natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Når der er tale om en aftalt undladelsesforpligtelse, som finder anvendelse uden nogen form for geografisk begrænsning, undgår man nemlig ikke ved anvendelse af denne fremgangsmåde, at der er flere retter, som har kompetence til at påkende sagen, eftersom den fører til, at der er opfyldelsessted for den pågældende forpligtelse i samtlige kontraherende stater.
It is clear from the order for reference that the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles found, first, that the relevant obligation for the purposes of the application of Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention was an obligation not to do something, consisting here in the parties' undertaking not to commit themselves to other partners in connection with a procedure for the award of a public contract, and, second, that the parties did not designate either the place of performance of that contractual obligation or the courts having jurisdiction to hear any action relating to such an obligation, or, for that matter, the law governing the contract.
Fremgangsmåden indebærer desuden en risiko for, at sagsøgeren kan vælge det opfyldelsessted, som han mener vil tjene hans interesser bedst.
The referring court also states that, given all the circumstances of the case, the parties' clear intention was to have the obligation in question honoured throughout the world, with the result that the places for its performance are particularly numerous.
For det andet har Domstolen ganske vist med hensyn til arbejdskontrakter fastslået dels, at opfyldelsesstedet for den relevante forpligtelse ikke skal bestemmes under henvisning til den nationale lov, der er anvendelig i henhold til lovkonfliktreglerne for den ret, sagen er indbragt for, men derimod på grundlag af ensartede kriterier, som Domstolen skal opstille ud fra Bruxelleskonventionens opbygning og formål (Mulox IBC-dommen, præmis 16), dels at disse kriterier fører til, at det afgørende er det sted, hvor arbejdstageren faktisk udfører den med arbejdsgiveren aftalte virksomhed (Mulox IBC-dommen, præmis 20), og endelig, at det sted, hvor den forpligtelse, der er karakteristisk for kontrakten, er opfyldt eller skal opfyldes i Bruxelleskonventionens artikel 5, nr. l's forstand - for det tilfælde, at arbejdstageren udfører sit arbejde i mere end én kontraherende stat — er det sted, hvor eller hvorfra arbejdstageren hovedsagelig opfylder sine forpligtelser over for arbejdsgiveren (Mulox IBC-dommen, præmis 26), eller det sted, hvor arbejdstageren har etableret det faktiske midtpunkt for sin virksomhed (Rutten-dommen, præmis 26).
The Cour d'appel raises the question whether the fact that the undertaking to act exclusively was to be honoured, inter alia, in Belgium - and was indeed honoured in Belgium, since it was in Germany that Plafog negotiated with the Finnish undertaking — is sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Belgian courts. Since the parties' undoubted intention was that the other contracting party should not commit itself to another partner for the purpose of submitting a joint tender for the public contract concerned, the place where any such commitment was entered into or fulfilled does not matter and the exclusivity obligation in question was applicable in any place whatever in the world, the places for performance of that obligation therefore being particularly numerous.
Imidlertid kan den retspraksis, der er nævnt i præmis 38, ikke anvendes analogt i det foreliggende tilfælde.
Taking the view that, in those circumstances, determination of the case required an interpretation of the Brussels Convention, the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
Den nævnte fortolkning gør det følgelig ikke muligt at fastlægge den domstol, der i stedlig henseende er bedst egnet til at påkende tvisten, og den kan desuden medføre, at det ikke er muligt at forudse, hvilken ret der har
The Court has consistently held that it is essential to avoid, so far as possible, creating a situation in which a number of courts have jurisdiction in respect of one and the same contract, in order to preclude the risk of irreconcilable decisions and to facilitate the recognition and enforcement of judgments in States other than those in which they were delivered.
Under disse omstændigheder kan den ret, der har kompetencen, alene fastlægges i henhold til Bruxelleskonventionens artikel 2, som opstiller et sikkert og pålideligt kriterium (dom af 15.2.1989, sag 32/88, Six Constructions, præmis 20).
