Skip to main content

Internationalism above Freedom of Contract

The Rotterdam District Court’s view on the scope of the Hague Rules Convention. A lesson for the Hague-Visby era.

  • Chapter
Book cover Essays on International & Comparative Law
  • 159 Accesses

Abstract

Specialized judges are in principle unknown to the Dutch legal system. A judge or president of a chamber need not sit in the same chamber for more than four years.1 It is quite remarkable, therefore, that Erades presided over the Rotterdam District Court Chamber dealing with actions relating to the carriage of goods, in particular carriage by sea, from 1958 until the end of 1981. This was based on both policy and voluntary agreement. The District Court of the world’s largest sea port has deliberately decided to confine jurisdiction over cases relating to the carriage of goods to one chamber, although several chambers of the Court deal with civil matters. As President, Erades appeared to be prepared to carry this policy with good results, for the period of his uninterrupted presidency saw the growth of case law which has provided an element of legal security in international trade, and this cannot be valued too highly. It may safely be said that Erades has given the judgments of the Rotterdam District Court a reputation reaching far beyond national frontiers.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Rererences

  1. Art. 22 a (2), Regulations I, Royal Decree of 14 Sept. 1838, Stb. 36.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Art. 28 of the Act on the Organisation of the Judiciary.

    Google Scholar 

  3. For a report on this lecture (unpublished), see NJB 1969 pp. 776 – 777.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Act of 11 March 1981 for the approval of the intention to denounce the Brussels Convention of 25 Autust 1924 for the unification of certain rules relating to bills of lading, with the annexed Protocol of signature, Stb. 204, entered into force on 8 May 1981 ; State Act of 11 March 1981 for the approval of the Brussels Protocol of 23 February 1968, amending the International Convention for the unification of certain rules relating to bills of lading, signed at Brussels, 25 August, 1924, Stb. 205, entered into force on 8 May 1981. See further n. 32.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Kahn-Freund, The growth of internationalsm in English private international law; The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Lionel Cohen Lectures, Sixth Series, January 1960, p. 40.

    Google Scholar 

  6. See W.E. Haak, De Hague Rules en het Alnati-arrest, Studiekring ‘Prof. Mr. J. Offer-haus’ 1969, with references to the literature.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Report of the Standing Committee for Justice, Chamber Documents, session 1953 – 1954, Bill 3520.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Art. 65(1) of the Constitution, as revised in 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  9. See e.g. Hoogkerk, District Court of Rotterdam, 23 April 1954, NJ 1954, 770; for further case law see RMTh. p. 104 n. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cf. Aagtekerk, Court of Appeal of The Hague, 17 October 1958, S & S 1958, 77.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cf. Alnati, District Court of Rotterdam, 23 April 1963, NJ 1963, 458; see also the cases referred to in RMTh. 1971, pp. 104 – 105.

    Google Scholar 

  12. The Alnati Case is also reported in S & S 1964, 16.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Court of Appeal of The Hague, 11 December 1964, S & S 1965, 13.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Supreme Court, 13 May 1966, NJ 1967, 3, NILR 1968, 82 n. Deelen; see Lagarde, Travaux 1972, p. 160 and H. Gaudemet-Tallon, Rev. trim. dr. eur. 1981, p. 261.

    Google Scholar 

  15. See J.EJ.Th. Deelen, Rechtskeuze in het Nederlands Internationaal Contractenrecht, een jurisprudentie-onderzoek, diss. 1965.

    Google Scholar 

  16. See Vier Jaren Nederlandse Rechtspraak Internationaal Privaatrecht (1964 – 1968), p. 158.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Cf. Risa Paula, District Court of Rotterdam, 28 November 1967, S & S 1968,11.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Portalon, District Court of Rotterdam, 6 April 1965, S & S 1965, 53; for judgment of the Court of Appeal, see S & S 1967, 28.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Supreme Court, 8 November 1968, NJ 1969,10; see Erades, NILR 1969, p. 97.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Cf. MvT 3520, No. 3; for further comments, see also NJB 1970, pp. 298 – 299.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Contractenrecht-X-274, 275 ; see also P.J. Swart, Het Cognossementsverdrag en rechtstreekse werking, Annex to S & S 1971, No. 4 p. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Cf. the cases referred to in RMTh 1971, p. 105.

    Google Scholar 

  23. See Snijders, NILR 1971, pp. 141 – 142;Haak, NJB 1970, pp. 350 – 351.

    Google Scholar 

  24. NILR 1961, p. 375 et seq; NILR 1964, p. 67 et seq.; NILR 1979, p. 97 et seq.; see also RMTh 1982, p. 56.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Loa cit. pp. 4344.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Supreme Court 19 February 1971, NJ 1971, 299; see Verheul, NILR 1974, p. 322.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Cf. Giancarlo Zeta, District Court of Rotterdam, 25 Oct. 1976, S & S 1977, 96.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Cf. Kimovsk, District Court of Rotterdam, 24 March 1970, S & S 1970, 87.

    Google Scholar 

  29. This theory is also found in judgments; cf. e.g. Evie W., District Court of Rotterdam, 27 Oct. 1970,S& S 1971,18.

    Google Scholar 

  30. See the report of his lecture in Curacao, NJB 1969, p. 777.

    Google Scholar 

  31. In February 1982, the countries which ratified or approved the Amended Bills of Lading Convention include: Belgium, Sri Lanka, Denmark, Fed. Rep. of Germany, Ecuador, France, United Kingdom, Lebanon, Norway, Poland, Singapore, Syria, Tonga, Sweden and Switzerland.

    Google Scholar 

  32. See the Act of 11 March 1981, amending the Commercial Code in connection with the ratification by the Netherlands of the Brussels Protocol of 23 February 1968, amending the International Convention for the unification of certain rules relating to bills of lading, signed

    Google Scholar 

  33. at Brussels 25 August, 1924, Stb. 206; the Act entered into force on 26 July 1982. The Hague-Visby Rules entered into force for the Netherlands on 26 July 1982 as well. The Brussels Bills of Lading Convention will cease in force for the Netherlands on 26 April 1983, a year after its denunciation. See W.E. Haak, Het Gewijzigd Cognossementsverdrag en zijn werkingsomvang: NJB 1982, p. 717 et seq.

    Google Scholar 

  34. See MvT 15948 (R1132), No. 3, p. 21.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Loc. cit. pp. 20 – 21.

    Google Scholar 

  36. See further n. 36.

    Google Scholar 

  37. A direction for application of the (old) Hague Rules law in cases of this kind could perhaps also be derived from Art. 6, last sentence of the Brussels Protocol; see also Struycken, Contractenrecht X, No. 55.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1983 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Haak, W.E. (1983). Internationalism above Freedom of Contract. In: Essays on International & Comparative Law. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1468-6_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1468-6_6

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-017-1470-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-1468-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics