natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ifølge Oberlandesgericht er formkravene i artikel 17 i tilfælde af en mundtligt indgået aftale, hvor også værnetingsaftalen er indgået mundtligt, efter denne afgørelse kun opfyldt, såfremt sælgers skriftlige bekræftelse bilagt hans almindelige for­retningsbetingelser skriftligt er accepteret af køber.
The Oberlandesgericht held first of all that the validity of the agreement on jurisdictioi fell to be determined under Article 17 of the Convention alone.
I den foreliggende sag var bestil­lingsformularen ganske vist »skriftligt« udfyldt af sagsøgeren, men ikke underskrevet ; den opfyldte følgelig ikke betingelserne for en undertegnelse i Bürgerliches Gesetz­buchs § 126, stk. 1. Det kunne altså ikke udledes af dokumentet, at parterne udtrykke­ligt var blevet enige om væmetingsspørgsmålet.
It was true that unde Paragraph 38(1) of the German Code of Civil Procedure, in the version applicable sino 1 April 1974, agreements on jurisdiction between merchants / Vollkaufleute] were no subject to formal requirements.
Imidlertid forelå der netop ikke en underskrevet bekræftelse fra sagsøgeren, over for hvem klausulen i den foreliggende sag blev gjort gældende.
Furthermore, the signature of the order form by th defendant could not be regarded as a valid written confirmation of an oral agreemen on jurisdiction — assuming that there was in fact such an oral agreement.
§ 126, stk. 1 og 2, i Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch lyder således:
It was tru that in its judgments of 14 December 1976 (supra. I­1 7.1.2 — A 1.
»(1) Såfremt loven foreskriver skriftlighed, skal dokumentet egenhændigt underteg­nes af udstederen med navn eller med et tegn, der er bekræftet af notaren.
2) the Court of Justic of the European Communities had somewhat tempered the strict formal requirement
Jfr. også 1­17.1.1 — B 17 vedrørende forholdet mellem konventionens artikel 17 og § 38 i den tyske Zivilprozessordnung.
Where a contract is drawn up in more than one copy it is suffi­cient that each party signs the copy intended for the other." n the relationship between Article 17 of the Convention and Paragraph 38 of the Ger­ian Code of Civil Procedure, see also I-17.1.1 — B 17.
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — væmetingsklausul i almindelige forretningsbetin­gelser i bilagene til en skriftlig kontrakt — udtrykkelig henvisning i selve kontrakten — gyl­dig i henhold til artikel 17
Brussels. idgment of 3 March 1981, A Imprimerie­Héliogravure Van Cortenbergh \ SA Dai gaud Editeur urisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Jurisdiction clause contained in general eon­itions of business attached to a written contract — Express reference in lhe contract itself ­ Held valid under Anide I 7
Trykkeriets »Conditions généra­les de vente« var trykt på bagsiden af tre af de fire bilag til kontrakten, og disse alminde­lige salgsbetingelser indeholdt en væmetingsklausul, hvorefter retterne i Bruxelles skulle have kompetence til at træffe afgørelse i tvister mellem parterne.
On the reverse side of ree of the four documents appended to the contract were printed the printer's "Condi­ans générales de vente", which included a clause conferring jurisdiction to hear any sputes between the parties on the courts of Brussels.
1968 ­ ARTIKEL 17, STK. I
1968 - ARTIC LE 17 (I)
(fortsat 1)
(continued 1 )
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — almindelige forretningsbetingelser — lø­bende forretningsforhold mellem parterne
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — General conditions of business — Con­tinuing business relationship between lhe parlies
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — retsvirkninger — forrang for værnetinget i sager om tredjemands opfyldelse af forpligtelser (artikel 6, nr. 2) — betingelser
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Effects — Precedence over jurisdiction of court hearing proceedings in which a claim in guarantee is raised (Ari. 6 (2)) — Con­ditions
Ringene var leveret til van Londen BV af producenten Technomet, der havde hjemsted i Belgien.
Van Londen BV was sued before the Rechtbank, Arnhem, for defects in cast iron rings supplied by it to another Dutch firm.
Van Londen BV anmodede derfor Rechtbank om tilladelse til at adcitere Technomet.
It had bought the rings from their manufacturer, Technomet, whose seat was in Belgium, and it therefore applied to the Rechtbank for leave to bring third-party proceedings against Technomet.
Efter at Rechtbank havde imødekommet denne anmodning, an­førte det belgiske firma først og fremmest, at det ikke var Rechtbank Arnhem, men ret­ten på Technomet's hjemsted, Dendermonde, der var kompetent.