It follows from the foregoing that Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention is to be interpreted as meaning that, in the event that the relevant contractual obligation has been, or is to be, performed in a number of places, jurisdiction to hear and determine the case cannot be conferred on the court within whose jurisdiction any one of those places of performance happens to be located.
Den forelæggende ret har imidlertid fastslået, at hovedsagen alene vedrører forpligtelsen til at undlade at indgå aftale med andre og til ikke at konkurrere indbyrdes, idet det søgsmål, som Besix har indledt, alene har til formål at opnå erstatning for det tab, som selskabet hævder at have lidt som følge af, at WABAG og Plafog har tilsidesat denne forpligtelse.
Rather, as is clear from the very wording of that provision, which, in matters relating to a contract, confers jurisdiction on the courts 'for the place' of performance of the obligation in question, a single place of performance for the obligation in question must be identified.
Det præjudicielle spørgsmål, som Cour d'appel de Bruxelles har forelagt, vedrører således alene fastlæggelsen af opfyldelsesstedet for denne undladelsesforpligtelse.
In a case such as that now referred, characterised by a multiplicity of places of performance of the contractual obligation in question, a single place of performance has to be identified.
Den fremgangsmåde, som Besix og Kommissionen har foreslået, ville derimod indebære, at det først skulle fastlægges, hvori den relevante positive forpligtelse består.
In principle, this will be the place presenting the closest connection between the dispute and the court having jurisdiction.
Det fremgår i øvrigt af retspraksis, at det på baggrund af kompetencefordelingen inden for rammerne af den præjudicielle forelæggelsesprocedure i henhold til protokollen af 3. juni 1971 vedrørende Domstolens fortolkning af Bruxelleskonventionen tilkommer den nationale ret at besvare de spørgsmål, der angår bedømmelsen af faktum, mens Domstolen alene skal fortolke konventionen ud fra de konstateringer, den nationale ret har foretaget (jf. i den forbindelse Leathertex-dommen, præmis 21).
Further, it is true that there is settled case-law, as regards contracts of employment, to the effect, first, that the place of performance of the relevant obligation should be determined by reference, not to the applicable national law in accordance with the conflict rules of the court seised, but to uniform criteria which it is for the Court to lay down on the basis of the scheme and objectives of the Brussels Convention (Mulox IBC, paragraph 16); next, that those criteria lead to the choice of the place where the employee actually performs the work covered by the contract with his employer (Mulox IBC, paragraph 20); finally, that, where the employee performs his work in more than one Contracting State, the place where the obligation characterising the contract is to be performed, within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention, is the place where or from which the employee principally discharges his obligations towards his employer (Mulox IBC, paragraph 26) or where the employee has established the effective centre of his activities (Rutten, paragraph 26).
De fælles regler for kompetencetildelingen, som er opstillet i Bruxelleskonventionens afsnit II, tager nemlig udgangspunkt i den principielle regel i artikel 2, stk. 1, om, at personer, der har bopæl på en kontraherende stats område, uanset parternes nationalitet, skal sagsøges ved retterne i denne stat.
Where parties have agreed a contractual obligation not to do something, applicable without any geographical limit, that approach does not avoid a multiplicity of competent courts, since it leads to the result that the places of performance of the obligation in question are in all the Contracting States.
Baggrunden for, at denne kompetenceregel — som er udtryk for sentensen »actor sequitur forum rei« — er opstillet som det almindelige princip, er, at den normalt gør det lettere for sagsøgte at forsvare sig (jf. bl.a. dom af 13.7.2000, sag C-412/98, Group Josi, præmis 34 og 35).
It also involves the risk that the claimant will be able to choose the place of performance which he judges to be most favourable to his interests.
På baggrund af det anførte bemærkes, at Bruxelleskonventionens artikel 5, nr. 1, ikke ses at kunne finde anvendelse på en sag som hovedsagen, hvori det ikke er muligt at fastlægge den ret, der har den nærmeste tilknytning til sagen, ved at lade værnetinget være sammenfaldende med det faktiske opfyldelsessted for den forpligtelse, som den forelæggende ret har anset for at være den relevante.
However, that case-law of the Court, rehearsed in the preceding paragraph, cannot be applied by analogy in the present case.
Det er kun som en undtagelse fra dette grundlæggende princip, at Bruxelles konventionen i overensstemmelse med artikel 3, stk. 1, fastlægger specielle kompetenceregler som den, der er indeholdt i artikel 5, nr. 1, hvorefter sagsøgeren kan vælge, hvor han vil anlægge sag.
Consequently, that interpretation does not make it possible to identify the court most qualified territorially to determine the case. Furthermore, it is likely to reduce the predictability of the competent court, so that it is incompatible with the principle of legal certainty.
En undladelsesforpligtelse som den, hovedsagen angår, der består af en forpligtelse til udelukkende at samarbejde med en medkontrahent og til ikke at indgå aftale med andre med henblik på afgivelse af et fælles bud i forbindelse med en offentlig kontrakt, og som ifølge parternes vilje skal anvendes uden nogen form for geografisk begrænsning og dermed skal overholdes overalt i verden — og navnlig i enhver af de kontraherende stater — kan i sagens natur ikke stedfæstes nøjagtigt eller henføres til en ret, som er særligt egnet til at påkende den uoverensstemmelse, der er opstået vedrørende den nævnte forpligtelse.
In the present case, the national court found that only the obligation of exclusivity and noncompetition was in question, the sole purpose of the legal action brought by Besix being to obtain compensation for the damage which it claims to have suffered through breach of that obligation by WABAG and Plafog.
En sådan forpligtelse til at undlade at gøre noget bestemt på et hvilket
Accordingly, the question referred by the Cour d'appel de
I et sådant tilfælde kan kompetencen alene bestemmes ved anvendelse af det almindelige kompetencekriterium, der er fastlagt i konventionens artikel 2, stk 1.*
In those circumstances jurisdiction can, in such a case, be determined solely in accordance with Article 2 of the Brussels Convention, which provides a certain and reliable criterion (Case 32/88 Six Constructions [1989], paragraph 20).
Generaladvokat S. Alber fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum) den 27. september 2001.
That solution is, moreover, in conformity with the scheme of the Brussels Convention and the rationale of Article 5(1) thereof.
Sag C-295/00 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Den Italienske Republik Transport
That jurisdictional rule is a general principle, which expresses the maxim actor sequitur forum rei, because it makes it easier, in principle, for a defendant to defend himself (see, in particular, Case C-412/98 Group Josi [2000], paragraphs 34 and 35).
»Traktatbrud -- tilsidesættelse af artikel 1 i forordning (EØF) nr. 4055/86 afgift for passagerer, der går om bord i skibe eller fra borde — afgift, der ikke pålægges passagerer, der rejser mellem havne, der er beliggende på det nationale område*
It is only by way of derogation from that fundamental principle that the Brussels Convention makes provision, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 3, for, in particular, special jurisdictional rules, such as that laid down in Article 5(1), where the choice depends on an option to be exercised by the claimant.
(Tredje Afdeling) nr. 4055/86 af 22. december 1986 om anvendelse af princippet om fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser inden for søtransport mellem medlemsstaterne indbyrdes og mellem medlemsstaterne og tredjelande, idet den har opretholdt en afgift for passagerer, der går om bord i skibe eller fra borde i Genovas, Napolis og Triestes havne
However, it is well settled that that option must not give rise to an interpretation going beyond the cases expressly envisaged by the Brussels Convention, for otherwise the general principle laid down in the first paragraph of Article 2 would be undermined and a claimant might be able to affect the choice of a court unforeseeable for a defendant domiciled in the territory of a Contracting State (see, in particular, Group Josi, paragraphs 49 and 50, and the references there).
Ved stævning indleveret til Domstolens Justitskontor den 1. august 2000 har Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber i medfør af artikel 226 EF anlagt sag med påstand om, at det fastslås, at Den Italienske Republik har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til artikel 1 i Rådets forordning (EØF)
'The special jurisdictional rule in matters relating to a contract, laid down in Article 5(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, is not applicable where, as in the present case, the place of
Den Italienske Republik en begrundet udtalelse, hvori den opfordrede denne medlemsstat til at træffe de nødvendige foranstaltninger for at efterkomme udtalelsen inden for en frist på to måneder fra dens meddelelse.
performance of the obligation in question cannot be fatermined because it consists in an undertaking not to do something which is not subject to any geographical limit and is therefore characterised by a multiplicity of places for its performance.
