Abstract
This chapter deals with the Dutch choice of law rules on the termination of registered partnerships. Despite some activity in this field, to date there is no international treaty providing for a regulation of the private international law aspects of registered partnerships. It is not very probable that an international treaty will be drawn up in the near future. The number of states that recognise the possibility of cohabitation outside marriage or of a registered partnership is too small. Although the number of countries introducing the institution of registered partnership increases, the large diversity of national regulations in this field will make it very hard to reach consensus on the international level. The Dutch Choice of Law Act on Registered Partnerships (Wet conflictenrecht geregistreerd partnerschap) provides for the choice of law on registered partnerships. Since Dutch law places registered partnerships as much as possible on an equal footing with marriage, the choice of law rules regarding the termination of registered partnerships sought connection to the choice of law rules on divorce. The choice of law on the termination of registered partnerships is based on the principle of favor dissolutionis, which implies that they aim to favour the possibility to terminate a registered partnership in an international case. The choice of law on the termination of registered partnerships has been divided in two categories: the registered partnerships entered into in the Netherlands (Article 22) and those entered into outside the Netherlands (Article 23). Article 23 CLARP makes a further distinction between termination by mutual consent and dissolution by the court. This structure can be traced back to Dutch procedural law. The Dutch legislator has created a two-track system for the termination of registered partnerships: the administrative procedure on the one hand and the judicial procedure on the other. The principal rule regarding the applicable law to the termination of a registered partnership is that Dutch law will apply in all cases unless the partners have chosen the application of the lex loci celebrationis. The general transitional provision of the Choice of Law Act on Registered Partnerships works out rather unfortunate with respect to the termination of registered partnerships. According to Article 29 of the CLARP do the rules provided for by the CLARP not apply to registered partnerships concluded prior to the date of its entry into force. This means that the termination of registered partnerships is only governed by the CLARP if the partnership has been entered into on or after 1 January 2005. Unfortunately the Dutch legislature has not amended this transitional provision in the Dutch Proposal on Private International Law.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Act of 5 July 1997, Stb. 1997, No. 324 tot wijziging van Boek 1 van het Burgerlijk Wetboek en van het Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering in verband met opneming daarin van bepalingen voor het geregistreerd partnerschap. Shortly: Act introducing registered partnership.
- 2.
Memorandum in reply to the parliamentary report (NV), Kamerstukken II 1995–1996, 23 761, No. 7, p. 11. See also Boele-Woelki et al. 2007, p. 5 ff.
- 3.
One of the few differences is that no court-intervention is required in case of termination of a registered partnership by mutual consent.
- 4.
See Article 1:80c(1) BW, which determines that a registered partnership will also end due to death or a missing partner. This chapter only focuses on the termination of a registered partnership by mutual consent or by dissolution. See Sumner 2004b, pp. 231–237 and Mostermans 2006, pp. 64–65 on the choice of law rules on the termination of a registered partnership by conversion into a marriage.
- 5.
Cf., Sumner 2004a, p. 46, who concludes, after an overview of the various termination procedures available in five European countries, that ‘[…] not only are the current registered partnerships in these five countries extremely divergent with respect to their entry requirements, but that the associated termination procedures provide yet another layer of complexity.’
- 6.
Actually the same circumstances that give a divorce an international character determine whether the termination of a registered partnership bears such a character. Cf., supra Sect. 2.1.
- 7.
In accordance with Article 1:80c BW a registered partnership can be terminated either judicially or administratively. In case of an administrative termination the partners need to be assisted by one or more notaries or lawyers. See further infra Sect. 3.4.2.
- 8.
The International Commission for Civil Status has drawn up a Convention on the Recognition of Registered Partnerships (No. 32), opened for signature on 5 September 2007. See: http://www.ciec1.org/ListeConventions.htm. This Convention has not entered into force yet. The Convention focuses solely on the recognition of registered partnerships and does not establish any choice of law rules. Moreover, this Convention concentrates on the effects on civil status and is neutral as regards the effects concerning property or social effects, etc.
- 9.
Ibid.
- 10.
