Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T17:26:34.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Principle of Fair Trial in International Civil Litigation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

P. Vlas
P. Vlas
Affiliation:
Professor of Comparative and Private International Law at the Free University, Amsterdam
Get access

Extract

In Dutch legal literature Van Boneval Faure was the first scholar to give an enumeration of the principles of civil litigation. He discerned seven principles: the public nature of civil litigation, passiveness of the judiciary, the hearing of both sides (audi et alteram partem), inquiry in two instances, supervision through appeal in cassation, mandatory representation at law and, finally, the absence of cost-free litigation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 39 , Special Issue S1: Law and Reality , October 1992 , pp. 391 - 406
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1991

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. Faure, R. van Boneval, Het Nederlandsche Bwgerlijk Procesrecht [Dutch Law of Civil Procedure], vol 1, 1st edn. (1871) pp. 68–77, 3rd edn. (1893) p. 107 et seq.Google Scholar

2. See also Wiersma, K., ‘Administratieve en burgerlijke procesgangen, beginselen en organisatie’Google Scholar [Administrative and Civil Procedures, Principles and Organization], in Heemskerk, W.H. et al. , ed., Een goede procesorde, Liber Amicorum W.L. HaardtGoogle Scholar [Due process, Liber Amicorum W.L. Haardt] (1983) p. 131 et seq., at p. 133.

3. See Hugenholtz, W. and Heemskerk, W.H., Hoofdlijnen van Nederlands Burgerlijk Procesrecht [Outline of Dutch law of civil procedure], 16th edn. (1991) p. 8.Google Scholar

4. See also Fawcett, J.E.S., The Application of the European Convention on Human Rights (1987) p. 154.Google Scholar

5. Tay, Alice Erh-Soon, The Role of Law in the Twentieth Century (1990) p. 10.Google Scholar

6. See with respect to the influence of Art. 6 on the Dutch law of civil procedure: E J. Domme-ring, ‘Het grondrecht op behoorlijke rechtspraak in het Nederlandse civiele recht’ [The Constitutional right to fair administration of law in Dutch civil law], Handelingen 1983 der Nederlandse Juristen-Vereniging [1983 Proceedings of the Netherlands Lawyers' Association], vol. 1, Part 2, p. 155 et seq.Google Scholar; de Moor, R.R.M., Artikel 6 EVRM en de dagelijkse rechtspraktijk [Article 6 ECHR and the daily legal practice] (1990) pp. 43–58.Google Scholar

7. See also Art. 14 of the United Nations Treaty on Civil and Political Rights of 19 December 1966.

8. CCA. Voskuil, ‘De internationale bevoegdheid van de Nederlandse rechter’ [International jurisdiction of the Dutch court] (1962).Google Scholar

9. CCA. Voskuil, ‘Party Autonomy in Matters of International Judicial Jurisdiction in the Netherlands — Farewell to the Principle of Sovereignty’, in Bos, A. and Siblesz, H., eds., Realism in Law-Making, Essays on International Law in Honour of Willem Riphagen (1986) p. 261 et seq., at p. 268.Google Scholar

10. Each year information concerning the Hague Conventions on Private International Law (entries into force, etc.) is published in die second issue of NILR.

11. See Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, ed., Recueil des Conventions/Collection of Conventions (1951–1988), no. XVIII, p. 128.Google Scholar

12. [1979] 2 WLR 770 at 785; see also North, P.M. and Fawcett, JJ., eds., Cheshire and North Private International Law, 11th edn. (1987) pp. 674–675.Google Scholar

13. Act of 25 March 1981 (Stb. 1981 no. 166), which came into force on 10 April 1981. The unofficial English translation of the Act is published in NILR (1981) p. 390, with a note by J.P. Verheul.

14. See Memorie van Toelichting [Explanatory Memorandum], 1979–1980, 16 004, no. 3, p. 18.Google Scholar

15. See Recueil des Conventions, op. cit. n. 11, no. IX p. 36 and no. XXIII p. 218.Google Scholar

16. See Recueil des Conventions, op. cit n. 11, no. XVI, p. 106.Google Scholar

17. Collins, L., ed., Dicey and Morris on the Conflict of Laws, 11th edn. (1987) p. 470.Google Scholar

18. Judgment of 23 March 1967, NJ 1968 no. 404; WPNR 1971 no. 5114, p. 42 with comment by de Winter, L J., de Winter, L.I., ed., Overzicht der Nederlandse rechtspraak inzake internationaal privaatrecht 1968–1969 [Survey of Dutch case-law in matters of private international Law] (1972) p. 19.Google Scholar

19. Verwilghen, M., ‘Explanatory Report’Google Scholar, in Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, ed., Actes et Documents de la Douzième Session, vol IVGoogle Scholar, Obligations Alimentaires (1975) p. 384 et seq., at p. 412.Google Scholar See also the Explanatory Report of the Hague Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments of 1971 by Fragistas, Ch.N., ‘Rapport explicatif’Google Scholar, in idem, ed., Actes et Documents de la Session Extraordinaire 1966, Exécution des jugements (1969) p. 360 et seq., at p. 381.Google Scholar

