Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Europeanisation of International Family Law pp 237–262Cite as

The Dutch and the European Choice of Law Rules on Divorce Compared

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 747 Accesses

Abstract

Chapter 7 contains a comparison of the choice of law systems on divorce of the Netherlands and of the European Union. Even though the adoption of the Brussels IIter-Proposal has been cancelled, the comparison between the Dutch and the European system of the choice of law on divorce remains of importance to answer the question whether from the attempt to unify the choice of law on divorce on the European level some more general directions can be deduced as regards the European methodology of international family law at large. Although on the face the current Dutch and the proposed European choice of law on divorce may seem to differ, both systems have many characteristics in common. The underlying structure of both these systems is similar: party autonomy is regarded as the prevailing principle. Only in the absence of a professio iuris on divorce, the applicable law to divorce is determined by the choice of law rules, which are based on the principle of the closest connection in both systems. The main differences are to be found in the further details of the regulations. However, there are considerable differences between the Brussels IIter-Proposal and the proposed amendment of the Dutch choice of law on divorce. Firstly, the intended amendment of the Dutch choice of law will no longer regard the principle of party autonomy as the prevailing rule. Moreover, while the Brussels IIter-Proposal is based on the principle of the closest connection, Article 56 of the Dutch Proposal on Private International Law is based on the lex fori-approach. Chapter 6 showed that the Netherlands opposed the Brussels IIter-Proposal for fear of a less favourable choice of law on divorce than Dutch law currently provides for. The analysis in this chapter made clear that whether or not this fear is justified depends on the system which has been taken as a point of departure: the current Dutch choice of law rule of Article 1 CLAD or its proposed amendment. The observed fear is not really justified in comparison with the current Dutch choice of law on divorce. However, compared to Article 56 of the Dutch Proposal on Private International Law which adheres to the lex fori-approach, the fear of the Netherlands seems to be more justified. Although the application of the Brussels IIter-Proposal may in the vast majority of cases lead to the application of forum law, it may very well lead to the application of foreign law considering both the professio iuris of Article 20a and the cascade rule of Article 20b of the Brussels IIter-Proposal.

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.

    This issue will be dealt with in Chap. 8.

  2. 2.

    See supra Sect. 2.6 and the Reply of the Dutch Government to the Green Paper on Divorce, p. 2. This Reply is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/news/consulting_public/divorce_mat-ters/news_contributions_divorce_matters_en.htm. See equally Oderkerk 2006, p. 124.

  3. 3.

    This draft has been annexed to this study as Appendix No. 2.

  4. 4.

    See supra Sect. 5.4.2.3.

  5. 5.

    In Sect. 7.2.3 one exception to this exclusion will be made in order to answer the question whether it is a lost opportunity that the Brussels IIter-Proposal does not apply to the termination of registered partnerships.

  6. 6.

    It is to be noted that the Dutch Proposal on Private International Law contains several stipulations on the latter doctrines in its general provisions (Articles 1–17). See on these general provisions also Staatscommissie 2003.

  7. 7.

    See supra Sect. 4.2 on the development of the European legislature’s competence in the field of private international law.

  8. 8.

    According to Fiorini the reason for this ‘atomization’ is ‘that it will be easier to achieve consensus on these issues taken in isolation than it would have been had work been undertaken on a wider area of family law’. See Fiorini 2008b, p. 195. Separate instruments have been or will be established in the following sub-fields of private international law: contractual obligations, non-contractual obligations, divorce, maintenance obligations, wills and succession and matrimonial property.

  9. 9.

    Cf., Fiorini 2008a, p. 7: ‘Although the unification of private international law is very much a priority for the Community, work in this area is proceeding in a very disjointed fashion. […] Indeed coordination between the various dossiers, a very arduous exercise, is at best weak and superficial if not completely inexistent; the unification of private international law rules in Europe is very much proceeding via a piecemeal approach […].’ See on this issue further infra Sect. 8.4.1.

  10. 10.

    See infra Sect. 8.4.4.2 for a discussion de lege ferenda of these general doctrines.

  11. 11.

    See inter alia Leible 2007; Heinze 2008; Kreuzer 2008; Sonnenberger 2008; and Leible 2009.

  12. 12.

    See Siehr 2008, p. 92. Currently there is a risk that, due to the present fragmented unification of European private international law, a coherent approach of the general doctrines of private international law may never arise. Theoretically, in each Regulation a distinct approach on these general doctrines can be adopted; e.g. renvoi may be excluded in one instrument, yet permitted in another.

  13. 13.

    This holds true for Dutch as well as for European private international law. Cf., for such European system Boele-Woelki 2008, p. 783.

  14. 14.

    See Werkgroep IPR NVvR 1993, p. 137; Boele-Woelki 1994, pp. 173–174; Vlas 1996, p. 200; and Mostermans 2006, p. 41. See further supra Sect. 2.2.3.

  15. 15.

    Examples of these compromises having a favor divortii tendency can be found in the solutions to the situations in which the applicable law does not provide for divorce. Both the jurisdictional rules and the choice of law rules of the Brussels IIter-Proposal contain a provision for the latter situations: the introduction of the forum necessitatis in international divorce cases (Article 7a) and the application of the lex fori as a remedy for cases in which the applicable law does not provide for divorce (Article 20b-1).

  16. 16.

    See further supra Sect. 6.4.

  17. 17.

    See supra Sect. 2.2.2.

  18. 18.

    Staatscommissie 2001, Sect. 8, p. 15.

  19. 19.

    See supra Sect. 5.4.2.2.

  20. 20.

    See Press Release No. 8364/07 (Presse 77) of the 2794th Council Meeting of Justice and Home Affairs held in Luxembourg 19–20 April 2007, p. 11. See equally Article 20e-1 of the Brussels IIter-Proposal: ‘Nothing in this Regulation shall oblige the courts of a Member State whose law […] does not recognise the marriage in question for the purposes of divorce proceedings to pronounce a divorce by virtue of the application of this Regulation.’

  21. 21.

    See the analysis of whether it is desirable, and if so possible, to strive for the unification or harmonisation of private international law rules in the field of non-marital registered relationships in general by Curry-Sumner 2005, spec. p. 517 ff.

  22. 22.

    As seen in note 11 of Chap. 3, currently 14 EU Member States have enacted some form of registered partnership.

  23. 23.

    In this respect the termination of registered partnerships differs from the dissolution of same-sex marriages. Although the institution of same-sex marriage has not been regulated by many Member States, the national regulations of the Member States that have regulated the institution largely correspond.

  24. 24.

    Cf., supra Sect. 3.2. See also Curry-Sumner 2005, p. 530.

  25. 25.

    See supra Sects. 3.3.2 and 3.4.1.

  26. 26.

    See supra Sects. 3.3.3 and 3.4.3.

  27. 27.

    Both the alternatives out of which parties can choose with regard to the law applicable to divorce as well as the cascade of connecting factors are not identical in the Dutch and the European choice of law on divorce, see further infra Sects. 7.4 and 7.6 respectively.

  28. 28.

    Cf., Van Rooij 1981, p. 424.

  29. 29.

    This thought currently also underlies Article 1(2), second sentence CLAD, by virtue of which the spouses can choose the application of their common national law.

  30. 30.

    It is to be noted that this same argument would equally apply to the place of the common habitual residence of the spouses.

  31. 31.

    See Staatscommissie 1995, p. 5.

  32. 32.

    See equally Ibili 2006, p. 744.

  33. 33.

    This requirement is mainly meant to prevent the assumption of an implied professio iuris. See further infra Sect. 7.5.2.

  34. 34.

    See supra Sect. 5.3 on the objectives underlying the Brussels IIter-Proposal.

  35. 35.

    See supra Sects. 2.3.4.2 and 5.5.2.2 respectively.

  36. 36.

    Cf., with regard to the Dutch choice of law on divorce Vonken (Groene Serie Personen- en familierecht) Article 1 CLAD, n. 3.4.

  37. 37.

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

  38. 38.

    Cf., Memorandum of Reply (MvA), Kamerstukken II 1980–1981, 16 004, No. 7, p. 3. See equally Wendels 1983, pp. 70–71; Mostermans 2006, p. 43; Vonken (Groene Serie Personen- en familierecht) Article 1 CLAD, n. 3.3.

  39. 39.

    See further supra Sect. 5.5.2.3.

  40. 40.

    Cf., De Boer 2008, pp. 330–331.

  41. 41.

    See supra Sect. 5.5.4, where the proposed date of reference with regard to the professio iuris has been criticised. The existence of a connection between the spouses and the law to be applied is reviewed at the time of the conclusion of the agreement and not at the time of the divorce, which seems to contravene the principle of the closest connection, on which the Brussels IIter-Proposal is based.

  42. 42.

    See further supra Sect. 2.4.1.

  43. 43.

    See supra Sect. 5.5.3.2.

  44. 44.

    Explanatory Memorandum (MvT), Kamerstukken II 1979–1980, 16 004, No. 3–4, p. 11. See further supra Sect. 2.4.

  45. 45.

    See Article 20b-1 on the application of the law of the forum. See Council Document No. 9712/08 JUSTCIV 106 of 23 May 2008, p. 15. ‘Where the law applicable pursuant to Article 20a and 20b does not provide for divorce or does not grant one of the spouses because of his or her gender equal access to divorce or legal separation, the law of the forum shall apply.’

  46. 46.

    See supra Sect. 5.5.3.3.

  47. 47.

    See further supra Sects. 2.4.2.1 and 2.4.2.2 on the authenticity and effectivity test respectively.

  48. 48.

    Recital No. 5c of the Preamble to the Brussels IIter-Proposal. See Council Document No. 8587/08 JUSTCIV 73 of 18 April 2008. See further supra Sect. 5.5.3.2.

  49. 49.

    Cf., Article 4(3) of the Rome I-Regulation and Article 4(3) of the Rome II-Regulation.

  50. 50.

    See supra Sect. 2.4.2.1.

  51. 51.

    See supra Sects. 6.3.2 and 6.3.3.

  52. 52.

    See the letter of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of 2 October 2006, Kamerstukken II 2006–2007, 22 112, No. 465: ‘De kans is niet gering dat het resultaat van de onderhandeling zal zijn een regeling van het conflictenrecht die minder gunstig is dan de huidige Nederlandse regeling, en dat aldus voor echtgenoten in Nederland meer barrières worden opgeworpen om uit elkaar te gaan dan thans het geval is.’

  53. 53.

    Ibid.

  54. 54.

    See Sects. 2.4.3 and 5.5.3.1 respectively.

  55. 55.

    Article 4(1) of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure extends the rules of the Brussels IIbis-Regulation analogously to all questions of international jurisdiction in matrimonial matters.

  56. 56.

    See supra Sect. 2.6. See equally Oderkerk 2006, p. 124.

  57. 57.

    Explanatory Memorandum to the Brussels IIter-Proposal, p. 10 and the Impact Assessment on Divorce, p. 26. See equally Lagarde 2004, p. 238; Beyer 2007, p. 23; Bonomi 2007, pp. 780–781; Lazic 2008, p. 90.

References

Regulations, Conventions, Reports and Other Documentary Sources

  • Brussels IIter-Proposal. Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 2201/2003 as regards jurisdiction and introducing rules concerning applicable law in matrimonial matters, COM(2006) 399 final

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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

    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 

  • Green Paper on Divorce. Green Paper on applicable law and jurisdiction in divorce maters, COM(2005) 82 final

    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 (2003). Staatscommissie voor het Internationaal Privaatrecht, Voorontwerp van Wet houdende consolidatie van regelgeving betreffende het Internationaal Privaatrecht, the state of affairs on 1 November 2003

    Google Scholar 

  • The reports of the Dutch Standing Committee on Private International Law 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

  • Beyer M (2007) Handlungsfelder der deutschen EU-Ratspräsidentschaft im Familienrecht -Die europäischen Verordnungsvorschläge zum internationalen Scheidungs- und Unterhaltsrecht. Forum Familienrecht, pp 20–27

    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) To be or not to be: enhanced cooperation in international divorce law within the European Union. Victoria University of Wellington Law Review 39:779–792

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonomi A (2007) Le divorce en droit communautaire entre règles de droit international privé et objectifs de droit matériel. In: Epiney A et al (eds) Die Herausforderung von Grenzen. Festschrift für Roland Bieber. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 771–783

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • De Boer ThM (2008) The second revision of the Brussels II Regulation: jurisdiction and applicable law. In: Boele-Woelki K, Sverdrup T (eds) European challenges in contemporary family law. Intersentia, Antwerpen, pp 321–341

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiorini A (2008a) The codification of private international law in Europe: could the community learn from the experience of mixed jurisdictions? Electronic Journal of Comparative Law 12:1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiorini A (2008b) Rome III—Choice of law in divorce: is the Europeanization of family law going too far? International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 22:178–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heinze C (2008) Bausteine eines Allgemeinen Teils des europäischen Internationalen Privatrechts. In: Baetge D et al (eds) Die richtige Ordnung, Festschrift für Jan Kropholler. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 105–127

    Google Scholar 

  • Ibili F (2006) Van ‘Brussel II’ en ‘Brussel IIbis’ naar ‘Brussel IIter’; voorstel tot introductie van forumkeuze en conflictenregels in het IPR-scheidingsprocesrecht. WPNR 6685:743–745

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreuzer K (2008) Was gehört in den Allgemeinen Teil eines Europäischen Kollisionsrechtes? In: Jud B et al (eds) Kollisionsrecht in der Europäischen Union. Jan Sramek Verlag, Wien, pp 1–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Lagarde P (2004) Développements futurs du droit international privé dans une Europe en voie d’unification: quelques conjectures. RabelsZ 68:225–243

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazic V (2008) Recent Developments in Harmonizing ‘European Private International Law’ in Family Matters. European Journal of Law Reform 10:75–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Leible S (2007) Der Beitrag der Rom II-Verordnung zu einer Kodifikation der allgemeinen Grundsätze des Europäischen Kollisionsrecht. In: Reichelt G (ed) Europäisches Gemeinschaftsrecht und IPR. Manzsche, Wien, pp 31–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Leible S (2009) Rom I und Rom II: Neue Perspektiven im Europäischen Kollisionsrecht. Zentrum für Europäisches Wirtschaftsrecht, Bonn

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Oderkerk AE (2006) Het Groenboek inzake het toepasselijke recht en de rechterlijke bevoegdheid in echtscheidingszaken. NIPR 24:119–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Siehr K (2008) Die Kodifikation des Europäischen IPR—Hindernisse, Aufgaben und Lösungen. In: Jud B et al (eds) Kollisionsrecht in der Europäischen Union. Jan Sramek Verlag, Wien, pp 77–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonnenberger HJ (2008) Randbemerkungen zum Allgemeinen Teil eines europäisierten IPR. In: Baetge D et al (eds) Die richtige Ordnung, Festschrift für Jan Kropholler. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 227–246

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    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 and the European Choice of Law Rules on Divorce Compared. In: The Europeanisation of International Family Law. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-743-2_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation