natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I denne sag havde sagsøgeren anmodet retten om at fastslå, at den af sagsøgeren anlagte sag havde litispendensvirkning i forhold til en af sagsøgte på et senere tidspunkt ved en tysk ret anlagt sag.
In this case the plaintiff requested the court to hold that the proceedings pending before it involved the same cause of action as proceedings instituted by the defendant in a Ger­man court at a later stage.
Den italienske ret afslog dette med den begrundelse, at den sag, der var anlagt ved denne ret, om forholdsmæssigt afslag i købesummen og skadeserstatning for skjulte mangler ved den af sagsøgte leverede salgsgenstand ikke havde litispendens­virkning i forhold til den sag om opfyldelse af aftalen, som den udenlandske sælger havde anlagt ved den ret, som var kompetent i forhold til denne, med påstand om beta­ling af restkøbesummen, men at kravene imidlertid var konnekse.
The Italian court refused to do so on the ground that, although there was a connexion between the action pending before it for a reduction in the pur­chase price and damages for latent defects in the goods supplied by the defendant and the action brought by the foreign seller in its local court for payment of the balance of the purchase price in performance of the contract, the proceedings did not involve the same cause of action.
For at der kunne antages at foreligge litispendensvirkning var det ikke tilstrækkeligt, at de sager, som verserede for forskellige retter, angik de samme retsspørgsmål, tværtimod måtte parterne, anbringenderne og realitetspåstandene være fuldstændig de samme.
For the plea of lis alibi pendens to be upheld it was not sufficient that the proceedings pending before different courts concerned the same questions of law; the parties, the grounds of the action and the relief claimed must be exactly the same.
Konneksiteten måtte senest tages i betragtning i første retsmøde efter formalitetsproce­durens afslutning efter begæring eller ex officio; den ret, hvor sag senest var anlagt, var imidlertid i intet tilfælde forpligtet til at udsætte afgørelsen eller erklære at mangle kom­petence.
The question whether the cases were related had to be raised by one of the parties or by the court of its own motion no later than the first hearing on the substance of the action but a court other than the court first seised was in no circumstances obliged to stay proceedings or decline jurisdiction.
Litispendens (artikel 21) — betingelser — krav »der har samme genstand og hviler på samme grundlag« fremsat for retter i forskellige kontraherende stater —foreløbige foranstaltninger til bevissikring vedrørende en af køberen påstået mangelfuld opfyldelse af en købeaftale — sælgerens senere krav om betaling af købesummen for retten i en anden kontraherende stat — ingen litispendensvirkning
Lis pendens (Article21) — Conditions — Proceedings involving "the same cause of action " in the courts of different Contracting States — Provisional measures for the preservation of evidence in relation to the buyer's allegation of defective performance in a contract of sale — Action for the purchase price subsequently commenced by the seller in the court of another Contracting State — Plea of lis alibi pendens rejected
Indbyrdes sammenhængende krav (artikel 22) — betingelser — sagerne anlagt ved domstole i forskellige kontraherende stater
Related actions (Article 22) — Conditions — Pendency of both actions before courts of different Contracting States
Et nederlandsk selskab indstævnede et selskab med hjemsted i Belgien for Arrondisse­mentsrechtbank 's­Hertogenbosch til betaling af restkøbesummen i henhold til en aftale om levering af et klimaanlæg til sagsøgte.
A company incorporated in the Netherlands brought an action in the Arrondissements­rechtbank 's­Hertogenbosch against a company based in Belgium. In the action it claim­ed payment of the balance of the purchase price under a contract for the supply of air­conditioning equipment to the defendant.
Sagsøgte var ganske vist enig i, at retten var kompetent i henhold til domskonventionens artikel 5, nr. 1, men påstod dog sagen hen­vist til handelsretten i Gent (Belgien), da sagsøgte før forkyndelsen af stævningen og ind­kaldelsen for den nederlandske ret selv havde indstævnt sagsøgeren for den nævnte bel­giske ret for med henblik på foreløbig bevissikring at få udmeldt en syns­ og skønsmand.
The defendant submitted that, although the court in which the action had been brought had jurisdiction under Article 5 (1) of the Brussels Convention, the case should nonetheless be transferred to the commercial court in Ghent (Belgium) on the ground that prior to service of the document instituting the proceedings before the court in the Netherlands it had brought an action against the plaintiff in the said Belgian court under the procedure for provisional protective measu­res in order to secure the appointment of an expert.