In April 2009 it was lastly confirmed that The Hague Conference leaves the issue without priority on the Agenda, see Conclusions and Recommendations adopted by the Council on General Affairs and Policy of the Conference of 31 March–2 April 2009. The Hague Conference does, however, recognise the need for a convention in this field; see Preliminary Document No. 9 of May 2000 for the attention of the Special Commission of May 2000 on General Affairs and Policy of the Conference, p. 5: ‘The absence of clear private international law rules may inhibit free movement across borders by cohabitees where, for example, a status or legal right established in one jurisdiction is not recognised in another, or it may facilitate a partner who is intent on evading established obligations. On the other hand, there is an underlying issue of public policy and a perception in certain states that the recognition of legal consequences for cohabitation may undermine a policy of preference of marriage.’ See also Note on developments in internal law and private international law concerning cohabitation outside marriage, including registered partnership, Preliminary Document No. 11 of March 2008.
- 11.
See for a list of countries that recognise the concept of registered partnership Boele-Woelki et al. 2007, p. 103, footnote no. 1. Within the European Union currently fourteen Member States know some form of registered partnership, i.e. Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Cf., Curry-Sumner 2008, pp. 102–103.
- 12.
See Preliminary Document No. 5 of April 1992 for the attention of the Special Commission of June 1992 on General Affairs and Policy of the Conference. This point of view has been confirmed anew by the Special Commission in June 2000; see Preliminary Document No. 10 of June 2000 for the attention of the Nineteenth Session. See also Note on developments in internal law and private international law concerning cohabitation outside marriage, including registered partnership, Preliminary Document No. 11 of March 2008. See also Hausmann 2000, pp. 241–248; and Boele-Woelki et al. 2007, p. 267.
- 13.
Duncan 1999, pp. 3–4.
- 14.
As will be discussed below, the Dutch private international law rules are a good example of this approach. See further infra Sect. 3.3.3.
- 15.
See Duncan 1999, p. 4.
- 16.
See, in general, Goldstein 2006, p. 369 ff.
- 17.
See Duncan 1999, p. 3.
- 18.
- 19.
Šarčević 1999, p. 46.
- 20.
Ibid., pp. 47–48.
- 21.
Joppe (Groene Serie Personen- en familierecht), General remarks, n. 4.
- 22.
See Report of the Special Commission on General Affairs and Policy of the Conference of 31 March to 1 April 2005, Preliminary Document No. 32A of May 2005, pp. 28–29. The United States is one of the strongest opponents of any activity of the Hague Conference in this field.
- 23.
Act of 6 July 2004, Stb. 2004, Nos. 334 and 621, containing a regulation of the choice of law with regard to the registered partnership, Wet conflictenrecht geregistreerd partnerschap. Hereinafter abbreviated to ‘CLARP’.
- 24.
Staatscommissie 1998; the advice dates from 8 May 1998 and has been published in FJR 1998, pp. 146–159.
- 25.
Explanatory Memorandum (MvT), Kamerstukken II 2002–2003, 28 924, No. 3, p. 2.
- 26.
See NJB 1999, p. 148 and 1295. As seen above, the institution of registered partnership was primarily created to ensure equal treatment for same-sex couples wishing to formalise their relationship. However, the abolition of the institution of registered partnership on the sole ground that the opening up of marriage to same-sex couples has led to fulfilment of the first objective of the Act introducing registered partnership would do no justice to the second objective of the latter Act, i.e. providing different-sex couples with an alternative for marriage.
- 27.
- 28.
Dutch substantive law recognises only one type of marriage, i.e. the marriage open to couples regardless of sex. Therefore, the same-sex marriage has been included in the already existing private international law rules on marriage.
- 29.
A conference discussing the possible establishment of a convention in this field has been organised by the Council of Europe in March 1999 in The Hague. See further Schrama 1999, p. 131 ff.
- 30.
See equally Boele-Woelki 1999, p. 13.
- 31.
See supra Sect. 3.2.
- 32.
See Boele-Woelki 2003, p. 4848.
- 33.
Certainly given the fact that the Choice of Law Act on Registered Partnerships solely applies to registered partnerships that have been concluded after the entry of this Act. See further infra Sect. 3.3.4.
- 34.
See Staatscommissie 1998, para 2.
- 35.
- 36.
Ten Wolde 2001, p. 141.
- 37.
See Staatscommissie 1998, para 2.
- 38.
Cf., Jessurun d’Oliveira 2000, p. 300 stating that ‘the formal status of the Standing Committee’s proposal is for the time being floating in limbo’.
- 39.
See Ten Wolde 2001, p. 141.
- 40.
Boele-Woelki 2003 distinguishes six remarkable characteristics of the CLARP. Only four of the characteristics Boele-Woelki mentions are of importance with regard to the termination of a registered partnership. See also Joppe 2000, p. 374; Joppe (Groene Serie Personen- en familierecht), CLARP, n. 8; and Ten Wolde 2001, pp. 141–143.
- 41.
- 42.
- 43.
Staatscommissie 1998, para 4 (emphasis added).
- 44.
- 45.
Cf., Strikwerda 2008, pp. 36–37.
- 46.
The connection that the locus celebrationis reflects depends on the criteria the lex loci celebrationis attaches to the entry into a registered partnership. E.g. in the Netherlands, a registered partnership can only be concluded if at least one of the persons involved has his/her residence in the Netherlands or possesses Dutch nationality (Article 80a(4) BW).
- 47.
Explanatory Memorandum (MvT), Kamerstukken II 2002–2003, 28 924, No. 3, p. 3:.‘Ik [the Dutch Minister of Justice; NAB] ben mij overigens ten volle ervan bewust dat het te zijner tijd wenselijk kan blijken de regeling op dit punt bij te stellen.’ The Standing Committee has equally advocated this point of view, see Staatscommissie 1998, para 4.
- 48.
In contrast to for example the Dutch - unilateral - choice of law rule on the winding up and distribution of estates, which only covers the situation in which the deceased had his habitual residence in the Netherlands. Dutch law does not provide any rule on the law applicable to the administration of estates when the deceased’s last habitual residence had not been located in the Netherlands. See further on this issue Ten Wolde 1996, p. 298; and Knot 2008, p. 72 ff.
- 49.
Explanatory Memorandum (MvT), Kamerstukken II 2002–2003, 28 924, No. 3, p. 3. The Standing Committee advocated the same point of view, see Staatscommissie 1998, para 4.
- 50.
Ten Wolde 2001, p. 143.
- 51.
See Article 5 of the Dutch Proposal on Private International Law, which determines that the choice of law rules refer solely to the substantive rules of the applicable law (Sachnormverweisung).
- 52.
See Explanatory Memorandum (MvT), Kamerstukken II 2002–2003, 28 924, No. 3, p. 3.
- 53.
Ten Wolde 2001, p. 143.
- 54.
Cf., Boele-Woelki 2000, p. 1054, concluding in 2000 that not one single national regulation was completely in conformity with another national regulation.
- 55.
See Joppe 2000, p. 372.
- 56.
The regulation of the CLARP differs in this respect from the advice of the Dutch Standing Committee on Private International Law, which proposed a more open-ended provision as regards characterisation by not posing the requirements mentioned in Article 2(5) CLARP. See Staatscommissie 1998, para 7 at Article 18.
- 57.
Explanatory Memorandum (MvT), Kamerstukken II 2002–2003, 28 924, No. 3, pp. 2–3.
- 58.
Translation by Sumner and Warendorf 2003, p. 245.
- 59.
Staatscommissie 1998, para 3.
- 60.
Ten Wolde 2001, pp. 141–142.
- 61.
It is highly uncertain which rules do determine the applicable law to those foreign partnerships that fall outside the scope of application of the CLARP. Arguably these partnerships can be considered as contracts. However, this is a matter of characterisation. See further on the characterisation of non-marital registered relationships, Jessurun d’Oliviera 2003, pp. 1–37. See also briefly Hausmann 2000, pp. 248–249.
- 62.
See for a case in which this situation was at issue Rb.’s-Gravenhage 22 September 2006, NIPR 2007, 109.
- 63.
See Staatscommissie 1998, para 7 at Articles 16 and 31.
- 64.
In case of termination sought on grounds of mutual consent and in case of dissolution sought on grounds of a sole petition, respectively.
- 65.
See supra Sect. 2.4.5.
- 66.
The translation of Sumner and Warendorf 2003 provides for another translation of this sentence: ‘the partners jointly chose this law or such a choice made by one of the partners has not been revoked’. However, this translation is not entirely accurate, as revoking the choice implies that the other partner should act. Yet, an act of the other party is expressly not required, as the condition can also be fulfilled in case of default of appearance. See infra Sect. 3.4.5.2.
- 67.
Translation by Sumner and Warendorf 2003, p. 250.
- 68.
This is the result of the position taken in Dutch substantive law as described above, see supra Sect. 3.1.
- 69.
See Staatscommissie 1998, para 4.
- 70.
See supra Sect. 2.2.3.
- 71.
See e.g. Curry-Sumner 2005, p. 447 ff.
- 72.
- 73.
Article 1:80c(1d) BW.
- 74.
See further infra Sect. 3.4.5 in which the law applicable to these two categories will be discussed more profoundly.
- 75.
See Explanatory Memorandum (MvT), Kamerstukken II 2002–2003, 28 924, No. 3, pp. 16–17.
- 76.
For exactly this reason the Dutch Standing Committee chose to draw up unilateral choice of law rules, because otherwise a ‘legal vacuum’ is designated. See Staatscommissie 1998, para 4. Moreover, as seen above, such a result would be contrary to the favor dissolutionis principle. See also Mostermans 2006, p. 66.
- 77.
In the Dutch Proposal on Private International Law this proposal has been copied; see further supra Sect. 2.6.
- 78.
See Explanatory Memorandum (MvT), Kamerstukken II 2002–2003, 28 924, No. 3, p. 17. See also Joppe 2000, p. 393 and Joppe (Groene Serie Personen- en Familierecht), Article 23 CLARP, n. 28.
- 79.
- 80.
See supra Sect. 3.3.2.
- 81.
Curry-Sumner 2005, p. 457, stating that ‘despite the apparent complexity of the Dutch choice of law rules […], the ultimate scheme is based on a simple distinction.’
- 82.
Curry-Sumner 2005, p. 457.
- 83.
Dutch law was applied on the basis of the regulation as proposed by the Standing Committee in 1998. See Rb. Roermond 29 March 2001, NIPR 2001, 188; Rb.’s-Gravenhage 23 April 2003, NIPR 2003, 173; Rb.’s-Gravenhage 27 August 2003, NIPR 2003, 253; Rb.’s-Gravenhage 27 October 2003, NIPR 2004, 11; and Rb.’s-Gravenhage 10 December 2003, NIPR 2004, 119.
- 84.
See equally Reinhartz 2004, p. 495.
- 85.
See Explanatory Memorandum (MvT), Kamerstukken II 2002–2003, 28 924, No. 3, pp. 16–17.
- 86.
Explanatory Memorandum (MvT), Kamerstukken II 2002–2003, 28 924, No. 3, pp. 16–17.
- 87.
Cf., Article 6(2) of the Convention on the Law Applicable to Trusts and on their Recognition of 1 July 1985 (‘Hague Trust Convention’) for a similar ‘auxiliary’ rule. It is worth noticing that in the field of trusts the same problems occurred as in the field of registered partnerships. Just as the registered partnership, trust is a concept that is unknown in many legal systems. See Duncan 1999, p. 2; and Šarčević 1999, p. 46.
- 88.
Cf., supra Sect. 2.3.1 concerning the professio iuris on divorce.
- 89.
See for a detailed description of the authenticity test supra Sect. 2.4.2.1. The same test applies to the termination of a registered partnership. This implies that all circumstances of the case are taken into account in order to determine whether both parties have a real societal connection to the country where the partnership has been registered. This test enhances an individual review.
- 90.
See Explanatory Memorandum (MvT), Kamerstukken II 2002–2003, 28 924, No. 3, p. 17.
- 91.
Cf., supra Sect. 3.4.2.
- 92.
Cf., the professio iuris on divorce, supra Sect. 2.3.4.3.
- 93.
See Explanatory Memorandum (MvT), Kamerstukken II 2002–2003, 28 924, No. 3, p. 17.
- 94.
Explanatory Memorandum (MvT), Kamerstukken II 2002–2003, 28 924, No. 3, p. 17.
- 95.
See Staatscommissie 1998, para 7 at Article 31.
- 96.
- 97.
See Curry-Sumner 2005, p. 480 concludes that ‘[I]t is […] unlikely that recognition of foreign administrative dissolutions of non-marital registered relationships will raise substantive problems in the countries studied [i.e. Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the United Kingdom; NAB].’ It is, however, not impossible that other jurisdictions refuse to recognise an administrative termination of a registered partnership.
- 98.
Cf., Joppe 2000, p. 393. The rules on recognition and enforcement of the Brussels IIbis-Regulation do not apply to the termination of registered partnerships, since the termination of non-marital relationships does not fall within the material scope of the Regulation (Article 1).
- 99.
Translation by Sumner and Warendorf 2003, p. 251.
- 100.
- 101.
The Dutch Choice of Law Acts rarely hold a public policy clause; if any, it only relates to recognition of foreign legal concepts, e.g. Article 3 of the CLARP. None of the Acts contains a public policy clause with regard to choice of law. The Dutch Proposal on Private International Law contains a 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; Explanatory Memorandum (MvT), Kamerstukken II 2009–2010, 32 137, No. 3, p. 13–15.
- 102.
Translation by Sumner and Warendorf 2003, p. 245.
- 103.
This is shown by the list of countries that recognise registered partnership included in Boele-Woelki et al. 2007, p. 103 in footnote no. 1.
- 104.
- 105.
See supra Sect. 2.6.
- 106.
See Explanatory Memorandum (MvT), Kamerstukken II 2009–2010, 32 137, No. 3, p. 2: ‘Met de codificatie is niet beoogd de reeds tot stand gekomen regelingen van conflictenrecht aan een fundamentele herziening te onderwerpen. Het gaat thans in hoofdzaak erom deze wetten op elkaar en op de algemene bepalingen af te stemmen.’
- 107.
See Explanatory Memorandum (MvT), Kamerstukken II 2009–2010, 32 137, No. 3, p. 46: ‘Ten aanzien van de in Nederland aangegane geregistreerde partnerschappen is gekozen voor het opstellen van eenzijdige verwijzingsregels, die (alleen) aangeven wanneer het Nederlandse interne recht van toepassing is. Er is thans geen reden de regeling op dit punt aan te passen.’
- 108.
See supra Sect. 3.4.5.3.
- 109.
See Explanatory Memorandum (MvT), Kamerstukken II 2009–2010, 32 137, No. 3, p. 52: ‘Het vierde lid betreft de formele vereisten: de wijze van beëindiging van het geregistreerd partnerschap dat in het buitenland is aangegaan, wordt beheerst door het Nederlandse recht. Bij ontbinding door de rechter is dus inschrijving van de rechterlijke uitspraak in de registers van de burgerlijke stand vereist.’
- 110.
The Dutch Proposal on Private International Law does contain a transitional provision on Article 56: the amended choice of law rule on divorce will only apply to divorces and legal separations which have been requested after the entry into force of the latter Act. This transitional provision will be added to the general transitional provisions relating to the Dutch Civil Code (Article 290). Cf., supra Sect. 2.6.
References
Regulations, Conventions, Reports and Other Documentary Sources
Choice of Law Act on Registered Partnerships. Act of 6 July 2004, Stb. 2004, Nos. 334 and 621, containing a regulation of the choice of law with regard to the registered partnership, Wet Conflictenrecht Geregistreerd Partnerschap
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
Staatscommissie (1998). Staatscommissie voor het Internationaal Privaatrecht, Geregistreerd partnerschap, Report of 1 May 1998, available at: http://www.justitie.nl/onderwerpen/wetgeving/over_wetgeving/privaat-recht/commissies-privaatrecht/staatscommissie-ipr.aspx
Books and Articles
Boele-Woelki K (1999) De wenselijkheid van een IPR-verdrag inzake samenleving buiten huwelijk. FJR 21:11–13
Boele-Woelki K (2000) Private international law aspects of registered partnerships and other forms of non-marital cohabitation in Europe. Louisiana Law Review 60:1053–1059
Boele-Woelki K (2003) Internationaal privaatrecht wet(svoorstel) Conflictenrecht Geregistreerd Partnerschap. Ars Aequi 52:4848–4849
Boele-Woelki K, Curry-Sumner I, Jansen M, Schrama W (2007) Huwelijk of geregistreerd partnerschap? Kluwer, Deventer
Curry-Sumner I (2005) All’s well that ends registered? Intersentia, Antwerpen
Curry-Sumner I (2008) European recognition of same-sex relationships: we need action now! IFL 12:102–109
De Groot G-R (2007) Private international law aspects relating to homosexual couples. In: Boele-Woelki I, Van Erp S (eds) General reports of the XVIIth congress of the international academy of comparative law. Bruylant, Brussel, pp 325–356
Duncan W (1999) Civil law aspects of emerging forms of registered partnerships. private international law issues, presentation fifth European conference on family law 15–16 March 1999
Frohn EN (2004) De wet conflictenrecht geregistreerd partnerschap. FJR 123:290–294
Goldstein G (2006) La cohabitation hors mariage en droit international privé. Recueil des Cours 320:9–390
Hausmann R (2000) Überlegungen zum Kollisionsrecht registrierter Partnerschaften. In: Gottwald P et al (eds) Festschrift für Dieter Henrich. Verlag Ernst und Werner Gieseking, Bielefeld, pp 241–265
Jessurun d’Oliveira HU (1999) Het geregistreerd partnerschap, het ‘homohuwelijk’ en het IPR. NJB 74:305–306
Jessurun d’Oliveira HU (2000) Registered partnerships, PACSES and private international law. Some reflections. Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale 36:293–322
Jessurun d’Oliviera HU (2003) Autonome kwalificatie in het internationaal privaatrecht: geregistreerde niet-huwelijkse relaties. In: Boele-Woelki K et al (eds) Het plezier van de rechtsvergelijking. Opstellen over unificatie en harmonisatie van het recht in Europa, aangeboden aan prof.mr. E.H. Hondius. Kluwer, Deventer
Joppe IS (2000) Het geregistreerd partnerschap in het Nederlandse IPR. WPNR 6403:371–375, 6404:391–395
Joppe IS (Groene Serie personen- en Familierecht) Titel 5A, Internationaal privaatrecht. Wet conflictenrecht geregistreerd partnerschap Groene Serie Privaatrecht, Personen- en familierecht (Electronic database Plaza Kluwer Juridisch en Fiscaal, looseleaf)
Knot JG (2008) Internationale boedelafwikkeling Over het toepasselijke recht op de afwikkeling van nalatenschappen (diss. Groningen). Kluwer, Deventer
Mostermans PMM (2006) Echtscheiding, 3rd edn. Kluwer, Deventer
Reinhartz BE (2004) Het wetsvoorstel Wet conflictenrecht geregistreerd partnerschap. WPNR 6583:491–498
Šarčević P (1981) Cohabitation without marriage: the Yugoslavian experience. The American Journal of Comparative Law 29:315–338
Šarčević P (1999) Private international law aspects of legally regulated forms of non-marital cohabitation and registered partnerships. Yearbook of Private International Law 1:37–48
Schrama W (1999) Niet-huwelijkse leefvormen en het IPR. FJR 21:131–133
Strikwerda L (2008) Inleiding tot het Nederlandse Internationaal Privaatrecht, 9th edn. Kluwer, Deventer
Sumner I, Warendorf H (2003) Family law legislation of the Netherlands. Intersentia, Antwerpen
Sumner I (2004a) Happy ever after? The problems of terminating registered partnerships. In: Digoix M, Festy P (eds) Same-sex couples, same-sex partnerships, and homosexual marriages: a focus on cross-national differentials. Documents de travail no 124. INED, Paris, pp 35–46
Sumner I (2004b) Dissolution of registered partnerships: excursion in conversion. IFL, pp 231–237
Ten Wolde MH (2001) De uitgangspunten van het Voorstel voor een aantal IPR-bepalingen over het geregistreerd partnerschap nader beschouwd. EchtscheidingsBull, pp 141–143
Ten Wolde MH (2009) Inleiding Nederlands en Europees Internationaal Privaatrecht, Deel A Algemeen deel en materieel IPR Personen-, familie- en erfrecht. Hephaestus, Groningen
Rights 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 the Termination of Registered Partnerships. In: The Europeanisation of International Family Law. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-743-2_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-743-2_3
Published:
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Print ISBN: 978-90-6704-742-5
Online ISBN: 978-90-6704-743-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)
