Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Impact of Fundamental Rights on Dutch Private Law: Revolution or Evolution?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Influence of Human Rights and Basic Rights in Private Law

Part of the book series: Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law ((GSCL,volume 15))

Abstract

In many European legal systems, fundamental rights enshrined in national constitutions and international and supranational human rights instruments tend to create strong magnetic fields across the entire body of law, including private law. In particular, this trend towards the constitutionalisation of private law can be observed in the Netherlands where fundamental rights contained in the Dutch Constitution (Grondwet) and the European Convention on Human Rights of 1950 (ECHR) become increasingly relevant for private law relationships. This contribution written as the Dutch report for the XIXth International Congress of Comparative Law 2014 focuses on the impact of fundamental rights on Dutch private law, with emphasis on contract law, tort law, and property law. The author argues in favour of the evolution of private law in the light of fundamental rights, rather than a constitutional revolution in private law. In her opinion, the Dutch experience in building a complementary relationship between fundamental rights and private law based on the idea of a dialogue between the two can provide some useful insights into how the constitutionalisation of private law could proceed in other national legal systems and in EU law.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For a comprehensive comparative study of the relationship between fundamental rights and private law, see, for example, Cherednychenko (2007), Mak (2008), Vos (2010a), Emaus (2013).

  2. 2.

    BVerfG 15 January 1958, BVerfGE 7, 198 (Lüth).

  3. 3.

    The prohibition of the judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation applies only to the ultimate legislator itself, i.e. the Crown and Parliament together, and not to any form of derived or delegated legislative power. The latter, therefore, are always subject to judicial review.

  4. 4.

    See, for example, the recent proposal by Halsema for the amendment of the Dutch Constitution with a view to giving the courts the power to test laws against a number of constitutional provisions. See Kamerstukken II 2009/10, 32 334, no. 1.

  5. 5.

    Recently, however, proposals have been made to amend Article 94 of the Dutch Constitution so as to restrict the scope of this provision and the openness of the Dutch constitutional system to international human rights law. See, for example, the proposal by the State Commission on Constitutional Reform (Staatscommissie Grondwet) (Rapport Staatscommissie Grondwet 2010, 127 et seq.) and the proposal by three Members of the Dutch Parliament from the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie, VVD) (Blok et al. 2012). For the analysis of these proposals, see Efthymiou and de Wit (2013, 84 et seq).

  6. 6.

    Marckx v Belgium (1979), Series A 31, p. 23.

  7. 7.

    Marckx v Belgium (1979), Series A 31, p. 23, para. 31.

  8. 8.

    This differentiation finds its origin in the report by Maris for the Dutch Society of Lawyers who introduced it based on the German constitutional jurisprudence. See Maris (1969, 26–27).

  9. 9.

    In my view, the problem with this distinction or, more exactly, the way in which it has been applied in practice, is that it does not make it unequivocal which body of law substantially determines the outcome of disputes between private parties – fundamental rights law or private law. On this in more detail, see Cherednychenko (2007, 541 et seq).

  10. 10.

    For a detailed overview of the parliamentary discussions, see Verhey (1992, 34 et seq).

  11. 11.

    See Kamerstukken II 1975–1976, 13 872, no. 3, 15 et seq.

  12. 12.

    Cf. Vos 2010b, 463. See also Maanen and Lindenbergh (2011).

  13. 13.

    See, for example, HR 18 June 1993, NJ 1994, 347 (AIDS test I) (recommendation of Advocate General Koopmans, no. 14: ‘this point of view corresponds with …’); HR 15 April 1994, NJ 1994, 608 (Valkenhorst): ‘compare …’.

  14. 14.

    On the potential importance of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU for Dutch private law, see Barkhuysen et al. (2011).

  15. 15.

    See, for example, BVerfG 7 February 1990, BVerfGE 81, 242 (Handelsvertreter) and BVerfG 19 October 1993, BVerfGE 89, 214 (Bürgschaft). On this in more detail, see Cherednychenko (2007).

  16. 16.

    BVerfG 19 October 1993, BVerfGE 89, 214 (Bürgschaft).

  17. 17.

    HR 1 June 1990, NJ 1991, 759 (Van Lanschot Bankiers/Bink).

