natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I denne sag havde Tribunal de grande instance de Montargis tilladt tvangsfuldbyrdelse af en udeblivelsesdom, som den i Belgien bosiddende sagsøger ved handelsretten i Courtrai havde opnået mod et fransk selskab.
In this case the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Montargis, granted an order for the enfor­cement of a judgment given in default which the plaintiff, who was domiciled in Belgi­
(fortsat 1) franske domstole havde været kompetente ifølge domskonventionenes artikel 2, og at den belgiske ret derfor ifølge konventionens artikel 20 på embeds vegne skulle have er­klæret sig inkompetent, ikke kunne lægges til grund.
(continued 1) urn, had obtained against a French company in the commercial court of Courtrai. The Cour d'Appel dismissed the appeal against the decision granting an order for enforce­ment and held to be unfounded the defendant's submission that under Article 2 of the Brussels Convention the French court had exclusive jurisdiction and that therefore, in accordance with Article 20 of the Convention, the Belgian court should have declared of its own motion that it had no jurisdiction.
Ifølge konventionens artikler 34 og 28 kunne den ret, som behandlede begæringen om fuldbyrdelsespåtegningen, kun afslå den af de dér udtømmende anførte grunde, hvoraf ingen forelå i det foreliggende tilfæl­de.
Pursuant to Articles 34 and 28 of the Conven­tion the court in which enforcement was sought could refuse the application only on the grounds exhaustively listed in those articles, none of which was available in the present case.
Den anfægtede afgørelse havde derfor måttet træffes uden hensyn til, om den bel­giske ret havde iagttaget konventionens kompetenceregler.
Therefore, the decision appealed against had to issue irrespective of whether or not the Belgian court had complied with the rules on jurisdiction contained in the Convention.
[ordinær appel eller genoptagelse i domsstaten]
[Lodging of an ordinary appeal in the State in which the judgment was given]
Afdeling 2 ­ FULDBYRDELSE (artiklerne 31—45)
Section 2 - ENFORCEMENT (Articles 31 to 45)
[meddelelse af fuldbyrdelsespåtegning]
[Issue of the order for enforcement]
Anerkendelse og fuldbyrdelse — »dichiarazione di efficacia« vedrørende en engelsk dom i Italien — fremgangsmåde ifølge domskonventionen — fandt anvendelse indenfor ram­merne af den italiensk­britiske konvention af 1964
Recognition and enforcement — "Dichiarazione di efficacia" in relation to an English judgment in Italy — Procedure under the Brussels Convention — Held applicable in the context of the 1964 convention between Italy and the United Kingdom
I denne sag var der fremsat begæring om »dichiarazione di efficacia« (en konstatering af, at dommen kunne anerkendes og fuldbyrdes i Italien) vedrørende en dom afsagt af den engelske High Court of Justice i sagen Orpheus Tanker Corporation (med hjemsted i Monrovia, Liberia) mod Terukuni Kaiun Kaisha Ltd., hvorved sagsøgte var blevet til­pligtet at betale et pengebeløb til sagsøgeren.
This case concerned an application for a "dichiarazione di efficacia" [declaration that a foreign judgment may be recognized and enforced in Italy] in relation to a judgment of the English High Court in an action between the Orpheus Tanker Corporation (incor­porated in Monrovia, Liberia) and Terakuni Kaiun Kaisha Ltd. in which the defendant was ordered to pay a sum of money to the plaintiff.
Corte d'appello di Genova's kompetence fulgte af, at et skib tilhørende debitor var taget i forvaring i Genova's havn til sikkerhed for Orpheus Tanker Corporation's krav.
The Corte d'Appello, Genoa, assumed jurisdiction because a ship belonging to the defendant had been arrested in the port of Genoa as security for the Orpheus Tanker Corporation's claim.
