natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Også i to andre belgiske afgørelser antages der at være mulighed for — uden at overholde formkravene i artikel 17 — at skabe værneting ifølge artikel 5, nr. 1, ved at aftale et andet opfyldelsessted end det legale; i de to tilfælde blev aftalen dog underkendt af faktiske grunde (Rechtbank van koophandel, Kortrijk, dom af 1. 2.
There are two other Belgian decisions to the effect that jurisdiction may be conferred under Article 5 (1) on the courts for a place of performance other than that provided for by law without observing the formalities of Article 17, although in those particular cases it was held on the facts that this had not been done (Rechtbank van Koophandel, Kor­trijk, judgment of 1 February 1977, Bospan ν W. Ronn ά Söhne K.G.; Rechtbank van Koophandel Turnhout, judgment of 9 February 1977, FRAM PVBA v Volmer-M.A.V. Lyon).
I forbindelse med salg af et større antal aktier i et fransk selskab med hjemsted i Frankrig til flere tyske statsborgere med bopæl i Forbundsrepublikken havde sælgeren anlagt sag mod de tyske købere ved en fransk ret med påstand om betaling af restkøbesummen, end­videre om betaling af et beløb, sælgeren som kautionist var blevet påstævnt, samt om skadeserstatning.
In connexion with the sale of a number of shares in a French company to several Ger­man nationals domiciled in the Federal Republic the vendor sued the German purcha­sers in a French court for payment of the balance of the purchase price and further for payment of a sum which had been claimed from him as guarantor and for damages.
På tidspunktet for sagsanlægget verserede der en anden retssag for samme ret, under hvilken sagsøgeren i den her refererede sag sagsøgtes af en fransk bank og selv havde rejst regreskrav mod en af de i den her refererede sag omhandlede sagsøgte.
At the time when the action was commenced another case was pending before the same court in which the plaintiff in the present proceedings was being sued by a French bank and was for his part claiming on a guarantee against one of the present defendants.
De sagsøgte fremsatte indsigelse imod rettens kompetence under henvisning til domskonventionens kompetenceregler.
The defendants objected to the jurisdiction of the court, relying on the jurisdiction rales of the Brussels Convention.
Retten erklærede sig imidlertid kompetent og begrundede i det væsentlige dette med den snævre saglige sammenhæng, som bestod mellem den første sag — for hvilken den ubestridt var kompetent — og den her refere­rede sag.
However, the court held that it had jurisdiction, essentially be­cause of the close factual connexion between the first action, in which its jurisdiction was not disputed, and the present action.
De sagsøgte indankede den dom, hvorved kompetencen var blevet fastslået, for Cour d'appel de Paris, som ophævede den og afviste sagen.
As a result of the defendants' appeal the Cour d'Appel, Paris, quashed the judgment establishing the jurisdiction of the court of first in­stance and dismissed the action.
Cour d'appel de Paris udtalte først, at værnetinget i den foreliggende sag alene skulle bestemmes efter domskonventionen, som ifølge forskriftsmæssig ratifikation og offent­liggørelse havde forrang for nationale love i henhold til artikel 55 i den franske forfat­ning af 1958.
The court declared, in the first place, that jurisdiction in the present case should be determined exclusively under the Brussels Convention, which, having been duly ratified and published, took precedence over domestic laws in accordance with Article 55 of the French Constitution of 1958.
Inden for konventionens gyldighedsområde fortrængtes således de regler i fransk ret, hvorefter et værneting kunne udpeges på grundlag af konneksitet.
Therefore, within the scope of the Convention those rules of French law which established jurisdiction on the basis of a factual connexion had been superseded.
Retten anførte derpå, at da de sagsøgte havde bopæl i Forbundsrepublikken, kunne en kompetence for franske retter kun støttes på konventionens artikel 5.
The court went on to hold that, as the defendants were domiciled in the Federal Re­public, the French courts could assume jurisdiction only under Article 5 of the Conven­tion.
For det under sagen rejste krav på købesummen bestod der dog ikke en sådan kompetence efter arti­kel 5, nr. 1, da opfyldelsesstedet for denne forpligtelse både efter fransk ret (artikel 1247 i code civil) og efter tysk ret (§ 269 i Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch) i mangel af modstående af­tale var skyldnernes bopæl i Forbundsrepublikken.
But those courts did not acquire jurisdiction in the action for the purchase price under Article 5 (1), since both under French law (Article 1247 of the Code Civil) and under German law (Article 269 of the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch) the place of perfor­mance ofthat obligation, in the absence of a contractual agreement to the contrary, was the debtors' domicile in the Federal Republic.
Den omstændighed, at tidligere betalinger var blevet erlagt i Frankrig, bragte ikke kompetencen efter konventionen til ophør.
The fact that previous payments had been made in France did not affect jurisdiction under the Convention.
Heller ikke med hensyn til de øvrige under sagen rejste krav var de franske retter kompetente. Det andet af de rejste krav var også af kontraktsmæssig art og skulle opfyl­des i Forbundsrepublikken.
Nor did the French courts have jurisdiction in regard to the other claims put forward in the action : the se­cond claim advanced was also of a contractual nature and was to be satisfied in the Fed­eral Republic; the claim for damages advanced in the third place stemmed from the con­duct of the debtors in connexion with the performance of their contractual obligations and therefore it too had to be enforced at the place of performance in the Federal Republic.
Det tredje krav om skadeserstatning hidrørte fra skyldner­nes adfærd i forbindelse med opfyldelsen af deres kontraktsmæssige forpligtelser og måtte derfor ligeledes gøres gældende på opfyldelsesstedet i Forbundsrepublikken.
Judgment of 6 July 1977, Manheim & Zoon BV ν Tasselli Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction of the courts for the place of performance (Article 5 (1)) — Place of performance determined by construing the contract of sale con­cluded between the parties — Note on the invoice to the contrary effect irrelevant.
Sagsøgeren, et selskab med hjemsted i Nederlandene, havde anlagt sag mod et selskab med hjemsted i Italien ved Arrondissement Rechtbank Amsterdam på grund af forsinket og mangelfuld levering af varer og havde påstået ophævelse af kontrakten samt ska­deserstatning.
The plaintiff, a company incorporated in the Netherlands, brought an action in the Ar­rondissementsrechtbank, Amsterdam, against a company incorporated in Italy, in which it alleged late and defective delivery of goods and sought rescission of the con­tract and damages.
Sagsøgte fremsatte indledningsvis indsigelse imod rettens kompetence, fordi fakturaen for varerne var påtegnet »franco frontiera italiana«.
The defendant raised a preliminary objection to the court's jurisdic­tion on the ground that one of the invoices issued in relation to the goods bore the words "franco frontiera italiana".
Som begrundelse herfor anførte retten, at der mellem parterne var enighed om, at varer­ne, der var blevet bestilt via sagsøgtes agent i Amsterdam, var befordret til Amsterdam af en fragtfører, der var antaget af sagsøgte, og at varerne i Amsterdam blev leveret, ikke til sagsøgeren, men til et andet firma, efter at sagsøgeren havde meddelt sagsøgte, at man ikke længere følte sig bundet af kontrakten.
It based its decision on the fact that it was not disputed by the parties that the goods ordered through the defendant's Amsterdam agents had been transported to Amsterdam by a carrier engaged by the defendant and that after the plaintiff had informed the de­fendant that it no longer felt bound by the contract the goods had been delivered not to the plaintiff, but to another firm.
Retten sluttede heraf, at parterne havde aftalt Amsterdam som opfyldelsessted, jfr. konventionens artikel 5, nr. 1.
It was apparent from those circumstances that the par­ties had agreed on Amsterdam as the place of performance within the meaning of Arti­cle 5 (1) of the Convention.
Påtegnin­gen på fakturaen, hvorefter levering skulle ske »franco frontiera italiana«, var derfor uden betydning.
The note on the invoices to the effect that the goods were to be delivered "franco frontiera italiana" was therefore irrelevant.
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — opfyldelsesvæmeting (artikel 5, nr. 1) — be­stemmelse af opfyldelsesstedet efter kontraktsstatuttet — gyldig aftale mellem parterne om andet opfyldelsessted end det legale — intet værneting efter artikel 5, nr. 1, hvis formkra­vene i artikel 17 ikke er opfyldt
Jurisdiction — Special Jurisdiction — Jurisdiction of the courts for the place of performance (Article 5 (1)) — Place of performance determined under the proper law of the contract — Effective agreement between the parties on a place of performance other than that provided for by law — No basis for jurisdiction under Article 5 (1) where the formalities required by Article 17 are not satisfied
Sagsøgeren, en tysk handlende, havde anlagt sag ved Landgericht München mod den i Italien bosatte sagsøgte til betaling af restsummen på et lån. Med hensyn til kompeten­cespørgsmålet anførte sagsøgeren, at han mundtligt med sagsøgte havde aftalt værne­ting i München for alle spørgsmål.
The plaintiff, a German trader, commenced proceedings in the Landgericht München against the defendant, who was domiciled in Italy, for repayment of the balance of a loan and on the question of jurisdiction submitted that he had agreed orally with the de­fendant that the courts of Munich should have jurisdiction over all disputes.
Desuden havde han — ligeledes mundtligt — aftalt med sagsøgte, at München også skulle være opfyldelsessted for sagsøgtes forpligtelser i henhold til låneaftalen.
He main­tained, further, that he had agreed with the defendant — also orally — that Munich should likewise be the place of performance of all the defendant's obligations in respect of the loan.
Landgericht afviste sagen med den begrundelse, at den ikke havde international kompetence.
The Landgericht dismissed the action as inadmissible on the ground that it had no international jurisdiction.
Oberlandesgericht anførte, at der i den foreliggende sag ikke var noget værneting i henhold til artikel 5, nr. 1, der ville være den eneste bestemmelse, som kunne
It held that jurisdiction in the present dispute was not acquired under Article 5 (1) of the Convention, which was the only provision on which jurisdiction could have been based.
Som opfyldelsessted var det imidlertid principielt kun det legale opfyldelsessted ifølge den lov, der herefter skulle finde anven­delse, der kunne lægges til grund. Et aftalt opfyldelsessted kunne kun give en anden ret end sagsøgtes hjemting kompetence, hvis aftalen var indgået i den form, konventionens artikel 17 foreskriver.
A court other than the court for the defendant's place of domicile could acquire in­ternational jurisdiction on the basis of an agreement on the place of performance only if the agreement was in the form required by Article 17 of the Convention.
Dette gjaldt også, selv om den nationale lov, der skulle finde an­vendelse ved bestemmelsen af opfyldelsesstedet, anerkendte en mundtlig aftale herom, og — som eksempelvis tysk ret — endog under visse omstændigheder anså en sådan som tilstrækkelig til at begrunde et værneting (§ 29, stk. 2, i den [tyske] civilproceslov).
That was so even where the national law governing the determination of the place of performance regarded an oral agreement on the place of performance as effective and, as did for example German law, allowed such an agreement, subject to certain conditions, to be the basis of jurisdiction (the second paragraph of Article 29 of the Zivilprozessordnung).
Oberlandesgericht begrundede sin fortolkning af artikel 5, nr. 1, med den plads, denne regel indtager i den ved konventionen skabte kompetenceordning.
The Oberlandesgericht based its interpretation of Article 5 (1) on the position which that provision occupied in the jurisdictional system created by the Convention.
Denne ordning består ikke alene af hovedreglen i artikel 2, men også af artikel 17, der gør værnetingsaftalers gyldighed betinget af, at visse formkrav er opfyldt.
An essential part ofthat system, in addition to the principle laid down by Article 2, was Article 17, making the effectiveness of agreements on jurisdiction subject to the observance of cer­tain formal conditions.
Hvis man ved udpegelsen af opfyldel­sesværnetinget i artikel 5, nr. 1, undlod at tage hensyn til artikel 17, ville de formkrav, der måtte stilles til en værnetingsaftale, kunne omgås ved et formløst aftalt opfyldelses­sted, i det omfang der var tale om kontraktsforhold, og vedkommende kontraktstatut an­erkendte, at opfyldelsesstedet kunne udpeges formløst. Dette kunne imidlertid ikke have været konventionsstaternes hensigt, når hensås til princippet i artikel 2 og løsnin­gen af kompetencespørgsmålet i konventionen i det hele taget.
If, in determining which court had jurisdiction under Article 5 (1) as the court for the place of performance Article 17 were to be disregarded, then the formal requirements of an agreement on jurisdiction could always be circumvented by an informal agreement on the place of performance in so far as contracts and claims aris­ing under contracts were concerned and the law relating to contracts allowed an infor­mal agreement on the place of performance.
Herefter nåede Oberlandesgericht under anvendelse af tysk ret frem til, at det legale op­fyldelsessted for den omtvistede forpligtelse var sagsøgtes hjemsted i Italien.
Applying German law the court then came to the conclusion that by law the place of per­formance of the obligation in question was the defendant's place of domicile in Italy.
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — værneting for en filial, et agentur eller en lignende virksomhed (artikel 5, nr.S) — agenturbegrebet
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction in relation to a branch, agency or other establishment (Article 5 (5)) — The term "agency"
Parterne, et nederlandsk og et tysk selskab, stod i forretningsmæssig forbindelse.
A business relationship had existed between the parties who were a company incor­porated in the Netherlands and a German company.
Den nederlandske sagsøger påstod at have drevet virksomhed som handelsagent i Nederlan­dene for den tyske virksomhed, og under sagen stillede sagsøgeren krav om godtgørelse for good­will samt om skadeserstatning. Som grundlag for rettens kompetence — som
The Netherlands plaintiff maintai­ned that it had acted as agent for the German undertaking in the Netherlands; it claimed compensation and damages for termination of the business relationship by the defen- lssue 1/February 1981
(fortsat 1) sagsøgte havde bestridt — henviste sagsøgte til domskonventionens artikel 5, nr. 1 og 5.
In support of the jurisdiction of the court before which the matter was brought — disputed by the defendant — the plaintiff relied on Article 5 (1) and (5) of the Brussels Convention.
Retten udtalte, at den savnede kompetence.
The court held that it had no jurisdiction.
Den anførte, at fastlæggelsen af opfyldelsesstedet for de til grund for sagen liggende for­pligtelser, hvilket sted var afgørende for spørgsmålet om værneting efter artikel 5, nr. 1, måtte ske efter den lov, som i henhold til de nederlandske lovvalgsregler fandt anven­delse på disse forpligtelser.
It held that the place of performance of the obligations comprising the subject­matter of the action, which was decisive in establishing jurisdiction under Article 5(1), must be determined in accordance with the law which governed those obligations under the Netherlands conflict rales.
Sagsøgeren havde hævdet, at parterne havde aftalt at lade tysk lov gælde for deres kontraktsforhold.
The plaintiff had argued that the parties had subjected their contractual relations to German law.
Retten fastslog derimod, at de omstændighe­der, sagsøgeren havde anført som grundlag for et lovvalg til fordel for tysk ret, ganske vist var utilstrækkelige.
The court found that the factors mentioned by the plaintiff in support of a choice of German law were insufficient.
Da imidlertid sagsøgeren dels havde påstået tysk ret lagt til grund, og sagsøgte ikke havde fremført indsigelse herimod under formalitetsprocedu­ren, og da der dels af sagens faktiske omstændigheder [som retten indledningsvis havde foretaget en udførlig gennemgang af] ikke kunne udledes nogen overvejende tilknyt­ning hverken til det nederlandske eller til det tyske retsområde, kunne man her tale om et begrænset »efterfølgende lovvalg«, som ganske vist ikke i almindelighed uden videre kunne være afgørende, men som dog var af udslagsgivende betydning for det for værne­tinget afgørende spørgsmål om, hvor opfyldelsesstedet for de forpligtelser, der lå til grund for sagen, var beliggende.
Since, however, on the one hand the plaintiff relied on German law and the defendant had not challenged that in the context of the preliminary issue of jurisdiction, and, on the other hand, the facts of the case (already fully investigated by the court) did not display any predominant con­nexion either with the territory subject to Netherlands law or the territory subject to Ger­man law, it was possible to speak of a limited "subsequent choice of law". Although in general such a choice could not in itself be decisive, none the less it was of crucial impor­tance in resolving the question, on which jurisdiction depended, of where the place of performance of the obligations comprising the subject­matter of the action was situated.
Dette spørgsmål skulle ifølge det tidligere anførte be­svares efter tysk lov. I henhold hertil var — som retten detaljeret gjorde rede for — opfyl­delsesstedet for de omtvistede forpligtelser sagsøgtes hjemsted i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland.
In view of the considerations dealt with above that question had to be answered by refe­rence to German law.
Ifølge neder­landsk ret kunne sagsøgeren ikke anses for sagsøgtes handelsagent. Videre forelå der i det for retten foreliggende tilfælde heller ikke et agentur i den nævnte bestemmelses forstand.
Under the law of the Netherlands the plaintiff could not be regarded as the defendant's agent.
Dette begreb var karakteriseret ved, at virksomheden var underkastet hoved­virksomhedens ledelse og kontrol, hvilket ikke var tilfældet, da sagsøgeren optrådte helt på egen hånd.
One of the essential features of that concept was that the agent should be subject to the supervision and direction of the principal, which was not so in the present case since the plaintiff had acted wholly independently.
Da det nævnte kendetegn også var gældende for begreberne filial og lig­nende virksomhed, kunne rettens kompetence ikke støttes på konventionens artikel 5, nr. 5.
As that was also a feature of the concepts of "branch" and "other establishment", Article 5 (5) could not be relied on in order to establish the jurisdiction of the court before which the matter had been brought.
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — opfyldelsesvæmeting — begrebet »forplig­telse« i artikel 5, nr. 1, — EF­Domstolens fortolkning —fastlæggelse af opfyldelsesstedet — kontraktstatuttet afgørende
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Jurisdiction of the courts for the place of performance — The term "obligation" in Articles (1) — Interpretation by the Court of Justice of the European Communities — Determination of the place of performance — Governed by the proper law of the contract
(fortsat 1) aftalen.
(continued 1)
Sagsøgeren anlagde derpå sag i Luxembourg og påstod dels betaling af et beløb svarende til merværdiafgiften for den første levering, dels skadeserstatning for uretmæs­sig annullation af kontrakten.
After accepting an initial delivery the defendant declared that he no longer wished to fulfil the contract. The plaintiff thereupon commenced proceedings in Luxembourg, claiming (i) an amount in respect of the value­added tax on the first delivery, and (ii) damages for breach of contract.
Sagsøgte rejste under henvisning til domskonventionens artikel 5, nr. 1, indsigelse mod rettens kompetence.
In reliance on Article 5 (1) of the Brussels Convention the defendant objected to the jurisdiction of the court in which the proceedings had been brought.
Retten erklærede sig ved mellem­dom kompetent.
By interlocutory judgment that court decided that it had jurisdiction.
I appelinstansen stadfæstedes afgørelsen.
The appeal against that decision failed.
Cour superieure de justice udtalte, at retten i første instans i henhold til konventionens artikel 5, nr. 1, havde kompetence til at pådømme sagen, da opfyldelsesstedet for den omtvistede forpligtelse lå i Luxembourg.
The Cour Supérieure de Justice held that the court of first instance had jurisdiction to entertain the action under Article 5(1) of the Convention, since the place of performance of the obligation in question was situated in Luxembourg.
Ifølge EF­Domstolens dom af 6. oktober 1976 i sagen De Bloos mod Bouyer [sag 14/76; ovenfor under 1­5.1.1 — A 1] skulle ved »for­pligtelse« i artikel 5, nr. 1, forstås den forpligtelse, der lå til grund for sagen.
According to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 6 October 1976 in Case 14/76 De Bloos ν Bouyer (supra 1­5.1.1 — A 1) "obligation" in Article 5 (1) referred to the obli­gation forming the basis of the legal proceedings.
I den første del af påstanden krævedes der betaling af restkøbesummen for varer, som var leveret i henhold til en købekontrakt.
The first claim was for payment of the balance due in respect of goods delivered under a contract of sale.
Da parterne var enige om, at luxembourgsk lovgivning skulle finde anvendelse på retsforholdet, skulle opfyldelsesstedet for den nævnte kon­traktslige forpligtelse fastlægges efter dette lands lov.
Since the parties were in agreement that Luxembourg law applied to the legal relations in question, the place of performance of the aforesaid contractual obligation had to be determined according to that law.
Ifølge artikel 1651 i [den luxem­bourgiske] code civil havde sagsøgte — da parterne ikke havde aftalt andet — været for­pligtet til at betale varerne på leveringsstedet, dvs. i Luxembourg.
Under Article 1651 of the Code Civil of Luxembourg the defendant was obliged — since the parties had not agreed on anything to the contrary — to pay for the goods at the place of delivery, that was to say, Luxembourg.
Da samme principper var afgørende, for så vidt sagsøgeren herudover krævede ska­deserstatning for uretmæssig annullation — som bestod i, at sagsøgte nægtede at betale den aftalte købesum.
The same principles were applicable to the plaintiffs claim for damages for the breach of contract consisting in the defendant's refusal to pay the agreed purchase price.
I en sag vedrørende følgerne af et kontraktsbrud fra køberens side var den forpligtelse, der var afgørende for anvendelsen af artikel 5, nr. 1, den forpligtelse fra køberens side, på hvis manglende opfyldelse sælgeren støttede sine krav på skadeser­statning eller ophævelse af aftalen.
In a dispute about the consequences of a breach of a connract of sale by a buyer the relevant obligation in the context of Article 5(1) was the buyer's obligation, the alleged non­per­formance of which was put forward by the seller as the basis of his claims for damages or rescission of the contract.
[kompetence i sager om erstatning uden for kontrakt]
[Jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict]
1976, s. 1735 (Forslag til afgørelse fra generaladvokat F. Capotorti, s. 1748)
(Preliminary ruling requested by the Gerechtshof of The Hague) Advocate General: F. Caportiti (p. 1749)