.a., at en i en kontrakt indeholdt henvisning til tidligere tilbud, hvori der var henvist til en af kontrahenternes almindelige forretningsbetingelser, som indeholdt en værnetingsklausul, kun var tilstrækkelig til at opfylde kravet om skriftlighed i konventionens artikel 17, stk. 1, såfremt henvisningen var udtrykkelig og således ville kunne efterprøves af en medkontrahent, der udviste almindelig opmærksomhed.
The parties, who had already had dealings with one another in 1966 and 1967, had entered into a contract at the beginning of 1971 under which the defendant was to supply certain goods to the plaintiff. The defendant's confirmation of the order contained a reference to its general conditions of sale and de­livery printed on the reverse, clause 21 of which provided that the courts of Frankfurt ­am­Main were to have jurisdiction.
Dermed var kravet om skriftlighed i konventionens artikel 17, stk. 1, opfyldt, således som dette var fastlagt ved EF-Domstolens bindende fortolkning, og Landgericht Köln var altså gyldigt aftalt som værneting.
The plaintiffs ac­ceptance without objection of the confirmation of the order did not satisfy the formal re­quirements laid down by the first paragraph of Article 17; the specific object ofthat pro­vision was to prevent jurisdiction agreements based on the silence of one of the parties.
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — værnetingsklausul i tilbudsskrivelse — ordreafgivelse, hvori værnetingsklausulen afvises — ordrebekræftelse med fornyet henvisning til al mindeligeforretningsbetingelser — ingen gyldig aftale i mangel afskriftlig accept
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Formal requirements under Article 17 — Ex­press and specific acceptance not necessary — Jurisdiction clause in bill of lading — Valid­ity confirmed in respect ofsuccessors in title to the original parties to the contract
To tyske virksomheder havde givet et belgisk firma tilbud på levering af maskinanlæg »ifølge omstående salgs- og leveringsbetingelser«.
A consignment of wood carried on the Ulysses from Abidjan to Port St. Louis du Rhône and covered by a bill of lading arrived at the port of destination in a damaged condition.
I disse betingelser indgik en værnetingsklausul, hvorefter retterne i Vest-Berlin skulle være kompetente »i alle tvister«.
The Italian consignee of the wood, and holder of the bill of lading, thereupon brought an action for damages in the Tribunale di Genova against the French representatives of the shipping­line and against the insurer of the cargo.
Det belgiske firma afgav en ordre til hver af virksomhederne. En af betingelserne i ordren lød således: »Les clauses de la présente commande annulent d'office toutes clauses et conditions autres, écrites ou non écrites, générales ou particulières, figurant dans votre correspondance avec la Compagnie... «.
Only one of the representatives of the shipping­line entered an appearance.
Den første virksomhed bekræftede ordren i en skrivelse til det belgiske firma »i henhold til vore salgs- og leveringsbetingelser, som er Dem bekendt«.
A preliminary objection was taken by that representative to the jurisdiction of the Italian court on the ground that a forum clause was contained in the bill of lading.
Den anden virksomhed anførte på oversættelsen af ordreskrivelsen — som et resultat af en mundtlig forhandling — efter ordet »betingelser« (»conditions«) ordene: »som er i modstrid med disse«, og bekræftede ordreskrivelsen med dette forbehold.
That clause stipulated that all actions were to be brought before the Tribunal de Commerce, Marseille, whose exclusive jurisdiction "the shipper, claimant and every other interested party recognize ..."
(fortsat 1) firma ved Landgericht Berlin, som gav dem medhold.
(continued 1)
Retten anførte, at kun en aftale mellem parterne i henhold til domskonventionens arti kel 17 kunne tillægge tyske retter kompetence i det foreliggende tilfælde.
It held that the jurisdiction clause contained in the bill of lading was valid under Article 17 of the Brussels Convention.
Den værnetingsaftale, som virksomhederne i Berlin havde påberåbt sig, opfyldte dog ikke form forskrifterne i den nævnte bestemmelse.
