natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Præjudiciel »Bruxelles-konventionen —fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser — intellektuelle til karrosseridele til automobiler — grundlæggende retsprincipper« (Femte Afdeling)
The court of the State in which enforcement is sought cannot, without undermining the aim of the Convention, refuse recognition of a decision emanating from another Contracting State solely on the ground that it considers that national or Community law was misapplied in that decision.
I henhold til konventionens artikel 1, stk. 1, første punktum, finder den »anvendelse på borgerlige sager, herunder handelssager, uanset domsmyndighedens art«.
Having regard to the reply given to the third question, it is not necessary to reply to the first and second questions.
Med hensyn til anerkendelse og fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser findes hovedreglen i konventionens artikel 31, stk. 1, hvorefter 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 af en berettiget part er forsynet med fuldbyrdelsespåtegning i sidstnævnte stat.
Recourse to the clause on public policy in Article 27, point 1, of the Convention can be envisaged only where recognition or enforcement of the judgment delivered in another Contracting State would be at variance to an unacceptable degree with the legal order of the State in which enforcement is sought inasmuch as it infringes a fundamental principle.
Ved kendelse afsagt den 19. november 1997, indgået til Domstolen den 16. februar 1998, har Corte d'appello di Torino i medfør af protokollen af 3. juni 1971 vedrørende Domstolens fortolkning af konventionen af 27. september 1968 om retternes kompetence og om fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser i borgerlige sager, herunder handelssager, forelagt et spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 27, nr. 1, i konventionen af 27. september 1968, som ændret ved konventionen af 9. oktober 1978 om Kongeriget Danmarks, Irlands og Det Forenede Kongerige Storbritannien og Nordirlands tiltrædelse og ved konventionen af 25. oktober 1982 om Den Hellenske Republiks tiltrædelse (herefter »konventionen«), samt to spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af EF-traktatens artikel 30 og 36 (efter ændring nu artikel 28 EF og 30 EF) og EF-traktatens artikel 86 (nu artikel 82 EF).
In order for the prohibition of any review of the foreign judgment as to its substance to be observed, the infringement would have to constitute a manifest breach of a rule of law regarded as essential in the legal order of the State in which enforcement is sought or of a right recognised as being fundamental within that legal order.
I konventionens artikel 34, stk. 2, bestemmes følgende: »Begæringen kan kun afslås af en af de i artikel 27 og 28 anførte grunde.«
In this case, what has led the court of the State in which enforcement was sought to question the compatibility of the foreign judgment with public policy in its own State is the possibility that the court of the State of origin erred in applying certain rules of Community law.
Spørgsmålene er blevet rejst under en sag, der føres mellem på den ene side Régie nationale des usines Renault SA (herefter »Renault«), som har hjemsted i Frankrig, og på den anden side Maxicar SpA (herefter »Maxicar«) og Orazio Formento, som har henholdsvis hjemsted og bopæl i Italien.
The fact that the alleged error concerns rules of Community law does not alter the conditions for being able to rely on the clause on public policy.
Sagen drejer sig om fuldbyrdelse i den sidstnævnte kontraherende stat af en dom afsagt den 12. januar 1990 af Cour d'appel de
It is for the national court to ensure with equal diligence the protection of rights established in national law and rights conferred by Community law.
bestemmelse i konventionen, og nærmere bestemt om at tage stilling til udtrykket »grundlæggende retsprincipper i den stat, som begæringen rettes til« i konventionens artikel 27, nr. 1.
'Article 27, point 1, of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic, must be interpreted as meaning that a judgment of a court or tribunal of a Contracting State recognising the existence of an intellectual property right in body parts for cars, and conferring on the holder of that right protection by enabling him to prevent third parties trading in another Contracting State from manufacturing selling transporting importing or exporting in that Contracting State such body parts, cannot be considered to be contrary to public policy?
Dommen fik retskraft, da Frankrigs Cour de cassation efter anke stadfæstede den ved dom af 6. juni 1991.
