natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Det var ligeså utvivlsomt, at de to krav havde samme genstand og hvilede på samme grundlag, da den ene sag drejede sig om betaling af købesummen, og den anden sag drejede sig om forholdsmæssigt afslag i købesummen på grund af angi­velige mangler. De to krav måtte pådømmes samlet.
Article 21 of the Brussels Convention pro­vided that the court first seised should have jurisdiction over disputes involving the same cause of action, with the result that in the present case the jurisdiction of the Tribu­nale di Milano over the action for a reduction in the purchase price was not in doubt.
Sagsøgtes almindelige forretningsbetingelser var optrykt på bagsiden af fakturaerne, og det var ubestridt, at de ikke var underskrevet.
According to Italian law an "agreement in writing or an oral agreement evidenced in writing" required the signature of the parties.
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.
I denne sag var der fremsat krav om erstatning for undladelse af at tilbagelevere en fri­mærkesamling og for sagsøgtes foretagelse og forfølgning af en ulovlig arrest i For­bundsrepublikken Tyskland ; desuden var der nedlagt påstand om stadfæstelse af nogle arrestforretninger, der på sagsøgerens foranledning var foretaget i Nederlandene, dvs. at de erklæredes foretaget med rette for en fordring, der faktisk bestod.
The main claim in these proceedings was for damages for misappropriating a stamp col­lection and for effecting an unlawful attachment in the Federal Republic of Germany; a subordinate claim was made for judicial confirmation of attachments effected by the plaintiff in the Netherlands, that is to say a declaration was sought to the effect that those attachments had been lawfully effected in pursuance of a valid claim.
Forud for sagsanlægget ved retten i Haag verserede der allerede en sag mellem de samme parter for en tysk domstol, hvorunder sagsøgeren bl.a. krævede frimærkesamlingen til­bageleveret og den tyske arrest ophævet.
Before the action in the Arrondissementsrechtbank was commenced, proceedings had already taken place between the parties in the German courts, in which the plaintiff claimed from the defendant inter alia the restitution of the stamp collection and the lift­ing of the attachment effected in Germany.
Arrondissementsrechtbank fandt, at de to sager havde samme genstand og hvilede på samme grundlag, jfr. konventionens artikel 21, og erklærede sig derfor inkompetent til fordel for den tyske domstol, hvad angik erstatningskravet.
The Court took the view that the proceedings in Germany and in the Netherlands in­volved "the same cause of action" within the meaning of Article 21 of the Convention and declined jurisdiction, as regards the principal claim, in favour of the German court.
At sagsøgeren var flyttet til Nederlandene efter sagens anlæg var ikke til hinder herfor, eftersom artikel 21 pålægger retten at erklære sig inkompetent.
The plaintiffs removal to the Netherlands after the commencement of the proceedings did not alter matters, since the rule contained in Article 21 was mandatory.
Litispendens og indbyrdes sammenhængende krav — sag om købesummens betaling ved en lysk ret — tidligere vekselsag ved en italiensk ret — ingen litispendensvirkning — ingen udsættelse på grund af kravenes sammenhæng
Lis alibi pendens and related actions — Action in German court for lhe purchase price of goods — Previous action in Italian court on a bill of exchange — Plea of lis alibi pendens refected — Refusal to stay proceedings on lhe ground that the actions were related
Som led i løbende forhandlingsaftaler havde en tysk virksomhed solgt og leveret varer til sin italienske forhandler.
Pursuant to a series of distribution contracts a German undertaking sold and delivered goods to its Italian distributor.
På grundlag af herfor udstedte veksler gjorde en tysk bank under en sag anlagt i september 1979 ved Tribunale di Milano krav gældende over for den italienske virksomhed.
In September 1979 a German bank brought proceedings before the Tribunale di Milano against the Italian undertaking on bills of exchange issued to cover those purchases.
Denne fremsatte modkrav i form af et erstatningskrav mod den tyske virksomhed og anmodede samtidig retten i Milano om at ophæve »agentafta­len«.
In those proceedings the Italian undertaking sought to set offa claim for damages against the German undertaking and also asked the court to order the cancellation of the "agency agreement".
I oktober 1979 opnåede den tyske virksomhed ved Landgericht Frankfurt am Main et arrestdekret mod den italienske virksomhed i anledning af krav på betaling af købesummen for andre leverancer og anlagde justifikationssag.
In October 1979 the German undertaking obtained an attachment order against the Italian undertaking from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main, and instituted proceedings for the payment of the pur­chase price in respect of other deliveries.
