Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Europeanisation of International Family Law pp 13–49Cite as

The Dutch Choice of Law Rules on Divorce

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

This chapter delves into the Dutch choice of law rules on divorce. The law applicable to divorce is currently determined by Article 1 of the Choice of Law Act on Divorce (Wet conflictenrecht echtscheiding). This Act is based on the favor divortii principle, implying that the choice of law rule often refers to the application of a legal system which does not preclude the wish of the parties to obtain a divorce. The main rule of Article 1 CLAD is that the spouses can choose the law applicable to their divorce. This choice, however, is limited to the law of the common nationality of the spouses (Article 1(2) CLAD) and Dutch law (the lex fori, Article 1(4) CLAD). Although the possibility to choose the applicable law is to be endorsed, the limitation to the mentioned two legal systems can be questioned. In the light of the favor divortii principle arguably more legal systems should be eligible for application. Should the parties have made no professio iuris, the law applicable to their divorce is determined on the basis of the cascade rule of Article 1(1) to (3) CLAD. The regulation of Article 1(1) to (3) CLAD entails the designation of the common national law of the spouses as the applicable law if they have a common nationality. In determining whether the spouses possess a common nationality, their nationality is subject to an authenticity test and to an effectivity test. If the spouses do not have a common nationality, the law of the country in which they have their common habitual residence is applied. If the spouses do not have a common nationality and have no shared habitual residence, Dutch law (the lex fori) is applied. The current chapter does not only discuss the current state of play, but also the proposed amendment of the choice of law on divorce. In September 2009 the Dutch legislature published the proposal on the consolidation of Dutch private international law, to be included as Book 10 of the Dutch Civil Code. Article 56 of this Proposal provides for the application of Dutch law in all cases, save for those in which the parties have made a professio iuris. The professio iuris is limited to the common national law of the parties. The proposed amendment seems to imply a fairly radical change of the current choice of law approach on divorce: from a multilateral and neutral to a unilateral choice of law approach. However, Article 1 CLAD is not such a neutral choice of law rule as it appears to be: it often leads to the designation of Dutch law as the applicable law. Article 56 of the Dutch Proposal on Private International Law no longer gives the impression of a neutral choice of law rule and the application of Dutch law takes indeed first place. Nevertheless the argument that, because in practice Dutch law is applied in the majority of international divorce cases, the choice of law rule should be turned into a unilateral choice of law rule is not very convincing for the radical change of choice of law approach. The categorical application of the lex fori contradicts the thought of neutrality which underlies the field of private international law and by virtue of which all legal systems are equally eligible for application.

This is a preview of subscription content, 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   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    ECtHR 18 December 1986, Johnston and Others v. Ireland, Application No. 9697/82.

  2. 2.

    E.g. Malta, the Philippines and Vatican City.

  3. 3.

    Definition of the European Commission; see Impact Assessment on Divorce, p. 4.

  4. 4.

    The Hague Convention of 12 June 1902 relating to the Settlement of the Conflict of Laws and Jurisdictions as regards to Divorce and Separation. According to this Convention the divorce could only be granted if the national law of the spouses and the law of the country where the divorce was petitioned would allow for divorce.

  5. 5.

    The following countries were party to the 1902 Hague Divorce Convention: Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, and Switzerland.

  6. 6.

    HR 13 December 1907, Boon v. Schmidt, W. 8636. Moreover, the application of Dutch law to divorces of Dutch spouses was also based on Article 6 of the General Provisions Act (Wet houdende algemeene bepalingen der wetgeving van het Koninkrijk, Act of 15 May 1829, Stcrt. 1829, No. 28). This provision stipulates that the law concerning the rights, status and compentence of persons are binding on the Dutch, even when they are residing abroad. The Dutch courts also had to apply Dutch law to the divorce of a Dutch couple residing abroad, which had become completely estranged from the Dutch society. See further on this issue Wendels 1983, pp. 46–47.

  7. 7.

    See Dubbink 1956, pp. 199–208, pointing out the changing attitude of lower courts towards the exclusive application of Dutch law. See also Wendels 1983, p. 47 ff.

  8. 8.

    Cour de Cassation 17 April 1953, RCDIP 1953, p. 412.

  9. 9.

    See HR 23 February 1973, NJ 1973, 366; and HR 28 November 1975, NJ 1976, 547.

  10. 10.

    HR 27 May 1977, NJ 1977, 600. See also HR 4 May 1979, NJ 1979, 547. In 1979 the Hoge Raad introduced the ‘authenticity test’ in order to determine the existence of a real societal connection, see HR 9 February 1979, NJ 1979, 546. See further on the authenticity test infra Sect. 2.4.2.1.

  11. 11.

    Act of 25 March 1981, Stb. 1981, No. 166, containing a regulation of the choice of law rules on the dissolution of the marriage and on legal separation and the recognition thereof, Wet conflictenrecht echtscheiding. Hereinafter abbreviated to ‘CLAD’.

  12. 12.

    Convention of 8 September 1967 on the Recognition of Decisions relating to the Marriage Bond, Trb. 1979, 130 (‘Luxembourg Convention’) and the Convention of 1 June 1970 on the Recognition of Divorces and Legal Separations, Trb. 1979, 131 (‘Hague Convention’).

  13. 13.

    Translation by Sumner and Warendorf 2003, p. 232.

  14. 14.

    Act on the Opening of Marriage to same-sex couples of 21 December 2000, Stb. 2001, No. 9. Article 1:30 BW determines that two persons of a different or of the same sex can enter into a marriage.

  15. 15.

    Staatscommissie 2001, para 8, p. 15.

  16. 16.

    Infra Sect. 2.5.

  17. 17.