The condition that at least one of the parties must be domiciled in a Contracting State was satisfied; the fact that the parties to the dispute in question were not the same as the original parties to the contract of affreightment was irrelevant, since it was recognized that rights and obligations under the contract could be transferred to "third parties".
For fortolkningen af artikel 17, stk. 1, var EF-Domstolen domme af 14. december 1976 i sagerne 24/76 og 25/76 [ovenfor under 1-17.1.2 — A 1 og 2] afgørende.
Further, contrary to the plaintiffs view, there was agreement "in writing" within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 17.
Herefter kunne det ikke antages, at der forelå en i formen gyldig skriftlig aftale mellem parterne.
The bill of lading on the back of which the clause in ques­tion was printed bore the signatures of the representative of the shipowner and of the shipper below a notice to the effect that "the shipper expressly recognizes all the clauses and conditions contained herein".
Det belgiske firma havde i sin ordreskrivelse erklæret alle de i tilbudene fra de tyske virksomheder indeholdte klausuler og betingelser for ugyldige, således at der ikke var indgået en værnetingsaftale mellem parterne.
Specific agreement to the jurisdiction clause contained in the conditions was not necessary, even having regard to the Jenard report.
Ordrebekræftelsen fra den første tyske virksomhed under henvisning til dens alminde lige forretningsbetingelser kunne ikke danne grundlag for en gyldig værnetingsaftale efter artikel 17, stk. 1, da der ikke forelå nogen skriftlig accept.
The decisive argument against any such additional requirement followed from the sec­ond paragraph of Article I of the Protocol to the Convention, which provided that "An agreement conferring jurisdiction, within the meaning of Article 17, shall be valid with respect to a person domiciled in Luxembourg only if that person has expressly and spe­cifically so agreed".
Den omstændighed, at det belgiske firma ikke havde rejst indsigelse mod denne ordrebekræftelse, kunne ifølge EF-Domstolens afgørelser ikke anses som en accept af værnetingsklausulen.
From that "stricter condition", as it was called in the Jenard report, it followed that the said formal requirement did not apply where the jurisdiction clause was relied on against someone not domiciled in Luxembourg.
Litispendens (artikel21) — krav, der har samme genstand og hviler på samme grundlag, fremsættes for retter i forskellige kontraherende stater — senere anlagt sag uden betydning for behandlingen ved den ret, hvor sag først er anlagt
Nor did the court have juris­diction by virtue of the place of performance within the meaning of Article 5 (1) of the Convention. The plaintiff had failed to prove its claim that under the contract payment should have been made in Belgium.
Dér havde sagsøgeren i øvrigt også anlagt sag med samme gen stand og på samme grundlag, efter at sag var blevet anlagt i Belgien.
Case No VIII Ζ R 14/75 [Decision following a preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Communities]
Sagsøgte appellerede, men afgørelsen blev stadfæstet. Appelinstansen antog, at retten i første instans var kompetent i medfør af en gyldig værnetingsaftale efter domskonventionens artikel 17.
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Requirement of writing — Contract — Entered into by reference to previous offers — Reference to general conditions of business — Express reference necessary
Retten anførte, at ganske vist måtte parterne kende indholdet af en forpligtelse, før det kunne antages, at de havde ville binde sig hertil, men dette var dog ikke til hinder for, at sagsøgtes modtagelse af fakturaen uden at reklamere måtte anses som bevis for, at par terne havde villet tilslutte sig samtlige de af kontraktens betingelser, der var påført fakturaen.
The issue in this case was whether the Landgericht Köln had jurisdiction to entertain an action brought by an undertaking which had its seat within the district of that court against an Italian undertaking for failure to perform a contract under which the German undertaking was to supply machines to the Italian undertaking.
Det var ikke afgørende, om medkontrahenten længe havde haft kendskab til disse betingelser eller først var kommet til kundskab herom kort tid før fakturaernes fremsendelse.
The sale was agreed in a contract written on the business notepaper of the German undertaking and signed by the parties.
I øvrigt burde sagsøgte som et erfarent handelsselskab regne med sådanne betingelser på bagsiden af fakturaer og være i stand til at vurdere deres betydning.