(Italien), når passagererne kommer fra eller rejser til havne, der er beliggende i en anden medlemsstat eller i et tredjeland, mens en sådan afgift ikke opkræves i forbindelse med transport mellem to havne, der er beliggende på det nationale område.
Advocate General S. Alber delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Full Court on 27 September 2001.
Da Kommissionen ikke havde modtaget nogen lovændringstekst, der i overensstemmelse med den af de italienske myndigheder udtalte hensigt gjorde bestemmelserne i lov nr. 82/1963 forenelige med forordning nr. 4055/86, anlagde den denne sag.
Case C-295/00 Commission of the European Communities ν Italian Republic Transport
Ved åbningsskrivelse af 20. januar 1998 meddelte Kommissionen Den Italienske Republik, at anvendelsen af en afgift for passagerer, der går om bord i skibe eller fra borde i Genovas, Napolis og Triestes havne, når passagererne kommer fra eller rejser til havne, der er beliggende i en anden medlemsstat eller i et tredjeland, mens en sådan afgift ikke opkræves i forbindelse med transport mellem to havne, der er beliggende på det nationale område, er uforenelig med det princip om fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser, der er indeholdt i artikel 1 i forordning nr. 4055/86.
(Failure by a Member State tofidfil its obligations — Infringement of Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 — Disembarkation/embarkation tax payable by passengers — Tax not applicable to passengers travelling between ports on Italian territory) (Third Chamber)
I denne sag står det fast og er i øvrigt ubestridt, at Den Italienske Republik ikke har truffet de nødvendige foranstaltninger for at efterkomme den begrundede udtalelse inden for den fastsatte frist.
By a letter of formal notice of 20 January 1998, the Commission informed the Italian Republic that the imposition of a tax on passengers embarking and disembarking in the ports of Genoa, Naples and Trieste when arriving from or travelling to ports in another Member State or a third country, but not in the case of carriage between two ports situated on Italian territory, was incompatible with the principle of freedom to provide services enshrined in Article 1 of Regulation No 4055/86.
»1) Den Italienske Republik har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til artikel 1 i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 4055/86 af 22. december 1986 om anvendelse af princippet om fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser inden for søtransport mellem medlemsstaterne indbyrdes og mellem medlemsstaterne og tredjelande, idet den har opretholdt en afgift f or passagerer, der går om bord i skibe eller fra borde i Genovas, Napolis og Triestes havne (Italien), når passagererne kommer fra eller rejser til havne, der er beliggende i en anden medlemsstat eller i et tredjeland, mens en sådan afgift ikke opkræves i forbindelse med transport mellem to havne, der er beliggende på det nationale område.
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 1 August 2000, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action under Article 226 EC for a declaration that, by maintaining in force a tax applicable to passengers embarking and disembarking in the ports of Genoa, Naples and Trieste (Italy) when arriving from or travelling to ports in another Member State or a third country, but not in the case of carriage between two ports located on Italian territory, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport between Member States and between Member States and third countries.
Generaladvokat S. Alber fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet ("Tredje Afdeling) den 25. oktober 2001.
Following an exchange of correspondence between the Italian Republic and the Commission, the latter issued a reasoned opinion
»Traktatbrud — mangelfuld (Tredje Afdeling) anordning stadig var under behandling i Conseil d'État.
Advocate General S. Alber delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Third Chamber on 25 October 2001.
hinder for at tage de luxembourgske myndigheders anmodning om, at sagen udsættes, indtil Kommissionen måtte hæve sagen, til følge (jf. dom af 16.12.1999, sag C-47/99, Kommissionen mod Luxembourg, præmis 12).
Case C-366/00 Commission of the European Communities ν Grand Duchy of Luxembourg Environment and consumers
Det fremgår af ovennævnte, at
Incomplete transposition of
»1) Storhertugdømmet Luxembourg har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til artikel 3, stk 1, første afsnit, i Rådets direktiv 97/111EF af 3. marts 1997 om ændring af direktiv 85/337/EØF om vurdering af visse offentlige og private projekters indvirkning på miljøet og i henhold til EF-traktaten, idet det ikke inden for den fastsatte frist har sat de love og administrative bestemmelser, som er nødvendigefor at efterkomme direktivet, i kraft.
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 3 October 2000, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action under Article 226 EC for a declaration that, by failing to adopt or, in the alternative, to notify to the Commission, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary fully to comply with Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg had failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty.
Generaladvokat S. Alber fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Tredje Afdeling) den 25. oktober 2001.
It therefore sent it a letter of formal notice on 5 August 1999, giving it two months in which to submit its observations.
»1) at fastslå, at Storhertugdømmet Luxembourg har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til EF-traktaten, idet det ikke inden for den fastsatte frist har vedtaget de love og administrative bestemmelser, som er nødvendige for at efterkomme Rådets direktiv 97/1 l/EF af 3. marts 1997 om ændring af direktiv 85/337/EØF om vurdering af visse offentlige og private projekters indvirkning på miljøet
Furthermore, the finding of a failure to fulfil obligations of itself precludes granting the Luxembourg authorities' application to suspend the proceedings pending a hypothetical withdrawal of the action by the Commission (Case C-47/99 Commission ν Luxembourg [1999], paragraph 12).
2) at pålægge Storhertugdømmet Luxembourg at betale sagens omkostninger.«
In those circumstances, the Commission brought the present action.
»EF-traktatens artikel 181 (nu artikel 238 EF) — voldgiftsklausul — tilbagebetaling af beløb, der er blevet forudbetalt i henhold til en kontrakt, Kommissionen har hævet på grund af misligholdelse* (Anden Afdeling) alternative energikilder, energibesparelser og erstatning af kulbrinter.
laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 97/11, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of that directive and under the Treaty.
Retsforskrifter og faktiske omstændigheder
Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.'
Demonstrationen skulle vare to år, og projektets erhvervsmæssige drift skulle påbegyndes den 1. april 1988.
Advocate General S. Alber delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Third Chamber on 25 October 2001.
Faktiske omstændigheder
He proposed that the Court should declare that:
NET er et efter græsk lovgivning oprettet anpartsselskab, hvis virksomhed består i planlægning og opførelse af alternative energisystemer samt deltagelse i offentlige udbud.
(1) by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;
Ingen af faserne til projektets gennemførelse i henhold til kontraktens bilag I er blevet iværksat.
(2) the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg is to pay the costs.
Ved skrivelse af 28. november 1988 henviste Kommissionen på ny til, at projektets påbegyndelse var forsinket og anmodede NET om inden den 15. december 1988 at tilstille den en kopi af de nødvendige tilladelser for projektets gennemførelse, som skulle være udstedt af de græske myndigheder, samt en rapport om arbejdernes fremskridelse.
(Article 181 of the EC Treaty (now Article 238 EC) — Arbitration clause — Reimbursement of advance payments made under a contract terminated by the Commission for nonperformance) (Second Chamber) financial support for demonstration projects relating to the exploitation of alternative energy sources and to energy saving and the substitution of hydrocarbons.
Da Kommissionen ikke havde modtaget nogen oplysninger, meddelte den ved skrivelse af 22. februar 1989 NET, at den havde besluttet at anvende kontraktens artikel 8, og gav følgelig selskabet en frist på en måned til at opfylde sine forpligtelser, idet Kommissionen ellers uden videre ville hæve kontrakten.
Under Article 1 of and Annex 1(A)(1) to the contract, NET had undertaken, in return for a financial contribution from the Commission, to carry out a project entitled 'Kea Island' for the installation of a 300 kW wind energy converter on a Greek island, to demonstrate the functioning of that system for a period of two years and thereafter to hand it over to the users.