20. See Recueil des Conventions, op. cit. n 11, no. II p. 4 and no. XIV, p. 76Google Scholar; Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, ed., Practical Handbook on the Operation of the Hague Convention of 15 November 1965, loose-leaf edn. (1985).Google Scholar

21. See Explanatory Report of the 1965 Convention by Ferreira, V. Taborda, ‘Rapport explicatif’Google Scholar, in Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, ed., Actes et Documents de la Dixième Session, vol. IIIGoogle Scholar, Notification (1965) p. 363 et seq., at p. 377.Google Scholar

22. See on this subject: J.W. Soek, ‘The Service of Documents Abroad and the Protection of Defendants Resident Abroad’, NILR (1982) p. 72 et seq.; see also Droz, G.A.L., Compétence judiciaire et effets des jugements dans le Marché Commun (1972) p. 165 et seq.Google Scholar

23. Cf., Advocate General J.K. Franx in his opinion before HR 12 May 1989, NJ 1989 no. 678, who is also against application per analogiam.

24. See for the text of the Lugano Convention: OJ No. L 319 of 25.11.1988, also published in ILM (1989) p. 620.

25. The text of the Convention as amended by the 1978, 1982 and 1989 Accession Conventions can be found in OJ No. C 189 of 28.5.1990. The 1989 Convention deals with the accession of Portugal and Spain to the EEC Jurisdiction Convention (as amended) and is published in OJ No. L 285 of 3.10.1989. According to Art 32 of the 1989 Convention, after deposit of the instruments of ratification by two signatory States, of which one is Spain or Portugal the Convention enters into force for those States. This means that the 1989 Convention will gradually coming into force: on 1 February 1991 among the Netherlands, France and Spain. In a Joint Declaration annexed to the 1989 Convention the Contracting Parties expressed their willingness to undertake all measures necessary for the completion of the national ratifications as soon as possible and preferably before 31 December 1992.

26. P. Jenard, ‘Report on the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, 27 September 1968’ (referred to as the Jenard Report), OJ No. C 59/18 of 5.3.1979.

27. Jenard, Report, loc. cit. n. 26.Google Scholar

28. This was done, among others, by Nadelmann, K., ‘A Common Market Assimilation of Laws and the Outer World’, Am. J. Comp. L. (1964) p. 724 et seq.Google Scholar; idem, ‘Jurisdictionally Improper Fora in Treaties on Recognition of Judgments: the Common Market Draft’, Colum. L. Rev. (1967) p. 995 et seq.Google Scholar

29. See the Convention relating to the Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters of 24 April 1984 concluded between the United Kingdom and Canada, that came into force on 1 January 1987; Kaye, P., Civil Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (1987) p. 1524Google Scholar et seq.; Anton, A.E. and Beaumont, P.R., Civil Jurisdiction in Scotland: Supplement (1987) pp. 4–5Google Scholar; see also on the history of Art. 59: Droz, , op. cit n. 22, p. 429 et seq.Google Scholar

30. See Kaye, , op. cit. n. 29, p. 255.Google Scholar

31. See Bier v. Mines de Potasse d'Alsace (Case No. 21/76), [1976] ECR 1735; NJ 1977 no. 494, with a note by Schultsz, J.C.; Rev.crit.dr.int.priv. (1977) p. 563, with a note by P. Bourel.Google Scholar

32. See Ivenel v. Schwab (Case No. 133/81), [1982] ECR 1891; NJ 1983 no. 560, with a note by Schultsz, J.C.; Rev.Crit.dr.int.priv. (1983) p. 116Google Scholar, with a note by H. Gaudemet-Tallon; see also Peters v. ZNAV (Case No. 34/82), [1983] ECR 987; NJ 1983 no. 644, with a note by Schultsz, J.C.; Rev.crit.dr.int.priv. (1983) p. 663Google Scholar, with a note by H. Gaudemet-Tallon; Dumez France v. Hessische Landesbank (Case No. C-220/88), [1990] ECR 49; NJ 1991 no. 573, with a note by Schultsz, J.C.; NILR (1990) p. 232Google Scholar, with a note by Koppenol-Laforce, M.E.; Rev.crit.dr.int.priv. (1990) p. 363Google Scholar, with a note by H. Gaudemet-Tallon.

33. Kalfelis v. Bankhaus Schröder (Case No. 189/87), [1988] ECR 5565; NJ 1990 no. 425, with a note by Schultsz, J.C.; Rev.crit.dr.int.priv. (1989) p. 112Google Scholar, with a note by H. Gaudemet-Tallon.

34. Case No. 218/86, [1987] ECR 4905; NJ 1988 no. 750, with a note by Schultsz, J.C.; Rev.crit.dr.int.priv. (1988) p. 733Google Scholar, with a note by G.A.L. Droz; see also Vlas, P., ‘Knelpunten in de bevoegdheidsregeling van het EEG Bevoegdheids- en Executieverdrag’Google Scholar [Bottlenecks in the rules of jurisdiction of the EEC Jurisdiction Convention], in van der Nat-Verhage, W.J. et al. , ed., Vorm en Wezen, Liber Amicorum W.H. Heemskerk [Form and substance…] (1991) p. 307 et seq., at p. 322.Google Scholar

35. See also G.A.L. Droz, , Rev.crit.dr.int.priv. (1988) p. 742.Google Scholar

36. See AS-Autoteile Service GmbH v. Pierre Malhé (Case No. 220/84), [1985] ECR 2267; NJ 1986 no. 509, with a note by J.C. Schultsz; Rev.crit.dr.int.priv. (1986) p. 142, with a note by E. Mezger.

37. Jenard, Report, op. cit. n. 26, p. 35.Google Scholar

38. Idem, p. 39.

39. See also Kaye, , op. cit. n. 29, p. 1269.Google Scholar

40. Jenard, Report, op. cit n. 26, pp. 39–40.Google Scholar

41. See also Droz, , op. cit n 22, p. 315Google Scholar; Kaye, , op. cit n 29, p. 1450;Google Scholar

42. Case No. 125/79, [1980] ECR 1553; Rev.crit.dr.int.priv. (1980) p. 787, with a note by E. Mezger, NJ 1981 no. 184, with a note by Schultsz, J.C.; MLR (1981) p. 83, with a note by J.P. Verheul.Google Scholar

43. Case No. 228/81, [1982] ECR 2723; NJ 1983 no. 782, with a note by W.H. Heemskerk; Rev.crit.dr.int.priv. (1983) p. 521, with a note by Droz, G.A.L.; NILR (1987) p. 111, with a note by J.P. Verheul.Google Scholar

44. Case No. 166/80, [1981] ECR 1593; NJ 1983 no. 305, with a note by Schultsz, J.C.; JDI (1981) p. 893Google Scholar, with anote by A. Huet.

45. See Debaecker v. Bouwman (Case No. 49/84), [1985] ECR 1779; NJ 1986 no. 290, with a note by J.C. Schultsz.

46. Judgment of 3 July 1990 (Case No. C-305/88), to be published in [1990] ECR; Rev.crit.dr.int.priv. (1991) p. 161, with a note by G.A.L. Droz; IPRax (1991) p. 177 et seq.; Rauscher, Th., ‘Strikter Beklagtenschutz durch Art.27 Nr.2 EuGVÜ’, IPRax (1991) p. 155 et seq.Google Scholar

47. See also Meijknecht, P.A.M., ‘Regelmatige en tijdige oproeping’Google Scholar [Proper and timely summons], in Van der Nat-Verhage, et al. , op. cit. n. 34, p. 159 et seq., at pp. 171–173.Google Scholar

48. See District Court of Utrecht 8 December 1976, NJ 1978 no. 28, Digest of Case Law relating to the European Community, series D, I–27.2–B 1; Court of Appeal of Turin 11 March 1977, Digest, I–27.2–B 3; Court of Appeal of Milan 28 September 1976, Digest, 1–27.2-B 6.

49. Cf., Zeiger v. Salinitri n (Case No. 129/83), [1984] ECR 2397; NJ 1985 no. 331; Rev.crit. drintpriv. (1985) p. 374, with a note by D. Holleaux; NILR (1987) p. 107, with a note by J.P. Verheul; Kongress Agentur Hagen v. Zeehaghe BV (Case No. C-365/88), yet to be published in [1990] ECR; Rev.crit.dr.int.priv. (1990) p. 564, with a note by H. Gaudemet-Tallon; NJ 1991 no. 557, with a note by J.C. Schultsz.

50. Jenard, Report, op. cit n. 26, p. 44.Google Scholar

51. Case No. 145/86, [1988] ECR 645; NILR (1988) p. 83, with a note by J.P. Verheul; Rev.crit.dr.int.priv. (1988) p. 598, with a note by H. Gaudemet-Tallon; NJ 1990 no. 209, with a note by J.C. Schultsz.

52. See Droz, , op. cit. n. 22, p. 310Google Scholar et seq.; Hoffmann v. Krieg (see previous note).

53. See P. Schlosser, ‘Report on the Convention of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters and the Protocol on Its Interpretation by the Court of Justice, 9 October 1978’ (referred to as the Schlosser Report), OJ No. C 59/128 of 5.3.1979.

54. Cf., Verschuur, R.Ch., ‘Erkenning en tenuitvoerlegging in Nederland van buitenlandse rechterlijke beslissingen op het gebied van net vermogensrecht buiten verdrag’Google Scholar [Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in patrimonial matters in the Netherlands if conventions are not applicable], in Kokkini-Iatridou, D. and van der Veldes, F.J.A., eds., Molengrafica, Eenvormig en Vergelijkend Privaatrecht [Molengrafica, Uniform and comparative private law] (1988) p. 286.Google Scholar