    Staatscommissie 2001, para 8, p. 15: ‘Mocht het buitenlands recht geslachtsgebonden, differentiërende bepalingen kennen zoals in het op de Islam georiënteerde recht doorgaans het geval zal zijn, kan met een beroep op strijd met het gelijkheidsbeginsel, dat in Nederland van openbare orde wordt beschouwd, dit buitenlandse recht opzij gezet worden en vervangen worden door het Nederlandse recht. Ook bestaat de mogelijkheid om zo’n buitenlands recht als technisch niet toepasbaar te beschouwen op huwelijken van partners van hetzelfde geslacht, en om deze reden uit te wijken naar het recht van de rechter.’

  18. 18.

    Cf., the position of registered partners between 1 January 1998 and 1 January 2005 infra Sect. 3.3.2.

  19. 19.

    See Struycken 1994, p. 102.

  20. 20.

    See HR 6 December 1996, NJ 1997, 189, in which the Hoge Raad held that the fact that one of the spouses desires a divorce is a very serious indication that the marriage in question has broken down irretrievably.

  21. 21.

    See Werkgroep IPR NVvR 1993, p. 137; Boele-Woelki 1994, pp. 173–174; Vlas 1996, p. 200; and Mostermans 2006, p. 41.

  22. 22.

    See Memorandum of Amendment (NvW) Kamerstukken II 1980–1981, 16 004, No. 8, pp. 1–2. See infra Sect. 2.3.2.

  23. 23.

    See Explanatory Memorandum (MvT), Kamerstukken II 1979–1980, 16 004, No. 3–4, pp. 1–2.

  24. 24.

    See Werkgroep IPR NVvR 1993, p. 137.

  25. 25.

    Cf., Curry-Sumner 2005, p. 446. See further also Struycken 1994, p. 102; and Van den Eeckhout 2004, p. 57.

  26. 26.

    See Curry-Sumner 2005, p. 447, who refers to Siehr 1982, p. 50. See also Struycken 1994, p. 102. The favor divortii principle is furthermore supported if one examines the jurisdictional grounds under the Brussels IIbis-Regulation: De Boer 1996; Boele-Woelki et al. 1998, pp. 218–220 and 223; Van den Eeckhout 2004, p. 58.

  27. 27.

    Infra Sect. 2.3 for the party autonomy and Sect. 2.4.4 for the application of the lex fori.

  28. 28.

    See Mostermans 2006, p. 43.

  29. 29.

    See also Struycken 1994, p. 102 ff, who is a supporter of the favor matrimonii.

  30. 30.

    Article 1(2), last sentence and 1(4) CLAD. The Hoge Raad has confirmed that parties can only select one of these two legal systems; see HR 21 December 2001, NJ 2002, 282.

  31. 31.

    See generally Pontier 1997, pp. 300–302.

  32. 32.

    Van Maas de Bie 1993, p. 664; and Van Maas de Bie 2002, p. 248 and p. 261.

  33. 33.

    Boele-Woelki 1994, p. 181.

  34. 34.

    Mostermans 1990, p. 138.

  35. 35.

    Staatscommissie 1995, p. 5. However, it is not clear on which information the latter statement of the Standing Committee is based. See further infra Sect. 2.6 for a similar position of the Dutch legislator.

  36. 36.

    See further supra Sect. 2.2.3.

  37. 37.

    Cf., Strikwerda 2008, pp. 35–36.

  38. 38.

    Ibid., pp. 42–43.

  39. 39.

    Cf., Pontier 1997, p. 337.

  40. 40.

    See Van Rooij 1981, p. 424, who refers to the choice of law for Dutch law as the hidden principal rule of Article 1 CLAD. See also Strikwerda 2008, p. 97; and Ten Wolde 2009, p. 219.

  41. 41.

    Cf., the conclusion of Advocate General Strikwerda at HR 4 June 1999, NJ 1999, 535 and HR 12 March 2004, NIPR 2004, 97.

  42. 42.

    Memorandum of Amendment (NvW) Kamerstukken II 1980–1981, 16 004, No. 8, p. 2.

  43. 43.

    Ibid.

  44. 44.

    See equally Van Rooij and Polak 1987, pp. 216–217.

  45. 45.

    See also Van Rooij 1981, p. 423; and Vonken 1981, p. 53.

  46. 46.

    This presupposes that the same-sex marriage concerned has not been or cannot be recognised in the country of origin of (one of) the spouses.

  47. 47.

    See inter alia Rb.’s-Gravenhage 2 October 1990, NIPR 1991, 79; Rb.’s-Gravenhage 27 January 1992, NIPR 1992, 185; Rb.’s-Gravenhage 14 July 1992, NIPR 1992, 346; Hof Amsterdam 29 September 1994, NIPR 1995, 203; Rb.’s-Gravenhage 27 November 1996, NIPR 1997, 83; Rb.’s-Gravenhage 19 June 2002, NIPR 2002, 242; and Hof ’s-Hertogenbosch 9 December 2004, NIPR 2005, 220.

  48. 48.

    See for the interpretation of the term ‘societal connections’ infra Sect. 2.4.2.1.

  49. 49.

    See Explanatory Memorandum (MvT), Kamerstukken II 1979–1980, 16 004, No. 3–4, p. 15.

  50. 50.

    See Hof Amsterdam 11 April 1996, NIPR 1997, 189.

  51. 51.

    Memorandum of Reply (MvA), Kamerstukken II 1980–1981, 16 004, No. 7, p. 3. In case law this position is followed: Hof ’s-Gravenhage 10 March 2000, NIPR 2000, 173; and Rb. Alkmaar 7 July 2005, NIPR 2005, 314. See Vonken (Groene Serie Personen- en familierecht) Article 1 CLAD, n. 3.2 for a list of case law dating from before 2000.

