natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Rudolf Gabriel besluttede derfor at anlægge sag for at få Schlank & Schick dømt til at betale ham beløbet med tillæg af renter og sagsomkostninger i henhold til § 5j i den østrigske lov om forbrugerbeskyttelse. Oberster Gerichtshof har under disse omstændigheder fundet, at afgørelsen af Rudolf Gabriels begæring må bero på en fortolkning af Bruxelles-konventionen, og retten har derfor besluttet at udsætte sagens behandling og at forelægge Domstolen følgende spørgsmål til præjudiciel afgørelse:
Having regard to the factual background to the case in the main proceedings, the question posed must be construed as asking essentially whether the jurisdiction rules set out in the Brussels Convention are to be interpreted as meaning that judicial proceedings by which a consumer seeks an order, in the Contracting State in which he is domiciled and pursuant to that State's legislation, requiring a mailorder company established in another Contracting State to pay him a financial benefit in circumstances where that company had sent to that consumer in person a letter likely to create the impression that a prize would be awarded to him on condition that he ordered goods to a specified amount, and where that consumer actually placed such an order in the State of his domicile without, however, obtaining payment of that financial benefit, are contractual in nature in the sense contemplated in Articles 5(1) or 13, first paragraph, point 3, of the Brussels Convention, or relating to tort, delict or quasidelict within the meaning of Article 5(3) thereof.
Da Rudolf Gabriel ønskede at anlægge dette søgsmål i Østrig — den stat, på hvis område han har bopæl i henhold til Bruxelleskonventionens artikel 14, stk. 1, men var af den opfattelse, at der i østrigsk ret ikke fandtes nogen bestemmelse, der afgjorde, hvilken national ret der var stedligt kompetent til at påkende sagen, indgav han, før indgivelse af stævning, en begæring til Oberster Gerichtshof om, at denne ret skulle udpege en stedligt kompetent ret i henhold til § 28, stk. 1, nr. 1, i den østrigske lov af 1. august 1895.
In contrast, the application pending before the Oberster Gerichtshof would serve no purpose if Mr Gabriel's right of action were contractual in nature, within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention, or relating to tort, delict or quasidelict within the meaning of Article 5(3) thereof, on the ground that those provisions specifically designate the courts having territorial jurisdiction, that is to say, respectively, the courts for the place of performance of the contractual obligation in question or those for the place where the harmful event occurred.
»Er indtaling af den ret, der er indrømmet forbrugerne i § 5j i den østrigske lov om forbrugerbeskyttelse [...], som affattet ved artikel I, nr. 2, i den østrigske lov om fjernsalg [...] til at afkræve erhvervsdrivende en tilsyneladende vundet gevinst gennem sagsanlæg, når de erhvervsdrivende sender (eller har sendt) gevinsttilsagn eller andre lignende meddelelser til bestemte forbrugere og på grund af forsendelsernes udformning giver (eller har givet) indtryk af, at forbrugeren har vundet en bestemt gevinst, i den forstand, hvori udtrykkene er benyttet i Bruxelles-konventionen [...] a) en sag om en kontrakt som omhandlet i artikel 13, stk. 1, nr. 3, eller b) som en sag om kontraktforhold omhandlet i artikel 5, nr. 1,
As it formed the view that, in those circumstances, the reply to the request which Mr Gabriel had made to it depended on the interpretation of the Brussels Convention, the Oberster Gerichtshof decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court for a preliminary' ruling:
Oberster Gerichtshof har fundet, at det søgsmål, som Rudolf Gabriel agter at anlægge, ganske vist synes at være omfattet af § 5j i den østrigske lov om forbrugerbeskyttelse, men at spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt begæringen om udpegning af den stedligt kompetente ret skal imødekommes, må afhænge af, hvorledes den sag, som sagsøgeren i hovedsagen agter at indlede mod Schlank & Schick, skal kvalificeres. eller c) en sag om erstatning uden for kontrakt som omhandlet i artikel 5, nr. 3?«
In order to reply to the question as thus reformulated, it should be noted at the outset that, according to settled case-law, the concept of matters relating to tort, delict or quasidelict within the meaning of Article 5(3) of the Brussels Convention covers all actions which seek to establish the liability of a defendant and which are not related to a contract within the meaning of Article 5(1) ofthat Convention (see, inter alia. Case 189/87 Kalfelis [1988], paragraph 17; Case C-261/90 Reichen and Kockler [1992], paragraph 16; and Case C-51/97 Réunion Européenne and Others [1998], paragraph 22).
Det præjudicielle spørgsmål
It is thus necessary in the first instance to examine whether an action such as that in point in the main proceedings is contractual in nature.
Hvis sagen nemlig må antages at vedrøre en sag om en forbrugerkontrakt i Bruxelleskonventionens artikel 13, stk. 1, nr. 3's forstand, er det nødvendigt at foretage en sådan udpegning, idet konventionen alene bestemmer, at forbrugeren har mulighed for at anlægge søgsmål ved retterne i den kontraherende stat, hvor han har bopæl, uden dog derved direkte at afgøre, hvilken ret i den pågældende stat der er kompetent.
'For the purposes of the Brussels Convention ..., does the provision in Paragraph 5j of the Austrian Consumer Protection Law ..., in the version of Art I, para. 2, of the Austrian Law on Distance Contracts ..., which entitles certain consumers to claim from undertakings in the courts prizes ostensibly won by them where the undertakings send (or have sent) them prize notifications or other similar communications worded so as to give the impression that they have won a particular prize, constitute:
Under hensyn til de faktiske omstændigheder i hovedsagen må det forelagte spørgsmål forstås således, at den forelæggende ret nærmere bestemt ønsker oplyst, om kompetencereglerne i Bruxelles-konventionen skal fortolkes således, at en retssag om udbetaling af en gevinst, som en forbruger anlægger i den kontraherende stat, hvor han har bopæl, og under anvendelse af denne stats lovgivning mod et postordrefirma, som har hjemsted i en anden kontraherende stat, er en sag om kontraktforhold som omhandlet i konventionens artikel 5, nr. 1, eller artikel 13, stk. 1, nr. 3, eller en sag om erstatning uden for kontrakt som omhandlet i artikel 5, nr. 3, når
In that connection, it must be observed that Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention relates to contractual matters in general, whereas Article 13 thereof specifically covers various types of contracts concluded by consumers.
Derimod vil begæringen for Oberster Gerichtshof være uden genstand, hvis det må antages, at Rudolf Gabriels søgsmål skal kvalificeres som en sag om et kontraktforhold i Bruxelleskonventionens artikel 5, nr. l's forstand, eller en sag om erstatning uden for kontrakt i artikel 5, nr. 3's forstand, eftersom disse bestemmelser nøjagtigt udpeger den stedligt kompetente ret, dvs. henholdsvis retten på det sted, hvor
As Article 13 of the Brussels Convention thus constitutes a lex specialis in relation to Article 5(1) thereof, it is first of all necessary to a claim in respect of a tort, delict or quasidelict under Article 5(3)?'
Desuden har denne viljesoverensstemmelse mellem parterne bevirket, at der er opstået gensidige og indbyrdes afhængige forpligtelser inden for rammerne af en kontrakt, som netop har ét af de formål, der er omhandlet i Bruxelleskonventionens artikel 13, stk. 1, nr. 3.
determine whether an action having the characteristics set out in the question referred for a preliminary ruling, as reformulated, can fall within the scope of the former of those two provisions.
Hvad angår en kontrakt som den, der foreligger i hovedsagen, vedrører den nærmere bestemt salg pr. postordre og efterfølgende levering af løsøregenstande, som er bestilt af forbrugeren på grundlag af et tilbud, der er fremsat af, og en pris, der er fastlagt af sælgeren.
First, it is common ground that Mr Gabriel has in this case the capacity of a private final consumer covered by the first paragraph of Article 13 of the Brussels Convention inasmuch as it is clear from the case-file that he ordered goods offered by Schlank & Schick for his personal use, without that transaction having any connection whatever with his trade or profession. In those circumstances, where a consumer has been contacted at his home by one or more letters sent by a professional vendor for the purpose of bringing about the placement of an order for goods offered under the conditions determined by that vendor, and where the consumer has in fact placed such an order in the Contracting State in which he is domiciled, the action by which such a consumer seeks through judicial proceedings brought against the vendor to obtain a prize which he has apparently won is an action relating to a contract concluded by a consumer within the meaning of Article 13, first paragraph, point 3, of the Brussels Convention.
Med henblik på besvarelsen af det således omformulerede spørgsmål skal det indledningsvis bemærkes, at det følger af fast retspraksis, at begrebet erstatning uden for kontrakt i Bruxelleskonventionens artikel 5, nr. 3, omfatter ethvert krav om, at en sagsøgt pålægges et erstatningsansvar, som ikke er knyttet til et kontraktforhold i konventionens artikel 5, nr. l's forstand (jf. bl.a. dom af 27.9.1988, sag 189/87, Kalfelis, præmis 17, af 26.3.1992, sag C-261/90, Reichert og Kockler, præmis 16, og af 27.10.1998, sag C-51/97, Réunion européenne m.fl., præmis 22).
Second, in a situation such as that in point in the main proceedings, the consumer and the professional vendor were indubitably linked contractually once Mr Gabriel had ordered goods offered by Schlank & Schick, thereby demonstrating his acceptance of the offer including all conditions attaching thereto -which that company had sent to him in person. Furthermore, that concordance of intention between the two parties gave rise to reciprocal and interdependent obligations within the framework of a contract which has specifically one of the objects described in Article 13, first paragraph, point 3, of the Brussels Convention.
For det tredje er de to særlige betingelser, som fremgår af Bruxelleskonventionens artikel 13, stk. 1, nr. 3, litra a) og b), ligeledes opfyldt.
Thus, in regard to a case such as that in the main proceedings, that contract relates more specifically to the supply, through a mailorder sale, of goods ordered by a consumer on the basis of a proposal made and at a price specified by the vendor.
Det følger heraf, at det indledningsvis er nødvendigt at afgøre, om en sag som den, der foreligger i hovedsagen, er en sag om et kontraktforhold.
Furthermore, the consumer concluded the contract for the purchase of goods essentially, if indeed not exclusively, by reason of the vendor's proposal involving a promise of financial benefit significantly greater than the minimum amount required for the order and the consumer otherwise met all of the conditions laid down by the professional, thereby accepting that professional's proposal in its entirety.
Det bemærkes i den forbindelse, at Bruxelleskonventionens artikel 5, nr. 1, omhandler sager om kontraktforhold i almindelighed, mens konventionens artikel 13 specifikt angår forskellige typer af kontrakter indgået af en forbruger.
Third, the two conditions specifically set out in Article 13, first paragraph, point 3(a) and (b), of the Brussels Convention are also satisfied.
For det første har sælgeren rettet henvendelse ved at tilsende forbrugeren i den kontraherende stal, hvor forbrugeren har bopæl, adskillige personlige skrivelser, hvortil var vedlagt et salgskatalog og en bestillingsseddel, med det formål at tilskynde forbrugeren til at indgå en kontrakt på grundlag af sælgerens tilbud og på de betingelser, som er forbundet hermed, og for det andet har forbrugeren, efter at have modtaget disse forsendelser, foretaget de nødvendige handlinger i denne stat med henblik på indgåelse af en kontrakt, idet han har bestilt varer for det af sælgeren krævede beløb og har sendt bestillingssedlen til sælgeren med en kopi af »kvitteringen«.
Consequently, judicial proceedings by which a consumer seeks an order, in the Contracting State in which he is domiciled, requiring a mail order company established in another Contracting State to send to him a prize which he has apparently won must be capable of being brought before the same court as that which has jurisdiction to deal with the contract concluded by that consumer.
Bruxelleskonventionens artikel 13 er således lex specialis i forhold til konventionens artikel 5, nr. 1, og det skal derfor først afgøres, om en sag, som har de kendetegn, der fremgår af det præjudicielle spørgsmål, således som det er omformuleret, kan antages at høre under artikel 13's anvendelsesområde.
The vendor addressed the consumer in the Contracting State in which the latter was domiciled by sending him several personalised letters, to which were attached a sales catalogue and an order form, with a view to persuading him to contract on the basis of those proposals and the conditions relating thereto.
For det andet består der mellem forbrugeren og den erhvervsdrivende i en situation som den, der
An interpretation of Article 13, first paragraph, of the Brussels Convention which would have the
nær forbindelse med denne kontrakt, at de er uadskillige fra den, skulle undergives andre bestemmelser, kan ikke antages.
result that certain claims under a contract concluded by a consumer fall within the jurisdiction rules of Articles 13 to 15 of that Convention, whereas other actions that are linked so closely to that contract as to be indissociable are subject to other rules cannot be accepted.
Domstolen har i den forbindelse i en for nylig afsagt dom udtalt, at det er tvingende nødvendigt i videst muligt omfang at undgå, at der opstår flere værneting for én og samme kontrakt (jf. analogt dom af 19.2.2002, sag C-256/00, Besix, præmis 27, vedrørende Bruxelleskonventionens artikel 5, nr. 1).
multiplicity of courts having jurisdiction risks placing at a particular disadvantage a party deemed to be weak, such as a consumer, it is in the interest of the proper administration of justice that the latter should be able to bring before one and the same court — in casu that of his place of domicile — all of the difficulties that are likely to arise from a contract which the consumer has been induced to conclude by reason of the professional's use of forms of wording liable to mislead the other contracting party.
Som det fremgår af de sagsakter, der er forelagt Domstolen, er forbrugerens adgang til at anlægge søgsmål nemlig tæt forbundet med parternes kontrakt, fordi den korrespondance, som den erhvervsdrivende har tilsendt forbrugeren, i en situation som den foreliggende, har skabt en uadskillelig forbindelse mellem gevinstløftet og bestillingen af varer, idet bestillingen blev fremstillet af sælgeren som en nødvendig forudsætning for udbetaling af den lovede gevinst, netop med det formål at tilskynde forbrugeren til at indgå kontrakt.
The Court has in this regard recently recalled the need to avoid, so far as possible, a situation in which several courts have jurisdiction in respect of one and the same contract (see, by way of analogy, with regard to Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention, Case C-256/00 Besix [2002], paragraph 27).
Behovet for at undgå, at der opstår flere værneting for én og samme kontrakt, gør sig så meget mere gældende, når der er tale om en kontrakt som den, hovedsagen drejer sig om.
That need is all the more compelling in the case of a contract such as that in issue in the main proceedings.
Derfor bør den retssag, som en forbruger agter at anlægge i den kontraherende stat, hvor han har bopæl, med det formål at forpligte et postordrefirma, som har hjemsted i en anden kontraherende stat, til at udbetale en tilsyneladende vundet gevinst, kunne anlægges ved den samme ret, som har kompetence til at pådømme den kontrakt, som er indgået af forbrugeren.
An action such as that which Mr Gabriel proposes to bring before the competent national court therefore falls within the scope of Article 13, first paragraph, point 3, of the Brussels Convention, and it is for that reason unnecessary to examine whether it is covered by Article 5(1) thereof.
En retssag som den, Rudolf Gabriel agter at anlægge ved den kompetente nationale ret, hører således under Bruxelleskonventionens artikel 13, stk. 1, nr. 3, og det er således unødvendigt at tage stilling til, om den er omfattet af konventionens artikel 5, nr. 1.
'The jurisdiction rules set out in 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, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic, by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, and by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the Accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, are to be construed as meaning that judicial proceedings by which a consumer seeks an order, in the Contracting State in which he is domiciled and pursuant to that State's legislation, requiring a mailorder company established in another Contracting Stale to pay him a financial benefit in circumstances where that company had sent to that consumer in person a letter likely to create the impression that a prize would be awarded to him on condition that he ordered goods to a specified amount, and where that consumer actually placed such an order in the State of his domicile without, however, obtaining payment of that financial benefit, are contractual in nature in the sense contemplated in Article 13, first paragraph, point 3, ofthat Convention.'
En fortolkning af Bruxelleskonventionens artikel 13, stk. 1, som fører til, at visse krav i medfør af en forbrugerkontrakt hører under konventionens artikel 13 til 15, mens andre krav, som har en så
Advocate General F.G.Jacobs delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Sixth Chamber on 13 December 2001.
»Kompetencereglerne i konventionen af 27. september 1968 om retternes kompetence og om fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser i borgerlige sager, herunder handelssager, som ændret ved konventionen af 9. oktober 1978 om Kongeriget Danmarks, Irlands og Det Forenede Kongerige Storbritannien og Nordirlands tiltrædelse, ved konventionen af 25. oktober 1982 om Den Hellenske RepubliL· tiltrædelse, ved konventionen af 26. maj 1989 om Kongeriget Spaniens og Den Portugisiske Republiks tiltrædelse og ved konventionen af 29. november 1996 om Republikken Østrigs, Republikken Finlands og Kongeriget Sveriges tiltrædelse, skal fortolkes således, at en retssag om udbetaling af en gevinst, som en forbruger anlægger i den kontraherende stat, hvor han har bopæl, og under anvendelse af denne stats lovgivning mod et postordrefirma, som har hjemsted i en anden kontraherende stat, er en sag om en kontrakt som omhandlet i konventionens artikel 13, stk 1, nr. 3, når postordrefirmaet har tilsendt
'Where (i) under national consumer protection legislation consumers who have been sent prize notifications or other similar communications worded so as to give the impression that they have won a particular prize may bring legal proceedings to claim that prize from the notifying undertaking, (ii) an
forbrugeren en personlig forsendelse, som har givet ham indtryk af at have vundet en gevinst på den ene betingeke, at han bestiller varer for et bestemt beløb, og når forbrugeren faktisk har foretaget en sådan bestilling uden dog at modtage gevinsten.*
undertaking which sells goods by mail order gives the impression in a personalised communication that a consumer has won a prize which is payable on receipt of an order for goods over a specified value, (iii) the consumer makes such an order and (iv) the goods ordered are delivered, an action brought by a consumer under that legislation constitutes proceedings concerning a consumer contract within the meaning of Article 13(3) of the Brussels Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.'
Generaladvokat F.G.Jacobs fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Sjette Afdeling) den 13. december 2001.
Case T-21/01 Georgios Zawos ν Commission of the European Communities Staff Regulations of Officials
Sag T-21/01 Georgios Zawos / Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber Tjenestemandsvedtægten
Case T-l58/01 Alexandre Tilgenkamp ν Commission of the European Communities Staff Regulations of Officials
»Tjenestemand — disciplinær ordning 1, og artikel 14* (Tredje Afdeling)
(Officials Post of Assistant Director General — Vacancy notice of the candidates Manifest error of assessment) (Third Chamber)
Sag T-158/01 Alexandre Tilgenkamp / Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber Tjenestemandsvedtægten
Case T-233/01 Daniel Callebaut ν Commission of the European Communities Staff Regulations of Officials
»Tjenestemænd — stilling som vicegeneraldirektør — stillingsopslag — vurdering af ansøgernes fortjenester — åbenbare skønsfejl* (Tredje Afdeling)
(Officials - Promotion -Absence of definitive staff report merits) (Third Chamber)
Sag T-233/01 Daniel Callebaut / Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber Tjenestemandsvedtægten
Case T-333/00 Rougemarine SARL ν Commission of the European Communities Culture
»Tjenestemænd - forfremmelse -- manglende bedømmelsesrapport -- sammenligning af fortjenester* (Tredje Afdeling)
The applicant responded to a number of calls for proposals issued in the context of the MEDIA II programme, without success.
Sag T-333/00 Rougemarine SARL / Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber Kultur
applicant brought this action.
»Program til fremme af udvikling og distribution af europæiske audiovisuelle produktioner (MEDIA II) - beslutning om finansiel støtte afslag - implicit begrundelse* (Femte Afdeling)
By an e-mail of 31 March 2000 the Commission replied that the applicant did not appear to fall within the definition of a European production company laid down in the Guidelines.
Sagens faktiske omstændigheder begrebet et europæisk produktionsselskab, som er fastsat i retningslinierne.
uphold the plea of illegality against Decision 95/563; annul the contested decision; award it compensation for the harm caused by that decision.
Den 14. april 2000 indgav sagsøgeren på grundlag af forslagsindkaldelse 3/2000 et projekt benævnt »Hor«.
On 14 April 2000 the applicant submitted a project entitled 'Hör' in response to Call for proposals No 3/2000.
Kommissionen bekræftede modtagelsen af projektet den 26. maj 2000, idet den anførte, at de indsendte projekter ville blive bedømt af en uafhængig ekspertgruppe.
The Commission acknowledged receipt on 26 May 2000 and stated that projects would be evaluated by an independent group of experts.
Skrivelsen havde følgende ordlyd:
The application for annulment
Den 30. marts 2000, dvs. efter offentliggørelsen af forslagsindkaldelse 3/2000, stillede selskabets direktør Kommissionen følgende spørgsmål:
By a letter of 5 September 2000 (hereinafter 'the contested decision') the Commission informed the applicant that it had decided not to select the 'Hör' project, stating as follows:
»Gennemgangen af de indsendte forslag er nu afsluttet, og vi beklager at måtte meddele, at »H6r«-projektet ikke er blevet udvalgt.
'The assessment process in respect of the proposals we have received is now closed and the [Hör] project has unfortunately not been selected.
»Jeg ønsker i forbindelse med forslagsindkaldelse 3/2000 at fremlægge et projekt med henblik på at opnå støtte til udvikling af audiovisuelle produktioner.
All the projects submitted (577 applications altogether) were carefully examined in the light of the following selection criteria: quality and originality of the concept;
Alle indsendte projekter (i alt 577) er omhyggeligt blevet gennemgået på grundlag af følgende kriterier:
Whilst that ground is not made explicit in the contested decision, the applicant claims that it was in fact the decisive factor.