Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T04:22:24.720Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Dutch Adopters, Yugoslav Children and Ingenious Dutch Courts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

Petar Šarčević  and
Harry D. Tebbens
Get access

Extract

Just twentyfive years ago, on 1 November 1956, the institution of adoption was created in Dutch law. Before that date the Dutch authorities had occasionally come into contact with adoption, when, for example, a person invoked his status as an adopted child acquired by virtue of a foreign law and, hence, the question arose whether the foreign adoption should have effect in the Netherlands. Since 1956, an ever increasing stream of adoption requests by Dutch couples has been submitted to the Dutch courts. Over the years, the number of adoptions of foreign children increased and the cases in which foreign law had to be considered came to be more frequent than all-Dutch cases.

Type
Articles
Information
Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , August 1981 , pp. 117 - 146
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. See Ministry of Justice, Directorate for Child Protection, Report 1977 and 1978, (1979), p. 42Google Scholar: total numbers of adoptions in 1977: 1720, foreign children 1188; in 1978: 1544 and 1137 respectively.

2. Art. 1: 227(1) Dutch CC; exceptionally, a surviving spouse may request adoption, when the other spouse died after the first steps for an adoption were taken, para. 3.

3. Art. 1:227(2) CC.

4. Art. 1: 228(1) (d), first sentence, CC.

5. Art. 1: 228(1) (f). Originally, the period was 3 years, in 1970 reduced to 2 years and in 1974 to 1 year.

6. See Haandrikman, in Personen- en familierecht (loose leaf ed.), ch. Adoption, section private international law, p. XII. ipr. -1Google Scholar; Report “Praktische gang van zaken rond adoptie en adoptievoorbereiding” submitted by the Ministry of Justice to Parliament on 9 May 1980, doc. Tweede Kamer 1979–1980, 16 194, no. 2, at p. 12: “placing a child [with a foster family] is in actual fact the decisive moment on the way to adoption”.

7. Art. 1: 229(1) first sentence and 1: 229(2) CC respectively.

8. Art. 1 bis Dutch Nationality Act of 1892.

9. Arts. 970–984 CCPr.

10. Art. 970(1) juncto 429c(2) CCPr.

11. Art. 6 of the General Provisions Act of 1829 subjects the “statutum personale” of Dutchmen to Dutch law, wherever they reside. See for the “bilateralization” of this rule in respect of non-Dutch persons, the force of which is steadily shrinking nowadays, Verheul, in Introduction to Duch law for foreign lawyers, at p. 267Google Scholar; Voskuil, , “Emancipation of Dutch conflicts law in family matters”, 43 RabelsZ (1979) p. 346, 357–361Google Scholar.

12. Art. 23 sub b) of the 1969 Uniform Law and p. 66 of the Joint Explanatory Memorandum.

13. As will appear below, s. 5.3.3, this is not an accurate and complete rendering of the actual rule prevailing in most Yugoslav republics and autonomous provinces.

14. The authors are indebted to Mrs. Katharina Boele-Woelki, who during a research stay at the Asser Institute, The Hague, brought to their attention some of the cases discussed in this paper.

15. District Court of Assen 23 June 1976, card index T.M.C. Asser Institute (AK) 11. 470.

16. District Court of Assen 7 February 1977, AK 12. 073.

17. District Court of Zutphen 3 January 1978, AK 12. 241.

18. District Court of Utrecht 1 March 1977, AK 12. 079.

19. District Court of Zutphen 20 January 1976, AK 11. 461, 26 April 1977 and 16 August 1977, both AK 12. 100.

20. See the first mentioned case in n. 19 supra.

21. District Court of Zutphen 25 February 1975, AK 10. 452.

22. District Court of Alkmaar 6 October 1976, AK 11. 450.

23. District Court of Almelo 8 December 1976, AK 11. 456.

24. Struycken, A. V. M., “Buitenlandse adopties aan het loket (I)”, Het Personeel Statuut, 1980 p. 67, 68Google Scholar.

25. Goudsmit, & Schultsz, , Adoptie in het Nederlands internationaal privaatrecht, Reports of the Netherlands International Law Association no. 45 (12 1961), especially pp. 50–57 (Schultsz)Google Scholar.

26. See the cases reported in the publication mentioned in the previous footnote pp. 40–43.

27. Schultsz, , Reports of the Netherlands International Law Association no. 46 (10 1962), at p. 28Google Scholar.

28. See, e. g. Kollewijn, , Survey of cases (1960) WPNR 4636, also in Tien jaren Nederlandse rechtspraak internationaal privaatrecht 1954–1963 (1966), p. 163–164Google Scholar; Kosters-Dubbink, , Algemeen Deel van het Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht (1962), p. 603–604Google Scholar; cf. Sauveplanne, , Elementair internationaal Privaatrecht (6th ed. 1977) p. 33Google Scholar. See for representative cases District Court of The Hague 12 November 1958, NJ 1959, 497; District Court of Zutphen 5 November 1963, NJ 1966, 169; District Court of Amsterdam 11 February 1965, NJ 1966, 41.

29. E. g., District Court Utrecht 25 January 1967, NJ 1970, 262; District Court Zutphen 21 February 1978, AK 12. 162. Use of the renvoi doctrine was repeatedly suggested by the Central Adoption Board, and also supported by Deelen, , (1971) WPNR 5123, at p. 135Google Scholar.

30. E. g., District Court Utrecht 13 December 1977, AK 12.066; cf. District Court Zwolle 28 July 1977, AK 12.083 (no opposition from national authorities).

31. See, e. g., District Court of Amsterdam 9 April 1968, NJ 1969, 157, this Review 1971, p. 95. See for surveys of the varied pattern of cases, e. g., Deelen, , Survey of cases, (1971) WPNR 5122, p. 134Google Scholar; id. (ed.), “Netherlands Judicial Decisions on PIL 1968–'69, this Review 1971, p. 95–97; Sauveplanne, , op. cit., p. 35–36Google Scholar; cf. Ministry of Justice, op. cit., in n. 1, Report 1975–1976, p. 141Google Scholar.

32. E. g., Court of Appeal The Hague 16 December 1977, AK 11. 060, reversing District Court The Hague 5 July 1977, 27 NILR (1980), 227 which refused the adoption of a French girl who was of age according to French law, but a minor according to Dutch law; District Court Utrecht 1 March 1977, AK 12. 081; District Court Amsterdam 13 December 1977, AK 12.095.

33. See for an illustrative case District Court of Utrecht 9 December 1970, noted by Verheul in 21 NILR (1974), p. 99.

34. HR 11 April 1980, NJ 1980, 364 note Schultsz, J.C., English summary in 27 NILR (1980), pp. 241–242.Google Scholar

35. See previous note.

36. Infra sec. 4.

37. Para. 1752 German Civil Code, superseded by the Adoption Act of 2 July 1976 (BGBL I, 1749), in force on 1 January 1977.

38. District Court Amsterdam 19 December 1967, AK 4684; District Court Utrecht 8 March 1972, AK 8426; District Court The Hague 22 January 1975, NJ 1975, 365.

39. Supra, n. 31.

40. Lemaire, , Nederlands Internationaal privaatrecht (Hoofdlijnen) (1968), pp. 37–38.Google Scholar

41. District Court Haarlem 28 October 1975, Het Personeel Statuut 1976, 70 note Struycken, A. V. M. (U. K. law)Google Scholar; District Court Alkmaar 18 May 1978, AK 11.044 (Yugoslav/Serbian law).

42. District Court Amsterdam 7 May 1980, AK 12.048: Dutch law as the law of the domicile of the parties was applied.

43. See Art. 14 of the Convention on the Protection of Minors of 5 October 1961 and Art. 11 of the Adoption Convention of 15 November 1965; cf. Art. 1(2) of the Form of Wills Convention 1961, “the most real connexion”.

44. See for details of ratifications etcetera of this Convention Sumampouw, M., Les nouvelles conventions de La Haye, II (1980), p. 210Google Scholar and for a bibliography id., I (1976), p. 418 and II (1980), p. 262.

45. At the time of writing of this paper, the Dutch Standing Government Committee on Private International Law had submitted its comments on the draft Bills to the Government.

46. Cf. the discussion in Actes et Documents de la Dixième Session, II (1965), pp. 356–357Google Scholar, the original (French) version of the text at p. 358 which was without discussion referred to the drafting committee that produced the present text (p. 374).

47. Actes et Documents de la Dixième Session, II, p. 422 para. 4.

48. Stating under (a) that the adoption of a non-UK child must be “in accordance with the provisions, if any, relating to consents and consultations of the internal law relating to adoption” of the child's national law.

49. In (1965) WPNR 4869, at p. 366.

50. Blom, , “The Adoption Act 1968 and the Conflict of Laws” (1973) 22 ICLQ p. 109, at pp. 139–40. Google Scholar

51. Supra sec. 3.1, text at n. 29.

52. See Sajko, K., “Haška konvencija o nadležnosti, mjerodavnom pravu i priznanju odlukao usvojenju od 1965 i jugoslavensko pravo” (Hague Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law and Recognition of Decrees Relating to Adoptions of 1965 and Yugoslav Law), Naša Zakonitost (Our Legality) No. 10/1980, pp. 47–52Google Scholar.

53. See postupku, Nacrt Zakona o Medjunarodnom privatnom pravu i (Draft Law on Private International Law and Procedure), Prinosi (Contributions), No. 7/1974, pp. 73–105Google Scholar.

54. The same solution can be found, e. g., in the following bilateral treaties containing provisions on adoption, between Yugoslavia and: Bulgaria, Treaty on Reciprocal Legal Aid of 1956 (annex to the Official Gazette of the People's Federal Republic (hereafter PFR) of Yugoslavia, No. 1/57), Art. 40(1); G.D.R., Treaty on Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters of 1966 (annex to the Official Gazette of the PFR of Yugoslavia, No. 1/67), Art. 40(2); Greece, Convention on Reciprocal Legal Relations of 1959 (annex to the Official Gazette of the PFR of Yugoslavia, No. 7/60), Art. 24(1); Poland, Treaty on Legal Relations in Civil and Criminal Matters of 1960 (annex to the Official Gazette of the PFR of Yugoslavia, No. 5/63), Art. 30(1); Romania, Treaty on Legal Aid of 1960 (annex to the Official Gazette of the PFR of Yugoslavia, No. 8/61), Art. 28(2); Hungary, Treaty on Reciprocal Legal Relations of 1968 (annex to the Official Gazette of the Socialist Federal Republic (hereafter SFR) of Yugoslavia, No. 3/68), Art. 24 no. 1.

55. Official Gazette of the SFR of Yugoslavia, No. 29/1971Google Scholar.

56. Ibid., No. 9/1974.

57. Supra, sec. 5. 1 and sec. 3.2.

58. See Varady, T., “Internal Conflict of Laws in Yugoslavia”, 23 NILR (1976), pp. 137–150Google Scholar.

59. In force on 2 June 1979, published in the Official Gazette of the SFR of Yugoslavia, No. 9/1979Google Scholar; English translation in 27 NILR (1980), pp. 124–131; German translation (except for the rules on succession) in Bergmann, & Ferid, , Internationales Ehe- und Kindschaftsrecht (64th suppl.), Yugoslavia, pp. 59–60dGoogle Scholar.

60. See Jovanović, S., Državljanstvo SFR (Citizenship of the SFR of Yugoslavia) (Beograd 1977) pp. 32–33Google Scholar.

61. Official Gazette of the SFR of Yugoslavia, No. 58/76.

62. See also Jovanović, S., op. cit., pp. 33–37Google Scholar.

63. Art. 24 of the Federal Act on Citizenship of the SFR of Yugoslavia.

64. Jovanović, S., op. cit., pp. 45–47Google Scholar.

65. Art. 24(2) of the Federal Act on Citizenship of the SFR of Yugoslavia.

66. Art. 24(4) of the Federal Act on Citizenship of the SFR of Yugoslavia.

67. odnosima, Zakon o biaku i porodičnim, published in the Official Gazette of the SR of Bosnia and Hercegovina No. 21/79Google Scholar.

68. odnosima, Zakon o braku i porodicnim, published in the People's Bulletin of the SR of Croatia Nos. 11/78 and 27/78Google Scholar.

69. usvojenju, Zakon o, published in the Official Gazette of the SAP of Kosovo No. 30/76Google Scholar.

70. posvojuvanje, Zakon za, published in the Official Bulletin of the SR of Macedonia Nos. 5/73, 17/73, 49/74Google Scholar.

71. usvojenju, Zakon o, published in the Official Gazette of the SR of Montenegro No. 28/77Google Scholar.

72. odnosima, Zakon o braku i porodičnim, published in the Official Bulletin of the SR of Serbia No. 22/1980Google Scholar.

73. uradu, Zakon o zakonskoj zvezi in družinskih razmerjih, published in the Official Gazette of the SR of Slovenia No. 15/76Google Scholar.

74. usvojenju, Zakon o, published in the Official Gazette of the SAP of Vojvodina Nos. 24/76 and 29/76Google Scholar.

75. See Bakić, V., Porodično pravo (Family Law) (Beograd 1980), dvanajsto dopunjeno i izmjenjeno idzanje, p. 283.Google Scholar

76. Ibid.

77. Ibid. p. 284.

78. E. g. Art. 135(2) of the Croatian Law on Marriage and Family Relations.

79. Art. 161(1) of the Croatian Law on Marriage and Family Relations.

80. Art. 12 of the Adoption Law of Montenegro.

81. E. g. in Art. 161(1) of the Croatian Law on Marriage and Family Relations.

82. In Art. 145 of the Croatian Law on Marriage and Family Relations.

83. Art. 29 of the Basic Law on Guardianship, Official Gazette of the Socialist Peoples’ Republic of Yugoslavia, No. 16/65.

84. Art. 140 of the Slovenian Law on Marital and Other Family Relations. Cf. Art. 13 of Kosovo's Law of Adoption which is similar.

85. Art. 160 of the Serbian Law on Marriage and Family Relations.

86. Art. 137(2) of the Croatian Law on Marriage and Family Relations.

87. Art. 160(2) of the Serbian Law on Marriage and Family Relations.

88. Art. 137(3) of the Croatian Law on Marriage and Family Relations and Art. 140(2) of the Slovenian Law on Marital and Other Family Relations.

89. Art. 137(3) of the Croatian Law on Marriage and Family Relations.

90. See Bakić, V., op. cit., p. 280Google Scholar.

91. Art. 168(2) of the Serbian Law on Marriage and Family Relations.

92. Art. 171 of the Serbian Law on Marriage and Family Relations.

93. Art. 150 of the Slovenian Law on Marital and Other Family Relations.

94. Art. 149 of the Croatian Law on Marriage and Family Relations.

95. See Alinčić, M. & Bakarič-Mihanović, A., Porodicno pravo (Family Law), (Zagreb 1980) p. 242Google Scholar.

96. The Macedonian Law on Adoption, supra n. 70, has no provision on guardians not being capable of adopting.

97. This subject matter is regulated in the following laws: The SAP of Kosovo: Law on Guardianship (starateljstvu, Zakon o), published in the Official Gazette of the SAP of Kosovo No. 30/76Google Scholar; The SR of Macedonia: Law on Guardianship (staratelstvo, Zakon za), published in the Official Bulletin of the SR of Macedonia No. 5/73Google Scholar; The SR of Montenegro: Law on Guardianship (starateljstvu, Zakon o), published in the Official Gazette of the SR of Montenegro No. 11/80 and 13/80Google Scholar;The SAP of Vojvodina: Law on Guardianship (Starateljstvu, Zakon o), published in the Official Gazette of the SAP of Vojvodina No. 24/71Google Scholar. In Bosnia and Hercegovina, Croatia, Serbia and Slovenia guardianship is regulated in the laws cited under 5.3 above.

98. E.g. Art. 123(1) of the Serbian Law on Marriage and Family Relations.

99. Art. 93(1) of the Croatian Law on Marriage and Family Relations.

100. Art. 198 of the Croatian Law on Marriage and Family Relations.

101. Art. 175 of the Croatian Law on Marriage and Family Relations.

102. Art. 176 under 4 of the Croatian Law on Marriage and Family Relations.

103. Art. 178(2) of the Croatian Law on Marriage and Family Relations.

104. See Alinčić, & Bakarić-Mihanović, , op. cit., p. 229Google Scholar and Bakić, , op. cit., p. 277.Google Scholar

105. See for examples: Federal Republic of Germany, Para. 1752 of the Civil Code (as of January 1, 1977 this provision is no longer in force, supra n. 37), Austria, Para. 179 of the Allgemeines Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, and the following countries according to Bergmann, & Ferid, , op. cit. in n. 59: Brasil, Art. 371 of the Civil Code (p. 32); Costa Rica, Art. 101 c of the Family Code of 17 November 1973 (p. 22); Chile, Art. 3 of the Adoption Act of 11 October 1943 No. 7613 (p. 45); Colombia, Art. 271(3) of the Civil Code (p. 34); Spain, Art. 172 V point 2 of the Civil Code (p. 26) and Venezuela, Art. 17 of the Civil Code (p. 45)Google Scholar.

106. Bergmann, & Ferid, , op. cit., ch. Yugoslavia, p. 52Google Scholar.

107. HR 11 April 1980, supra n. 34.

108. Art. 1: 228, litt. d, Dutch CC and HR 6 June 1958, NJ 1958, 375.

109. Supra 5.3.2.

110. Supra5.3.3.

111. Act of 7 June 1978, Stb. no. 303, in force on 1 November 1978; not considered in the proceedings leading to the Supreme Court decision.

112. Art. 971(4), third sentence, Dutch Code of Civil Procedure.

113. Cf. Schultsz, , Annotation under NJ 1980, 364, in fineGoogle Scholar.

114. Supra 5.3.3.

115. Official Gazetteof the SFR of Yugoslavia, No. 29/1971.

116. See Eisner, B., Medjunarodno privatno pravo (Private International Law) (Zagreb 1953) p. 339Google Scholar; Katičić, N., Medjunarodno privatno pravo (Private International Law) (Zagreb 1979, 3rd ed.) p. 105Google Scholar; Varadi, T., Medjunarodno privatno pravo II (Private International Law II) (Novi Sad 1980) p. 94Google Scholar; Jezdić, M., Medjunarodno privatno pravo II (Private International Law II) (Beograd 1972) p. 44Google Scholar.

117. Draft Law on Private International Law and Procedure, supra n. 53.

118. Supra n. 9.

119. Supra 5.3.1.

120. Supra 5.3.2.

121. Cf. the views of the Central Adoption Board, e. g. in its Annual Report 1969, p. 15, idem 1972, p. 17.

122. Art. 30, first sentence in fine of the Internal Conflicts Law, juncto Art. 22(3) of the Federal Act on Citizenship.

123. In Jasmina's adoption the 1947 Adoption Act was applied in Bosnia-Hercegovina before enactment of its own republican law mentioned in n. 67; the 1947 Act did not require the special permission for foreign adopters.

124. District Court of the Hague 22 January 1975, NJ 1975, 365. Cf. in this sense the same court, 5 March 1975, AK 9194 (German child, born in Austria).