  18. 18.

    Hof Arnhem 25 October 1948, NJ 1949, 331 (Protestantse Vereniging/Hoogers). See also Hof Arnhem 24 June 1958, NJ 1959, 473 (Diaconie Nieuwe Tonge) and Hof Arnhem 15 November 1958, NJ 1959, 472 (Diaconie Dirksland). Since the adoption of the 1958 Lease Act (Pachtwet), the provisions of which were substantially revised and incorporated in Title 5 of Book 7 of the Dutch Civil Code in 2007, the problems involved in this case are no longer likely to arise.

  19. 19.

    HR 31 October 1969, NJ 1970, 57 (Mensendieck I). See also HR 18 June 1971, NJ 1971, 407 (Mensendieck II). See also HR 22 January 1988, NJ 1988, 891 (Maimonides).

  20. 20.

    HR 12 December 2003, NJ 2004, 117 (Aidstest II).

  21. 21.

    Recently, the introduction of a new independent basis for the enforcement of fundamental rights in Dutch tort law – a breach of a fundamental right (fundamentele rechtsschending) – was advocated in the literature. See Emaus (2013, 325 et seq). It remains to be seen, however, whether this suggestion will lead to a fundamental change in Dutch tort law.

  22. 22.

    HR 15 April 1994, NJ 1994, 608 (Valkenhorst). On this case in more detail, see Nehmelman (2002, 103 et seq., with further references).

  23. 23.

    HR 15 April 1994, NJ 1994, 608 (Valkenhorst), para. 3.2 (my translation).

  24. 24.

    Whether the Supreme Court adequately balanced the interests of the child and those of the mother was, however, questioned in the literature. See, for example, Smits (2003, 127).

  25. 25.

    The 2004 Artificial Insemination (Donor Information) Act (Wet donorgegevens kunstmatige bevruchting) gives children conceived by artificial insemination with donor semen (AID), oocytes or embryos the right to learn the identity of the donor upon reaching the age of 16, unless the weighty interests of the donor make the disclosure of this information impossible. See, in particular, Article 3(2) of the Act.

  26. 26.

    HR 6 January 1995, NJ 1995, 422 (Parool).

  27. 27.

    See, for example, HR 24 June 1983, NJ 1984, 801 (Gemeenteraadslid); HR 4 March 1988, NJ 1989, 361 (Kinderen De Bourbon-Parma); HR 12 June 1992, NJ 1992, 554 (Mr. Y); HR 21 January 1994, NJ 1994, 473 (Ferdi E.); HR 2 May 2003, NJ 2004, 80 (Storms/Niessen). See also Verhey (1992, 191 et seq).

  28. 28.

    HR 24 June 1983, NJ 1984, 801 (Gemeenteraadslid).

  29. 29.

    HR 18 March 2005, NJ 2006, 606 (Baby Kelly). See also HR 9 July 2004, NJ 2005, 391 (Gemeente Groningen/Lammerts).

  30. 30.

    HR 18 March 2005, NJ 2006, 606 (Baby Kelly), paras. 4.8 and 4.9.

  31. 31.

    See, in particular, Articles 6:107 and 6:108 of the Civil Code concerning damages in case of physical or mental injury, and death, respectively. See also Lindenbergh (1998); Verheij (2002); Perron (2003).

  32. 32.

    HR 8 September 2000, NJ 2000, 734 (Baby Joost).

  33. 33.

    HR 22 February 2002, NJ 2002, 240 (Kindertaxi).

  34. 34.

    HR 8 September 2000, NJ 2000, 734 (Baby Joost), para. 3.7.

  35. 35.

    HR 22 February 2002, NJ 2002, 240 (Kindertaxi), para. 6.3.

  36. 36.

    Kamerstukken II 2002/2003, 28 781.

  37. 37.

    See, for example, Pressos Compania Naviera SA and Others v Belgium (2005), Series A 332, p. 21.

  38. 38.

    See, for example, HR 16 November 2001, NJ 2002, 469 (Varkenswet).

  39. 39.

    Hof Amsterdam 12 August 2004, NJF 2004, 543 (NS Reizigers/Mevrouw B).

  40. 40.

    See, for example, Arr.-Rb. Assen 25 March 1986, NJ 1987, 15 (Maris/SWA); HR 3 November 1989, NJ 1991, 168 (Prins/Woningstichting Sint Joseph).

  41. 41.

    See, for example, Arr.-Rb. Assen 25 March 1986, NJ 1987, 15 (Maris/SWA).

  42. 42.

    See, for example, HR 3 November 1989, NJ 1991, 168 (Prins/Woningstichting Sint Joseph).

Bibliography

  • Alkema, E.A. 1995. Fundamentele rechten – nationale en international dimensies. Preadvies voor de Nederlandse Juristen-Vereniging (NJV). Handelingen NJV 1995-I. Zwolle: Tjeenk Willink.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barkhuysen, T., and M.L. Emmerik. 2005. De eigendomsbescherming van artikel 1 van het eerste protocol bij het EVRM en het Nederlandse burgerlijk recht: het Straatsburgse perspectief. Preadvies voor de voorjaarsvergadering van de Vereniging voor Burgerlijk Recht. Deventer: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barkhuysen, T., A.W. Bos, and F. ten Have. 2011. Een verkenning van de betekenis van het Handvest van de Grondrechten van de Europese Unie voor het privaatrecht. NTBR 28: 479–492.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biesheuvel, M.B.W. 1981. Horizontale werking van grondrechten. NJCM-Bulletin 6: 147–162; 205–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blok, S., K. Dijkhoff, and J. Taverne. 2012. Verdragen mogen niet langer rechtstreeks werken. 23 February NRC Handelsblad: 17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boesjes, J. 1973. De horizontale werking van grondrechten. NJB 48: 905–916.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bos, B.J. de. 2010. Horizontale werking van grondrechten. Antwerpen/Apeldoorn: Maklu.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burkens, M.C. 1989. Algemene leerstukken van grondrechten naar Nederlands constitutioneel recht. Zwolle: Tjeenk Willink.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cherednychenko, O.O. 2007. Fundamental Rights, Contract Law and the Protection of the Weaker Party: A Comparative Analysis of the Constitutionalisation of Contract Law, with Emphasis on Risky Financial Transactions. Sellier: European Law Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Efthymiou, N. S., and J.C. de Wit. 2013. The Role of Dutch Courts in the Protection of Fundamental Rights. Utrecht Law Review 9: 75–88 (available at http://www.utrechtlawreview.org).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elders, J.L.M. 1986. Burgerlijk recht en grondrechten: ‘Een integratieve benadering. Lelystad: Koninklijke Vermande.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emaus, J.M. 2013. Handhaving van EVRM-rechten via het aansprakelijkheidsrecht. Over de inpassing van de fundamentele rechtsschending in het Nederlandse burgerlijk recht. Den Haag: Boom Juridische uitgevers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forder, C.J. 2002. Het mensenrechtelijk hart van het personen- en familierecht: overzicht van de ontwikkelingen in de periode 1995–2002 (Deel I). NJCM-Bulletin 27: 992–1011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forder, C.J. 2003. Het mensenrechtelijk hart van het personen- en familierecht: overzicht van de ontwikkelingen in de periode 1995–2002 (Deel II). NJCM-Bulletin 28: 19–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graaf, F. de, and M.J.O.M. de Haas 1984. Horizontale werking van grondrechten: een heilloos leerstuk. NJB 59: 1353–1358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofman, J.A., J.W. Sap, and I. Sewandono. 1995. Grondrechten en evenwicht. Deventer: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koekkoek, A.K. 1985. De betekenis van grondrechten voor het privaatrecht. WPNR 5742: 385–389; WPNR 5743: 405–412; WPNR 5743: 425–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leenders, M.A.J. 1998. Horizontale werking van grondrechten: een heilloos leerstuk in de communautaire rechtsorde? In Grenzen aan grenzenloosheid – Algemene leerstukken van grondrechtenbescherming en de Europese Unie, ed. L.M.F. Besselink and H.R.B.M. Kummeling, 147–164. Deventer: Tjeenk Willink.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindenbergh, S.D. 1998. Smartengeld. Deventer: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindenbergh, S.D. 1999. De positie en de handhaving van persoonlijkheidsrechten in het Nederlandse privaatrecht. Preadvies voor de Vereniging voor de Vergelijkende studie van het recht in Nederland en België. TPR 36: 1665–1707.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindenbergh, S.D. 2006. The Constitutionalisation of Private Law in the Netherlands. In Constitutionalisation of Private Law, ed. T. Barkhuysen and S.D. Lindenbergh, 97–128. Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Maanen, G.E. van, and S.D. Lindenbergh. 2011. EVRM en privaatrecht: is alles van waarde weerloos? Preadviezen 2011 voor de Vereniging voor Burgerlijk Recht. Kluwer: Deventer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mak, C. 2008. Fundamental Rights in European Contract Law: A Comparison of the Impact of Fundamental Rights on Contractual Relationships in Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and England. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maris, A.G. 1969. Dient de wet bijzondere regels te bevatten ten aanzien van de civielrechtelijke werking van de grondrechten, en, zo ja, welke? Preadvies voor de Nederlandse Juristen-Vereniging (NJV). Handelingen der Nederlandse Juristen-Vereniging 1969, Zwolle: Tjeenk Willink.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nehmelman, R. 2002. Het algemeen persoonlijkheidsrecht. Een rechtsvergelijkende studie naar het algemeen persoonlijkheidsrecht in Duitsland en Nederland. Deventer: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nieuwenhuis, J.H. 2001. Een geheid groeifonds. TPR 38: 1225–1230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perron, C.E. du. 2003. Genoegdoening in het civiele aansprakelijkheidsrecht. Preadvies voor de Nederlandse Juristen-Vereniging (NJV). In Het opstandige slachtoffer – Genoegdoening in strafrecht en burgerlijk recht. Handelingen der Nederlandse Juristen-Vereniging 2003-I, Deventer: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ploeger, H.D. 2005. De eigendomsbescherming van Artikel 1 van het eerste protocol bij het EVRM en het Nederlandse burgerlijk recht: het nationale civielrechtelijke perspectief. Preadvies voor de voorjaarsvergadering van de Vereniging voor Burgerlijk Recht. Deventer: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sieburgh, C. 2013. De betekenis van grondrechten voor het algemene vermogensrecht. In De invloed van fundamentele rechten op het materiële recht, ed. J. Gerards and C. Sieburgh, 429–452. Deventer: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smits, J.M. 2003. Constitutionalisering van het vermogensrecht. Preadvies voor de Nederlandse Vereniging voor Rechtsvergelijking. Deventer: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smits, P. 2008. Artikel 6 EVRM en de civiele procedure. Deventer: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • State Commission on Constitutional Reform (Staatscommissie Grondwet). 2010. Rapport Staatscommissie Grondwet (available at https://rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/rapporten/2010/11/11/rapport-staatscommissie-grondwet).

  • Verheij, A.J. 2002. Vergoeding van immateriële schade wegens aantasting in de persoon. Nijmegen: Ars Aequi Libri.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhey, L.F.M. 1992. Horizontale werking van grondrechten, in het bijzonder van het recht op privacy. Zwolle: Tjeenk Willink.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vos, B.J. de. 2010a. Horizontale werking van grondrechten: Een kritiek. Apeldoorn/Antwerpen: Maklu.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vos, B.J. de. 2010b. The Netherlands. In Fundamental Rights and Private Law in the European Union, Volume I, ed. G. Brüggemeier, G. Comandè, and A. Colombi Ciacchi, 405–484. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Case Law

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Department of Constitutional Law, Administrative Law and Public Administration, University of Groningen, Oude Kijk in ‘t Jatstraat 26, 9712 EK, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Olha O. Cherednychenko

Authors
  1. Olha O. Cherednychenko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olha O. Cherednychenko .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. European Law Unit, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    Verica Trstenjak

  2. Faculty of Law & University College, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

    Petra Weingerl

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Cherednychenko, O.O. (2016). The Impact of Fundamental Rights on Dutch Private Law: Revolution or Evolution?. In: Trstenjak, V., Weingerl, P. (eds) The Influence of Human Rights and Basic Rights in Private Law. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 15. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25337-4_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25337-4_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-25335-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-25337-4

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation