Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T12:59:48.420Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The International Law of State Immunity, as reflected in the Dutch Civil Law of Execution*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2009

C.C.A. Voskuil
Get access

Extract

In the Netherlands, the law of state immunity form execution covers an area where statutory provisions are scarce, where the judiciary has only sporadically entered and which has largely been neglected by scholarly opinion. So, when it comes to rendering an account of Dutch law concerning state immunity from execution, there is very little to draw upon. Even the notions of execution and of state immunity appearing in the title of this paper lack so much clarity that starting from a definition of these notions would hardly serve to project a clear image of what the law of state immunity from execution amounts to in the Netherlands.

Type
Articles
Information
Netherlands Yearbook of International Law , Volume 10 , December 1979 , pp. 245 - 289
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. The provisions on the dwangsom and on gijzeling are contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, Book II, Title 5. Special rules with regard to foreign debtors are to be found in the same Code, Book III, Title 5. In the latter section of the Code, imprisonment for debt of foreigners has long been regulated in the discriminatory provision of Art. 768, which allows for “preventive” imprisonment, by order of the President of the local District Court, of foreign debtors who have no permanent residence within the Kingdom of the Netherlands. This inelegant provision is in the process of being modified: on 1 June 1979 a bill was presented to Parliament to that end. (Session 1978/1979, 15605 nos. 1–3).

2. Infra in section 1.2.3.

3. For a survey, see Star Busmann, C.W. and Rutten, L.E.M., Hoofdstukken van Burger-lijke Rechtsvordering, 3rd ed. (Haarlem 1972), no. 408Google Scholar; van Rossem, W. and Cleveringa, R.P., Verklaring van het Nederlandse Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering, 4th ed. (Zwolle 1972) on Art. 430, Part II p. 994.Google Scholar

4. Koninklijk Besluit (Royal Decree) of 27 December 1960 (S. 562), amended most recently on 19 April 1977 (S. 219).

5. See further infra section 3.3 at n. 47.

6. For the text of this provision, see infra 3.2.

7. Art. 439, para. 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

8. In particular, Art. 770i of the Code of Civil Procedure.

9. For a short explanation in English of “summary proceedings” under the Dutch law of civil procedure, see Verheul, J.P., “Jurisdiction to grant injunctions” in Essays on the Law of International Trade, Hague-Zagreb Colloquium (The Hague 1976) p. 69 et seq.Google Scholar

10. For a comprehensive survey of Dutch court practice in matters of judicial state immunity, see Voskuil, C.C.A., “De Nederlandse rechtspraak inzake staatsimmuniteit”, Mededelingen van de Nederlandse Vereniging voor Internationaal Recht, no. 68 (The Hague: Asset Institute 1973)Google Scholar. A summary of this report was published in English, in NILR XX (1973) p. 302.

11. A thorough discussion, in English, of the implications of Art. 3 Wet AB for the relationship between international and municipal law in the Netherlands is to be found in Erades, L. and Gould, W.L., The relation between international law and municipal law, (Leyden, New York 1961) p. 226 et seq.Google Scholar

12. Notably, Arts. 13a Wet AB and 13, para. 4 Deurwaardersreglement, to be discussed infra section 3.2.

13. NJ 1942, no. 757.

14. NJ 1937, no. 912.

15. NJ 1939, no. 96.

16. NJ 1917 p. 96.

17. NJ 1924 p. 207.

18. NJ 1921 p. 849.

19. NJ 1941, no. 338.

20. Court of Appeal of Amsterdam, 3 December 1942, NJ 1943, 340; see also NILR XX (1973) pp. 304–5.

21. NJ 1974.no. 361.

22. NILR XX (1973) pp. 306–8.

23. Rotterdam District Court, 9 November 1971, NYIL III (1972) p. 294.

24. For a more extensive report of the case, see NYIL IV (1973) p. 390.

25. NYIL IV (1973) p. 390 et seq.

26. See, The Hague District Court, 15 April (reported in 1 NYIL (1970) p. 225 et seq.). In connection with Court of Appeal, The Hague, see in re N.V. Cabolent v. National Iranian Oil Co.; see also, 5 ILM (1966), p. 477 et seq., 9 ILM (1970) p. 152 et seq. Further, Rotterdam District Court, 9 November 1971, in re Société Européenne v. Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, referred to and partially quoted above.

27. Cf., The Hague District Court, 17 April 1952, NJ 1953, 435; Rotterdam District Court, Court of Appeal, The Hague and Supreme Court in Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart N.V. v. United States of America etc., reported in 4 ILM (1969) p. 257 et seq., 9 ILM (1970) p. 758 et seq.

28. Cf., Court of Appeal, Amsterdam, 4 June 1959, NJ 1959, 350; Amsterdam District Court, 8 November 1957, published in connection with Court of Appeal, Amsterdam, 9 April 1959, NJ 1960, 1.

29. Published in connection with HR (Supreme Court) 13 May 1960, NJ 1960, 494.

30. Cf., Amsterdam District Court, 12 January 1960; on appeal, Court of Appeal, Amsterdam, 18 May 1961; HR, 26 January 1962, NJ 1962, 74. In this case, the Amsterdam District Court expressly considered “that, clearly, procedural incidents such as the one at hand, [viz., a request for consolidation] and also the stand taken by the parties concerned in such matters, only affect the organizational order of the proceedings, which can be decided on without any examination of the correctness of the facts alleged in connection with the debate on matters of substance and without any examination of the soundness of what has been argued by the parties with regard to the legal consequences of those facts; …”

31. Rotterdam District Court, 8 December 1964, NJ 1965, no. 435; on appeal: The Hague Court of Appeal 24 May 1968; Cass.: HR 17 October 1969, NJ 1970, no. 428. For a report of the case in English, see supra n. 27.

32. See, further, n. 11.

33. Supra section 2.1.

34. Infra section 4.

35. Supra section 1.2.3.

36. For the history of Art. 438a of the Code of Civil Procedure, see W. van Rossem and R.P. Cleveringa supra n. 3, Part II at Art. 438a.

37. Supra n. 36.

38. The collecting of a dwangsom imposed by the President who gave the preliminary ruling, may again create problems, of course. However, under Art. 1177 Civil Code, the defendant who declines to follow the President's “indication” will then be liable with all his assets, and if he has property liable to seizure within the jurisdiction of the Netherlands, Art. 438a of the Code of Civil Procedure will not keep him out of reach of the creditors.

39. Convention between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland providing for the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil matters, concluded at The Hague, 17 November 1967 (Trb. 1967, no. 196); in force in the Netherlands: 16 March 1970. The Convention does not apply to, inter alia, judgments in matters of family law or status, including orders for maintenance, judgments in matters of succession or the administration of the estates of deceased persons, judgments in matters of bankruptcy or suspension of payments or the winding up of companies (Art. II, para. 2). Recognition as otherwise provided for in the Convention may be refused where the court applied to is satisfied of the existence of, inter alia, the following objections: (Art. III, para. 2 sub e): – The judgment debtor being a defendant in the original proceedings, was a person who, under the rules of public international law, was entitled to immunity from the jurisdiction of the courts of the country of the original court and did not submit to the jurisdiction of that court; (Art. III, para. 2, sub f): – the judgment is sought to be enforced against a person who, under the rules of public international law, is entitled to immunity from the jurisdiction of the court applied to.

40. European Convention on State Immunity, concluded at Basle, 16 May 1972 (Trb. 1972, no. 46).

41. Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Concerning the Immunity of State Vessels, concluded at Brussels, 10 April 1926; additional protocol 24 May 1934. For the Netherlands, see: Act of 23 April 1936, S. 94 and Koninklijk Besluit (Royal Decree) 22 August 1936, S. 98. In force in the Netherlands: 8 January 1937.

42. Convention on the liability of operators of nuclear ships, concluded at Brussels, 25 May 1962,, Trb. 1962 no. 68.

43. On the underlying constitutional issue, see infra section 4; see also van Meeteren, F.M. Westerouen, Executie van met het volkenrecht strijdige vonnissen, NJ 13 XXVI (1951) p. 277 et seq.Google Scholar

44. Trb. 1959 no. 124.

45. Session 1963/1964 – 7723 (R 425) 3.

46. Dutch-Soviet Agreement on Commercial Shipping, concluded at Moscow, 28 May 1969, Trb. 1969 no 17–1. The agreement came into force on 14 September 1971. For a commentary, see, van den Berg, G.P., “De overeenkomst tussen het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden en de USSR inzake de handelsscheepvaart van 1969”, Bijlage, Schip en Schade, 1963 (1) pp. I–XI.Google Scholar

47. Session 1969–1970, 10.648 (R. 736).

48. Supra section 1.2.3.

49. Belinfante, W.G., Het Europese verdrag inzake de immuniteit van staten, Mededelingen van de Nederlandse Vereniging voor Internationaal Recht, no. 67 (Deventei 1978), Ch. III p. 22 et seq.Google Scholar

50. See, in particular, Verheul, J.P., Aspecten van Nederlands Internationaal Beslagrecht (Aspects of attachment in Dutch private international law) (Deventer 1968) p. 107 et seq. (Summary in English).Google Scholar

51. A.K (VR) R. 1178.

52. For a survey of Dutch court practice in particular in matters of the Act of State doctrine, see Voskuil, C.C.A.De Act of State doctrine in het Nederlandse internationaal privaatrecht, Mededelingen van de Nederlandse Vereniging voor Internationaal Recht, no. 57 (Baarn 1968).Google Scholar

53. Supra n. 52 p. 51 et seq.

54. District Court of Middelburg, 22 October 1938, NJ 1939 no. 96.

55. Court of Appeal of the Hague, 28 November 1968, NJ 1969, no. 484; I NYIL (1970) p. 225; ILM 1970 p. 152. See also, NILR XVIII (1971) p. 360 and XIX (1972) p. 67 et seq.

56. District Court of Amsterdam, 1 August 1928, NJ 1932 p. 495.

57. Court of Appeal of the Hague, 28 November 1968, NJ 1969, 484. Supra n. 26.

58. Supra section 3.3; Rotterdam District Court, 25 September 1916, NJ 1917 p. 13; 13 January 1917, NJ 1917 p. 133; Court of Appeal, the Hague, 23 March 1917, NJ 1918 p. 38 (a quo Rotterdam District Court 13 January 1917). Furthermore, on the “third-party opposition”, see, Rotterdam District Court, 19 April 1920, NJ 1921 p. 853; appeal: Court of Appeal, the Hague, 22 December 1922, NJ 1923 p. 609; Cass.: Hoge Raad (Supreme Court) 21 March 1924, NJ 1924 p. 535.

59. For the Explanatory Memorandum with regard to the proviso contained in Art. 13a Wet AB, see W. 10038. Furthermore, see the Advisory Opinion on the draft for that provision, submitted to the Government by the Netherlands' Standing Government Committee for Private International Law, published in NJ 1917 p. 137 et seq.

60. Supra n. 58.

61. Supra n. 58.

62. Loc.cit., supra n. 52.

63. See: Verslag van de Algemene Ledenvergadering, 26 May 1973 of the Nederlandse Vereniging voor Internationaal Recht, no. 69 (Deventer 1974) pp. 10–11.Google Scholar

64. Constitution of The Kingdom of the Netherlands, Art. 58.