Case C-296/98 Commission of the European Communities ν French Republic Freedom to provide services
Ved begæring fremsat den 24. december 1996 over for Corte d'appello di Torino i medfør af konventionens artikel 31 og 32 anmodede Renault om, at dommen blev erklæret eksigibel i Italien.
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directives 92/49/EEC and 92/96/EEC - National legislation requiring notification to the competent minister, when first marketing a standard form contract of insurance, of the conditions of contract)
Maxicar og Orazio Formento forventer, at Domstolen præciserer begrebet grundlæggende erhvervsretlige principper. De forventer navnlig, at Domstolen bekræfter, at fællesskabsretten, herunder principperne om frie varebevægelser og fri konkurrence, støtter den opfattelse, der er valgt i italiensk ret, som — i modsætning til fransk ret — ikke anerkender, at der består industrielle ejendomsrettigheder til reservedele til automobiler, og at Domstolen fastslår, at denne retstilstand er udtryk for et grundlæggende erhvervsretligt princip.
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 29 July 1998, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action for a declaration that, by keeping in force Article L. 310-8 of the Insurance Code, which provides that insurance and capitalisation undertakings are required, when marketing a standard form contract of insurance for the first time in France, to notify it to the minister responsible for economic and financial affairs in accordance with the conditions laid down by order of that minister, and Article A. 310-1 of the same code, which provides that the information referred to in the first paragraph of Article L. 310-8 is to be provided in the form of an information sheet drawn up in French and containing the information mentioned in the annex to Article A 310-1, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and under Articles 6, 29 and 39 of Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination
Herefter besluttede Corte d'appello di Torino at udsætte sagen og at forelægge Domstolen de præjudicielle spørgsmål.
the contract is governed solely by French law, the intended client base, and the date of first marketing.
Den franske og den nederlandske regering samt Kommissionen har anført, at der opstår det indledende spørgsmål, i hvilket omfang Domstolen har kompetence til at træffe afgørelse om begrebet »grundlæggende retsprincipper i den stat, som begæringen rettes til« i konventionens artikel 27, nr. 1.
of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive) and Articles 5, 29 and 39 of Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third life assurance Directive).
De har anført, at de går ind for en snæver fortolkning af begrebet, som kun bør spille en rolle i undtagelsestilfælde. En angivelig urigtig fortolkning af fællesskabsrettens regler kan efter deres opfattelse ikke i sig selv begrunde, at klausulen om grundlæggende retsprincipper bringes i anvendelse.
It should be remembered in this connection that Articles 6, 29 and 39 of Directive 92/49 and Articles 5, 29 and 39 of Directive 92/96 prohibit a Member State from requiring the systematic notification of the general and special conditions of the insurance policies which an undertaking proposes to use within that Member State in its dealings with purchasers of insurance.
Med det tredje spørgsmål — som skal behandles først, fordi det afhænger af besvarelsen af dette spørgsmål, om det første og det andet spørgsmål eventuelt skal behandles — anmoder den forelæggende ret Domstolen om at fortolke en
The French Government does not dispute that Directives 92/49 and 92/96 prohibit the Member States from requiring systematic notification of the general conditions of contracts which insurance undertakings propose to market for the first time within their territory and merely authorise those checking of the conditions by means oí post hoc sampling.
Hvad nærmere angår anvendelsen af klausulen om grundlæggende retsprincipper i konventionens artikel 27, nr. 1, har Domstolen udtalt, at den kun kan spille en rolle i undtagelsestilfælde.
Any obligation systematically to notify such information is contrary to the free marketing of insurance products within the Community, something which Directive 92/94 and 92/96 are designed to achieve.
Grænserne for begrebet må fastlægges ved en fortolkning af konventionen.
Admittedly, the Member State in whose territory the freedom to provide services is exercised has, under Article 6 of Directive 92/49 and Article 5 of Directive 92/96, power to supervise insurance contracts marketed within its territory.
retsafgørelse er i strid med statens grundlæggende retsprincipper, er, at retten i domsstaten eventuelt har anvendt bestemte fællesskabsretlige regler urigtigt.
Nevertheless, it argues that the Community legislation contains no definition of what are 'the general conditions of insurance policies'.
Det tilkommer ikke Domstolen at fastlægge indholdet af en kontraherende stats grundlæggende retsprincipper, men det påhviler den dog at efterprøve de grænser, inden for hvilke en ret i en kontraherende stat kan anvende begrebet som begrundelse for ikke at anerkende en retsafgørelse, der er truffet af en ret i en anden kontraherende stat.
In the case of life assurance contracts, the insurance undertaking is asked, in the marketing information sheet, for information on the features of the contract, including the contractual definition of the cover provided, the duration of the contract, the method of payment of the premiums, the time-limit and procedure for surrendering the contract, the formalities to be completed in the event of a claim, the premiums relating to the principal and supplementary items of cover, the date of first marketing and the minimum guaranteed profit, including the guaranteed interest rate.
Det forhold, at denne eventuelle urigtige retsanvendelse angår fællesskabsretlige regler, ændrer ikke betingelserne for at kunne anvende klausulen om grundlæggende retsprincipper. Det påhviler den nationale ret på samme effektive måde at sikre beskyttelsen af rettigheder i henhold til national ret og rettigheder i henhold til fællesskabsretten.
In the case of non-life insurance contracts, the information asked of the insurance undertaking relates to the contractual definition of the cover provided, the formalities for termination or transfer, the type of risks covered, whether or not those risks are covered in France alone, whether
En anvendelse af klausulen om grundlæggende retsprincipper i konventionens artikel 27, nr. 1, kan kun komme på tale i tilfælde, hvor anerkendelse eller fuldbyrdelse af den retsafgørelse, der er truffet i en anden kontraherende stat, på helt uantagelig måde vil være i strid med retsordenen i den stat, begæringen rettes til, idet dette ville udgøre et indgreb i et grundlæggende princip.
That Member State is already in possession of information relating to the branches of insurance that the undertaking is authorised to deal in and the nature of the risks it proposes to cover, and a certificate stating that the undertaking has at least the minimum margin of solvency.
For at være i overensstemmelse med forbuddet mod efterprøvelse af den udenlandske retsafgørelses realitet, må det kræves, at indgrebet udgør en åbenbar overtrædelse af en retsregel, der anses for væsentlig i retsordenen i den stat, begæringen rettes til, eller af en rettighed, der er anerkendt som grundlæggende i den pågældende retsorden.
These it will have received from the competent authorities of the other Member States by virtue of Article 16 of the Second Council Directive 88/357/EEC of 22 June 1988 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and laying down provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to provide services and amending Directive 73/239 and Article 14 of Council Directive 90/619/EEC of 8 November 1990 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance, laying down provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to provide services and amending Directive 79/267, as amended by
Det forhold, der i det konkrete tilfælde har ført til, at retten i den stat, begæringen rettes til, rejser spørgsmål om, hvorvidt den udenlandske
Artide 35 of Directive 92/49 and Article 35 of Directive 92/96 respectively.
Under hensyn til besvarelsen af det tredje spørgsmål er der ikke anledning til at besvare det første og det andet spørgsmål.
Nevertheless, according to those provisions, any such request for information may not be systematic.
til karrosseridele til automobiler, og som tillægger rettens indehaver en beskyttelse, som sætter ham i stand til at forbyde andre personer, der driver erhvervsvirksomhed i en anden kontraherende stat, at fremstille, sælge, forsende i transit, importere eller eksportere karrosseridelene til den pågældende kontraherende stat — ikke kan anses for at være i strid med grundlæggende retsprincipper.*
Declares that, by keeping in force the combined provisions of Article L. 310-8 and Article A. 310-1 of the Insurance Code, which provide that insurance or capitalisation undertakings which market for the first time in France a standard form contract of insurance must systematically send the minister responsible for the economic and financial affairs an information sheet containing information on the general conditions of insurance policies, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 6, 29 and 39 of Councü Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (thud non-life insurance directive) and Articles 5, 29 and 39 of Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct Ufe assurance and amending Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third life assurance directive);
Dansk tekst foreligger endnu ikke.
Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.'
Sag C-296/98 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Den Franske Republik Fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser
Advocate General S. Alber delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 28 October 1999.
Forpligtelsen til løbende at anmelde oplysninger om sådanne betingelser udgør et krav, der strider mod det frie marked for forsikringsydelser i Fællesskabet, som skal gennemføres ved direktiv 92/49 og 92/96.
Case C-37/98 The Queen ν Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte: Abdulnasir Savas External relations
Det er korrekt, at enhver medlemsstat, på hvis område den frie udveksling af tjenesteydelser finder sted, i henhold til artikel 6 i direktiv 92/49 og artikel 5 i direktiv 92/96 har adgang til at føre tilsyn med de forsikringsaftaler, der udbydes på dens område.
Preliminary ruling (EEC-Turkey Association — Restrictions on freedom of establishment and right of residence —Article 13 of the Association Agreement and Article 41 of the Additional Protocol —Direct effect — Scope — Turkish national unlawfully present in the host Member State) (Sixth Chamber)
Regeringen har imidlertid gjort gældende, at fællesskabsretten ikke indeholder nogen definition af begrebet »almindelige betingelser i forsikringspolicer«.
Their entry visa for that Member State carried an express condition prohibiting them from taking employment or engaging in any business or profession.
Den har herved anført, at der ifølge den juridiske litteratur er tale om aftalebestemmelser, der er fælles for en gruppe aftaler, der indgås af den samme forsikringsgiver.
Notwithstanding the expiry of their visa on 21 January 1985, Mr and Mrs Savas remained in the United Kingdom, so that, from that date, they were contravening the immigration law of that Member State.
Hvad skadesforsikringspolicer angår, vedrører de oplysninger, som forsikringsselskaberne anmodes om i markedsføringsskemaet, policens definition af den tilbudte dækning, bestemmelserne for opsigelse og overførsel, den dækkede risikoart, dennes henførelse til Frankrig, anvendelse alene af fransk ret på policen, målkundekredsen samt markedsføringstidspunktet.
By order of 24 April 1997, the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling six questions on the interpretation of Article 13 of the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey signed at Ankara on 12 September 1963, on the one hand, by the Republic of Turkey and, on the other, by the Member States of the EEC and the Community, and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963 ('the Association Agreement') and of Article 41 of the Additional Protocol signed at Brussels on 23 November 1970 and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972 ('the Additional Protocol").
Det bemærkes herved, at ifølge artikel 6, 29 og 39 i direktiv 92/49 og artikel 5, 29 og 39 i direktiv 92/96, må en medlemsstat ikke stille krav om løbende anmeldelse af de almindelige og specielle betingelser i de forsikringspolicer, som et selskab agter at anvende på sit område over for forsikringstagerne.
However, by a letter of 31 January 1991, they sought, through their solicitors, to regularise their stay by applying, under the relevant provisions of national legislation, to the Immigration and Nationality Department of the Home Office for leave to remain in the United Kingdom.
Efter artikel 6 i direktiv 92/49 og artikel 5 i direktiv 92/96 har en medlemsstat, på hvis område den frie udveksling af tjenesteydelser sker, også adgang til stikprøvevis og efterfølgende at anmode om oplysninger om de almindelige betingelser i forsikringspolicer, der udbydes i den. Disse bestemmelser udelukker imidlertid, at en sådan anmodning om oplysninger har karakter af en anmodning om løbende underretning.
The six questions have been raised in proceedings between Abdulnasir Savas, a Turkish national, and the Secretary of State for the Home Department ('the Secretary of State') concerning a decision refusing to grant Mr Savas leave to remain in the United Kingdom and an order for his deportation from the territory of that Member State.
