The most recent concern of the Dutch Journal on Personal Worldwide Legislation (NIPR) has been revealed. It incorporates the next contributions.
NIPR 2025, Problem 3
Editorial
Mathijs ten Wolde / p. 421
Articles
Steven Stuij, De positie van artwork. 10:2 BW in het Nederlands burgerlijk procesrecht / p. 423-444
Summary
Article 10:2 of the Dutch Civil Code stipulates that the principles of personal worldwide legislation in addition to the relevant legislation designated by these guidelines are to be utilized ex officio. There was a debate as to the positioning of this provision in relation to different guidelines of civil process on occasion autonomy because of two instances of the Dutch Supreme Court docket (‘Hoge Raad’). This contribution will tackle this drawback and focus on totally different views on the difficulty of the interplay between Article 10:2 of the Dutch Civil Code and sure provisions of the legislation of civil process.
Jeroen van Hezewijk en Cathalijne van der Plas, De logica van Lindeteves; zijn de regels over internationaal derdenbeslag wel adequaat? / p. 445-470
Summary
Receivables and different money owed owed to a celebration (e.g., wages, financial institution balances, and many others.) are a part of that occasion’s property. As such, different events might search to have recourse to these property within the context of (pre- or post-) judgment enforcement efforts. In a world context, this presents varied authorized challenges. This text investigates these challenges by mapping out which (non-public and public legislation) pursuits are at stake when contemplating the attachment or garnishment of receivables/money owed in a world context. It then critiques the Dutch doctrine and case legislation, particularly the main 1954 Supreme Court docket precedent Lindeteves/Meilink. It assesses whether or not the Dutch authorized guidelines adequately tackle the pursuits that they purport to guard. The authors conclude that public worldwide legislation considerations which can be generally voiced, particularly the so-called ‘precept of territoriality’, don’t considerably limit the Dutch observe of permitting attachments of and enforcement towards (sure) worldwide receivables/money owed. The curiosity of defending the third-party debtors (i.e., the debtors below the debt that’s to be connected) towards unfair prejudice (particularly the danger that they could be compelled to pay twice: as soon as to the judgment creditor and as soon as to their authentic creditor, the judgment debtor) is just not essentially optimally served by the Dutch observe. The authors conclude that the Dutch observe is, in some respects, over-protecting and, in different respects, under-protecting the third occasion. Due to this fact, sure features of the present Dutch framework could possibly be tweaked or reconsidered.
Case notes
Bryan Verheul, In de spiegel van artikel 24 Brussel Ibis? Over de exclusieve bevoegdheidsgronden onder Brussel Ibis in derdelandssituaties na BSH Hausgeräte/Electrolux (C-339/22) / p. 471-486
Summary
In BSH Hausgerate, the Court docket of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) was requested to rule on the connection between Article 24(4) and Article 4(1) Brussels Ibis within the context of infringement proceedings regarding a patent registered in a number of EU Member States and in Turkey (a 3rd State). Whereas the judgment has far-reaching implications for mental property observe, this case be aware focuses primarily on the problems arising from the truth that the patent in dispute is (additionally) registered in Turkey. In his Opinion, the Advocate Basic seised upon this state of affairs to query the territorial scope of Brussels Ibis’ jurisdictional scheme in relation to 3rd States. He proposed attributing so-called ‘reflexive impact’ to Article 24 as a method of filling what he described as a ‘hole’ within the Regulation’s territorial scope vis-a-vis third States. Whereas adopting a special strategy, the CJEU nonetheless superior the talk by clarifying the territorial scope of the jurisdictional guidelines in a 3rd State context. It held that – though not at concern within the current case – jurisdiction below Article 4(1) could also be restricted by the general public worldwide legislation precept of non-interference. In doing so, the CJEU distinguished between proceedings in a Member State leading to inter partes selections and people producing erga omnes results. The CJEU’s reasoning appears able to extending to different issues lined by Article 24, but the broader dialogue on the connection between territorial scope and third States is much from concluded.
Ekaterina Pannebakker, Internationale rechtsmacht bij een vordering uit een pactum de contrahendo, Hof van Justitie EU 15 juni 2022, C-393/22, NJ 2023/335, NIPR 2023/747 (EXTÉRIA) / p. 487-500
Summary
Which courts have jurisdiction over claims for breach of a pre-contractual settlement? This query was addressed by the Court docket of Justice of the European Union in C-393/22 (EXTERIA). In distinction to an earlier choice, Tacconi, wherein the Court docket handled non-contractual legal responsibility in tort for breaking off negotiations, EXTERIA considerations legal responsibility in issues referring to a contract, particularly, a declare for efficiency of a pre-contractual settlement. Such pre-contractual agreements are incessantly utilized in industrial observe. Examples embrace letters of intent, memoranda of understanding, and heads of phrases. In EXTERIA, the Court docket of Justice develops the prevailing non-public worldwide legislation framework referring to obligations arising from such pre-contractual commitments.