Som begrundelse for begæringen om arrest havde den tyske virksomhed anført, at arresten var nødvendig for at sikre fuldbyrdelsen, der skulle gennemføres i udlandet, fordi den italienske virksom­hed ikke havde nogen formue i indlandet.
In applying for the attachment order it stated that since the Italian undertaking had no property in Germany such an order was neces­sary as security for the enforcement abroad of any judgment which might be given.
Den italienske virksomhed gjorde under hen­visning til den sag, der verserede i Milano, indsigelse mod den tyske rets kompetence og gjorde i øvrigt det samme modkrav gældende som i den italienske sag.
Re­ferring to the proceedings pending before the court in Milan, the Italian undertaking ob­jected that the German court had no jurisdiction ; it also raised the same claim of set-off as it had done in the Italian proceedings.
Arresten blev stadfæstet ved dom.
The attachment order was confirmed by judg­ment.
Den italienske virksomhed ankede dommen til Oberlandesgericht, som stadfæstede den.
The Italian undertaking's appeal against that judgment was dismissed.
Oberlandesgericht forkastede indsigelsen om inkompetence, som var blevet opretholdt.
The Oberlandesgericht rejected the objection against jurisdiction, which the Italian un­dertaking had maintained.
Det var ikke nødvendigt at tage stilling til, om Landgericht Frankfurt am Main havde kompetence i medfør af konventionens artikel 24, hvis retten i Milano havde kompe­tence til at påkende sagens realitet.
The question whether the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main had jurisdiction under Article 24 of the Convention even if the court in Milan had juris­diction over the substance of the matter could be disregarded.
I hvert fald var der værneting i Frankfurt am Main for hovedsagen i § 919 i Zivilprozessordnung's forstand, fordi parterne i forhandlerafta­len havde indgået en aftale om, at dette sted skulle være værneting, og denne aftale var gyldig i henhold til konventionens artikel 17.
The courts of Frankfurt am Main had jurisdiction to hear the substance of the case in any event pursuant to Para­graph 919 of the German Code of Civil Procedure, since in the distribution contract the parties had made an agreement valid under Article 17 of the Convention conferring jur­isdiction on those courts.
De sager, der verserede i Milano, var ikke til hinder herfor.
The proceedings pending in Milan did not affect that.
Der forelå ikke krav, der havde samme genstand og hvilede på samme grundlag i konventionens artikel 21, stk. l's forstand.
These were not proceedings involving the same cause of action as referred to in the first para­ fai«· 3 December 1985
(fortsat 1) petencen bliver i princippet bevaret, og der sigtes kun mod en materiel hensyntagen til den udenlandske afgørelse.
The court hearing the substance of the case might stay its own proceedings in order to avoid conflicting decisions.
Den anså den omstændighed, at dommen i hovedsagen skulle fuldbyrdes i udlandet (§917, stk. 2, i Zi­vilprozessordnung), og at der måtte ventes yderligere vanskeligheder ved gennemførel­sen af kravet, som tilstrækkelig grund til at foretage arrest.
It held that the fact that the judgment in the main proceedings would have to be enforced abroad (Article 917 (2) of the Zivilprozessordnung) and further difficulty could be expected in the enforcement of the claim was a proper ground for an attachment order.
I betragtning af disse yderli­gere vanskeligheder var det ikke nødvendigt at afgøre, om den omstændighed, at fuld­byrdelsen skulle ske i udlandet, alene kunne begrunde arresten.
In view of those further difficulties it was not necessary to decide the question whether the mere fact that a judgment had to be enforced abroad justified the making of an attachment order.
Det er i høj grad om­stridt, om § 917, stk. 2, også finder anvendeldse, når rekvisitus — som i det foreliggende tilfælde — ikke har formue i indlandet, således at fuldbyrdelsen af dommen med eller uden arrest skal ske i udlandet.
There was considerable dispute as to whether Article 917(2) was also applicable where, as in this case, the alleged debtor had no property in Germany, so that the judgment would have to be enforced abroad regardless of whether an attachment order was made.
Det må imidlertid ikke undervurderes, at arrestdekretet ikke blot åbner mulighed for at få fat i den indenlandske formue, men også kan fuldbyr­des i udlandet, og at dette er lettere netop på Det europæiske Fællesskabs område på grund af konventionen.
It should not be forgotten that an attachment order did not merely make it possible to seize goods in Germany but could also be enforced abroad, and that within the European Community its enforcement was facilitated by the Convention.
Litispendens — betingelser — de samme parler
Lis alibi pendens — Conditions — Identity of the parlies of lhe court subsequently seised — Discre­
Indbyrdes sammenhængende krav — den ret, ved hvilken sagen senere er anlagt, er inkompetent — skøn
Related actions — Lack of jurisdiction tion
1968 ­ ARTIKEL 21 fortsat 1)
1968 - ARTICLE. 21 ι continued D
Ifølge det af Cour d'appel anførte havde Quinoléine anlagt sag ved Tribunal de commerce de Lille mod Cyanamid Italia og mod Gerling Konzern, hvorimod sagen for retten i Milano var anlagt af Cyanamid Italia mod Gerling Kon­zern.
As the appeal court had held, in the Tribunal de Commerce, Quinoléine had raised a claim against Cyanamid Italia and Gerling Konzern, whereas the proceedings before the Tribunale di Milano had been brought by Cyanamid Italia against Gerling Konzern.
Dette alene gjorde det berettiget af afvise indsigelsen om inkompetence, for så vidt som denne støttedes på en påstået litispendens.
That alone was sufficient to de­feat the objection against jurisdiction, in so far as it was based on a plea of lis alibi pendens.
Men også for så vidt som indsigelsen støttedes på konneksiteten mellem de to sager, var det berettiget at forkaste den.
The dismissal of the objection was also justified in so far as it was based on the fact that the claims were related.
Kon­ventionens artikel 22 bestemmer, at enhver anden ret end den, ved hvilken sagen først er anlagt, »kan« erklære sig inkompetent i tilfælde af indbyrdes sammenhængende krav.
Under Article 22 of the Convention, in the case of relat­ed proceedings a court other than the court first seised "may" decline jurisdiction.
Selv hvis man ville hævde, at Tribunal de commerce de Lille ikke var den ret, ved hvil­ken sagen først var anlagt, var den ikke forpligtet til at erklære sig inkompetent til fordel for retten i Milano.
Even if it were assumed that the Tribunal de Commerce, Lille, was not the court first seised, it was not obliged to decline jurisdiction in favour of the Milan court.
Udsendelse 3/december ¡985
Issue 3 December 198 5
Indbyrdes sammenhængende krav — retssager i forskellige kontraherende stater mellem parter, der ikke er de samme — forskellige sagsgenstande — den ret, hvor sag senest var anlagt, udsatte ikke sin afgørelse — den ret, hvor sag først var anlagt, afviste at udsætte
Related actions — Actions between different parlies in different Contracting Stales — Dif­ferent matters in dispute — Second action not stayed — Refusal by the court first seised to stay proceedings
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.
Litispendens og indbyrdes sammenhængende krav — ingen litispendensvirkning eller ind­byrdes sammenhæng mellem et krav, der gøres gældende under en sag om foreløbige rets­midler i Belgien, og en hovedsag i Frankrig
Lis alibi pendens and related actions — Not applicable in the case of an action for interim measures in Belgium and an action on lhe substance of the case in France
Nogle belgiske og franske virksomheder havde besluttet sig til at samvirke om et vej­bygningsprojekt i Libyen.
\ number of Belgian and French undertakings agreed to participate in a joint venture o carry out a road­building project in Libya.
Da en af deltagerne, det belgiske aktieselskab BSL, fragik at have påtaget sig forpligtelsen, begærede de øvrige foreløbige forholdsregler taget i an­vendelse for at tvinge BSL til at yde sin andel af finansieringen ved at deponere 250 000 000 BFR i en bank i Bruxelles. Rekvirenterne i sagen var de enkelte virksomhe­der samt det franske selskab Ugha Group, som skulle danne den retlige form for samvir­ket.
When one of the participants, the Belgian :ompany "BSL", denied having committed itself, the others applied for an interlocutory njunction requiring BSL to provide its share of the finance by lodging approximately 3FR 250 million with a bank in Brussels.
BSL bestred — for såvidt angik selskabets egen deltagelse i samvirket — gyldigheden af de aftaler, der var indgået med henblik på oprettelsen af selskabet.
3SL contested the validity, as regards its own participation, of the agreements entered nto for the foundation ofthat company.
Denne indsigelse havde selskabet i øvrigt fremsat allerede inden sagen for den belgiske ret, nemlig under en sag, der var anlagt ved Tribunal de grande instance i Paris.
It had already contested that point, even before he injunction was applied for, in proceedings commenced by it before the Tribunal de Lìrande Instance, Paris.
I underinstansen havde retsformanden for Rechtbank van koophandel i Tongeren er­klæret at savne den saglige kompetence, idet en afgørelse, som imødekom kravet om de­ponering, ville indebære en prøvelse af sagens realitet (nemlig om BSL var kontraktsligt forpligtet), som retten ikke kunne foretage under en sag om foreløbige forholdsregler.
\t first instance the President of the Rechtbank van Koophandel, Tongeren, declined urisdiction on the ground that a decision on the claim for payment of the money into he bank would entail a decision on a substantive issue (namely, the extent to which BSL vas contractually bound) which the court was not allowed to make in proceedings for in interlocutory injunction.
I appelinstansen blev afgørelsen stadfæstet, dog således at begrundelsen blev ændret fra, at retten savnede kompetence, til, at kravet måtte afvises.
3n appeal that decision was upheld, but the ground now given for declining jurisdiction vas the inadmissibility of the claim.
Hof van Beroep forkastede BSL's indsigelse — som støttedes på konventionens arti­kel 16, nr. 2 — om, at den franske domstol på Ugha Group's hjemsted var enekompetent, idet den udtalte, at selskabets beståen og gyldigheden af de af selskabets organer trufne beslutninger ganske vist kunne tages i betragtning som faktiske omstændigheder, som den ret, der behandlede begæringen om foreløbige forholdsregler, kunne tage stilling til, men at kravet ikke angik dette forhold.
The court dismissed BSL's argument that under Article 16(2) of the Convention the French courts at the place where Ugha Group had its seat had exclusive jurisdiction: al­hough the validity of the constitution of a company or of decisions of its organs might 5e relevant as questions of fact which the court could take into consideration in proceed­ngs on an application for interim relief, such matters did not constitute the essence of he claim.
Hof van Beroep mente heller ikke, at artikel 21 (om litispendens) kunne finde anvendelse, idet det fremsatte krav og det, sagen i Paris angik, ikke havde samme genstand.
Nor did the court consider Article 21 (lis alibi pendens) applicable, because he proceedings before it and those before the Paris court did not involve the same cause }f action.
Hvad angik artikel 22 udtalte retten på den ene side, at BSL ikke krævede, at den erklærede sig inkompetent til fordel for præsidenten for Tri­bunal de grande instance eller for Tribunal de commerce i Paris i medfør af artiklens stk. 2, og på den anden side, at der ikke fandtes anledning til at udsætte sagen i medfør af artikel 22, stk. 1, idet retsformanden kun kunne træffe en foreløbig afgørelse (jfr. den belgiske retsplejelovs artikel 584), og der således ikke var fare for, at der skulle blive af­sagt uforenelige afgørelser, jfr. artiklens stk. 3.
With regard to Article 22, the court observed in the first place that BSL had lot requested it to decline jurisdiction in favour of the President of the Tribunal de /¡rande Instance or the President of the Tribunal de Commerce, Paris, pursuant to the ,econd paragraph ofthat article; it held, secondly, that there was no reason to stay the iroceedings pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 21. because the President could jnly give a provisional judgment (Article 584 of the Gerechtelijk Wetboek [Judicial /ode]) and there was therefore no danger of irreconcilable judgments within the mean­ngof the third paragraph.
Udsendelse 3/december 1985
Issue 3 December 1935
Den belgiske ret var kompetent i medfør af konventionens artikel 2. For fuldstændighe­dens skyld fastslog Hof van Beroep imidlertid også, at de retsmidler, der krævedes an­vendt, var af foreløbig eller sikrende karakter, således at også artikel 24 kunne finde an­vendelse.
The jurisdiction of the Belgian courts was founded on Article 2 of the Convention; how­ever, the court held ad abundantiam that the measures applied for by the plaintiffs were of a provisional or protective nature, so Article 24 could also be considered applicable.
Litispendens og indbyrdes sammenhængende krav — betingelser — krav, »der har samme genstand og hviler på samme grundlag« — sammenstød mellem skibe — sag om fastlæggelse af ansvaret og om stadfæstelse af en arrest i en kontraherende stat — sag vedrørende brgrænsning af ansvaret (abandon af søformuen) i en anden kontrahe­rende stat
Lis alibi pendens and related actions — Conditions — Proceedings involving "the same cause of action " — Ship collision — Proceedings in one Contracting State for the assessment of liability and for the judicial confirmation of an arrest — Proceedings in another Contracting State for the limitation of liability (abandonment of the ship)
Kompetence — specielle kompetenceregler — flere sagsøgte — kompetence for ret­ten på det sted. hvor en af de sagsøgte har bopæl (artikel 6, nr. I)
Jurisdiction — Special jurisdiction — Plurality of defendants — Jurisdiction of the court for the place where one of the defendants is domiciled (Art. 6(1»
Kompetence — aftale om kompetence — betingelser — bestemmelse i kautionsløflel om sikkerhedsstillelse om sagsanlag ved den »kompetente« ret
Jurisdiction — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Conditions — Provision in guarantee declaration regarding the bringing of proceedings before the "compelen!" court
Den 4. november 1975 kom det i Antwerpen's havneområde til et sammenstød mellem »Frubel Oceania«, der tilhørte et belgisk rederi, og »Atlantic Star«, der tilhørte et neder­landsk rederi.
On 4 November 1975 a collision occurred in Antwerp harbour between the "Frubel Oceania", owned by a Belgian shipping line, and the "Atlantic Star", owned by a Dutch line.
Det nederlandske rederi gjorde krav gældende over for det belgiske rederi i anledning af den skade, der var opstået på dets skib, og lod i Rotterdam foretage arrest i »Frubel Oceania«; samtidig anlagde det erstatningssag mod det belgiske rederi ved Rechtbank Rotterdam og nedlagde samtidig påstand om stadfæstelse af arresten.
The Dutch line made a claim against the Belgian line for the damage caused to its ship and had the "Frubel Oceania" arrested in Rotterdam; at the same time it brought an action for damages against the Belgian line before the Rechtbank, Rotterdam, and applied for judicial confirmation of the arrest.
Efter at det nederlandske selskab Langeveldt, De Vos, De Waal havde kautioneret for det bel­giske rederi med 825 000 HFL, blev arresten ophævet ved et forlig.
After a guarantee in the amount of HFL 825 000 had been furnished by the Dutch company Langeveldt, De Vos, De Waal on be­half of the Belgian line the ship was released by agreement.
Det belgiske rederi indledte derefter for retsformanden ved Rechtbank van koophandel Antwerpen en pro­cedure i medfør af den belgiske sølovs artikel 46 ff. med det formål at begrænse sit an­svar ved abandon af søformuen.
The Belgian line then brought proceedings before the President of the Rechtbank van Koophandel, Antwerp, for the limitation of its liability by abandonment of the ship, under Article 46 et seq. of the Belgian Shipping Law.
Ved kendelse af 15. februar 1977 udpegede retsforman­den derefter en skiftedommer, der skulle følge proceduren, og en likvidator for den af­ståede søformue hidrørende fra »Frubel Oceania«; han bestemte endvidere, at det bel­giske rederi, efter at der var stillet kaution for det med 825 000 HFL, foreløbig kun skulle betale likvidator et beløb til dækning af rets­ og likvidationsomkostninger.
By an order dated 15 February 1977 the President appointed a liquidator for the abandoned ship "Frubel Oceania" and a supervising judge; he further ordered that since a guarantee in the amount of HFL 825 000 had already been fur­nished on behalf of the Belgian line it need provisionally pay to the liquidator only an amount covering the court costs and the costs of liquidaton.
Det neder­landske rederi kærede denne kendelse og anmodede om, at abandonsagen blev henvist til Arrondissementsrechtbank Rotterdam.
The Dutch line applied to set aside that order and argued that the abandonment proceedings should be transferred to the Rechtbank, Rotterdam.
Det gjorde gældende, at den sag, der verse­rede ved Rechtbank Rotterdam, og sagen for Rechtbank van koophandel Antwerpen var indbyrdes sammenhængende i Bruxelles­konventionens artikel 2l's forstand.
It argued that the action pending before the Rechtbank, Rotterdam, and the proceedings in the Rechtbank van Koophandel, Antwerp, were re­lated actions for the purposes of Article 21 of the Brussels Convention.
Her­overfor gjorde det belgiske rederi gældende, at retsformanden for Rechtbank van koop­handel Antwerpen, i hvis jurisdiktion skaden var sket, ifølge den belgiske sølovs artikel 53 var enekompetent til at træffe afgørelse i sagen om begrænsning af ansvaret for den skade, der var sket ved sammenstødet. Ved dom af 7. september 1978 (Europees Vervoer­
The Belgian line argued that under Article 53 of the Belgian Shipping Law the President of the Recht­bank van Koophandel, Antwerp, in whose territorial jurisdiction the damage had taken place, had exclusive jurisdiction to hear the proceedings for the limitation of liability for the damage arising out of the collision.