  52. 52.

    See Vonken (Groene Serie Personen- en familierecht) Article 1 CLAD, n. 3.4.

  53. 53.

    See Rb.’s-Gravenhage 8 November 1983, NIPR 1985, 330; Rb. Amsterdam 23 May 1984, NIPR 1985, 110; Hof Arnhem 5 March 1985, NIPR 1986, 265; and Rb. Amsterdam 30 December 1987, to know from Hof Amsterdam 15 August 1988, NIPR 1988, 503.

  54. 54.

    Vonken (Groene Serie Personen- en familierecht) Article 1 CLAD, n. 3.4.

  55. 55.

    Cf., Mostermans 1996, p. 120.

  56. 56.

    E.g. Belgium: Article 232 BW; Germany: Article 1565 BGB; UK: Sec. 1(1) Matrimonial Causes Act 1973; Austria: Article 49 Ehegesetz; Switzerland: Article 1422 ZGB; Turkey: Article 166 Turkish Civil Code.

  57. 57.

    See Mostermans 1992, p. 159; Van Maas de Bie 2002, pp. 249–251; and Mostermans 2006, p. 44.

  58. 58.

    Werkgroep IPR NVvR 1993, pp. 145 and 147–148.

  59. 59.

    See Memorandum of Reply (MvA), Kamerstukken II 1980–1981, 16 004, No. 7, p. 4 ff.

  60. 60.

    See Hof Amsterdam 15 February 1993, NIPR 1993, 403; Rb.’s-Gravenhage 29 November 1995, NIPR 1996, 197; and Hof ’s-Gravenhage 6 March 1998, NIPR 1998, 273.

  61. 61.

    Cf., Mostermans 1992, p. 158; Werkgroep IPR NVvR 1993, p. 148.

  62. 62.

    See Memorandum of Reply (MvA), Kamerstukken II 1980–1981, 16 004, No. 7, pp. 3–4. Cf., HR 26 January 1996, NIPR 1996, 179; HR 21 December 2001, NIPR 2002, 77; and Hof ’s-Hertogenbosch 9 December 2004, NIPR 2005, 220.

  63. 63.

    Professio iuris in appeal: Memorandum of Amendment (NvW) Kamerstukken II 1980–1981, 16 004, No. 8, p. 2. See also Hof Amsterdam 5 October 1992, NIPR 1993, 76; Hof Amsterdam 21 February 2002, NIPR 2004, 207; and Hof Amsterdam 11 August 2005, NIPR 2006, 10.

  64. 64.

    See Memorandum of Reply (MvA), Kamerstukken II 1980–1981, 16 004, No. 7, p. 3.

  65. 65.

    See also Wendels 1983, pp. 70–71; Mostermans 2006, p. 43; Vonken (Groene Serie Personen- en familierecht) Article 1 CLAD, n. 3.3. Cf., Rb.’s-Gravenhage 17 September 1991, NIPR 1991, 356.

  66. 66.

    See Hof ’s-Gravenhage 28 July 1995, NIPR 1996, 58 and Rb.’s-Gravenhage 7 April 2000, NIPR 2000, 182. See for the case that a party revokes a former professio iuris with the consent of the other party: Hof Amsterdam 14 January 1999, NIPR 2000, 260; Hof ’s-Hertogenbosch 26 January 2000, NIPR 2000, 97. See also HR 4 June 1999, NJ 1999, 535, in which the Hoge Raad considered that the legal remedy of appeal has not been created as opportunity to annul a divorce of a party whose petition to divorce has been granted in first instance, because the latter party gives — on further consideration — preference to the application of another law.

  67. 67.

    Explanatory Memorandum (MvT), Kamerstukken II 1979–1980, 16 004, No. 3–4, p. 11.

  68. 68.

    Cf., Strikwerda 2008, p. 36.

  69. 69.

    Cf., Curry-Sumner 2005, p. 446.

  70. 70.

    See Strikwerda 2008, p. 72; and Ten Wolde 2009, p. 113.

  71. 71.

    Wet houdende algemeene bepalingen der wetgeving van het Koninkrijk, Act of 15 May 1829, Stcrt. 1829, No. 28.

  72. 72.

    Cf., Kosters and Dubbink 1962, pp. 573–574; Strikwerda 2008, p. 72; and Ten Wolde 2009, p. 113.

  73. 73.

    See Kosters and Dubbink 1962, pp. 580–581.

  74. 74.

    Cf., Foblets 1997, p. 27.

  75. 75.

    See Vischer 1999, p. 7; and Henrich 2001, p. 437.

  76. 76.

    See Strikwerda 2008, p. 73.

  77. 77.

    See Strikwerda 2008, pp. 80–81; Ten Wolde 2009, p. 113.

  78. 78.

    See Explanatory Memorandum (MvT), Kamerstukken II 1979–1980, 16 004, No. 3–4, p. 9. See also Staatscommissie 1967, in: Frohn and Hennis 1995, p. 113: the rigid application of the principle of nationality does not lead to a solution if the spouses have different nationalities. Therefore, this principle should be abandoned in order to find a solution to such cases.

  79. 79.

    See also Van Rooij 1981, p. 425.

  80. 80.

    Explanatory Memorandum (MvT), Kamerstukken II 1979–1980, 16 004, No. 3–4, p. 11.

  81. 81.

    In cases of a single nationality. The term ‘authenticity test’ has been derived from Curry-Sumner 2005, p. 450. Other authors have referred to the mentioned test as the ‘real social connection test’ (Van Rooij and Polak 1987, p. 179 and Frohn 1996, p. 50) or as the ‘reality test’ (Mostermans 1990, p. 135).