Appelretten anførte, at det fulgte af bestemmelsen i artikel VIII, nr. 3, i den italiensk­britiske konvention af 7. februar 1964, hvorefter »dichiarazione di efficacia« vedrø­rende britiske domme skulle gennemføres i Italien »på den enkleste og hurtigste måde«, at den summariske fremgangsmåde ifølge EF­konventionen, uden høring af modpar­ten, for så vidt skulle anvendes.
The court took the view that it followed from Article VIII (3) of the Convention of 7 February 1964 between Italy and the United Kingdom, which provided that the pro­cedure for granting the "dichiarazione di efficacia" in relation to British judgments in Italy should be as simple and rapid as possible, that the simplified ex parte procedure under the EEC Convention should be applied.
Det var ikke til hinder herfor, at Det forenede Konge­rige hverken hørte til domskonventionens signatarstater eller efter sin tiltrædelse af EF formelt havde tiltrådt domskonventionen, idet der var tale om særlige processuelle be­stemmelser, som var omfattet af og forudsætningsvis anerkendt i udtrykket »enkleste og hurtigste måde«. Corte d'appello afsagte derfor »dichiarazione di efficacia« for den en­gelske dom i Italien og henviste vedkommende til at anfægte afgørelsen ved appel eller genoptagelse, som ombandlet i domskonventionens artikel 36 ff.
The position was not affected by the fact that the United Kingdom was not a signatory of the Brussels Convention and had not yet formally acceded to it after joining the EEC, since it was a question of a special provi­sion of procedural law which was covered by the expression "as simple and rapid as pos­sible" and thus recognized by implication.
(fortsat I)
(continued 1)
Anmærkning: Jfr. også 1­31 ­ B.2 og 1­36 ­ B.2.
Note: See also 1­31 ­ Β 2 and 1­36 ­ Β 2.
Anerkendelse og fuldbyrdelse — »dichiarazione di efficacia« vedrørende en engelsk dom i Italien — fremgangsmåde ifølge domskonventionen — fandt ikke anvendelse inden for rammerne af den italiensk­britiske konvention af 1964
Recognition and enforcement — "Dichiarazione di effìcicia" in relation to an English judgment in Italy — Procedure under the Brussels Convention — Held not applicable wi­thin the context of the 1964 Convention between Italy and the United Kingdom
I denne sag erklæredes en dom, afsagt af den engelske High Court, Queen's Bench Di­vision, for eksigibel i medfør af den italiensk­britiske overenskomst af 7. februar 1964 om anerkendelse og fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser.
The court declared a judgment of the Queen's Bench Division of the English High Court enforceable under the Convention on the recognition and enforcement of judgments, signed by Italy and the United Kingdom on 7 February 1964.
Corte d'appello anførte, at bestemmelsen i overenskomstens artikel VIII, nr. 3, hvorefter »dichiarazione di efficacia« skulle gennemføres på den »enkleste og hurtigste måde«, ikke kunne føre til, at den efterfølgende kontradiktoriske procedure, der var betinget af en begæring, nu kunne anvendes i analogi med EF­konventionens specialregler.
The Corte d'Appello held that the provision in Article VIII (3) of the Convention to the effect that the procedure for "dichiarazione di efficacia" should be as simple and rapid as possible, did not mean that it was now possible to apply by analogy the special provi­sion contained in the EEC Convention under which application was made ex parte and the defendant's right to put his case was deferred to a later stage.
Den ita­liensk­britiske overenskomst indeholdt ingen bestemmelse svarende til domskonventio­nens artikel 34 ff ; at der ikke fandtes udtrykkelige regler, måtte føre til, at der måtte for­handles kontradiktorisk fra retsforhandlingernes begyndelse.
The Convention be­tween Italy and the United Kingdom did not contain any provision corresponding to Article 34 et seq. of the Brussels Convention ; the absence of a specific provision meant that from the beginning of the procedure both parties must be allowed to put their case.
Anmærkning: Jfr. også 1­31 ­ B.l og 1­36 ­ B.2.
Note: See also 1­31 ­ Β 1 and 1­36 ­ Β 2.
Fuldbyrdelse — belgisk dom over et selskab med hjemsted i Liechtenstein — fuldbyrdelse i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland — anvendelse af domskonventionen — ingen konvention til hinder for fuldbyrdelsen (artikel 59)
Enforcement — Order as to costs — Judgment within the meaning of the Convention — Enforceable irrespective of whether the principal judgment falls within the scope of the Convention
Landgericht Hamburg imødekom begæringen i medfør af konventionens artikel 31 ff. Landgericht anførte, at den belgiske dom kunne forsynes med fuldbyrdelsespåtegning, uanset at fyr­stendømmet Liechtenstein ikke var deltager i domskonventionen.
The court declared a German order as to costs enforceable in Italy under Article 31 et seq. of the Convention.
Konventionens arti­kel 31 bestemmer nemlig, at de i en kontraherende stat trufne retsafgørelser, som er eksi­gible i den pågældende stat, kan fuldbyrdes i en anden kontraherende stat, når de på be­gæring er forsynet med fuldbyrdelsespåtegning i sidstnævnte stat.
Such an order was included amongst the judgments capable of recognition and enforcement according to Article 25 and could be declared enforceable independently of the principal judgment to which it related.
At retsafgørelsen inde­bærer en domfældelse af statsborgere i ikke­kontraherende stater eller af parter med hjemsted i sådanne stater, var principielt ikke til hinder for, at der meddeles fuldbyrdel­sespåtegning. Artikel 59 kunne ganske vist være til hinder for konventionens anvendel­se.
In the instant case the order which was declared enforceable dealt with the costs in proceedings to determine the paternity of an illegitimate child.
Der forelå imidlertid ikke en sådan konven­tion mellem Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland og fyrstendømmet Liechtenstein.
On this point the Corte d'Appello held that there could be no question of enforcing that judg­ment, since questions concerning the status of persons lay outside the scope of the Convention.
Fuldbyrdelse — fransk dom — dom til betaling med renter »efter loven« — ingen oplysnin­ger om rentesatsen eller tidspunktet for renteberegningens begyndelse — udfyldning foreta­
Enforcement — Belgian judgment against a Liechtenstein company — Enforcement in the Federal Republic of Germany — application of the Brussels Convention — No convention preventing enforcement under Article 59
(fortsat 1) get af retten i fuldbyrdelsesstaten — tilladelighed indenfor rammerne af proceduren ifølge konventionen
Enforcement — French judgment — Order to pay "legal interest" — No provision as to the rate of interest or the date from which it was payable — Completion by the court in the state in which enforcement is sought — Permissible in proceedings under the Convention
Rekvisiti i fuldbyrdelsessagen blev ved udeblivelsesdom afsagt at Tribunal d'instance de Toulouse den 28. april 1976 tilpligtet at betale et bestemt beløb med »renter efter loven«.
A judgment given in default by the Tribunal d'Instance, Toulouse, on 28 April 1976 or­dered the respondents to pay a particular sum of money plus "the legal interest".
Dommen indeholdt ingen oplysninger om rentesatsens størrelse eller om tids­punktet for renteberegningens begyndelse.
The judgment contained no provision as to the rate of interest or the date from which it was payable.
Rekvirenterne begærede dommen forsynet med fuldbyrdelsespåtegning for Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland, således at det tilkendte beløb skulle forrentes med 9,5% fra den 11. april 1975.
The applicants sought an order for the enforcement of that judgment in the Fed­eral Republic of Germany with a provision that interest should be payable on the sum awarded at a rate of 9.5% as from 11 April 1975.
Begæringen blev kun delvis taget til følge.
The application was only partially granted.
Landgericht tog først stilling til, om retten i fuldbyrdelsesstaten havde kompetence til at foretage en udfyldende fortolkning af dommen med hensyn til renteberegningen, eller om der på grund af dommens uklarhed overhovedet ikke kunne træffes bestemmelse om fuldbyrdelse af dommens rentebestemmelse.
The court considered first whether it was permissible for the court in the State in which enforcement was sought to supplement, by way of interpretation, the foreign judgment with regard to interest or whether, because of the uncertainty of the judgment, no order for the enforcement of the provision relating to interest should be made at all.
Retten fandt det i overensstemmelse med konventionens formål at foretage en udfyldende fortolkning, i det omfang dette kunne ske inden for rammerne af proceduren ifølge domskonventionens artikel 34, hvorefter retten skal træffe sin'afgørelse snarest muligt.
It took the view that the purpose of the Convention would be served if it undertook a comple­mentary interpretation in so far as that was possible in the context of a decision which was required by Article 34 of the Brussels Convention to be given "without delay".
Rekvisiti i fuldbyrdelsessagen blev ved udeblivelsesdom afsagt at Tribunal d'instance 19. august 1977 fra Banque de France om sædvanlig bankrente. Som retten anførte, var den lovbestemte rentefod imidlertid 4% for andre end handlende (artikel 1907 i Code ci­vil), fra tingfæstningen dog 5% (décret af 5.8. 1959).
In support of their application for interest at a rate of 9.5% the applicants had submitted a statement by the Banque de France dated 19 August 1977 on the rates of interest nor­mally charged by banks.
Da dommens præmisser intet inde­holdt, som kunne tale for at fravige lovreglen, kunne fuldbyrdelseserklæringen kun ud­strækkes til at gælde den lovbestemte rentefod.
Since there was nothing in the grounds of the judgment to justify departing from that statutory rale, the order for enforcement could only extend to the legal rate of interest.
Tidspunktet for renteberegningens begyndelse var ikke lovreguleret i Frankrig.
There was no statutory provision in France concerning the date from which interest was payable.
(fortsat 2) renter »efter loven«, som rekvisitus ifølge dommen bl.a. skulle erlægge, ifølge arti­kel 1284 i Codice civile blev fastsat til 5%, og den merværdiafgift, som skulle svares af sagsomkostningerne, under henvisning til den italienske lovgivning blev fastsat til 14%.
In accordance with Article 1284 of the Codice Civile a rate of 5% was fixed in respect of the "legal interest" which inter alia the respondent had been ordered to pay and a rate of 14% was fixed, having regard to the Italian legislation, in respect of the value added tax which was payable on the costs of the litigation.
Landgericht Wiesbaden anførte i en kendelse af 5. maj 1978 — sag 9 O 77/78 — om fuldbyrdelseserklæring for en dom afsagt af handelsretten i Antwerpen, at re­kvirenten ikke havde fremsat begæring om, at dommen også erklæredes eksigibel for så vidt angik de tilkendte »retslige renter« (på originalproget: »gerechtelijke in­tresten«); dommens bestemmelse om renter var for så vidt ganske ubestemt.
By order of 5 May 1980 (Case No 9 O 77/78) the Landgericht Wiesbaden found, with reference to an order for the enforcement of a judgment of the commercial court in Antwerp, that the applicant had not applied for enforcement of that part of the judgment which related to the award of "legal interest" (in the original: "gerechte­lijke intresten"). In that regard the judgment was completely vague.
Det var uklart, hvad den belgiske ret forstod ved »retslige renter«.
It was not clear what the Belgian court meant by "legal interest".
[afgørelse om begæringen]
(Decision on the application)
Fuldbyrdelse — meddelelse af fuldbyrdelsespåtegning —fremgangsmåden efter artikel 34 — krænkelse af princippet om kontradiktion — ingen sådan
Enforcement — Order for enforcement — Procedure under Article 34 — Not contrary to the rule audi alteram partem
I denne sag stadfæstede Oberlandesgericht underinstansens afgørelse om at meddele fuldbyrdelsespåtegning på en belgisk dom.
The Oberlandesgericht dismissed an appeal against an order for the enforcement of a Belgian judgment.
Retten anførte, at det i forfatningsmæssig henseende var ubetænkeligt, at fuldbyrdelsespåtegning i medfør af konventionens artikel 34 meddeltes ensidigt, dvs., uden at den part, mod hvem fuldbyrdelsen begæredes, fik lejlighed til at ytre sig.