Den derpå udmeldte syns­ og skønsmand havde afgivet en erklæring vedrørende de ska­der, som var opstået på sagsøgtes bygning som følge af de af sagsøgeren dér udførte ar­bejder.
The expert subsequently appointed had produced a report on the damage which had allegedly occurred at the defendant's premises as a result of the work carried out there by the plaintiff.
Begæringen blev ikke taget til følge.
The application for the case to be transferred was dismissed.
Retten udtalte, at domskonventionens artikel 21 kun finder anvendelse, såfremt de krav, der er fremsat for retterne i forskellige kontraherende stater, har »samme genstand og hviler på samme grundlag«.
The court held that Article 21 of the Brussels Convention only applied in so far as the proceedings brought in the courts of different Contracting States involved "the same cause of action".
Denne betingelse var ikke opfyldt i det foreliggende tilfæl­de.
That condition was not satisfied in the present case.
Den sag, der verserede i Belgien, angik alene tilvejebringelse og sikring af beviser for sagsøgtes påstand om, at sagsøgeren havde handlet uforsvarligt ved installationen af an­lægget, idet der var taget forbehold om alle yderligere foranstaltninger med henblik på retsforfølgning.
The proceedings instituted in Belgium merely concerned the procurement and preservation of evidence in support of the defendant's claim that the plaintiff had acted negligently in the installa­tion of the equipment; the right to pursue any other form of legal remedy was reserved.
Sagen havde således ganske vist en indbyrdes sammenhæng med den mellem parterne opståede tvist, som også lå til grund for den foreliggende sag, og som vedrørte sagsøgerens opfyldelse af købekontrakten, men havde imidlertid — til forskel fra den foreliggende sag — ikke haft til formål at afgøre spørgsmålet om sagsøgtes for­pligtelse til betaling af den samlede købesum.
Although those proceedings were related to the dispute between the parties about the plaintiffs performance of the contract sale, which was at the root of the present litiga­tion, they did not, unlike the present proceedings, seek a decision as to the defendant's obligation to pay the entire purchase price.
Sagen for handelsretten i Gent vedrørte så­ledes ikke samme krav som for den nederlandske ret.
Therefore, the action brought in the commer­cial court in Ghent did not involve the same cause of action as the proceedings brought in the Netherlands.
Den modsatte opfattelse ville føre til, at det var muligt for en part — ved at bringe at foreløbigt retsmiddel i konventionens artikel 24's forstand i anvendelse — at unddrage modparten det almindelige værneting i henhold til konventionen.
The contrary view would lead to the result that, by obtaining a provi­sional measure within the meaning of Article 24 of the Convention, a party would be able to remove the opposing party from the jurisdiction of the court which had jurisdic­tion under the Convention.
Litispendens (artikel 21) — betingelser — samme sagsgenstand — bestemmes efter den rets lov, for hvilken sagen er indbragt
Lis pendens (Article 21) — Conditions — Identity in subject­matter of the actions — To be determined by the lex fori
Indbyrdes sammenhængende krav (artikel 22) — den ret, hvor sag sidst er anlagt, erklærer at mangle kompetence — betingelser — forening af indbyrdes sammenhæn­gende krav — ikke mulig efter tysk ret
Related actions (Article 22) — A court other than the court first seised may decline jurisdiction — Conditions — Consolidation of related actions — Not possible under German law
Sagsøgeren, et fransk handelsselskab, havde leveret stål til en en tysk virksomhed, som senere blev ude afstand til at betale.
The plaintiff, a French trading company, had supplied steel to a German undertaking which subsequently became insolvent.
Vedrørende de på grundlag heraf opståede fordrin­ger, som beløb sig til adskillelige millioner DM, indgik sagsøgeren den 2. april 1976 på et arrangement med sagsøgte, en belgisk bank, der via sin tyske filial i årevis havde været den tyske virksomheds bankforbindelse.
The resulting claims, amounting to several mil­lion German Marks, were the subject of an arrangement concluded on 2 April 1976 by the plaintiff and the defendant, a Belgian bank which through its branch in Germany had acted as bankers to the German undertaking for a number of years.
Efter at den tyske virksomhed nogle må­neder senere havde indgivet konkursbegæring, anlagde sagsøgeren, der ikke havde mod­taget nogen dividende af sine fordringer, to sager mod sagsøgte ved handelsretten i Bru­xelles, hvorunder sagsøgeren bl.a. påstod sagsøgte dømt til betaling af skadeserstatning for culpøs misligholdelse af det aftalte arrangement af 2. april 1976.
