No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Netherlands Private International Law of Succession and the German Courts*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 May 2009
Extract
More than 75,000 nationals of the Netherlands are currently residing in the Federal Republic of Germany. The courts of the Federal Republic have therefore quite often had to deal with questions bearing on succession to property belonging to Netherlands nationals and situated in their jurisdiction. Furthermore, a short article on the subject here discussed, written by this author two years ago, has not only provoked extensive academic discussion in German legal periodicals, but has also recently guided— or, as asserted by eminent authority, misguided —at least one German court to a decision on the Netherlands private international law of succession which not only is at odds with well-nigh universal legal opinion in the Netherlands but also at least seemingly at variance with a long line of Netherlands judicial decisions.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1959
References
1 On January 1, 1954, 78.110 persons of Netherlands nationality were registered in the Federal Republic of Germany. 61.190 of these were registered in the State of Nordrhein-Westfalen. Statistisches Jahrbuch für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1955, table 22 at p. 51.Google Scholar
2 Cf. Kammergericht, , 02 2, 1934, [1934]Google ScholarDie deutsche Rechtsprechung auf dem Gebiete des internationalen Privatrechts [hereinafter cited as IPRspr.] No. 71, p. 156Google Scholar; same court, April 10, 1941, [1941] Deutsches Recht 1611Google Scholar; same court, August 21, 1950, [1950/51] IPRspr. No. 110, p. 242; Oberlandesgericht Neustadt an der Weinstraße, May 25, 1951, [1951] Juristenzeitung 644 with note Neuhaus; Landgericht Verder - Aller, December 17, 1951, [1952] Der Deutsche Rechtspfleger 184Google Scholar; Oberlandesgericht Köln, 12 1, 1954, [1955]Google ScholarRecht der Landwirtschaft 82Google Scholar; Landgericht Lübeck, 03 25, 1958, [1958]Google Scholar Schleswig-Holsteinische Anzeigen 334; Landgericht Koblenz, 07 17, 1958, [1959]Google ScholarJuristenzeitung, with note Drobnig.
3 Wohnsitz und Staatsangehörigkeit nach holländischem Erbstatut, [1957]Google ScholarNeue Juristische Wochenschrift 171Google Scholar. The title, altered by the editors without the author's knowledge or permission, should have been: “Staatsangehörigkeit und Wohnsitz im freien Widerstreit: Das holländische Erbstatut.”
4 Czapski, , Wohnsitz und Staatsangehörigkeit nach holländischem Erb statut, [1957]Google ScholarNeue Juristische Wochenschrift 1425Google Scholar; my—apparently by no means “final”— “Schlußwort” thereto, ibid., 1426; Ysselt, van Sasse van, Wohnsitz und Staatsangehörigkeit nach holländischem Erbstatut, [1958]Google ScholarNeue Juristische Wochenschrift 1668Google Scholar; Drobnig, as cited in note 2 above.
5 That is the opinion of van Sasse van Ysselt (footnote 4). His article appeared subsequent to the decision of the Landgericht Koblenz (footnote 2) which relied on my views criticized by him as misleading.
6 Landgericht Koblenz (footnote 2); see below, text after footnote 56.
7 See, e.g., 19 Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofs in Zivilsachen [hereinafter cited as BGHZ] 315, 316 (1955).Google Scholar
8 Raape, , Internationales Privatrecht 385 (4th ed. 1955)Google Scholar; Wolff, , Dos Internationale Privatrecht Deutschlands 227 (3d ed. 1954)Google Scholar; Kegel in 4 Soergel, Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch 247 (8th ed. 1955), citine further decisions.
9 Cf. Borum, , Lovkonflikter 132–136 (3d ed. 1948).Google Scholar
10 Dicey, 's Conflict of Laws 518–520, 598 ff (7th ed. Morris 1958)Google Scholar; Restatement, Conflict of Laws, Sec. 48 (1937)Google Scholar; Goodrich, , Conflict of Laws 500, 505 (3d ed. 1949)Google Scholar; Stumberg, , Conflict of Laws, 409, 413 (2d ed. 1951)Google Scholar; Donaldson, , Some Conflict Rules of Scots LawGoogle Scholar, 39 The Grotius Society 145, 161 (1954); Falconbridge, , Essays on the Conflict of Laws 528 ff (2d ed. 1954)Google Scholar, all citing further authorities.
11 Batiffol, , Tratté élémentaire de droit international privé 706 (2d ed. 1955)Google Scholar; Vos, de, Le problème des Conflits de Lois (cours de droit international privé belge) 353, 383–403 (1946).Google Scholar
12 Cf. Raape, (footnote 8) 109, 388Google Scholar; 145 Entscheidungen des Reichsgerichts in Zivilsachen [hereinafter cited as RGZ] 85, 86 (1934)Google Scholar; 24 BGHZ 352, 355 (1957).
13 Cf. the authorities collated in Baade, , Deutsche Hypotheken im internationalen Erbrecht, 6 Jahrbuch für Internationales Recht 291, 292–293, footnote 13 (1956).Google Scholar
14 The “fathers” of the German Civil Code expressly denied any intention of furnishing a general definition of movable and immovable property. 3 Motive zu dem Entwurfe eines Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuches für das Deutsche Reich 32 (1888)Google Scholar. See also 24 BGHZ 352 at 356 (1957).
15 Cf., with respect to mortgages, my article cited in footnote 14 above, and, more generally, Neuhaus, Bewegliches und unbewegliches Vermögen, 19 Zweitschrift für Ausländisches und Internationales Privatrecht 554 (1954)Google Scholar. Mortgages to German land and shares of German companies owning German real estate are held to be movables, but restitution claims to German land have been held to be immovables. Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe, March 20, 1931, [1931] IPRspr. No. 96, p. 184, 189; 24 BGHZ 352, 360 ff, 357–368 (1957); Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main, 07 2, 1953, [1954] Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 111.Google Scholar
16 Cf. 91 RGZ 139 (1917), and Kegel, (footnote 8) 259–261Google Scholar, citing numerous further authorities.
17 Cf. Donaldson, , The Lex Situs and Heritable (or Red) Property, 4 International Law Quarterly 100 (1951).Google Scholar
18 According to Art. 23 Disp. Prel. (1942), succession is governed by the law of the nationality of the de cujus irrespective of the situs of the estate.
19 Wolff, (footnote 8) 82Google Scholar; Walker, , Internationales Privatrecht 960 (5th ed. 1934)Google Scholar; Nussbaum, , Deutsches Internationales Privatrecht 110 (1932)Google Scholar; Beitzke, in Achilles-Greiff, , BGB 1156 (20th ed. 1958)Google Scholar; Ferid-Firsching, , Internationales Erbrecht, Deutschland 6Google Scholar, marginal number 20 (1955). Contra: Kegel, (footnote 8) 274.Google Scholar
20 Reichsgericht, , 10 2, 1930Google Scholar, [1930] IPRspr. No. 88, p. 176, 177Google Scholar (dictum); Kammergericht, , 04 10, 1941Google Scholar, [1941] Deutsches Recht 1611Google Scholar (dictum); Oberlandesgericht Köln, , 12 1, 1954Google Scholar, [1955] Recht der Landwirtschaft 82.Google Scholar
21 Baade, , Anerbenrecht und Ausländererbfolge, [1959]Google ScholarSchleswig-Holsteinische Anzeigen 33.Google Scholar It is there submitted that the precedence of German special legislation over the foreign lex successions results directly from such special legislation and not from Art. 28 EGBGB.
22 Since most Netherlands nationals living in the Federal Republic of Germany are resident in the former British Zone (the States of Schleswig-Holstein, Hamburg, Niedersachsen, and Nordrhein-Westfalen), the law most likely to apply to Netherlands nationals is the Fanning Estates Ordinance [Höfeordnung] of 04 24, 1947Google Scholar, enacted by Ordinance No. 84 of the British Military Government for the entire former British Zone. Military Government Gazette, Germany, British Zone of Control, No. 19, 500 at 505. Further statutes of regional application are cited and discussed by Boehmer in Staudinger, , Erbrecht 110–112 (11th ed. 1954).Google Scholar
23 So held, with respect to the Höfeordnung, by Oberlandesgericht, Köln (footnote 20).Google Scholar
24 An English translation of the pertinent sections of this statute may be found in Kollewijn, , American-Dutch Private International Law 56Google ScholarBilateral Studies in Private International Law, No. 3, 1955.Google Scholar
25 “Les lois concernant l'état et la capacité des personnes régissent les Français, même résidant en pays étranger.” Cf. Batiffol, (footnote 11) 320–327.Google Scholar
26 On the influence of the French Civil Code on Netherlands legislation see generally 1 Arminjon-Nolde-Wolff, , Traité de droit comparé 139–141 (1950).Google Scholar
27 Cf. Meijers, , L'histoire des principes fondamentaux du droit international privé à partir du moyen âge, spécialement dans l'Europe occidentale, 49Google ScholarRecueil des Cours 547, 653 ffGoogle Scholar, especially at 660–661 (1934–III).
28 H.R., April 4, 1907, W. 8524, also reprinted in Hoetink, , Arresten over internationaal Privaatrecht 45 (1926)Google Scholar; French translation in [1910] Clunet 285.Google Scholar
29 Kosters, , Het Internationaal Burgerlich Recht in Nederland 620 ff (1916).Google Scholar
30 [1921] Nederlandse Jurisprudentie [hereinafter cited as N.J.] 1084.Google Scholar
31 Cf. footnote 24 above.
31 Hof Haag, 02 23, 1942Google Scholar, [1942] N.J. 469, 470; same court, April 28, 1947, [1947] N.J. 1076, 1077; Hof 's-Hertogenbosch, 10 29, 1957Google Scholar, [1958] N.J. No. 238, abstracted in this Review V (1958) p. 399; cf. Rechtbank Arnhem, February 14, 1938, [1938] N.J. 1059, 1060. See also, further references in Procurer-General Berger's submissions to H.R., 01 8, 1943Google Scholar, [1943] N.J. 260, 263.
33 Van Brakel, , Grondslagen en Beginselen van Nederlands International Privaatrecht 214 (3d ed. 1953)Google Scholar; Mulder, , Inleiding tot het Nederlandsch International Privaatrecht 205 (2d ed. 1947)Google Scholar; Note, this Review II (1955) pp. 105–106Google Scholar (de Winter); Kollewijn, (footnote 24) 36.Google Scholar
34 H.R. January 8, 1943, [1943] N.J. 260; June 27, 1958, [1958] N.J. No. 393, abstracted in this Review V (1958) p. 399.Google Scholar
35 Cf. Coops, , Grondtrekken van het Nederlands Burgerlijk Procesrecht 156Google Scholar ff (2d ed. by van Mecieren, Westerouen 1953).Google Scholar
36 Cf. above, footnote 32.
37 The contrary view is held by Czapski, (footnote 4) 1425.Google Scholar
38 See the decisions cited in footnote 2 above.
39 See, for instance, Raape (footnote 8) 390 and 392 with footnote 8 thereat.
40 This is the opinion of the Max-Planck-Institut für Ausländisches und Internationales Privatrecht, as cited by the Oberlandesgericht Neustadt in footnote 2 above, and also that of the Institut für Internationales Recht an der Universität Kiel: Opinion No. 8/1956 of the latter Institute (unpublished).
41 German courts will generally apply foreign law as it is actually applied by the courts of the country whose law is being applied. See Dölle, , Über die Anwendung fremden Rechts, [1957]Google ScholarGewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht 56, 60Google Scholar, and generally Sauveplanne, , Het gezag der vreemde rechtspraak bij de toepassing van vreemd recht, [1958]Google ScholarNederlands Jaristenblad 181Google Scholar, citing further German authorities.
42 Cf. Comment, Proof of the Law of Foreign Countries: Appellate Review and Subsequent Litigation, 72Google ScholarHan. L. Rev. 318, 324–326 (1958).Google Scholar
43 Cf. Rechtbank Rotterdam, 12 30, 1953Google Scholar, [1954] N.J. No. 769, abstracted in this Review II (1955) p. 420Google Scholar, with note Brades; see also Tammes, , Netherlands Courts And International Recognition Sjmbolae Verzijl 362, 380–381 (1958).Google Scholar
44 Rechtbank Amsterdam, 12 22, 1936Google Scholar, [1937] N.J. No. 47; cf. H.R., March 21, 1947, [1947] N.J. No. 382.
45 As provided by Art. 3 A.B. custom, unless referred to by statute, creates no law. According to Art. 12 A.B., the judiciary may not lay down general rules or regulations when deciding actual controversies. While therefore the jurisprudence of courts is not formally a source of law, in actual practice the legal views expressed by courts of high authority will generally be followed. See Bellefroid, , Inleiding tot de Rechtswetenschap in Nederland 59–61; 101–106 (8th ed. 1953).Google Scholar
46 [1947] N.J. No. 66.
47 [1954] N.J. No. 328, abstracted in this Review II (1955) p. 104Google Scholar with note de Winter. The Hof Leeuwarden seems to have been unware of Sec. 404 (b) of the United States Nationality Act of 1940, providing that a person who has become a national of the United States by naturalization shall automatically lose his nationality by residing continuously for three years in the territory of a foreign state of which he was formerly a national. It may well be that by virtue of this provision, decedent was not a national of the United States at the time of his death. In this case he would have been a stateless person and as such subject, according to Netherlands private international law, to the lex successions of his last domicile which was in the Netherlands. Cf. Rechtbank Maastricht, cited at footnote 30 above.
48 Cf. van Brakel, (footnote 33) 74–75Google Scholar, with authorities there cited.
49 [1955] N.J. No. 372, abstracted in this Review III (1956) p. 286, 287 with note Blackstone.Google Scholar
50 de Winter (footnote 47); Blackstone (footnote 49); van Sasse van Ysselt (footnote 4); Czapski (footnote 4) 1426; Kollewijn (footnote 24) 53–54 (his footnote 176). See also the official comment on Art. 13 of the (as yet unratified) Benelux Convention on Private International Law, especially the second annotation, reprinted in French in 40 Revue Critique de Droit International Privé 172–173 (1952)Google Scholar, and below footnote 52.
51 This is also the view of Drobnig (footnote 2).
52 Kollewijn, , Motes on legal decisions of the Netherlands, [1957]Google ScholarClunet 443, 471Google Scholar exclaims: “Stake your claims, notaries! Draft your instruments in view of the foregoing considerations” (referring to Rechtbank Utrecht as cited supra at footnote 49).
53 Cf. footnote 41 above and, in reliance upon my article cited in footnote 3 above, Landgericht Koblenz, cited in footnote 2.
54 See above, footnote 45.
55 MrHolmes, Justice, dissenting, in Lochner v. People of New York, 198 U.S. 45, 76 (1905)Google Scholar. The qualification interpolated in square brackets by this author seems to be warranted by the cogent remarks of Tune, , The Grand Outlines of the CodeGoogle Scholar, in Schwartz, , ed., The Code Napoleon and the Common-Law World 19, 25 (1956).Google Scholar
56 Baade, (footnote 3) 172.Google Scholar
57 Drobnig (footnote 2).
58 Supra, footnote 46.
59 See generally, in this connection, Nussbaum, , Principles of Private International Law 37–42 (1943).Google Scholar
60 Kosters, (footnote 29) 625–626.Google Scholar
61 Rechtbank Utrecht, 11 11, 1954Google Scholar, quoted supra, text at footnote 49.
62 Convention Relating to the International Status of Refugees of October 28, 1933, 159 L.N.T.S. 199, 204 (Art. 4); cf. Arrangement relatif au statut juridique des réfugiés russes et armeniens, of June 30, 1928, 139 L.N.T.S. 53, 54, and generally Weis, , The International Status of Refugees and Stateless Persons, [1956]Google ScholarClunet 4.Google Scholar
63 Art. 12. See, in connection with the application of this provision in the Netherlands, Dubbink, , Conflict van Tractaatsregels. Huwelijken van Hongaarse Vluehtelingen in Nederland, this Review V (1958) p. 248.Google Scholar
64 See especially the annotation of Röling to Raad voor het Rechtsherstel, June 29, 1956, [1956] N.J. No. 471, particularly at 999 and 1001.
65 Art. 44. 75 U.N.T.S. 287, 316.
66 Domstol, Högsta, 02 25, 1949Google Scholar, abstracted in German in 16 Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 145, 147Google Scholar with note Michaeli.
67 19 BGHZ 240, 244 (1955); cf. 28 BGHZ 375, 378 and 385 (1958).
68 Judgment of April 6, 1955, [1955] I.C.J. Reports 4.
69 Cf. Verzijl, , The International Court of Justice: Three Recent Decisions, this Review III (1956) 25, 33–40.Google Scholar
70 See Judge SirLauterpacht, H.'s Foreword to Weis, , Nationality and Statelessness in International Law xii (1956).Google Scholar A symptom of this trend is the subjection of resident aliens to compulsory military service: cf. Jaenicke, and Ballreich, , Die Wehrpflicht von Ausländern, 16Google ScholarZeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 523 (1956).Google Scholar
71 In accordance with Sec. 2247 of the German Civil Code (BOB) a will written and signed by the testator is valid as to form. The will “should” contain information as to date and place of execution; the lack of this information, however, will not invalidate it. Similarly, while testator “should” sign with his full first and family name, any other form of signature sufficient to identify him will suffice.
72 According to Sees. 2231 ff BGB, “public” wills can be executed either before a court of a notary public. It would seem that this classification, corresponding to the quasi-public office of notaries public in most civil law countries will be recognized in the Netherlands. See de Winter, note, this Review 1 (1953/1954) 212.Google Scholar
73 See H.R., February 13, 1953, [1953] N.J. No. 579, abstracted in this Review I (1953/1954) 213Google Scholar with note de Winter.
74 Raape, (footnote 8) 222–224.Google Scholar
75 Oberlandesgericht Hamburg, 05 2, 1917, 72Google ScholarSeufferts Archiv 313Google Scholar; Kammergericht, , 02 2, 1934Google Scholar, [1934] IPRspr. No. 71, p. 156 at 157.
76 See Kegel, (footnote 8) 113 and 252–253Google Scholar, citing further authorities. A similar result is reached in the Netherlands, but only with respect to persons who are not Netherlands nationals by virtue of Art. 10 A.B. which provides that the form of juridical acts is determined by the law of the country or the place where such acts have been performed. See Hof 's-Hertogenbosch, October 29, 1957; H.R., June 27, 1958, supra notes 32 and 34Google Scholar; and note Blackstone, , this Review, V (1958) pp. 399–400.Google Scholar
77 Art. 977 is the first Article of Book II, Title 12, Section 4 B.W. This Section deals with “the form of last wills”.
78 See H.R. February 2, 1939, [1939] N.J. No. 848 with note Meijers.
79 Raape (footnote 8) 399Google Scholar and footnote 18a thereat. This view has also been expressed in Opinion No. 18/1955 of the Institute of International Law at the University of Kiel (unpublished). There seems to be no published German decision on this question.
80 See generally Neuhaus, and Gündisch, , Gemeinschaftliche Testamente amerikanischer Erblasser, 21Google ScholarZeitschrift für Ausländisches und Internationales Privatrecht 550 (1956)Google Scholar; also Klaassen, , Huwelijksgoederen en Erfrecht 332 (2d ed. 1953).Google Scholar This point seems to have been missed by Oberlandesgericht Neustadt an der Weinstraße, , 02 29, 1952Google Scholar, [1952–53] IPRspr. No. 234, p. 453 at 457–458, where it was held by way of dictum that a joint will executed by decedent as a German citizen in Germany was, according to Netherlands private international law, effective to invalidate subsequent unilateral wills executed by this testator as a stateless person domiciled in the Netherlands.
81 Raape, (footnote 8) 399Google Scholar at footnote 18a.
82 See Sec. 2271 of the German Civil Code.
83 Raape (footnote 8) 399 at footnote 18a. There are apparently no published decisions on this point.
84 See Secs. 2365–2367 of the German Civil Code.
85 Section 35 of the Land Registry Law [Grundbuchordnung]; see Kegel, (footnote 8) 256–257.Google Scholar
86 So held by Verden-Aller, Landgericht, 12 17, 1951, [1952]Google ScholarDer Deutsche Rechtspfleger 184Google Scholar, with respect to a Netherlands notary's decree of distribution.
87 Section 73 of the Law Concerning Jurisdiction in Non-Contentious Matters [Gesetz über Angelegenheiten der freiwilligen Gerichtsbarkeit]; See. 2369 of the German Civil Code.
88 So held by Lübeck, Landgericht, 03 25, 1958, [1958]Google ScholarSchleswig-Holsteinische Anzeigen 334.Google Scholar
89 See Gottheiner, , Zur Anwendung englischen Erbrechts auf Nachlässe in Deutschland, 21Google ScholarZeitschrift für Ausländisches und Internationales Privatrecht 36 (1956).Google Scholar
90 Klaassen, (footnote 80) 241.Google Scholar
91 Raape, (footnote 8) 417, especially footnote 37 thereat.Google Scholar