Det må imidlertid konstateres, at forsikringsselskaberne med markedsføringsskemaerne anmodes om løbende for den pågældende medlemsstats myndigheder at fremlægge en række oplysninger, der angår de almindelige betingelser i forsikringspolicer.
Owing to misplacement of the file until 21 July 1993, it was not until 21 March 1994 that, following an exchange of correspondence between Mr Savas's solicitors and the United Kingdom authorities, the Secretary of State refused that application for leave to remain and informed Mr and Mrs Savas of the competent authorities' intention to serve a deportation order on them.
Løbende anmeldelse - ved fremlæggelse af markedsføringsskemaer — af oplysninger, der vedrører de almindelige betingelser i forsikringspolicer, kan derfor ikke anses for en fremgangsmåde, der i medfør af artikel 6 i
On 22 December 1984, Mr and Mrs Savas, who are both Turkish nationals, obtained leave to enter the United Kingdom as tourists for one month.
direktiv 92/49 og artikel 5 i direktiv 92/96 er nødvendig for den normale gennemførelse af tilsynet i den medlemsstat, på hvis område den
On 29 March 1994, Mr and Mrs Savas appealed against the decision to make a deportation order.
»1) Den Franske Republik har tilsidesat sine forphgtelser i henhold til artikel 6, 29 og 39 i Rådets direktiv 92/49/EØF af 18. juni 1992 om samordning af love og administrative bestemmelser vedrørende direkte forsikringsvirksomhed bortset fra livsforsikring og om ændring af direktiv 73/239/EØF og 88/357'/EØF (tredje skadesforsikringsdirektiv) samt artikel 5, 29 og 39 i Rådets direktiv 92/96/EØF af 10. november 1992 om samordning af love og administrative bestemmelser vedrørende direkte livsforsikringsvirksomhed og om ændring af direktiv 79/267¡EØF og 90/619/EØF (tredje livsforsikringsdirektiv), idet den har opretholdt artikel L. 310-8, sammenholdt med artikel A. 310-1 i den franske forsikringslov, hvorefter forsikrings- eller pensionsforsikringsselskaber, når de i Frankrig første gang tager en standardforsïkringskontraL· i brug løbende skal tilstille Økonomiog Finansministeriet et oplysningsskema med oplysninger om de almindelige betingelser i deres forsikringspolicer.
By its first three questions, which should be examined together, the national court is essentially asking whether Article 13 of the Association Agreement and Article 41 of the Additional Protocol are capable of conferring upon a Turkish national a right of establishment and, correspondingly, a right of residence in a Member State in whose territory he has remained and carried on selfemployed business activities in breach of that Member State's immigration laws.
Generaladvokat S. Alber fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet fFemte Afdeling) den 28. oktober 1999.
In order to give a proper answer to those questions as so reformulated, the first matter to be examined is whether the provisions to which they refer can be relied upon by an individual before a national court, and, if so, to determine their scope.
Dansk tekst foreligger endnu ikke.
The direct effect of the provisions at issue in the main proceedings
Præjudiciel »Associeringen EØF-Tyrkiet — restriktioner, som begrænser etableringsfriheden og opholdsretten — associeringsaftalens artikel 13 og tillægsprotokollens artikel 41 — direkte virkning — rækkevidde — tyrkisk statsborger, der befinder sig i en ulovlig situation i værtsmedlemsstaten« (Sjette Afdeling)
The direct effect of Article 13 of the Association Agreement
Ved skrivelse af 31. januar 1991 ansøgte de imidlertid gennem deres advokater om lovliggørelse af deres ophold, idet de på grundlag af de relevante bestemmelser i den nationale lovgivning anmodede Immigration and Nationality Department of the Home Office (indenrigsministeriets afdeling for spørgsmål om indvandring og statsborgerskab) om opholdstilladelse i Det Forenede Kongerige.
Association have a direct effect between Member States as regards the introduction of new restrictions on the access to employment of workers legally resident and employed in the territory of the contracting States.