Printed on the back of the business notepaper were the German undertak­ing's general conditions of business which contained a clause whereby the courts of Cologne were to have jurisdiction in any dispute arising out of the contract.
Betingelserne i konventionens artikel 17 var herefter opfyldt.
After the lower courts had reached different decisions on the question whether there existed an effective agreement on jurisdiction in this instance the Bundesgerichtshof re­ferred several questions to the Court of Justice of the European Communities on the in­terpretation of Article 17 of the Brussels Convention.
Sagen ved Tribunal de commerce de Paris med samme genstand og samme grundlag havde efter konventionens artikel 21 i øvrigt ingen betydning for den ved den belgiske ret verserende sag, idet sag var blevet anlagt senere ved den franske ret end ved den belgiske ret.
By judgment of 14 December 1976 (Case 24/76 Estasis Salotti ν RÜWA; supra I 17.12 — A 1) the Court of Justice of the European Communities, in answer to those questions, ruled that in the case of a contract concluded by reference to earlier offers, which were themselves made with reference to the general conditions of one of the parties, including a clause conferring jurisdiction, the requirement of a writing under the first paragraph of Article 17 of the Convention is satisfied only if the reference is express and can therefore be checked by a party exercis­ing reasonable care.
(fortsat 1) ifølge nogle købekontrakter.
1-17.1.2 — BIO Bundesgerichtshof, Judgment of 16 May 1977, Case No VIII Ζ R 225/75
På bagsiden af fakturaerne, der var udstedt i tysk valuta, var Turnhout udpeget som værneting.
Two German undertakings submitted offers to a Belgian firm for the supply of machinery "in accordance with the conditions of sale and delivery overleaf'.
Sagsøgte havde modtaget fakturaerne uden at re­klamere.
Those conditions included a clause conferring jurisdiction "in all disputes" on the courts in West Berlin.
Retten i første instans erklærede sig kompetent.
The Belgian firm placed an order with each of the undertakings.
Denne afgørelse blev appelle­ret til Hofvan beroep, Antwerpen, der stadfæstede den trufne afgørelse.
One of the conditions on the order form stated as follows (in French): "The terms contained in the present order automatically cancel all other terms and conditions, whether or not in writing, general or particular, contained in your correspondence with the Company...".
Appelinstansen undersøgte først spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt aftalen om at udpege retten i første instans som værneting var gyldigt indgået efter domskonventionens artikel 17.
The first undertaking confirmed the order in a letter to the Belgian firm "on the basis of our conditions of sale and delivery, of which you are aware".
Det var uden betydning, at fakturaerne var blevet modtaget uden reklama­tion. Retten i første instans var imidlertid kompetent i henhold til konventionens arti­kel 5, nr. 1, idet værnetinget efter denne bestemmelse var retten på det sted, hvor den for­pligtelse, der lå til grund for sagen, skulle opfyldes.
The Belgian firm accepted both confirmations of the orders without objec­tion.
Efter artikel 59 i den uniforme lov om internationale løsørekøb af 1. juni 1964 skulle køberen betale købesummen til sælge­ren på dennes forretningssted eller, i mangel heraf, på hans faste bopæl.
As a result of the failure to satisfy certain claims under these contracts the German undertakings sued the Belgian firm in the Landgericht Berlin, which gave judgment for the plaintiffs.
En nederlandsk virksomhed havde sagsøgt et selskab med hjemsted i Forbundsrepublik­ken Tyskland ved Arrondissementsrechtbank Amsterdam under henvisning til en vær­netingsaftale efter domskonventionens artikel 17, stk. 1.
The court held that the jurisdiction of the German courts in this case could only be founded on an agreement between the parties under the first paragraph of Article 17 of the Brussels Convention.
Til grund for sagen lå en kon­trakt om visse vareleverancer fra sagsøgeren til sagsøgte, afsluttet i januar 1976.
But the jurisdiction agreement on which the Berlin under­takings relied did not satisfy the formal requirements laid down in that provision.