Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T04:55:05.831Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Hague Evidence Convention: Practice in the Netherlands

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2009

Eric P. A. Keyzer  and
Marion Th. Nijhuis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Hague Evidence Convention – officially the Convention On the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters – was realized in 1970 by The Hague Conference for Private International Law. The Convention gave rise to several differences of opinion between Europe and the United States. The European countries and the United States, in particular, disagree about the (optional or obligatory) character of the convention-procedures. This article will, among other things, deal with the consequences to be expected in The Netherlands of a recent American Supreme Court judgement on this issue: The Aérospatiale case1. The subject will be treated in five sections: 1.The Hague Evidence Convention; 2.The Netherlands and The Hague Evidence Convention; 3.Consequences of the Aérospatiale-case for The Netherlands; 4.Consequences of the Aérospatiale-case for Dutch parties involved in litigation in the UnitedStates; 5.Aérospatiale and conclusion.

Type
Leading Articles
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , November 1989 , pp. 155 - 166
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Aérospatiale, 55 USLW 4842 (S.Ct. June 15,1987).

2. See Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference for Private International Law, Practical Handbook on the Operation of the Hague Convention of March 18,1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Mailers (1984); Vlas, P. Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering, Verdrag Verkrijging Bewijs in Buitenland, Verdragen 621–674.Google Scholar

3. Droz, G.AjlLa Conférence de la Haye de Droit International Privé en 1980: Evolution et Perspectives, 1980-HI R.d.C. (Académie de Droit International de la Haye).Google Scholar

4. a) Report on the First Meeting of the Special Commission on Operation of the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil and Commercial Matters, 171.L.M. 1427 (1978). b)Report on the Second Meeting of the Special Commission on the Operation of the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil and Commercial Matters, 241.L.M. 1668 (1985).

5. Arcalon, HR February 21,1986, NJ 1987,149.

6. SeeArt. 8 of the Convention, and Art. 21 Uitvoeringswet.

7. Dutch Civil Procedure Code (Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering), Arts. 176–233.

8. See also Oberlandesgencht Münich, October 31,1980, Coming Glass OLGR München (1980), 9VA 3/80 and; Oberlandesgericht Munich, November 27,1980, OLGR Munchen (1980), 9 VA 4/80, published in 26 Recht der Intemationalen Wirtschaft 554–557 (1981).

9. HR,May20,1921.NJ 1921,788; HR, January 31,1947, NJ 1948,115.

10. Hof Amsterdam (Ondememingskamer), December 10,1981, NJ, 1983,24.

11. HR, November 20, 1987,RvdW 1987,222. and HR, December 11, 1987,RvdW 1987,241; See Heidenberger, P.Haager Beweisübereinkommen und die Urkundenvorlage Deulscher Parteien in USA, 31 Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft 437 (1985).Google Scholar

12. See Ham, A.D.Wei op de Economische Mededinging, 39 Schuurmans & Jordens 170–180 (1988);Google ScholarMok, M.R. Kartelrecht I 212–214 (1987).Google Scholar

13. 89/95, Woodpulp, ECR 1988 of September 27,1988 (not yet published).

14. Remmington Products v. North American Philips Corporation, 107 FRD 642 (D. Conn., 1985), 80 AJ.I.L. 664 (1986).

15. Sandsend Financial Consultants v. Wood, 743 S.W. 2d 364 (Tex. App. 1988).