  82. 82.

    In cases of multiple nationalities.

  83. 83.

    See inter alia: Rb. Haarlem 30 October 2001, NIPR 2003, 87 (Turkish law); Rb.’s-Gravenhage 15 April 2002, NIPR 2002, 174 (Iranian law); Rb. Haarlem 20 January 2004, NIPR 2004, 125 (Turkish law); Rb.’s-Gravenhage 23 February 2004, NIPR 2004 (Turkish law); Rb.’s-Gravenhage 12 May 2004, NIPR 2004, 234 (Chinese law); Rb. ‘s-Gravenhage 20 September 2004, NIPR 2005, 16 (Spanish law); Rb.’s-Gravenhage 13 October 2004, NIPR 2005, 18 (Afghan law); Rb. Alkmaar 26 January 2006, NIPR 2006, 106 (Moroccan law); Rb.’s-Gravenhage 5 July 2006, NIPR 2006, 282 (Moroccan law); and Rb. Alkmaar 28 September 2006, NIPR 2006, 271 (Moroccan law). See Vonken (Groene Serie Personen- en familierecht) Article 1 CLAD, n. 4.2 for a list of case law dating from before 2000.

  84. 84.

    HR 9 June 1995, NJ 1995, 617; Hof ’s-Gravenhage 18 October 2006, NIPR 2007, 5.

  85. 85.

    See supra Sect. 2.3.3.

  86. 86.

    Explanatory Memorandum (MvT), Kamerstukken II 1979–1980, 16 004, No. 3–4, p. 15. See also Rb.’s-Gravenhage, 26 January 2001, NIPR 2001, 100.

  87. 87.

    Explanatory Memorandum (MvT), Kamerstukken II 1979–1980, 16 004, No. 3–4, p. 14. See equally Werkgroep IPR NVvR 1993, pp. 142–143; and Vonken (Groene Serie Personen- en familierecht) Article 1 CLAD, n. 5.2.

  88. 88.

    See equally Strikwerda 1986, p. 6.

  89. 89.

    See inter alia De Boer 1991, p. 252 ff; Mostermans 2006, p. 48 ff; and Vonken (Groene Serie Personen- en familierecht) Article 1 CLAD, n. 5.5.

  90. 90.

    HR 9 June 1995, NJ 1995, 617.

  91. 91.

    De Boer 1991, p. 252 ff. The Working Group on PIL of the Dutch Association for the Administration of Justice also refers to these factors in its report; see Werkgroep IPR NVvR 1993, pp. 141–142.

  92. 92.

    See also Werkgroep IPR NVvR 1993, pp. 141–142.

  93. 93.

    Kokkini-Iatridou 1979, p. 581.

  94. 94.

    See HR 26 January 1996, NIPR 1997, 179.

  95. 95.

    De Boer 1991, p. 260.

  96. 96.

    Before the entry into force of the CLAD it was required that both parties lack a real societal connection with the country of their nationality. See Rb. Amsterdam 29 January 1970, NJ 1970, 188 and HR 9 February 1979, NJ 1979, 546 (annotated by J.C. Schultsz) and Ars Aequi 1979, p. 268 (annotated by H.U. Jessurun d’Oliviera).

  97. 97.

    Explanatory Memorandum (MvT), Kamerstukken II 1979–1980, 16 004, No. 3–4, p. 14.

  98. 98.

    Explanatory Memorandum (MvT), Kamerstukken II 1979–1980, 16 004, No. 3–4, pp. 15–16. In this sense also: Rb.’s-Gravenhage 22 October 1999, NIPR 2000, 15; Hof ’s-Gravenhage 17 January 2001, NIPR 2003, 76.

  99. 99.

    Explanatory Memorandum (MvT), Kamerstukken II 1979–1980, 16 004, No. 3–4, p. 14.

  100. 100.

    Werkgroep IPR NVvR 1993, pp. 142–143, 146–147, 149.

  101. 101.

    Ibid., p. 149.

  102. 102.

    See Boele-Woelki 1994, p. 175; and Van Maas de Bie 2002, p. 256. The Working Group on Private International Law was aware of the fact that the omission of the authenticity test in case of Dutch spouses residing abroad is at odds with the wording of Article 1(2) CLAD, see Werkgroep IPR NVvR 1993, p. 147.

  103. 103.

    The Working Group pleaded ‘with some hesitation’ for the omission of the test.

  104. 104.

    See Explanatory Memorandum (MvT), Kamerstukken II 1979–1980, 16 004, No. 3–4, pp. 15–16.

  105. 105.

    See Mostermans 1996, pp. 131–132; and Staatscommissie 2002, p. 14 ff.

  106. 106.

    In Sect. 2.3.4.2 above it has been argued that such position should not be considered as a valid professio iuris for Dutch law pursuant to Article 1(4) CLAD.

  107. 107.

    See e.g. Rb. Alkmaar 20 June 1991, NIPR 1991, 322; Rb.’s-Gravenhage 14 July 1992, NIPR 1992, 347; Rb.’s-Gravenhage 17 September 1991, NIPR 1991, 356; Rb.’s-Gravenhage 27 October 1992, NIPR 1993, 89; Rb.’s-Gravenhage 23 March 1993, NIPR 1993, 242; Rb.’s-Gravenhage 11 May 1993, NIPR 1993, 246; Rb.’s-Gravenhage 1 December 1993, NIPR 1994, 97; Rb.’s-Gravenhage 29 December 1993, NIPR 1994, 102; Hof Amsterdam 6 October 1994, NIPR 1995, 204; Rb.’s-Gravenhage 25 September 1996, NIPR 1997, 78; Rb.’s-Gravenhage 20 March 1998, NIPR 1998, 187; Hof ’s-Hertogenbosch 26 January 2000, NIPR 2000, 97; and Rb. Maastricht 28 March 2007, NIPR 2007, 118.

  108. 108.

    See Mostermans 1992, pp. 157–158; Werkgroep IPR NVvR 1993, pp. 140, 145, 148; HR 6 October 1995, NJ 1997, 257 (annotation Th.M. de Boer); Mostermans 2006, p. 52; Vonken (Groene Serie Personen- en familierecht) Article 1 CLAD, n. 5.6.

  109. 109.

    See HR 9 December 1965, NJ 1966, 378; and HR 27 May 1977, NJ 1977, 600.

  110. 110.

    See HR 6 October 1995, NJ 1997, 257 (annotation Th.M. de Boer); and HR 15 February 2002, NIPR 2002, 148.

  111. 111.

    See supra Sect. 2.4.2.1.

  112. 112.

    Cf., Mostermans 2006, p. 56.

  113. 113.

    Ibid. At times the court even refrains from applying the effectivity test, e.g. Rb. Utrecht, 26 January 2005, NIPR 2005, 130.

  114. 114.

    Cf., Mostermans 2006, p. 55. See also e.g. Rb.’s-Gravenhage 3 May 2006, NIPR 2007, 16; Rb.’s-Gravenhage 10 May 2006, NIPR 2007, 18; Rb.’s-Gravenhage 17 May 2006, NIPR 2007, 19; Hof ’s-Gravenhage 25 March 2009, NIPR 2009, 260; Hof ’s-Gravenhage 15 April 2009, NIPR 2009, 183.

  115. 115.

    See concerning the difficulties with respect to the recognition of Dutch divorces in Morocco inter alia: Rutten 1997, p. 193 ff and Bouddount 2006.

  116. 116.

    See Van Maas de Bie 2002, p. 257. See also: Hof Amsterdam 20 July 2000, NIPR 2002, 82. In the case of the Rechtbank Alkmaar of 15 November 2007 the described situation also arose, but the Rechtbank did not pay any attention to the fact that the wife possessed two nationalities; see Rb. Alkmaar 15 November 2007, NIPR 2008, 16.

  117. 117.

    Cf., Explanatory Memorandum (MvT), Kamerstukken II 1979–1980, 16 004, No. 3–4, p. 15.

  118. 118.

    See equally Wendels 1983, p. 73; Staatscommissie 1995, p. 4; Mostermans 2006, p. 57; and Vonken (Groene Serie Personen- en familierecht) Article 1 CLAD, n. 6. See also: Rb. ’s-Gravenhage 15 November 1988, NIPR 1989, 209; Rb.’s-Gravenhage 10 April 1996, NIPR 1996, 215a; and Hof Amsterdam 21 February 2002, NIPR 2003, 207.

  119. 119.

    Differently: Hof Amsterdam 20 July 2000, NIPR 2000, 266. According to the Hof Amsterdam, in determining whether a choice for the application of parties’ common national law is valid, one must first apply the effectivity test in case either of the parties possesses a double nationality.

  120. 120.

    Cf., conclusion of Advocate General Strikwerda at HR 15 February 2002, NJ 2003, 371.

  121. 121.

    See with regard to choice of law of succession: Ten Wolde 1996, p. 32; and Knot 2008, p. 39.

  122. 122.

    The cause of the absence of a nationality is usually a negative conflict between nationality laws. According to one law a certain fact, such as a marriage to a foreigner, leads to the loss of nationality, whereas this same fact might not lead to the acquisition of nationality according to the other law. See Strikwerda 2008, p. 76.

  123. 123.

    The application of the law of the common habitual residence of the spouses is also in conformity with Article 12(1) of the Treaty of New York concerning the Status of Stateless Persons (Treaty of 28 September 1954, Trb. 1957, No. 22), determining that the personal status of a stateless person is governed by the law of his country of domicile or, in the absence of a domicile, by the law of the country of his or her residence.

  124. 124.

    See Mostermans 2006, p. 57.

  125. 125.

    See Strikwerda 2008, p. 77.

  126. 126.

    See equally Ten Wolde 2009, p. 117.

  127. 127.

    Treaty of 28 July 1951, Trb. 1954, No. 88.

  128. 128.

    Cf., Dicey et al. 2006, p. 168.

  129. 129.

    See Strikwerda 2008, pp. 80–81.

  130. 130.

    Explanatory Memorandum (MvT), Kamerstukken II 1979–1980, 16 004, No. 3–4, pp. 11–12.

  131. 131.

    HR 21 December 2001, NJ 2002, 282.

  132. 132.

    See the annotation of J.C. Schultsz at HR 27 May 1977, NJ 1977, 600.

  133. 133.

    Staatscommissie 1967, in Frohn and Hennis 1995, p. 113.

  134. 134.

    Staatscommissie 1995, p. 3.

  135. 135.

    Explanatory Memorandum (MvT), Kamerstukken II 1979–1980, 16 004, No. 3–4, p. 16.

  136. 136.

    Ibid., p. 16. In case law the same point of view is held: see inter alia Rb.’s-Gravenhage 22 October 1999, NIPR 2000, 15; Rb.’s-Gravenhage 7 March 2003, NIPR 2003, 246.

  137. 137.

    HR 6 October 1995, NJ 1997, 257.

  138. 138.

    See Mostermans 2006, p. 47. More reserved: Vonken (Groene Serie Personen- en familierecht) Article 1 CLAD, n. 4.5.

  139. 139.

    Joppe 1982, p. 618.

  140. 140.

    See also Joppe 1987, p. 53; and Vlas 1996, p. 201.

  141. 141.

    The Dutch Proposal on Private International Law provides for a general public policy clause in Article 6, stipulating that the application of foreign law is to be left aside, if this would be manifestly incompatible with Dutch public policy. See on this provision more elaborately Staatscommissie 2002, p. 52 ff; and Explanatory Memorandum (MvT), Kamerstukken II 2009–2010, 32 137, No. 3, pp. 13–15.

  142. 142.

    See on the public policy exception in general: Strikwerda 2008, p. 52 ff; and Ten Wolde 2009, p. 79 ff. The Hoge Raad held that the public policy exception can only be invoked against the application of foreign law and not against the application of Dutch law; see HR 12 May 2000, NIPR 2000, 172.

  143. 143.

    See Blom 2003, p. 383 ff.

  144. 144.

    HR 9 November 2001, NIPR 2002, 2 and Hof Amsterdam 25 January 2001, NIPR 2001, 91. Cf., also Van der Velden 2003, p. 1 ff.

  145. 145.

    See supra Sect. 2.2.2.

  146. 146.

    See for an enumeration of these problems: Werkgroep IPR NVvR 1993, p. 129 ff.

  147. 147.

    De Boer 1991, p. 252 ff. In conjunction with the jurisdictional rules of the Brussels IIbis-Regulation three of the four steps of the choice of law ladder of Article 1 CLAD lead to the designation of Dutch law as the applicable law. See also Boele-Woelki 1994, p. 179 ff; Van den Eeckhout 2000, p. 39 ff; Van Maas de Bie 2002, p. 258 ff.

  148. 148.

    Werkgroep IPR NVvR 1993, pp. 150–151.

  149. 149.

    See Van Maas de Bie 1993, p. 664; Boele-Woelki 1994, pp. 178–181; De Boer 1996, p. 227 ff.

  150. 150.

    Staatscommissie 1995, p. 7.

  151. 151.

    The majority of the Standing Committee had no such grave objection to the current regulation so that it would be necessary to promptly amend the Choice of Law Act on Divorce. It proposed therefore to wait with the amendment of Article 1 CLAD until the intended introduction of a General Private International Law Act, so that the new regulation of the applicable law to divorce can be tuned to the other content of the latter Act. See Staatscommissie 1995, p. 7.

    Boele-Woelki 2008, p. 261 has urged the Dutch legislature to amend the choice of law on divorce within the foreseeable future, as the negotiations on the Brussels IIter-Proposal — introducing a common European choice of law on divorce — have failed in July 2008. The Dutch legislature has obeyed this call; see Explanatory Memorandum (MvT), Kamerstukken II 2009–2010, 32 137, No. 3, pp. 41–42: ‘Overigens wordt momenteel onderhandeld over Europese regelgeving die strekt tot de invoering van regels inzake het toepasselijke recht in (echt)scheidingsprocedures. Indien deze regelgeving tot stand komt, zal zij op enig moment haar weerslag hebben op de in deze afdeling opgenomen bepalingen. Desalniettemin is besloten bij gelegenheid van deze consolidatie de Nederlandse regeling aan te passen, aangezien het moment van totstandkoming van Europese regelgeving nog hoogst onzeker is […].’

  152. 152.

    See Kamerstukken II 2009–2010, 32 137, No. 2. Hereinafter this Proposal will be referred to as the ‘Dutch Proposal on Private International Law’. The Proposal is expected to enter into force either in the course of 2011 or in 2012.

  153. 153.

    See Explanatory Memorandum (MvT), Kamerstukken II 2009–2010, 32 137, No. 3, p. 1.

  154. 154.

    According to the Explanatory Memorandum (MvT), Kamerstukken II 2009–2010, 32 137, No. 3, pp. 42–43.

  155. 155.

    See Explanatory Memorandum (MvT), Kamerstukken II 2009–2010, 32 137, No. 3, pp. 17–18 expressly stating that also the lex fori can be set aside by this general provision of Article 8.

  156. 156.

    See Staatscommissie 2001, p. 7. In support see also De Boer 1991, p. 260.

  157. 157.

    Explanatory Memorandum (MvT), Kamerstukken II 2009–2010, 32 137, No. 3, pp. 43–44.

  158. 158.

    See Staatscommissie 1995, p. 7.

  159. 159.

    Ibid., p. 7: ‘Omdat de betekenis van het onbepaalde lidwoord wellicht niet voor iedere wetstoepasser aanstonds duidelijk is, verdient het naar het gevoelen van de Staatscommissie overweging hierop in de memorie van toelichting te wijzen.’.

  160. 160.

    See also the general provision of Article 10 of the Dutch Proposal on Private International Law, stipulating that if a professio iuris is permitted, the choice should be made expressly or otherwise be sufficiently clear.

  161. 161.

    See Explanatory Memorandum (MvT), Kamerstukken II 2009–2010, 32 137, No. 3, p. 43.

  162. 162.

    Ibid. Cf., Staatscommissie 2008, pp. 6–7, which had requested the legislature to clarify this possibility: ‘[…] het tweede lid van het artikel betreffende de wet die van toepassing is op echtscheiding […] behoeft verduidelijking voor het geval waarin een aanvankelijk door echtgenoten overeengekomen rechtskeuze later wordt genegeerd door een eenzijdige rechtskeuze van een van hen.’.

  163. 163.

    See Staatscommissie 1995, pp. 3–4.

  164. 164.

    See equally Curry-Sumner 2005, pp. 453.

  165. 165.

