natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
12 Med det første præjudicielle spørgsmål ønskes det fastslået, om konventionens arti kel 27, nr. 2 — under de omstændigheder den forelæggende ret har lagt til grund i hovedsagen — skal fortolkes således, at en afgørelse i en udeblivelsessag ikke må anerkendes, såfremt det indledende processkrift i sagen ikke er blevet for skriftsmæssigt forkyndt for den udeblevne sagsøgte, men dog er blevet forkyndt for denne i så god tid, at han har kunnet varetage sine interesser under sagen.
12 The first question seeks to determine, in the light of the facts established by the national court, whether Article 27(2) of the Convention is to be interpreted as meaning that a judgment given in default of appearance may not be recognized where the document instituting the proceedings was not served on the defendant in due form, even though it was served in sufficient time to enable him to arrange for his defence.
13 Med henblik på besvarelsen af dette spørgsmål skal det først undersøges, om der ifølge bestemmelsen er to selvstændige grunde til at nægte anerkendelse af en uden landsk retsafgørelse.
13 In order to examine that question, it must first be determined whether the article in question lays down two mutually independent grounds for refusing to recognize a foreign judgment.
14 Det bemærkes, at Domstolen i dom af 16. juni 1981, Klomps (sag 166/80, Sml. s. 1593) i) har udtalt, at artikel 27, nr. 2, opstiller to betingelser, hvoraf den ene, der vedrører spørgsmålet, om forkyndelsen er sket forskriftsmæssigt, indebærer en af gørelse på grundlag af domsstatens lovgivning og de konventioner, som denne stat er bundet af med hensyn til forkyndelser og meddelelser, mens den anden betingel- i) Jfr. ovenfor 1-27.2 -Al.
14 The Court observed in its judgment in Case 166/80 Klomps ν Michel [1981] ECR 1593' that Article 27(2) lays down two conditions, the first of which, that service should be duly effected, entails a decision based on the legislation of the State in which judgment was given and on the conventions binding on that State in regard to service, whilst the second, concerning the time necessary to enable the defendant to arrange for his defence, implies appraisals of a factual nature.
For det første kræves der en forskriftsmæssig for­kyndelse af stævningen ...
(continued 3) been duly served ....
For det andet kan [anerkendelse] nægtes selv ved en for­skriftsmæssig [forkyndelse], hvis den ret, for hvilken anerkendelse gøres gældende, fastslår, at stævningen ikke er blevet forkyndt for sagsøgte i god tid, at han har kun­net varetage sine interesser under sagen'.
Secondly, even where service has been duly effected, recogni­tion can be refused if the court in which recognition is sought considers that the document was not served in sufficient time to enable the defendant to arrange for his defence".
18 Det må derfor antages, at forskriftsmæssig forkyndelse og rettidig forkyndelse er to forskellige garantier for den udeblevne sagsøgte, og at begge disse garantier skal være til stede.
18 It must therefore be held that the requirements of due service and service in suffi­cient time constitute two separate and concurrent safeguards for a defendant who fails to appear.
Den omstændighed, at én af de to garantier ikke er til stede, er såle­des tilstrækkelig til, at anerkendelse af en udenlandsk retsafgørelse nægtes.
The absence of one of those safeguards is therefore a sufficient ground for refusal to recognize a foreign judgment.
19 Heroverfor er det gjort gældende, at det ikke er nødvendigt at stille krav om en for­skriftsmæssig forkyndelse, hvis sagsøgte i alt fald har haft tilstrækkelig tid til at for­berede varetagelsen af sine interesser under sagen.
19 The contrary view has been submitted that it is not necessary to insist on proper ser­vice if the defendant has, in any event, had sufficient time to arrange for his defence.
Ifølge denne fortolkning af be­stemmelsen skulle forkyndelsens forskriftsmæssighed kun være et indicium — der kunne modbevises — for at forkyndelsen er foretaget rettidigt, således at en mang­lende overholdelse af den tidsmæssige betingelse skulle være den eneste gyldige grund til at nægte anerkendelse.
According to that interpretation, due service is merely prima facie evidence that service was effected in sufficient time, and failure to comply with the time re­quirement is the only true ground for refusing recognition.
20 Dette kan ikke tiltrædes.
20 That reasoning cannot be accepted.
For det første kan denne fortolkning vanskeligt forenes med konventionsbestemmelsens ordlyd og med den omtalte retspraksis, og for det andet kan den føre til, at kravet om en forskriftsmæssig forkyndelse fuldstændigt mister sit indhold.
First, it is difficult to reconcile that interpreta­tion with the wording of the relevant provision or with the Court's ruling cited above. Secondly, it would render completely inoperative the requirement of due service.
Hvis det eneste, der var afgørende, var, at de sagsøgte fik kend­skab til stævningen i rette tid, ville sagsøgerne være fristet til ikke at benytte de fremgangsmåder, som skal følges, for at forkyndelsen er forskriftsmæssig, og som der i øvrigt stilles væsentligt færre krav til i henhold til de internationale konventio­ner.
If the sole issue were whether the document came to the defendant's atten­tion in sufficient time, plaintiffs would be tempted to ignore the prescribed forms for due service, the requirements of which have in any event been considerably re­laxed by international agreements.
Dette ville give anledning til betydelig usikkerhed med hensyn til, om proces­skrifterne overhovedet er blevet forkyndt, og dermed umuliggøre en ensartet anven­delse af konventionens bestemmelser.
That would create considerable uncertainty as to whether documents had actually been served, thus thwarting the uniform applica­tion of the provisions of the Convention.
Endelig ville sagsøgte ikke med sikkerhed kunne vide, om en sag, der kunne føre til domfældelse, var anlagt forskriftsmæssigt, og om det var nødvendigt, at han forberedte varetagelsen af sine interesser under sagen, og dette ville ligeledes være i strid med konventionens formål.
Finally, a defendant could not know with certainty whether proceedings which might lead to a finding against him had been properly instituted and whether it was therefore necessary to arrange for a defence, a situation which would also be inconsistent with the aims of the Convention.
(fortsat 4)
(continued 4) ing the proceedings was not served on the defendant in due form, even though it was served in sufficient time to enable him to arrange for his defence.
Spørgsmål 2
The second question
24 Det andet spørgsmål, den nationale ret har forelagt, går ud på, om bestemmelsen i konventionens artikel 27, nr. 2, skal fortolkes således, at den giver retten i anerkendelses- eller fuldbyrdelsesstaten adgang til — i henhold til de for retten gældende nationale retsforskrifter — at afhjælpe en mangel ved forkyndelsen.
24 The national court's second question seeks to determine whether Article 27(2) of the Convention is to be interpreted as authorizing the courts of the State in which en­forcement is sought to cure defective service by applying their national law.
25 Indledningsvis bemærkes, at konventionens artikel 27, nr. 2, ikke efter sin ordlyd indeholder nogen regel om, hvorvidt en mangel ved forkyndelsen kan afhjælpes.
25 It must be pointed out first of all that Article 27 (2) of the Convention does not itself contain any rule as to whether defective service may be cured.
26 Spørgsmålet må derfor besvares ud fra de regler, der gælder med hensyn til forkyndelse af udenlandske retsafgørelser.
26 The question must therefore be answered on the basis of the rules applicable to the service of foreign judgments.
27 I den forbindelse bemærkes, at artikel IV, stk. 1, i den protokol af 27. september 1968 (EFT 1978 L 304, s. 28), som er omtalt i konventionens artikel 65, indeholder følgende bestemmelse:
27 The first paragraph of Article IV of the Protocol of 27 September 1968 (Official Journal 1978 L 304, p. 47), to which Article 65 of the Convention refers, provides:
'De inden- og udenretslige dokumenter, der udfærdiges inden for en kontraherende stats område, og som skal meddeles eller forkyndes for personer, der befinder sig inden for en anden kontraherende stats område, skal fremsendes i overensstemmelse med de fremgangsmåder, der er fastsat ved konventioner eller aftaler indgået mellem de kontraherende stater.'
"Judicial and extra­judicial documents drawn up in one Contracting State which have to be served on persons in another Contracting State shall be transmitted in accordance with the procedures laid down in the conventions and agreements con­cluded between the Contracting States."
28 Endvidere bemærkes, at Domstolen i dom af 15. juli 1982, Pendy Plastic (sag 228/81, Sml. s. 2723)2), har udtalt, at Bruxelleskonventionens bestemmelser uden at harmonisere medlemsstaternes forskellige ordninger vedrørende forkyndelse af retslige dokumenter i udlandet skal sikre en effektiv beskyttelse af sagsøgtes rettig- i) Jfr. ovenfor 1-27.2 - A 3.
28 In its judgment in Case 228/81 Pendy Plastic Products ν Pluspunkt [1982] ECR 2723,' the Court held that, although they do not seek to harmonize the different sys­tems of service abroad of legal documents which are in force in the Member States, the provisions of the Brussels Convention are designed to ensure that the defend­ant's rights are effectively protected.
Artikel 27, nr. 2, i konventionen af 27. september 1968 om retternes kompetence og om fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser i borgerlige sager, herunder handelssager, skal fortolkes således, at en afgørelse i en udeblivelsessag ikke må anerkendes, såfremt det indledende processkrift i sagen ikke er blevet forskriftsmæssigt for kyndt for den udeblevne sagsøgte, men dog er blevet forkyndt for ham i så god tid, at han har kunnet varetage sine interesser under sagen.
Article 27(2) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters is to be interpreted as meaning that a judgment given in default of appearance may not be recognized where the document instituting the proceedings was not served on the de fendant in due form, even though it was served in sufficient time to enable him to arrange for his defence.
Konventionens artikel 27, nr. 2, skal fortolkes således, at spørgsmålet om en eventuel afhjælpning af mangler ved forkyndelsen skal afgøres efter den lov, der gælder for retten i domsstaten, herunder i givet fald internationale konventioner på området.«
Article 27(2) of the Convention is to be interpreted as meaning that questions concerning the curing of defective service are governed by the law of the State in which judgment was given, including any relevant international agreements.'
52; kommentar af Stade i NJW 1993, 184).
52; Note: Stade, NJW 1993, 184).
Bundesgerichtshof anførte først — som den al lerede havde gjort i forelæggelseskendelsen — at Oberlandesgericht efter en korrekt retsanvendelse havde fundet, at forkyndelsen ikke var forskriftsmæssig.
As previously stated in its order of reference, the Bundesgerichtshof held that the Oberlandesgericht had been correct in law to rule that the service had been defective.
Spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt rekvisitus alligevel havde kunnet varetage sine interesser, var ikke længe re af betydning, fordi det fremgik af Domstolens afgørelse, at begge de i konventionens artikel 27, nr. 2, nævnte betingelser skulle være opfyldt, for at en udeblivelsesdom kun ne anerkendes.
In view of the decision of the Court of Justice, the question whether the defendant could none the less have arranged its defence became irrelevant since ac cording to that decision each of the two conditions mentioned in Article 27(2) had to be satisfied before a judgment in default could be recognized.
(fortsat 6) fransk lov, herunder i givet fald internationale konventioner på området.
As the Court of Justice also decided, the question concerning the curing of defective service was governed by the law of the State in which judgment was given (that was to say, French law), including any relevant international agreements.
Mellem For bundsrepublikken Tyskland og Frankrig gjaldt for så vidt Haag-konventionen af 15. november 1965 om forkyndelse og overenskomsten af 6. maj 1961 om yderligere forenkling af retssamkvemmet.
In that regard, the Hague Convention on service of 15 November 1965 and the Agreement of 6 May on the further simplification of legal relations both applied as between the Federal Republic of Germany and France.
Efter reglerne i disse to folkeretlige overenskomster vil le en afhjælpning af den her foreliggende forkyndelsesmangel efter fransk ret være udelukket, fordi der ikke var adgang hertil efter de to overenskomster.
According to the rules contained in those two international law agreements, it would not have been possible under French law to cure the defect in service in this case as such a possibility was not provided for under either agreement.
Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland havde modsat sig adgangen til at sende retslige dokumenter direkte med posten til personer i udlandet (artikel 10 i Haagerkonventionen om forkyndelse), og derfor hedder det i § 6, andet punktum, i gennemførelsesloven til denne konvention: »Forkyndelse efter konventionens artikel 10 kan ikke finde sted«.
The possibility of sending judicial documents from the State of origin through the post to persons in another State (Article 10 of the Hague Convention) was rejected by the Federal Republic of Germany, which explained why Paragraph 6(2) of the Law implementing that Convention provided that 'No service may be effected pursuant to Article 10 of the Convention'.
Følgelig kunne forkyndelsesmanglen heller ikke have været afhjulpet ad denne vej.
Accordingly, the defect could not be cured in that way either.
(Jfr. også 27.1 ­ B 2, 3, 4, 6, 15; 1­27.3 ­ B 1)
(See also 1­27.1 ­ Β 2, 3, 4, 6, 15; 1­27.3 ­ Β 1)
Anerkendelse og fuldbyrdelse — grunde til nægtelse heraf — udeblivelsesdom — rettidig forkyndelse af det indledende processkrift i sagen — meddelelse om udmeldelse af sagkyn­dig samt om afholdelse af syns­ og skønsforretning to dage før den herfor berammede dato — ikke rettidig i artikel 27, nr. 2's forstand
Recognition and enforcement — Grounds for refusal — Judgment in default — Service in sufficient time of the document which instituted the proceedings — Notice of the appoint­ment of an expert and of a site inspection two days before it was due to take place — In­sufficient time within the meaning of Article 27(2)
Den i Nederlandene bosatte sagsøgte var ved udeblivelsesdom, afsagt af fredsdomme­ren i Mol (Belgien), blevet pålagt at betale erstatning for skade, som vilde kaniner hav­de forvoldt på sagsøgerens jagtterræn.
By a judgment given in default by the Vrederechter in Mol (Belgium) the defendant, who was resident in the Netherlands, was ordered to pay compensation for damage caused by wild rabbits in the plaintiffs hunting­grounds.
Sagen, der førte til denne domfældelse, var — på grundlag af den belgiske jagtlov — startet på den måde, at dommeren på sagsøge­rens anmodning ved kendelse af 7. august 1973 havde udmeldt en sagkyndig og beram­met syns­ og skønsforretningen til den 10. august 1973.
In accordance with Belgian hunting law, the proceedings leading to this judgment were set in motion on 7 August 1973 when, on the plaintiffs application, the Vrederechter ordered the appointment of an expert and a site inspection which was to take place on 10 August 1973.
Denne kendelse bekendtgjorde stævningsmanden for sagsøgte ved anbefalet brev af 8. august 1973 samt ved telegram afsendt samme dag.
The clerk of the court gave the defendant notice of this order by means of a registered letter of 8 August 1973 and a telegram of the same date.
Under forretningen var sagsøgte ikke til stede. Udeblivelsesdom­men blev afsagt den 6. november 1973, og efter anmodning blev den gjort eksigibel i Nederlandene.
The defendant was not present at the site inspection.
Sagsøgte appellerede afgørelsen om at meddele fuldbyrdelsespåtegning og fik medhold.
The defend­ant's appeal against the issue of the order for enforcement was successful.
Arrondissementsrechtbank anførte, at det indledende processkrift i sagen ikke var ble­vet forkyndt for sagsøgte i så god tid, at han havde kunnet varetage sine interesser un­der sagen, hvorfor det var udelukket at fuldbyrde udeblivelsesdommen efter domskon­ventionen, jfr. dennes artikel 34, stk. 2, og artikel 27, nr. 2.
In the view of the Arrondissementsrechtbank, the document which instituted the pro­ceedings was not served on the defendant in sufficient time for him to be able to ar­range for his defence and consequently enforcement of the judgment given in default was excluded by the second paragraph of Article 34 and Article 27(2) of the Brussels Convention.
Enten stævningsmandens anbefalede brev til sagsøgte af 8. august 1973 eller telegrammet af samme dato måtte antages at udgøre sagens indledende processkrift.
Either the registered letter sent to the defendant by the clerk of court on 8 August 1973 or the telegram of the same date had to be treated as the document which instituted the proceedings.
Dette fulgte af, at sagens tyngde­punkt måtte antages at være syns­ og skønsforretningen.
This was because the proceedings turned on the site inspec­tion.
I henhold til artikel 7a, stk. 3, i den belgiske jagtlov — på hvilken retssagen beroede — skulle parterne fremføre samtli­ge søgsmålsgrunde og indsigelser senest under syns­ og skønsforretningen.
Under the third paragraph of Article Ibis of the Belgian hunting law on which the proceedings were based, the parties were bound to present their, whole claims and defences no later than the time of the site inspection.
Bortset fra, at sagsøgte først modtog det anbefalede brev i september 1973, var fristen mellem tele­grammets afsendelse den 8. august og syns­ og skønsforretningen den 10. august 1973 for kort til, at sagsøgte havde kunnet varetage sine interesser på forskriftsmæssig vis.
Apart from the fact that the de­fendant received the registered letter only in September 1973, the period between the dispatch of the telegram on 8 August and the site inspection on 10 August 1973 was too short for a proper defence.
(fortsat I)
1968 ­ ARTICLE 27(2)
— bevis for forskriftsmæssig og rettidig forkyndelse eller meddelelse (artikel 27, nr. 2) — ikke påkrævet ved fuldbyrdelsespåtegning på et arrestdekret
Recognition and enforcement — Enforceable judgment — 'Arrestbefehl' [Order for attachment in security of a claim] — Judgment within the meaning of the Convention (Art. 25) — Reasons for refusing recognition which prevent the issue of an order for en­forcement — Proof of due service in sufficient time (Art. 27(2)) — Not necessary in the case of an order for the enforcement of an 'Arrestbefehl'
Anmodningen blev ef­terkommet.
The application was granted.
Landgericht efterprøvede og svarede bekræftende på spørgsmålet, om også arrest — der var en »retsafgørelse« i konventionens artikel 25's forstand — faldt ind under kon­ventionens anvendelsesområde.
The Landgericht considered first the question whether an 'Arrestbefehl' [order for the attachment of property in security of a claim pendente lite], which was said to be a judg­ment within the meaning of Article 25 of the Convention, fell within the scope of the Convention and held that it did. That was a result of Article 1 of the Convention, and also, indirectly, of Articles 34 and 35 of the German Ausführungsgesetz zu dem Über­einkommen [law implementing the Convention] of 29 July 1972 (Bundesgesetzblatt 1972 I 1328).
Disse bestemmelser indeholdt særlige forskrifter for retsafgørelser fra tyske retter og omfattede blandt andet også arrestdekreter.
Those articles contained particular provisions for judgments of German courts and related inter alia to 'Arrestbefehle'.
Da afgørelsen fra den belgiske ret var blevet truffet, uden at den belgiske virksomhed var blevet hørt, undersøgte Landgericht endvidere, om fuldbyrdelsespåtegning kunne meddeles uanset hindringen for anerkendelse i konventionens artikel 27, nr. 2 (jfr. arti­kel 34, stk. 2).
As the order of the Belgian court had been issued without the Belgian respondent hav­ing been heard, the Landgericht Hamburg considered further whether the ground for refusing recognition contained in Article 27(2) of the Convention prevented the issue of an order for enforcement (see the second paragraph of Article 34).
Retten kom til det resultat, at denne bestemmelse — hvorefter en retsaf­gørelse ikke kan anerkendes, såfremt det indledende processkrift i sagen ikke for­skriftsmæssigt er blevet forkyndt eller meddelt den udeblevne sagsøgte i så god tid, at han har kunnet varetage sine interesser under sagen — ikke kunne anvendes i det fore­liggende tilfælde »på grund af arrestprocedurens natur«.
It came to the conclusion that that provision — whereby a judgment given in default of appearance shall not be recognized if the defendant was not duly served with the document which instituted the proceedings in sufficient time to enable him to arrange for his defence — could not be applied in the present case 'because of the nature of the procedure for ob­taining an "Arrestbefehl" '.
Anerkendelse og fuldbyrdelse — grunde til nægtelse heraf — udeblivelsesdom — for­skriftsmæssig og rettidig forkyndelse eller meddelelse af det indledende processkrift i sa­gen — prøvelse af rettidigheden ved den ret, der tager stilling til anerkendelsen eller fuld­byrdelsen — kriterium for prøvelsen — de faktiske omstændigheder i det konkrete tilfælde — uden hensyn til domsstatens procesret
Recognition and enforcement — Grounds for refusal — Judgment in default — Due ser­vice in sufficient time of the document which instituted the proceedings — Examination by the court in which recognition and enforcement is sought of the sufficiency of the time
(fortsat 1) kunne ske, når sagsøgte, der ikke havde givet møde under sagen, ikke havde fået for­kyndt det indledende processkrift i sagen på forskriftsmæssig vis og i så god tid, at han havde kunnet varetage sine interesser under sagen.
By virtue of the second paragraph of Article 34 and Article 27(2) of the Conven­tion a judgment in default of appearance could not be enforced if the defendant was not duly served with the document which instituted the proceedings in sufficient time to enable him to arrange for his defence.
Hvor vidt kravet om forskrifts­mæssig forkyndelse eller meddelelse var opfyldt, måtte afgøres efter artikel IV i den til konventionen knyttede protokol af 27. september 1968, der bestemmer, at inden­ og udenretslige dokumenter, der udfærdiges inden for en kontraherende stats område, og som skal meddeles eller forkyndes for personer, der befinder sig inden for en anden kontraherende stats område, skal fremsendes i overensstemmelse med de fremgangs­måder, der er fastsat ved konventioner eller aftaler indgået mellem de kontraherende stater.
Due service was governed by Article IV of the Protocol to the Convention of 27 September 1968 which provided that judicial and extrajudicial documents drawn up in one Contracting State which had to be served on persons in another Contracting State should be transmitted in accordance with the procedures laid down in the conventions and agreements concluded between the Con­tracting States.
Den i den foreliggende sag valgte form for forkyndelse opfyldte imidlertid hver­ken kravene i den gamle tysk­italienske konvention af 9. marts 1936 om anerkendelse og fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser i civile og kommercielle sager, som i mellemtiden var blevet afløst af domskonventionen, eller i Haag­civilproceskonventionen af 1. marts 1954.
The method of service chosen in the present case satisfied neither the Convention of 9 March 1936 between Germany and Italy on the recognition and en­forcement of judgments in civil or commercial matters, which had since been replaced by the Brussels Convention, nor the Hague Convention on civil procedure of 1 March 1954.