Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T13:28:23.430Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dutch International Divorce Act

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

Get access

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Documents
Information
Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 28 , Issue 3 , December 1981 , pp. 390 - 396
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1981

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. The Act has been commented by Rooij, R. van in Ars Aequi (1981) p. 420Google Scholar, Vlas, P.in De Notarisklerk (1981) p. 131Google Scholar, Vonken, P. in HPS (1981) p. 50Google Scholar, and it will be commented by Rooij, R. vanagain in Rev.Crit. (1981 no. 4)Google Scholar.

2. The Bill has been commented by Boele-Woelki, Katharina in Das Standesamt (1980) p. 266Google Scholar, Verheul, J.P. in NJB (1980) p. 572Google Scholar, and de Boer, Th.M. in NJB (1980) p. 789Google Scholar.

3. Tractatenblad (1979) No. 131, Recueil des Conventions, p. 128Google Scholar. The other Contracting States which have ratified so far are: Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the U.K. See Information concerning the Hague Conventions on Private International Law, NILR (1981) p. 223 at p. 237.

4. Tractatenblad (1979) No. 130. The other Contracting States which have ratified so far are Turkey and Austria. See Tr. (1981) No. 141.

5. SC 13 December 1907, W 8636.

6. DC of Leeuwarden 23 April 1964 377, NTIR (1965) p. 408, Clunet (1969) p. 958.

7. DC of Amsterdam 27 June 1969, NJ 1970, 130, NTIR (1971) p. 90. SC 27 May 1977, NJ 1977, 600, NILR (1980) p. 231, Rev.Crit. (1980) p. 733.

8. DC of Amsterdam 29 January 1970, NJ 1970, 188, NILR (1974) p. 87. SC 9 February 1979 NJ 546, NILR (1980) 234, Rev.Crit. (1980) 733.

9. DC of Amsterdam 8 Janaury 1976, 212 and further decisions mentioned in NILR (1980) p. 234, note by Verheul.

10. SC 28 November 1975, NJ 1976, 239, NILR (1980) p. 231, Rev.Crit. (1980) p. 732.

11. The first example is CA of Amsterdam 30 January 1964, HPS (1965) p. 82 (divorce between Spaniards).

12. CA of The Hague 15 February 1979, NILR (1980) p. 236.

13. DC's-Hertogenbosch 7 December 1979, NJ 1980, 524.

14. Section 5(c) of the Jurisdiction for Dissolution of Marriages (Special Cases) Law, 1969, Israel Statute Book 27.769, also in T.M.C. Asser Institute, ed., Statutory Private International Law, (Oslo 1971) p. 251Google Scholar.

15. Thus, as regards matrimonial property, SC 10 December 1976, NJ 1977, 275, NILR (1980) p. 244, Rev.Crit. (1980) p. 99 (Chelouche v. Van Leer).

16. DC of Arnhem 29 November 1979, AK 11.872, applying Dutch law to German spouses domiciled in The Netherlands, considering, inter alia, that the parties themselves evidently wanted Dutch law to be applied (in some earlier decisions already in disguised form, e.g.,: “that the parties have declared that they feel integrated in Dutch society”).

17. Tweede Kamer 1980–1981, 16004, No. 6 p. 3Google Scholar.

18. Loc.cit., No. 8 p. 2.

19. Loc.cit., No. 7 p. 4.

20. SC 9 December 1965, NJ 1966, 378, NTIR (1967) p. 294, Rev.Crit. (1966) p. 297.

21. SC 24 May 1968, NJ 1968, 300, NTIR (1971) p. 92, with an exception as to “divorce tourism”, see the note thereto. This exception has now implicitly been abolished by Art. 2(2) of the Act.

22. Art. 17 of the Hague Convention.

23. One may ask, however, whether the courts are estopped from further developing the system beyond statutory law, especially on the basis of SC 24 May 1968. The Act does not expressly forbid recognition in other situations than those mentioned. On the other hand, the Act, codifying existing judge-made law, clearly did not adopt the said decision of the SC.

24. See NILR (1980) p. 237, note by Verheul.

25. A nullity decree like that in the case dealt with by DC of Zupthen 5 June 1969 NTIR (1971) p. 91 and DC of The Hague 28 April 1971, NTIR (1974) p. 91 is no longer possible.

26. See Central Council of Appeal 10 December 1974, AB 1975, 245, NILR (1980) p. 236; the New York case, Sears v. Sears 393 F.2d 884 (1961); and Restatement Conflict of Laws 2d p. 225.

27. Loc.cit., No. 7 p. 4.

28. DC of Haarlem 25 May 1956, HPS (1956) p. 86, criticized by Kollewijn, , Tien Jaren Nederlandse Rechtspraak Internationaal Privaatrecht 1954–1963 (1966), p. 70Google Scholar, because it was executed in the Netherlands, where only a court can dissolve a marriage. The Act only deals with repudiations outside the Kingdom.

29. DC of Amsterdam 7 March 1968, AK 3843, T.M.C. Asser Institute, ed., De Nederlandse rechtspraak inzake echtscheiding in het internationaal privaatrecht 1963–1971 (1971) No. 49Google Scholar. A cross-petition by the wife for adultery was allowed.

30. President DC of Amsterdam 19 July 1979, AK 11.712, NILR (1980) p. 237.

31. This form of repudiation also falls under the Hague Convention, see, Actes et Documents (1968) II p. 212Google Scholar. The Convention does not speak of “decrees” or “decisions”, but of “divorces … obtained in another Contracting State which follow judicial or other proceedings officially recognized in that State”. The Luxemburg Convention speaks of “déecisions”.

32. “Explanatory Memorandum” Tweede Kamer (1979–1980) 16004, No. 3 p. 17Google Scholar.