    See e.g. the omission of the authenticity test in case of a Dutch couple residing abroad, supra Sect. 2.4.2.1.

  166. 166.

    See also already supra Sect. 2.3.1.

  167. 167.

    Staatscommissie 1995, p. 5.

  168. 168.

    Cf., Werkgroep IPR NVvR 1993, p. 136; Explanatory Memorandum (MvT), Kamerstukken II 2009–2010, 32 137, No. 3, pp. 42–43.

  169. 169.

    See supra note 83 of the current chapter. See also Vonken (Groene Serie Personen- en familierecht) Article 1 CLAD, n. 8.

  170. 170.

    See also Boele-Woelki 1994, pp. 167–181; Vlas 1996, p. 202; Van Maas de Bie 2002, p. 261.

  171. 171.

    Van Maas de Bie 2002, p. 261.

  172. 172.

    Staatscommissie 1995, p. 3. See also Explanatory Memorandum (MvT), Kamerstukken II 2009–2010, 32 137, No. 3, p. 43.

  173. 173.

    The Dutch legislature endorses to this position. See Explanatory Memorandum (MvT), Kamerstukken II 2009–2010, 32 137, No. 3, p. 43.

  174. 174.

    See Explanatory Memorandum (MvT), Kamerstukken II 2009–2010, 32 137, No. 3, p. 43: ‘Het vooropstellen van het Nederlandse recht als toepasselijk recht komt voor dit specifieke onderwerp evenwel tegemoet aan de behoefte van de praktijk.’

References

Regulations, Conventions, Reports and Other Documentary Sources

  • Choice of Law Act on Divorce. Act of 25 March 1981, Stb. 1981, No. 166, containing a regulation of the choice of law rules on the dissolution of the marriage and on legal separation and the recognition thereof, Wet conflictenrecht Echtscheiding

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutch Proposal on Private International Law. Vaststelling en invoering van Boek 10 (Internationaal privaatrecht) van het Burgerlijk Wetboek, Kamerstukken II 2009–2010, 32 137, No. 2

    Google Scholar 

  • Impact Assessment on Divorce. Commission Staff Working Document—Annex to the proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 2201/2003 as regards jurisdiction and introducing rules concerning applicable law in matrimonial matters, SEC(2006) 949

    Google Scholar 

  • Staatscommissie (1967). Staatscommissie voor het Internationaal Privaatrecht, Advies met betrekking tot het conflictenrecht inzake de echtscheiding en de scheiding van tafel en bed, Report of 8 February 1967, in: Frohn/Hennis (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  • Staatscommissie (1995). Staatscommissie voor het Internationaal Privaatrecht, Advies inzake Wet conflictenrecht echtscheiding, Report of 28 March 1995

    Google Scholar 

  • Staatscommissie (2001). Staatscommissie voor het Internationaal Privaatrecht, Internationaal privaatrecht in verband met de openstelling van het huwelijk voor personen van hetzelfde geslacht, Report of 1 December 2001

    Google Scholar 

  • Staatscommissie (2002). Staatscommissie voor het Internationaal Privaatrecht, Rapport Algemene Bepalingen IPR, Report of 1 June 2002

    Google Scholar 

  • Staatscommissie (2008). Staatscommissie voor het Internationaal Privaatrecht, Advies van de Staatscommissie voor internationaal privaatrecht over Boek 10, Report of 2 July 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • The reports of the Dutch Standing Committee on Private International Law that have been drawn up as from 1995 are available at: http://www.justitie.nl/onderwerpen/wetgeving/over_wetgeving/privaatrecht/commissies-privaatrecht/staatscommissie-ipr.aspx

  • Werkgroep IPR NVvR (1993). Werkgroep Internationaal Privaatrecht van de Nederlandse Vereniging voor Rechtspraak, Knelpunten bij de toepassing van artikel 1 Wet Conflictenrecht Echtscheiding. Trema, 129–151

    Google Scholar 

Books and Articles

  • Blom J (2003) Public policy in private international law and its evolution in time. NILR 50:373–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boele-Woelki K (1994) Der favor divortii im Niederländischen internationalen Scheidungsrecht. In: Boele-Woelki K (ed) Comparability and Evaluation, Liber Amicorum D. Kokkini-Iatridou. Nijhoff, Dordrecht, pp 167–181

    Google Scholar 

  • Boele-Woelki K (2008) Europese unificatie conflictenrecht echtscheiding van de baan. FJR 30:261

    Google Scholar 

  • Boele-Woelki K, Joustra C, Steenhoff G (1998) Dutch private international law at the end of the 20th century: pluralism of methods. In: Steenhoff G (ed) Netherlands reports to the 15th international congress of comparative law. Intersentia, Bristol, pp 203–227

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouddount S (2006) Marokkaanse rechtspraktijk inzake de erkenning van in Nederland uitgesproken echtscheidingen. Migrantenrecht 21:362–365

    Google Scholar 

  • Curry-Sumner I (2005) All’s well that ends registered? Intersentia, Antwerpen

    Google Scholar 

  • De Boer ThM (1991) Internationale echtscheiding: het kennelijk ontbreken van een maatschappelijke band. Ars Aequi 40:252–260