The court held that there were no constitutional objections to the fact that the order for enforcement under Article 34 of the Convention was issued in ex parte proceedings without hearing the defendant.
Rekvi­situs kunne uden videre — ved hjælp af den i konventionens artikel 36 omhandlede appel eller genoptagelse skaffe sig mulighed for kontradiktion.
The defendant only had to lodge an appeal under Article 36 of the Convention in order to obtain an opportunity to put his case.
Fuldbyrdelse — tysk udeblivelsesdom uden angivelse afgrunde — kunne fuldbyrdes
Enforcement — Judgment in default given by a German court without a statement of reasons — Held enforceable
Corte d'appello anførte, at udeblivelsesdommens beskaffenhed — efter tysk ret var udeblivelsesdomme ikke ledsa­get af grunde — ikke var til hinder for at meddele fuldbyrdelsespåtegning i Italien; ifølge konventionsbestemmelserne udelukkedes en kontradiktorisk procedure ikke, den blev kun udskudt, idet den part, mod hvem fuldbyrdelse begæredes, i medfør af arti­kel 36 kunne anfægte afgørelsen ved appel eller genoptagelse.
The Corte d'Appello ruled that the nature of a judgment in default, which under German law did not contain any statement of the reasons upon which it was based, did not prevent its enforcement in Italy ; the provisions of the Convention did not preclude proceedings in which both parties could put their case; it merely postponed them since the party against whom enforcement was sought could bring an appeal under Article 36.
[anfægtelse af afgørelse om at tillade fuldbyrdelse ved appel eller genoptagelse]
[Appeal against an order for enforcement]
Fuldbyrdelse — tilladelse til tvangsfuldbyrdelse — den part, mod hvem fuldbyrdelsen be­gæres, anfægter afgørelsen ved appel eller genoptagelse (artikel 36) — retlig karakter — be­gyndelsestidspunktet for fristen for appel eller genoptagelse — afgørelsens forkyndelse — internretligt spørgsmål
Enforcement — Order for enforcement granted — Appeal by defendant (Article 36) — Legal nature — Date from which the time for appealing runs — Service of the decision — Governed by national law
Et tysk selskab havde ved en tysk ret fået udstedt en »Zahlungs­ und Vollstreckungsbe­fehl« rettet mod et i Nederlandene hjemmehørende selskab, der i afgørelsen betegnedes som »Firma Handelmij. Modak Int.
On the application of a German firm an order for payment, which was stated to be enforceable, was made by the competent German court against a Netherlands company. The order named the debtor as "Firma Handelmij. Modak Int.
BV v/den personligt hæftende selskabsdeltager Jan Visscher«.
B.V., represented by Jan Visscher, its member having personal liability".
Efter anmodning fra den tyske fordringshaver gav præsidenten for Arrondis­sementsrechtbank Zwolle tilladelse til, at den tyske retsafgørelse blev tvangsfuldbyrdet hos firma Modak og hos Visscher personligt.
On the application of the judgment cre­ditor, the President of the Arrondissementsrechtbank, Zwolle, granted an order for the enforcement of the German order against Modak and against Visscher personally.
Arrondissementsrechtbanks afgørelse blev den 30. november 1976 forkyndt ved bud for Visscher's ægtefælle.
That decision was served on Visscher's wife on 30 November 1976.
Den 4. februar 1977 anfægtede Visscher fuldbyrdelsespåtegningen i medfør af artikel 36. Herimod gjorde den tyske fordringshaver i det væsentligste gældende, at skyldnerens anfægtelse af afgø­relsen var sket for sent, når hensås til den i bestemmelsen omhandelede frist på en må­ned.
On 4 February 1977 Vis­scher appealed against the order for enforcement under Article 36 of the Convention.
Arrondissementsrechtbank ophævede fuldbyrdelsespåtegningen, for så vidt tvangsfuld­byrdelse var blevet tilladt hos Visscher personligt.
The Arrondissementsrechtbank quashed the contested decision in so far as enforcement was thereby authorized against Visscher personally.
Med hensyn til spørgsmålet, om fuld­byrdelsespåtegningens meddelelse var rettidigt anfægtet, anførte retten, at begyndelses­tidspunktet for enmånedsfristen ifølge Jenard­rapportens bemærkninger til artikel 36 skulle bestemmes efter de almindelige nationale retsforskrifter.
On the question whether the appeal was in time the court observed that, according to the comments on Article 36 contained in the Jenard Report, the date from which the period of one month began to ran fell to be determined by national law.
Med henblik på at kunne fastslå, hvilke nederlandske processuelle regler der gjaldt om fristens begyndelse, måtte det afgøres, hvorledes de i artikel 36 omhandlede retsmidler skulle kvalificeres.
In order to determine which provisions of procedural law in the Netherlands governed the commencement of the period it was necessary to ascertain the legal nature of the appeal provided for in Article 36 of the Convention.
De almindelige regler om meddelelse af fuldbyrdelsespåtegning på udenlandske retsaf­gørelser (artikel 985 ff i den nederlandske civilproceslov) kunne ikke finde anvendelse, da der her var tale om en kontradiktorisk sagsbehandling, og da den endelige afgørelse kun kunne anfægtes ved appelformen »hoger Beroep« til Gerechtshof.
The general provisions on the procedure for enforcing foreign judgments (Article 985 et seq. of the Netherlands code of civil procedure) could not apply since that was a procedure whereby argument was heard on both sides and the final decision could be challenged only by appeal to the Gerechtshof.
Det i konventionens artikel 36 ikke behand­lede spørgsmål, på hvilken måde den dér nævnte afgørelse skulle forkyndes, for at fri­sten kunne begynde at løbe, måtte derfor afgøres efter artikel 81 i den nederlandske civil­proceslov.
(continued 1) which was not dealt with in Article 36 of the Convention, of how service of the decision had to be effected in order to start the period running must be answered in accordance with Article 81 of the code of civil procedure.
Efter denne regel havde afgørelsen skullet forkyndes for skyldneren person­ligt.
That provision required that service be ef­fected upon the debtor personally.
Da dette ikke var tilfældet, begyndte fristen først at løbe fra det tidspunkt, hvor skyldneren faktisk fik kendskab til afgørelsen.
Failing that, time did not begin to ran until the deb­tor acquired actual knowledge.
Da dette tidspunkt ikke fremgik af skyld­nerens appelskrift, måtte appellen antages at være rettidig.
Since it was not apparent from the notice of the appeal when that event occurred, the appeal must be treated as having been lodged in time.
I materiel henseende statuerede retten, at det forhold, at den personligt hæftende sel­skabsdeltager Visscher var nævnt i den tyske »Zahlungs­ und Vollstreckungsbefehl«, kun havde tjent til at individualisere det som skyldner udpegede firma Modak ved anfø­relse af dets legale repræsentant, hvilket ikke kunne bevirke, at Visscher var blevet part i sagen.
On the substance of the case the court found that mention in the German order of Vis­scher as a member having personal liability was purely for the purpose of identifying the firm Modak, named therein as the debtor, by naming its representative in law and did not mean that Visscher became a party to the proceedings.
Gyldighedsområde — kontraherende stater — Det forenede Kongerige var ikke en kontraherende stat —fuldbyrdelse i medfør af konventionen af en engelsk retsafgørelse udelukket
Scope — Contracting States — United Kingdom not a Contracting State — En­ ■ forcement of an English judgment under the Convention not possible
Fuldbyrdelse — tilladelse til tvangsfuldbyrdelse af en retsafgørelse truffet i en ikke­kontraherende stat — appel eller genoptagelse — konventionens artikel36 og 37 fandt anvendelse
Enforcement — Order for the enforcement of a judgment of a non­Contracting State — Appeal — Articles 36 and 37 of the Convention held applicable