When the Ger­man undertaking declared itself insolvent several months later, the plaintiff, which had received nothing in respect of its claims, commenced two actions against the defendant in the Brussels Commercial Court in which it sought inter alia the payment of damages for the defendant's wrongful breach of the contractual arrangement of 2 April 1976.
Før disse sager blev afgjort, anlagde sagsøgeren sag ved Landgericht Köln med påstand om, at sagsøgte til­pligtedes at anerkende at være forpligtet til at godtgøre sagsøgeren alle tab, som sagsøge­ren havde lidt ved de mellemværender med den konkursramte tyske virksomhed, som var omfattet af parternes aftale af 2. april 1976.
Be­fore judgment was given in those proceedings, the plaintiff brought an action in the Landgericht Köln for a declaration that the defendant was under an obligation to com­pensate it for all damage which it had suffered as a result of the transactions with the in­solvent German undertaking which were covered by the contract concluded by the par­ties on 2 April 1976.
Sagsøgeren støttede dette krav på reg­lerne om overtagelse af en persons formue (Vermögensübernahme) samt om skadegø­rende handlinger.
The plaintiff based its action on provisions dealing with assignment of property and wrongful acts.
Landgericht fandt at have international kompetence og udtalte, at betingelserne for litispendensvirkningen og konneksiteten i domskonventionens artikel 21 og 22 ikke fo­relå.
The Landgericht held that it had jurisdiction under international rules and stated that the conditions laid down by Articles 21 and 22 of the Brussels Convention in connexion with the plea of lis alibi pendens and related actions were not satisfied.
Litispendensvirkning var ikke indtrådt, da sagsgenstanden ikke var den samme.
It was not a case of lis alibi pendens since the proceedings did not involve the same cause of action.
Be­grebet sagsgenstand skulle bedømmes efter tysk procesret; når der var tale om et aner­kendelsessøgsmål på den ene side og et tilsvarende fuldbyrdelsessøgsmål på den anden side, var sagsgenstanden ikke den samme, da der med de to sager forfulgtes forskellige mål.
The term "cause of action" had to be interpreted in accordance with German procedural law; an application for a declaration of the existence of a right and an action for dama­ges did not involve the same cause of action because in each case different objectives were pursued.
Anvendelsen af konventionens artikel 21, stk. 2, var ikke mulig, da der ikke var rejst indsigelse mod den belgiske handelsrets kompetence. Retten gjorde hel­ler ikke brug af sin skønsmæssige beføjelse i henhold til artikel 22, stk. 2, da sagen var moden til påkendelse.
Nor could the court decline jurisdiction under the second paragraph of Article 22 of the Convention, as the defendant had requested in the alternative, because under German procedural law the present action could not be consolidated with the
(fortsat 1) delse, når den pågældende tvist stod i umiddelbar forbindelse med en konkurs, hvilket ikke var tilfældet her.
(continued 1) proceedings pending before the Brussels Commercial Court. Under German procedural law actions could only be consolidated if they were pending before the same court.
Litispendens — krav, der har samme genstand og hviler på samme grundlag, frem­sat for retter i forskellige kontraherende stater — krav om betaling af købesum og krav om forholdsmæssigt afslag — samme krav — kompetence for den ret, ved hvilken sag først er anlagt
Lis pendens — Proceedings involving the same cause of action in the courts of dif­ferent Contracting States — Action for purchase price and action for reduction in pur­chase price — Same cause of action — Jurisdiction of the court first seised
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — formkrav — skriftlig aftale eller mundtlig aftale, der er skriftligt bekræftet — begreber — fortolkning — national ret finder an­vendelse
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Formal requirements — Agreements in writing or oral agreement evidenced in writing — Concepts — Interpretation — Gov­erned by national law
Sagsøgeren, et selskab med hjemsted i Italien, havde forretningsforbindelse med sagsøg­te, et selskab med hjemsted i Belgien.
The plaintiff, a company based in Italy, was involved in a business relationship with the defendant, a company based in Belgium.
Sagsøgeren påstod, at der var indgået en aftale mel­lem sagsøgeren og sagsøgte, ifølge hvilken sagsøgeren havde fået overdraget retten til eneforhandling af sagsøgtes produkter i Italien.
It maintained that it and the defendant had entered into a contract under which it became the exclusive distributor of the defendant's products in Italy.
Denne aftale havde sagsøgte ensidigt an­nulleret; i øvrigt havde sagsøgtes i henhold til tidligere købekontrakter leverede produk­ter været mangelfulde.
The defendant was alleged to have repudiated that contract uni­laterally; it was also claimed that products supplied by the defendant under previous contracts of sale were defective.
Under en for retten i Milano rejst sag krævede sagsøgeren inden retlig annullation af eneforhandlingsaftalen, forholdsmæssigt afslag på grund af mang­ler ved de leverede varer samt skadeserstatning.
In an action in the Tribunale di Milano, the plaintiff sought recission of the exclusive distributorship contract, a reduction in the purchase price on account of defects in the goods delivered and damages.
Sagsøgte bestred, at der skulle være kommet en eneforhandlingsaftale i stand og rejste over for kravet om forholdsmæssigt afslag indsigelse mod rettens kompetence under henvisning til, at handelsretten i Has­selt (Belgien), hvor sag først var anlagt, var kompetent med hensyn hertil.
The defendant contested the existence of the exclusive distributorship contract, and in relation to the claim for a reduction in the purchase price it challenged the jurisdiction of the court on the ground that the commercial court in Hasselt (Belgium), where proceedings had already been commenced, had jurisdiction.
Retten i Mi­lano erklærede ikke at være kompetent vedrørende kravet om forholdsmæssigt afslag til fordel for den belgiske ret og frifandt i øvrigt sagsøgte.
The Tribunale di Milano declined jurisdiction in the ac­tion for a reduction in the purchase price in favour of the Belgian court and dismissed the remaining claims.
I øvrigt påberåbte sagsøgte sig uden held en klausul i sine almindelige forretningsbetin­gelser, hvorefter eventuelle tvister skulle afgøres ved den ret, som havde stedlig kompe­tence for Hasselt. Klausulen måtte anses for at være en skriftlig aftale i domskonventio­nens artikel 17's forstand.
It was equally clear that the proceedings involved the same cause of action, since in the one case the action was for the payment of the purchase price and in the other case a re­duction in the purchase price was sought on account of alleged defects. The two claims had to be decided together.
Retten udtalte, at ganske vist kunne den komptente ret udpe­ges i henhold til denne bestemmelse ved en skriftlig aftale eller ved en mundtlig aftale, der var skriftligt bekræftet; det var imidlertid anerkendt, at de begreber, som anvendtes i reglerne om international kompetence, skulle fastlægges i henhold til reglerne i ita­liensk ret. I italiensk ret forudsatte en »skriftlig aftale eller en mundtlig aftale, der er skriftligt bekræftet« parternes underskrift.
It was true that under that provision jurisdiction could be conferred on a court by an agreement in writing or by an oral agree­ment evidenced in writing; however, it was recognized that the terms used in the provi­sions dealing with international jurisdiction should be construed according to the rales of Italian law.
Sagsøgtes almindelige forretningsbetingelser var optrykt på bagsiden af fakturaerne, og det var ubestridt, at de ikke var underskrevet. De opfyldte derfor ikke disse betingelser og var således uden betydning for kompetence­spørgsmålet.
The general conditions of business printed on the back of the defendant's invoices, which were not signed, did not satisfy that requirement, with the result that they were not relevant to the question of jurisdiction.
Indbyrdes sammenhængende krav — retssager i forskellige kontraherende stater mellem parler, der ikke er de samme — forskellige sagsgenstande — den ret, hvor sag senest var anlagt, udsalte ikke sin afgørelse — den ret, hvor sag først var anlagt, afviste at udsætte
Related actions — Actions between different parties in different Contracting States — Dif­ferent matters in dispute — Second action not stayed — Refusal by the court first seised to stay proceedings
Sagsøgeren, et tysk selskab, anlagde den 21. januar 1976 sag ved Tribunal d'arrondisse­ment de Luxembourg mod det luxembourgske aktieselskab La Continentale nucléaire til betaling for vareleverancer. Den 9. juni 1976 anlagde det luxembourgske aktieselskab International Metals sag ved Landgericht Düsseldorf (Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland) mod det tyske selskab Hempel KG und Fundus med påstand om betaling af et større beløb i dollars.
On 21 January 1976, the plaintiff, a German company, brought an action in the Tribunal d'Arrondissement, Luxembourg, against La Continentale Nucléaire, a company incor­porated in Luxembourg, for payment for goods delivered.
I et retsmøde i den luxembourgske ret den 4. november 1976 anmodede den dér indstævnte sagsøgte retten om at udsætte sin afgørelse, indtil den ved Landge­richt Düsseldorf verserende retssag var afgjort.
At the hearing before the Luxembourg court on 4 November 1976 the defendant asked for the proceedings to be stayed until judgment was given in the action pending before the Landgericht Düsseldorf.
Sagsøgte gjorde herved gældende, at de luxembourgske og tyske selskaber, der var parter i de to retssager, hver især parvis til­hørte samme koncern. I særdeleshed var forbindelsen mellem de luxembourgske selska­ber så snæver, at den tyske sagsøgte i sagen i Düsseldorf gjorde gældende, at det retsfor­hold, på hvilket kravet støttedes, udelukkende var kommet i stand med selskabet Conti­nentale nucléaire, sagsøgte i den luxembourgske sag.
The grounds of its request were that the Luxembourg and German companies involved in the two actions belonged respectively to the same groups of undertakings; the relations between the Luxembourg companies in particular were so close that the defence of the German undertakings to the action in the Düsseldorf court was to the effect that the legal relations on the basis of which the claim had been brought were established solely with La Continentale Nucléaire, the defendant in the Luxembourg proceedings.
Den luxembourgske underinstans afviste at udsætte sin afgørelse og gav sagsøgeren medhold.
The Luxembourg court of first instance rejected the request for a stay and upheld the claim.
Denne afgørelse blev appel­leret, men stadfæstet.
The appeal was unsuccessful.
Cour supérieure anførte i overensstemmelse med retten i første instans, at der ikke var nogen indbyrdes sammenhæng mellem sagen i Luxembourg og sagen i Düsseldorf. Da sagernes genstand var forskellige, var der ingen fare for, at afgørelserne skulle blive modstridende.
The Cour Supérieure de Justice held, following the court of first instance, that the actions brought in Luxembourg and Düsseldorf were not interrelated; as the subject­matter of the disputes was different there was no risk that conflicting decisions might result.
Hvis det i Forbundsrepublikken sagsøgte tyske selskab skulle blive dømt, ville dette ingen indflydelse have på den i Luxembourg anlagte sag om betaling for va­rerne.
If judgment were given against the German companies in the Federal Republic of Ger­many this would have no influence on the action for payment brought in Luxembourg.
Selv om det i øvrigt var korrekt, at selskaberne i de to retssager havde et snævert interessefællesskab, ændrede dette intet ved, at selskaberne hver især var juridiske perso­ner, som måtte holdes adskilt fra deres aktionærer og ledende organer.
Further, although there were close ties of interest between the companies involved in the two actions this did not alter the fact that they were different legal persons distinct from their members or directors.
Endvidere frem­gik det ikke af akterne i sagen ved Landgericht Düsseldorf, at sagen dér var begæret udsat på grund af indbyrdes sammenhæng i den i artikel 22, stk. 1, i domskonventionen anførte forstand, og der var heller ikke i medfør af artikel 22, stk. 2, fremsat anmodning
Further, it was apparent from the documents in the case that there had been no application to the Landgericht Düsseldorf for a stay on the grounds that the actions were related within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 22 of the Brussels Convention, nor had there been a request under the second paragraph of
Begæringen om afgørelsens udsættelse kunne derfor ikke tages til følge.
Accordingly the request for a stay was refused.
Afdeling 9 - FORELØBIGE, HERUNDER SIKRENDE RETSMIDLER (artikel 24)
Section 9 - PROVISIONAL, INCLUDING PROTECTIVE MEASURES (Article 24)
Jfr. ovenfor under 1-1.2 — A 2
See 1-1.2 — A 2, supra
(Jfr. også 1­2 ­ B 3)
(See also 12 - Β 3)
Kompetence — foreløbige reismidier — kompetencen uafhængig af kompetencen med hensyn til hovedsagen (artikel 24)
Jurisdiction — Provisional measures — Jurisdiction not dependent on jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter (Article 24)
Anvendeligheden af foreløbige retsmidler bedømmes efter national ret — fuldbyr­delse af tyske domme i udiandel som arrestgrund — dette princips fortsatte gyldighed indenfor rammerne af domskonventionen
Availability of provisional measures under national law — Protective measures justi­fied by the fact that enforcement of a German judgment must take place in a foreign country — Retention of that principle in the context of the Brussels Convention
Et tysk firma med hjemsted i Hamburg havde ved Landgericht Mainz ladet foretage ar­rest til sikring af en påstået fordring mod et fransk firma med hjemsted i Paris.
A German firm based in Hamburg obtained from the Landgericht Mainz an attachment order in security of a claim which it maintained it had against a French firm based in Paris.
Arresten blev gjort i en fordring, som det franske firma havde mod en tysk virksomhed med hjem­sted i Mainz.
It then attached a debt owed to the French firm by a German undertaking based in Mainz.