Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-16T15:55:52.469Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Service of Documents abroad and the protection of Defendants resident abroad*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

J.W. Soek
Get access

Extract

One of the basic principles of Dutch civil procedural law is reflected in the requirement that the defendant must have the opportunity of expressing his point of view in court. This principle of “auditur et altera pars” is closely linked to another fundamental principle of Dutch procedural law, viz., the principle requiring that all the parties in a case should be treated on an equal basis. Stein argues that “these principles would not be realized if the law had not laid down special provisions to ensure that the defendant is informed of the case made against him to enable him to have an opportunity of opposing it himself”. The defendant is involved in the case once the preliminary summons has been served. In the law of the Netherlands – and of most other countries – the position of a defendant resident in the country concerned is hedged with safeguards. Various steps must be taken to inform the defendant regarding the case made against him. In most cases it is only a consequence of the defendant's own actions if he remains ignorant of the case against him.

Type
Articles
Information
Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , May 1982 , pp. 72 - 99
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1982

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. Compendium van het burgerlijk procesrecht, 1970 p. 81.

2. Art. 69, para. 10 CCPr. and Art. 683 et seq. Nouvaux CCPr.

3. Law of 1 April 1814.

4. Art. 4, para. 8 RV.

5. Art. 69bis Belgian CCPr.; cf., RIW/AWD 1975 p. 198 et seq.

6. Artt. 142 and 143 CCPr.

7. Public service by display on the court premises and publication in a daily newspaper.

8. Stb.566.

9. Cf., District Court Utrecht, 23 April 1969, AK 5038.

10. NJ 1978, 576.

11. Cf., Heemskerk, note to decision in NJ.

12. Het Personeel Statuut, 1979 p. 77.

13. On 18 November 1966, NJ 1967, 34, the court considered that where the defendant by judgment in default of appearance accepted a copy of the judgment and signed a statement of acceptance thereof, knowledge of the judgment could not be imputed to such acts for only by first accepting the copy of the judgment could the defendant be aware of the contents thereof.

14. 0n 18 September 1968, AK 4279.

15. WPNR 1972p. 141.

16. Cf., Rigaux, , “La signification des actes judiciaires à l'àtranger”, Rev.crit.dip, 1963 p. 448 et seq.Google Scholar

17. § 335, para. 1(2) ZPO provides: “Der Antrag auf Erlass eines Versäumnisurteils oder einer Entscheidung nach Lage der Akten ist zurückzuweisen: wenn die nich erschienene Partei nich ordnungsmässig insbesondere nich rechtzeitig geladen war.”

18. “Vor Gericht hat jedermann Anspruch auf rechtliches Gehör.”

19. Cf., Zöller, Zivilprozessordnung, para. 199, 1, 1.

20. Stb. 1933, 364; Trb. 4 (1932).

21. By exchange of notes, some former colonies of the UK have declared the Treaty to be applicable on their territory.

22. Art. 3f.

23. Art. 3e.

24. Art. 3g.

25. (1) Notification by a consular official of the States Party whence the documents have originated. (2) Notification by a mandated person. (3) Notification by process server. (4) Postal service. (5) Any other method of notification permitted by the law of the sending State.

26. Cf., DC Roermond, 9 August 1973, AK 8049.

27. A supplementary Civil Procedure Convention was concluded at The Hague on 17 November 1967 with the United Kingdom. No provisions concerning notification were included.

28. Cf., DC Rotterdam, 9 December 1964, NJ 1965, 436; Court of Appeal, Amsterdam, 17 November 1967, NJ 1968, 270, NILR 1971 p. 363, DC Utrecht, 6 October 1965, NJ 1967, 233.

29. Stb. 141.

30. Stb. 677.

31. Cf., Jenard, , Report on the Convention of 27 09 1968 on JurisdictionGoogle Scholar and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, OJ C59/40.

32. NJ 1966, 418, NILR 1967 p. 107.

33. Cf., DC Middelburg, 19 04 1972, AK 7259; Verheul, WPNR 1975 p. 397; DC Amsterdam, 19 03 1970, NJ 1970, 210.

34. On 30 August 1962 at The Hague, Trb. 1971, 8; this Treaty was declared applicable also by the Netherlands Antilles.

35. On 23 July 1964 at Vienna, Trb. 1964, 140 and 1965, 146.

36. 9 January, 11 and 14 February 1974 at The Hague, Trb. 1974, 27.

37. In 1959, Trb. 182, agreement was reached between the Dutch and German governments and the Dutch and Belgian governments as to the continuation of the explanatory notes, exchanged at Berlin on 31 July 1909, supplementing the Convention on Civil Procedure of 1905, for the further simplification of judicial relations – for text: see Stb. 1909, 296 – and th notes, exchanged at Brussels on 30 December 1937 and 7 February 1938, containing a convention concerning the direct service of judicial and extrajudicial documents in both countries by process servers – for text: see Stb. 1938, 18. The supplementary conventions with the FRG and Austria dealt with the possibility to send documents directly to the other contracting party. In the Netherlands, the FRG and Austria authorities were designated which would be competent to accept documents. The notification of documents by way of simple deliverance, like the notification in accordance with a specified form occurred in accordance with Artt. 2 to 5 of the 1954 Convention. The supplementary convention with the FRG also provided, that in certain circumstances the requested authority should return without hesitation the document to the requesting authority. In such a case, the return was to be accompanied by a statement of the reasons why simple delivery was not possible.

38. See also, Art. 10, b, Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters, 1965.

39. OJ. C59/40.

40. Cf., Graveson, , “The Tenth session of the Hague Conference of Private International Law”, ICLQ 1965 p.528 et seq.Google Scholar

41. See generally, Actes et Documents de la Dixième Session, Vol. III, Notification p. 363 et seq.

42. Cf., Amram, AJIL, Vol. 61 pp. 800, 1019.

43. The Treaty was extended to the entire Kingdom by Statute of the Kingdom of 8 January 1975, S.4; it was passed on 3 November 1975 and came into effect on 2 January 1976 for The Netherlands. For the parliamentary proceedings on the Bill see, Handelingen II 1973/1974, 12 865 (R948)Google Scholar. In the Enabling Act (Uitvoeringswet) of 8 January 1975, Stb. 5, rules for implementation of the treaty were established.

44. Art. 1, para. 1.

45. Art. l, para. 2.

46. Art. 2.

47. See, Art. l, para. 2.

48. Of 25 November 1977, NJ 1978, 313.

49. In his note to NJ 1978, 313.

50. RabelsZ 1965 p. 476 n. 10.

51. Cf., Weser, , “Convention Communautaire sur la compétence judiciaie et l'execution des décisions”, 1975 p.220 et seq.Google Scholar

52. EC Court of Justice, 14 October 1976, Case 29/76, Jur. 1967 p. 1541.

53. NJW 1978 p. 1074.

54. See, Art. 8 Enabling Act.

55. To NJ 1978, 313.

56. In its decision of 30 December 1978, NJ 1978, 567.

57. Artt. 2–6, 8–14.

58. Art. 2.

59. Art. 18 provides that, in addition to the Central Authority, the State Party may authorize other authorities to discharge the task allowed to the Central Authority.

60. The reception and execution of requests is further regulated in Artt. 3–6.

61. Art. 3 and Annexes II, a, b and c.

62. Art. 6, para. 1.

63. Annexes IV, a, b and c.

64. Art. 6, para. 4.

65. Artt. 5 and 7.

66. E.g., the absence of annexes.

67. States Parties are, however, by virtue of Art. 8, para. 2, empowered to restrict such direct method of notification to nationals of the forum state. The Netherlands has not made such a declaration.

68. According to Art. 6, para. 1 Enabling Act, the Public Prosecutor at the District Court for the place where the notification is sought is designated as authority.

69. (1) the freedom to post jusidical documents directly to persons abroad; (2) the freedom of process servers, officials or other competent persons of the State of origin to effect service of judicial documents directly through the process servers, officials or other competent persons of the state of destination, (3) the freedom of any person interested in a judicial proceeding to effect service of judicial documents directly through process servers, officials or other competent persons of the State of destination.

70. The Netherlands has made no such declaration.

71. Droz, , La compétence judiciaire et I'effet des jugements dans la Communauté Economique Européenne selon la Convention de Bruxelles du 27 Septembre 1968, 1971 (Pratique) p. 47Google Scholar.

72. Droz, , Compétence judiciaire et effets des judgements dans le Marché Commun (Etude de la Convention de Bruxelles du 27 Septembre 1968) 1972 (Thesis) p. 176Google Scholar.

73. “Sufficient time to enable the defendant to defend.”

74. NJB 1969 p. 299.

75. Art. 37 Belgian CCPr. can be given as an example of such fictional notification. According to this provision a copy of the document is left with a police superintendent Should the process server in The Netherlands not find the defendant nor one of his household present at his address, the summons is served on the Mayor of the defendant's locality. The Mayor is obliged to ensure that the copy left with him comes into the possession of the defendant ‘without the necessity of evidencing the same’ (Art. 2 CCPr.).

76. Explanatory Report, Actes et Documents p. 378.

77. Op.cit., p. 540.

78. Stb. 5.

79. Cf., Explanatory Report, Act of Approval, Art. 15.

80. Of 3 February 1977, AK 10646.

81. Which led to the judgments of 10 February 1977, AK 10531 and 15 September 1977, AK 10727.

82. By judgment of 27 July 1976, AK 10730.

83. Trb. 1969, 101.

84. OJ C59/39.

85. Op.cit., Thesis p. 177.

86. AK 10534, Survey of Court Decisions II, no. 73.

87. OJ C59/39.

88. Jenard, op.cit.; cf., Gavalda, , Rev.crit.dip., 1960, no. 1 p. 174Google Scholar.

89. In his judgment of 3 July 1975, AK 9750, NILR 196 p. 361.

90. Of 9 March 1976, AK 10542.

91. Of 21 June 1977, AK 10960.

92. The DC Amsterdam concluded, 12 July 1977, AK 10941, that service of a copy of the summons on a person authorized to represent the defendant being a foreign legal person fulfilled the conditions of Art. 20, para. 2 EEC Judgments Convention 1968.

93. In its interlocutory judgment of 21 December 1977.

94. Of 15 February 1978, AK 11066.

95. Art. 16, para. l(a).

96. Art. 16, para. l(b).

97. Naturally, there must be compliance with the condition that the notification of the document, which initiates the proceedings, is in accordance with the rules of the Notification Convention.

98. The possibility exists also in the FRG that the document is not effectively brought to the knowledge of the defendant for reasons of holidays, sickness, etc.

99. The Netherlands has made such declaration: see, Art. 11 Enabling Act.

100. Internationaal Privaatrecht, 1916 p. 162; see also, p. 598; Mulder, , Inleiding tot het Nederlandsch Internationaal Privaatrecht, p. 222, considered Art. 4, para. 8 CCPr. to be less than perfectly drafted: “Although here in The Netherlands service is effected at the domicile, Art. 1 CCPr., or at the place of residence, when a person has domicile in The Netherlands, even though he may be domiciled abroad, Art. 4, paras. 7, 8, service on persons, also those living abraod, takes place in accordance with the methods prescribed by Art. 4, para. 8. If one were to interprete this Article literally, then persons domiciled neither here nor abroad but only resident there cannot be served. One must therefore read ‘domicile’ in Art. 4, para. 8 as ‘residence’.”Google Scholar

101. Kosters-Dubbink, , Algemeen Deel van het Nederlandse internationaal privaatrecht, 1962 p. 831Google Scholar; see also p. 879; cf., Asser, T. M. C., Schets van het Internationaal Privaatregt, 880 pp. 106–111Google Scholar.

102. Op.cit., p. 538.