    Google Scholar 

  • De Boer ThM (1996) Favor divortii en rechtsmacht Commentaar op artikel 2 van het voorstel voor een bevoegdheids- en executieverdrag inzake familie- en erfrecht. In: Kortmann SCJJ, Struycken AVM (eds) Op recht. Bundel opstellen aangeboden aan prof mr Struycken ter gelegenheid van zijn zilveren ambtsjubileum aan de Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen. W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink, Zwolle, pp 19–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Dicey AV, Collins LA, Morris JHC (eds) (2006) Dicey, Morris and Collins on the conflict of laws, 14th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubbink CW (1956) Recente ontwikkelingen van het internationale echtscheidingsrecht. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Internationaal Recht 3:199–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Foblets MC (1997) Conflicts of law in cross-cultural family disputes in Europe today: who will reorient conflicts of law? Comparative and International Law Review South Africa 30:22–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Frohn EN (1996) Netherlands judicial decision involving questions of private international law. NILR 43:41–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frohn EN, Hennis E (eds) (1995) Staatscommissie IPR: geselecteerde adviezen: Naar een afgewogen IPR. T.M.C. Asser Instituut, ’s-Gravenhage

    Google Scholar 

  • Henrich D (2001) Abschied vom Staatsangehörigkeitsprinzip? In: Hohloch G et al (eds) Festschrift für Hans Stoll. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 437–449

    Google Scholar 

  • Joppe IS (1982) De internationale echtscheiding en de bijkomende vorderingen tot alimentatie en scheiding en deling. NJB 57:617–624

    Google Scholar 

  • Joppe IS (1987) Overgangsrecht in het internationaal privaatrecht en het fait accompli (diss. Leiden). Gouda Quint, Arnhem

    Google Scholar 

  • Knot JG (2008) Internationale boedelafwikkeling Over het toepasselijke recht op de afwikkeling van nalatenschappen (diss. Groningen). Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Kokkini-Iatridou D (1979) Mr. A. Wendels/Internationale echtscheidingen. RM Themis, pp 579–584

    Google Scholar 

  • Kosters J, Dubbink CW (1962) Nederlands internationaal privaatrecht. De Erven F. Bohn, Haarlem

    Google Scholar 

  • Mostermans PMM (1990) Party autonomy: why and when? In: De Boer ThM (ed) Forty years on: the evolution of postwar private international law in Europe. Kluwer, Deventer, pp 123–141

    Google Scholar 

  • Mostermans PMM (1992) Enkele procesrechtelijke vragen bij toepassing van art. 1 WCE. FJR 14:156–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Mostermans PMM (1996) De processuele behandeling van het conflictenrecht (diss. UvA). W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink, Zwolle

    Google Scholar 

  • Mostermans PMM (2006) Echtscheiding, 3rd edn. Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Pontier JA (1997) Conflictenrecht: grondslagen, methoden, beginselen en belangen (diss. Amsterdam). Ars Aequi Libri, Nijmegen

    Google Scholar 

  • Rutten SWE (1997) Erven naar Marokkaans recht. Aspecten van Nederlands internationaal privaatrecht bij de toepasselijkheid van Marokkaans erfrecht. Intersentia, Antwerpen

    Google Scholar 

  • Siehr K (1982) Domestic relations in Europe: European equivalents to American evolutions. The American Journal of Comparative Law 30:37–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strikwerda L (1986) Naar een gereduceerd conflictenrecht? Iets over bescherming, begunstiging en better law in het internationaal privaatrecht. Wolters-Noordhoff, Groningen

    Google Scholar 

  • Strikwerda L (2008) Inleiding tot het Nederlandse Internationaal Privaatrecht, 9th edn. Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Struycken AVM (1994) Favor matrimonii of favor divortii? FJR 16:102–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Sumner I, Warendorf H (2003) Family law legislation of the Netherlands. Intersentia, Antwerpen

    Google Scholar 

  • Ten Wolde MH (1996) Internationaal en interregionaal erfrecht in het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden (diss. Groningen). Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Ten Wolde MH (2009) Inleiding Nederlands en Europees Internationaal Privaatrecht, Deel A. Algemeen deel en materieel IPR Personen-, familie- en erfrecht. Hephaestus, Groningen

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Velden FJA (2003) Talâq in de rechtszaal? Verstoting en openbare orde. Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Eeckhout V (2000) P.M.M. Mostermans, Echtscheiding. NIPR 38–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Eeckhout V (2004) Communitarization of private international law: tendencies to “liberalize” international family law. Tijdschrift@ipr.be 51–70. Article available at https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/1887/16146/2/Microsoft+Word+-+engelsveerleiprtijdschriftdefinitief.doc%5B1%5D.pdf

  • Van Maas de Bie AR (1993) Artikelen 36-39 en 34 IPR-Schets: Echtscheiding, alimentatie en echtscheidingsgevolgen. WPNR 6106:663–667

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Maas de Bie AR (2002) Internationale Scheidungen und Scheidungsfolgen in Deutschland und in den Niederlanden (diss. Leiden)

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Rooij R (1981) Wetgeving internationale echtscheidingen. Ars Aequi 30:420–429

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Rooij R, Polak MV (1987) Private international law in the Netherlands. Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Vischer F (1999) Connecting factors. In: International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law—Volume III Private International Law. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 3–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Vlas P (1996) Echtscheiding in het IPR: de peildatum en het bijzondere geval. Ars Aequi 47:196–202

    Google Scholar 

  • Vonken APMJ (1981) Het internationale echtscheidingsrecht. Het Personeel Statuut pp 50–54, 60–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Vonken APMJ (Groene Serie Personen- en familierecht) Titel 9, Internationaal Privaatrecht. Internationale Echtscheidingen. Groene Serie Privaatrecht, Personen- en familierecht (Electronic database Plaza Kluwer Juridisch en Fiscaal, looseleaf)

    Google Scholar 

  • Wendels A (1983) Internationale echtscheidingen. W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink, Zwolle

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. N. A. Baarsma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 T.M.C.ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the author

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Baarsma, N.A. (2011). The Dutch Choice of Law Rules on Divorce. In: The Europeanisation of International Family Law. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-743-2_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation