No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Jurisdiction*; Bankruptcy; Foreign Judgments
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 May 2009
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.
- Type
- Netherlands Judicial Decisions on Private International Law 1974–1979
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1981
References
1. Sup.Ct. 8 March 1974, NJ 1975, 9.
2. See Jansen, , in: Dungen, Van den, c.s. Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering, 111–191, and the Bill mentioned in the next noteGoogle Scholar.
3. See Art. 767 of the Bill of 20 Jan. 1981 introducing Books 3 to 6 of the New CC, Tweede Kamer, Zitting 1980–1981 No. 16593. Cf. for US interstate law: Sup.Ct.433 US 186 (1977), Shaffer v. Heitner, and 100 SCt 571 (1980), Rush v. Savchuk, both reported by Herzog in Clunet 1980, 920. The French Cour de Cassation 6 Nov. 1979, Clunet 1980, 95, Rev.Crit. 1980 588, goes in the opposite direction.
4. Sup.Ct. 8 March 1974, NJ 1975, 9 note Haardt, , Ars Aequi 1974, 405 note Stein, WPNR 1978, 174 note Verheul. The Sup.Ct. admitted a garnishment in the Netherlands and jurisdiction to validate it (applying Art. 767 CCPr. per analogiam) as this did not change anything in the dealing with the main action, which had been submitted to arbitration in The Hague, “in such a situation, which can also occur when a foreign judgment is enforceable in the Netherlands under a treaty, the debtor is not diverted from the Court which has jurisdiction over the main action”Google Scholar.
5. Art. 429 c CCPr. reads as follows:
(1) the Court of the domicile, or if there is none in the Netherlands, of the actual residence of the petitioner has jurisdiction (…). If there is no domicile or actual residence in the Netherlands, the Court of The Hague has jurisdiction (in this para, “has jurisdiction” stands for is bevoegd, which pertains to domestic territorial jurisdiction or venue).
(2) The court has no jurisdiction, if the petition is unsufficiently connected with the legal atmosphere of the Netherlands (in this para, “jurisdiction” stands for rechtsmacht, which means international jurisdiction).
6. Art. 98a was inserted by the Law of 2 Dec. 1965, S. 527.
7. DC of Rotterdam 16 March 1971, NYIL 1972, 301.
8. CA of the Hague 7 March 1973, AK 7896, mentioned in the last survey, NILR 1975, 82.
9. 30 August 1962, 547 UN Treaty Series 173.
10. CoJ 21 May 1980 (125/79), NJ 1981, 184 note Schultsz, Clunet 1980, 939 note Huet, Rev.Crit. 1980, 787 note Mezger, RIW/AWD 1980, 510, NILR 1981, 83 note Verheul.
11. Treaties with Austria, Art. 14, with Belgium, Art. 1(1), with the UK, Art. 1(3). See Geimer-Schütze, , Int. Urteilsanerkennung II, (1971), p. 167, 256, 359Google Scholar.
12. Art. 4: 1. The courts of the State where the decision was rendered shall be considered to have jurisdiction in the sense of this Treaty, (…)
b. if the defendant has submitted by contract to the jurisdiction of the courts of the State where the decision was rendered (…). There is a contract in the sense of this Article, only if one party has made a written statement and the other party has accepted it, or if an oral agreement has been confirmed in writing by one party and the other party has not contested this confirmation.
13. 9 January 1975, NJ 1976, 63.
14. Cf. CA of Arnhem 8 October 1974, NJ 1976, 64.
15. Art. 11(1): “Judicial decisions rendered in civil or commercial matters in one of the Contracting States, shall (…) be recognized in the other State, on the following conditions: 5O, that the rules of jurisdiction, laid down in the Treaty have not been violated.