The Rechtbank granted the application; in its defence to that claim Technomet argued first of all that the court for its seat, situated in Dendermonde, had exclusive jurisdiction.
Technomet påberåbte sig i denne forbindelse en bestemmelse i sine almindelige forretningsbetingelser, hvoref­ter Rechtbank Dendermonde også var kompetent til at træffe afgørelse i regressøgsmål, der måtte blive anlagt mod Technomet.
It referred in that regard to a provision of its general conditions of business conferring jurisdiction on the Recht­bank, Dendermonde, which applied also to claims in third-party proceedings.
Den ordrebekræftelse vedrørende den omtvi­stede leverance, som Technomet havde tilsendt van Londen BV, indeholdt følgende trykte formulering: »Alle vore leverancer sker i henhold til de europæiske støberiers al­mindelige forretningsbetingelser, som De er i besiddelse af.«
Technomet's confirmation of van Londen's order contained the following printed statement:
STK. I
(continued I)
1­17.1.2 ­ Β 24 fortsat 1) hvert fald efter — tilsendelsen af ordrebekræftelsen, som Londen BV ikke havde gjort indsigelse mod.
"Goods are supplied in accordance with the general conditions of business of the Euro­pean foundries, which are in yourpossession."
Herefter undersøgte Rechtbank, om Technomet var berettiget til at påberåbe sig værne­tingsklausulen i de almindelige forretningsbetingelser.
With regard to the general conditions of business of the European foundries, on which Technomet re­lied, the Rechtbank held that they were in general use in the industry, and that in several previous transactions between the parties a confirmation of van Londen's order in the terms referred to above had been sent.
På den ene side var Rechtbank i princippet kompetent til at træffe afgørelse vedrørende regresspørgsmålet i henhold til konventionens artikel 6, nr. 2, da den var kompetent til at træffe afgørelse i hovedsagen.
On the one hand, in principle the Rechtbank had jurisdiction to hear the third-party claim under Article 6 (2) of the Con­vention since it was the court seised of the original proceedings.
På den anden side opstod spørgsmålet, om værnetingsklausulen kunne anses for en af­tale om valg af værneting, der opfyldte betingelserne i konventionens artikel 17, også når hensås til, hvordan det var gået til, at den fandt anvendelse på den pågældende kon­trakt.
On the other hand, the question arose whether the jurisdiction clause, having regard to the way in which it be­came applicable to the contract in question, should be regarded as a valid choice of fo­rum in accordance with Article 17 of the Convention.
Dette spørgsmål måtte besvares bekræftende på grund af de forskellige af Techno­met fremlagte ordrebekræftelser vedrørende kontrakter, der tidligere var indgået med van Londen BV.
In view of the documentary evi­dence put forward by Technomet. namely confirmations of orders in previous transac­tions with van Londen, that question must be answered in the affirmative.
Da det fremgik af disse, at den omtvistede forretning ikke havde været noget isoleret tilfælde, men en del af det løbende forretningsforhold mellem parterne, hvorunder Technomet (næsten) altid havde bekræftet van Londen BV's ordre med oven­nævnte henvisning til sine almindelige forretningsbetingelser, uden at sidstnævnte nogen sinde havde gjort indsigelse herimod, var betingelserne i artikel 17 opfyldt på bag­grund af Domstolens praksis, navnlig dommen af 14. december 1976 i sag 25/76 (jfr. ovenfor 1­17.1.2­A 2).
It appeared from that evidence that the transaction in question was not an isolated one but formed part of a continuous business relationship between the parties, in which Technomet had virtually always referred, in its confirmation of van Londen's orders, to its general condi­tions of business, and van Londen had never objected: having regard to the judgments of the Court of Justice, in particular its judgment of 14 December 1976 in Case 25/76 (supra. 1-17.1.2 — A 2), the requirements of Article 17 were fulfilled.
Rechtbank erklærede sig inkompetent til at træffe afgørelse vedrørende regresspørgs­målet.
The Rechtbank held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the third-party claim.
(fortsat 2) tente i henhold til domskonventionens artikel 2.
(continued 2) of defects and the consequent rights of the defendant.
I øvrigt kunne sagsøgte selv i tilfælde af, at der var indgået en gyldig værnetingsaftale, ikke påberåbe sig, at tyske retter savnede kompeten­ce, da den trufne aftale i dette tilfælde kun var indgået til fordel for sagsøgeren, således at denne i henhold til konventionens artikel 17, stk. 3, bevarede retten til at anlægge sag ved enhver anden ret, der var kompetent i medfør af konventionen.
Moreover, even if" there were a valid jurisdiction agreement the defendant could not ob­ject to the jurisdiction of the German courts, since in this case the special stipulation was for the benefit of the plaintiff alone, with the result that under the third paragraph of Article 17 of the Convention the plaintiff retained the right to bring proceedings in any other court which had jurisdiction by virtue of the Convention.
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — retsvirkninger — den aftale rets enekompe­tence — betingelser
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Effects — Exclusive jurisdiction of the court on which jurisdiction is conferred — Conditions
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — aftalen kun indgået til fordel for en af par­terne — begreb
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Agreement concluded for the benefit of only one of the parties — Meaning of phrase
Sagsøgeren drev i Italien en fabrik, der fremstillede forretnings­ og restaurationsinven­tar.
The plaintiff was a manufacturer of shop and restaurant furniture established in Italy.
Sagsøgte arbejdede i samme branche som forhandler i Forbundsrepublikken Tysk­land.
The defendant carried on business in Germany as a dealer in such equipment.
Han opholdt sig privat og i forretningsøjemed meget hyppigt i Italien, hvor hans familie boede.
He stayed frequently in Italy for private and business reasons, and his family resided there.
Sagsøgeren gjorde under sagen krav på betaling af den resterende del af købesummen for leverede varer.
The plaintiff brought proceedings for the payment of the remainder of the purchase price of goods supplied.
De forskellige af parterne indgåede kontrakter inde­holdt alle klausulen: »Per qualsiasi contestazione l'unico Foro competente è quello di Bergamo« (Bergamo skal være eneste værneting i alle tvister«).
The various contracts entered into by the parties contained the following clause: "The courts of Bergamo shall have sole jurisdiction to hear any dispute what­soever".
Oberlandesgericht anførte, at parterne under deres forretningsforhold altid havde ind­gået værnetingsaftaler med samme ordlyd, som opfyldte betingelserne i konventionens artikel 17, stk. 1.
The plaintiff considered that despite that clause its action before the Landge­richt München was admissible under the third paragraph of Article 17.
Ved en gyldig værnetingsaftale er der i henhold til artikel 17, stk. 1, for­modning for enekompetence; denne formodning kan ganske vist gendrives, da det efter kontraktfrihedens grundsætning står parterne frit for, også blot at aftale et værneting som supplerende værneting.
The Landgericht dismissed the action as inadmissible on the basis of the jurisdiction clause.
I det foreliggende tilfælde blev den formodning, der talte for, at den italienske ret i Bergamo var enekompetent, ikke gendrevet.
An appeal by the plaintiff against that judgment was unsuccessful.
1968 ­ ARTIKEL 17, STK.
1968 - ARTICLE 17 (3)
Sagsøgeren kunne heller ikke anlægge sag mod sagsøgte ved en tysk ret via konventio­nens artikel 17, stk. 3, i forbindelse med artikel 2.
The Oberlandesgericht held that in the course of their business relationship the parties had agreed to a number of identically worded jurisdiction clauses which complied with the requirements of the first paragraph of Article 17 of the Convention.
Den mellem parterne indgåede værne­tingsaftale var ikke kun indgået til fordel for sagsøgeren. Den bestemte tværtimod, at Bergamo var eneste værneting »i alle tvister«, altså også, når dette var til fordel for sag­søgte.
In this case the presumption that exclusive jurisdiction was conferred on the courts of Bergamo was not rebutted.
Dette ville som regel være tilfældet, eftersom sagsøgte ikke blot selv var udlæn­ding, men også havde stadig kontakt med sit hjemland Italien, både privat, idet han havde sin familie dér, og som led i sit erhverv.
The exclusive jurisdiction under that clause therefore applied not only to any claims for set-off which might be brought by the defendant but also to any objections which the plaintiff might expect to encounter in his action for the performance of the contract.
I afgørelser truffet af de øverste tyske dom­stole er det anerkendt, at det, der er afgørende for den sagsøgte part i et sådant tilfælde, er, at det ikke er en tysk ret, men retten på vedkommendes hjemsted, der træffer afgø­relse i sagen.
Nor could the plaintiff bring proceedings against the defendant before a German court on the basis of the third paragraph of Article 17 together with Article 2 of the Conven­tion.
Denne interesse tilgodeses ikke fuldt ud ved, at sagen behandles af en ret, som er mere fordelagtigt beliggende for sagsøgte.
The jurisdiction agreement was not concluded for the benefit of the plaintiff alone.
Den sagsøgte har den naturlige interes­se, som enhver statsborger har i at retten på hans hjemsted træffer afgørelsen, og at rets­sager mod ham behandles i hjemstaten, og ikke i en fremmed stat.
The clause in question stated that the courts of Bergamo had jurisdiction to hear "any dispute whatsoever", that is, even where its effect was to benefit the defendant.
Hertil kommer, at den internationale kompetence også er afgørende for, hvilke procesretlige regler sagen skal behandles efter.
That was in general true where, as in this case, the defendant was not only a foreigner himself but also had family and business connections with his country of origin, Italy.
Endvidere afhænger det ikke så sjældent også af den internationale kompetence, hvilken materiel ret sagen skal afgøres efter.
The highest courts in Germany had recognized that in such a case it was important for the defendant that the case should be decided not by a German court but by a court in his country of origin.
Hvis det statueres, at de tyske retter har international kompetence, er det tysk international privatret, der bestemmer, efter hvilken materiel ret det omtvistede retsforhold skal bedømmes; hvis det imidlertid statueres, at de tyske retter ikke har international kompetence, og sagen derfor anlægges ved en udenlandsk ret, afgør denne efter sit lands internationale privatret, hvilken ret der skal anvendes.
The interest ofthat for the defendant did not lie merely in the fact that the pro­ceedings were heard by a court more conveniently situated for him.
Følgelig kan realitetsafgørelsen i sagen foregribes via den internatio­nale kompetence.
The adjudication of the case by a court in his country of origin corresponded to the natural interest of every citizen in having his legal affairs dealt with by his own State and not by another.
Hvis sagsøgte i den foreliggende sag skulle have accepteret en interna­tional kompetence, der afveg fra værnetingsaftalens ordlyd, burde aftalen have været af­fattet bredere.
It was al­so relevant that the choice of forum also determined the procedural law under which the case would be tried.
Enten skulle det udtrykkeligt være fremgået af den, at den kun var blevet indgået »til fordel for sagsøgeren«, eller den skulle have været affattet således, at leve­randøren selv kun kunne sagsøges i Italien, mens han på sin side også måtte sagsøge modtageren i Tyskland.
Furthermore, the decision on which law was applicable to the sub­stance of the case often depended on which court was held to have jurisdiction.
I en dom af 22. november 1983, sag 22 U 4/83 (RIW/AWD — Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft 1985, s. 71) udtalte Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main, at en aftale indgået mellem en italiensk virksomhed og et selskab med hjemsted i Forbundsrepublikken, hvorefter en italiensk ret skulle have kompetence til at afgøre »alle tvister«, der fulgte af kontraktsforholdet, medførte, at denne ret havde enekompetence.
If the German courts were held to have jurisdiction, the question οΓ which substantive law was to govern the legal relationship in question must be determined under German private international law; if however it were held that the German courts did not have jurisdic­tion and a foreign court therefore had jurisdiction, that court would determine the appli­cable law in accordance with its own rules of private international law.
Der forelå ikke en aftale, der kun var til fordel for en af parterne, jfr. konventionens artikel 17, stk. 3. Det kunne ikke fastslås, at værnetingsaftalen objektivt kun var til fordel for sagsøgeren, og der var heller ikke i aftalens ordlyd konkrete holdepunkter for at antage, at dette var par­ternes vilje.
The actual out­come of the case could therefore depend on the question of jurisdiction.
Tværtimod tydede alle omstændigheder i sagen — også sagsøgte havde gode forbindelser i Italien, og dennes direktør beherskede ikke fuldt ud tysk — på, at klausulen objektivt også var i sagsøgtes interesse, selv om den var optaget i kontrakten på sagsøgerens foranledning.
Either it should have been made clear on the face of it that it was concluded "for the benefit of the plaintiff only" or it should have been so worded that the supplier himself could be sued only in Italy but he could sue the purchaser also in Germany.
Udsendelse 3/december i 985
3 December 1985
(fortsat 2) klausul, der var indeholdt i den italienske sagsøgers salgsbetingelser, hvorefter opfyl­delsesstedet og værnetinget skulle være på leverandørens hjemsted, kun var til fordel for sagsøgeren.
The circumstances of the case (the de­fendant also had close links with Italy and its director, acting for it, did not have a per­fect command of the German language) were such that, although the clause had been in­serted in the contract at the instigation of the plaintiff, it was objectively in the interest of the defendant as well.
Det stod derfor ifølge konventionens artikel 17, stk. 3, denne frit for at sag­søge den tyske sagsøgte ved retten på det sted, hvor denne havde bopæl. Landgericht Giessen kom til samme resultat i en lignende sag i en dom af 10. december 1982, sag 8 O 57/82 (jfr. IPRax — Praxis des Internationalen Privat­ und Verfahrensrechts 1984, s. 160).
It was therefore free under the third paragraph of Article 17 of the Convention to sue the Ger­man defendant before the court for the place where it had its seat.
(Jfr. også 1-1.2 - A 4; 1-17.1.2 - A 3)
A 4; 1-17.1.2 - A 3)
118 — A 1 Dom af 24. juni 1981 '), sag 150/80, Elefanten Schuh GmbH mod Jacqmain (anmodning om præjudiciel afgørelse indgivet af den belgiske Hof van Cassatie), Sml.
118 — A 1 Judgment of 24 June 1981,' Case 150/80, Elefanten Schuh GmbH v Jacqmain [1981] ECR 1671 (Preliminary ruling requested by the Hofvan Cassatie, Belgium) Advocate General: Sir Gordon Slynn (p. 1690)
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — sagsøgtes møde for den ret, som sagen er indbragt for — værnetingsaftale til fordel for en anden ret — retsvirkninger
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Entry of appearance by the defendant — Agreement conferring jurisdiction on another court — Effect
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — sagsøgtes møde for den ret, som sagen er indbragt for — bestridelse af kompetencen og realitetsindsigelser — retsvirkninger
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Entry of appearance by the defendant — Objection to jurisdiction and defence on the substance — Effects
Indbyrdes sammenhængende krav — reglerne i artikel22 — betingelser — indbyrdes sammenhængende krav indbragt for retter i flere kontraherende stater — retsvirkninger — ingen kompetence i en sag, som er sammenhængende med en verserende sag
Related actions — Provisions of Article 22 — Conditions — Related actions brought in lhe courts of different Contracting States — Effects — No jurisdiction in an action which is related to an action pending
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — værnetingsaftaler — formkrav — konven tionens regler er udtømmende — en kontraherende stats fastsættelse af andre formkrav — regler om det sprog, der skal anvendes — ikke tilladt
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Jurisdiction agreements — Formal re quirements — Definitive rules of ihe Convention — Other formal requirements laid down by a Contracting State — Provisions on the language to be used — Not permissible
Den belgiske Hof van Cassatie forelagde Domstolen en række spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af konventionens artikler 17,18 og 22, som var rejst i anledning af en kassationsanke af en dom afsagt af Arbeidshof, Antwerpen.
The Hofvan Cassatie, Belgium, referred several questions to the Court of Justice on the interpretation of Articles 17, 18 and 22 of the Brussels Convention.
Ved dommen var det tyske sel skab Elefanten Schuh GmbH og det belgiske selskab NV Elefant blevet dømt til in soli dum at betale 3 120 597 BFR med renter til Pierre Jacqmain, bl.a. for at have afskediget ham uden varsel.
Those questions had arisen in the context of an appeal against a judgment of the Arbeidshof, Antwerp, order ing Elefanten Schuh GmbH, a company incorporated under the laws of Germany, and Elefant NV, a company incorporated under the laws of Belgium, to pay Mr Pierre Jacqmain damages of BFR 3 120 597, plus interest, for the termination of his contract of employment without notice.
Pierre Jacqmain var i 1970 blevet ansat som handelsagent af det tyske selskab Gustav Hoffmann GmbH, nu Elefanten Schuh GmbH; han arbejdede efter de instrukser, han fik af virksomhedens belgiske datterselskab, NV Elefant, i bestemte belgiske provinser.
In 1970 Mr Jacqmain had been employed as a sales agent by the German company Gustav Hoffmann GmbH, which subsequently adopted the name "Elefanten Schuh GmbH"; he performed his duties in various Belgian provinces in accordance with the instructions ofthat company's Belgian subsidiary. Elefant NV.
Da Pierre Jacqmain anlagde sag mod de to selskaber ved Arbeidsrechtbank, Antwerpen, mødte de sagsøgte for denne ret og rejste først realitetsindsigelse mod de krav, der var fremsat mod dem.
MrJacqmain brought an action in the Arbeidsrechtbank, Antwerp, against the two companies. The defendant companies appeared before that court and by their first sub missions they contested the substance of the applications lodged against them.
I sit andet indlæg, som blev indleveret ni måneder senere, påberåbte det tyske selskab sig rettens inkompetence med den begrundelse, at ansættelseskontrakten indeholdt en bestemmelse, hvorefter retten i Kleve, Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland, var enekompetent til at pådømme enhver tvist vedrørende denne kontrakt.
In further submissions lodged nine months later the German company claimed that the Ar beidsrechtbank did not have jurisdiction on the ground that the contract of employment contained a clause stipulating that the court at Kleve in the Federal Republic of Ger many was to have exclusive jurisdiction in the event of any dispute.