The Implementation of EU Debt CollectionProcedures in the Netherlands

Fokke FernhoutAssociate professor of law, Maastricht University, Maastricht (theNetherlands)

Table of ContentsI. Introduction - main features of the national summaryprocedures for recovery of monetary claims (generaloverview)..................................................1II. National order for payment procedure...................4III. Implementation of Order for Payment ProcedureRegulation (1896/2006) in the Netherlands..................6IV. National small claims procedure........................9V. Implementation of Small Claims Regulation (861/2007) inthe Netherlands............................................9VI. Final critical evaluation of EU Regulations onSimplifying Cross-Border Debt Collection..................11BIBLIOGRAPHY..............................................12

I. Introduction - main features of the nationalprocedures for recovery of monetary claims 1. The rules of civil procedure in the Netherlands are mainlyto be found in the Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering [Code ofCivil Procedure] (henceforth: CCP) and apart from that in somespecific statutes. The latter are almost all the result of EUdirectives, which have not been integrated fully in the codejust mentioned, mainly because their range of applicability islimited to cross-border litigation.

2. Dutch civil procedure makes no distinction between civiland commercial cases. All civil cases are decided in firstinstance by District Courts (henceforth also: Rb), of whichthe geographical competence is usually determined on the basis

2

of geographical criteria (Art. 99-109 CCP).1 In general, forcivil cases one of two procedures has to be followed.2 Thefirst one is the procedure introduced with a writ of summons,served by a bailiff on the defending party. This procedure isthe default procedure (Art. 78 CCP). The second one is theprocedure introduced with a petition, filed at the registry ofthe competent court. This procedure only applies when such isstipulated by a specific provision (Art. 261 CCP). Thepetition procedure has been introduced for non-contentiousproceedings, but its scope has been extended other forms oflitigation like labour cases (Art. 7:685 Civil Code [BurgerlijkWetboek] (henceforth: CC)) and maintenance claims (Art. 1:157and 406 CC). It should be remarked, that procedural law doesnot leave any choice to the parties. The procedural regimeprescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure is not optional,but mandatory and has to be enforced by the court. When thewrong procedure has been chosen by the party commencingproceedings, the court must remit the case to the otherprocedure (Art. 69 CCP). Debt collection that does not fallwithin the scope of the implementation of the Order forPayment Procedure Regulation (1896/2006) or the Small ClaimsRegulation (861/2007) must follow the default procedure.3

3. Within the default procedure, some claims are allocated toa single judge track (kantonrechter [cantonal judge]). Theseclaims are specified in Art. 93 CCP as follows:

- money claims up to € 25.000 (including interests andcosts due before the day the writ of summons has been served);

- claims of which the value is clearly not higher than €25.000;

1 Jurisdiction agreements are allowed to a limited extent (Art. 108 CCP), but these agreements are almost always void when the case is allocated to the single judge track (see infra nr. 3). 2 There are some very specific exceptions, related to the enforcement of titles of execution (Art. 438 (4) and 486 CCP) and bankruptcy (Art. 122 Dutch Bankruptcy Act (Faillissementswet)), but these exceptions are not relevant for this report.3 Maintenance claims are supposed to fall outside the scope of this report. They follow in all aspects their own rules, which all have the objective to guarantee the proper assessment and payment of the right amounts in procedures that are simple, cheap, fast and efficient,but nevertheless fair.

3

- all claims related to rent contracts, (collective) labourcontracts, consumer purchase agreements, agency contracts andsome retirement agreements, all regardless of the amountclaimed, and consumer agreements up to € 40.000.

Procedural rules for the single judge track are the same asthe rules for the regular track, except that:

- the writ of summons should contain some extraannouncements for the defendant (Art. 111 CCP), like thepossibility of oral defence;

- the defendant does not have to pay court fees (Art. 4(1)(b) Wet griffierechten burgerlijke zaken [Civil Court Fee Act]);

- legal representation by a lawyer admitted to the bar(advocaat [solicitor/barrister]) is not mandatory (Art. 79CCP);

- the statement of defence and later pleadings do not haveto be submitted in writing (Art. 82 (2) CCP), while writtenpleadings will be sent to the parties by the registry (Art. 84(2) CCP);

- minutes of the hearing of witnesses in court are notmandatory in cases in which appeal is excluded (Art. 181 CCP);

- costs orders may extend to travelling costs of thewinning party and income he missed in case he was present atthe court hearings (art. 238 CCP);

- appeal is excluded when the claim that had to be decided(together with a possible counterclaim) does not exceed €1.750 (including interests and costs due before the day thewrit of summons has been served) (Art. 332(1) and (3) CCP);

- cassation is limited to specific formal grounds (Art. 80Wet op de rechterlijke organisatie [Act on the Organisation of theJudiciary], not including the merits of the decision, exceptwhen Art. 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights hasbeen violated.4

In the regular track, cases can be allocated to a single judgeor to a panel of three judges. A single judge can later remitthe case to a three judge panel and the same goes for thethree judge panel (Art. 15 CCP). Most hearings and sittings ofa three judge panel case are done by a single judge. Althoughthe procedure in the regular track does not differ a lot fromthe procedure in the single judge track, it tends to be

4 Hoge Raad (Supreme Court, henceforth also: HR) 16 March 2007, NJ 2007, 637.

4

considerably slower. Since there is more at stake, the casesare supposed to be more complicated and hence more time isgiven to the parties and taken by the court to preparepleadings, hearings and judgments.5

4. Civil proceedings in the default procedure start with awrit of summons, served on the defendant by a bailiff. Thewrit of summons also includes the statement of claim and thegrounds for the claim (Art. 111 CCP). Most plaintiffs instructthe bailiff to join all the documentary evidence to the writof summons as well. The writ has to be submitted to theregistry by (or on behalf of) the claimant (Art. 125 CCP). Thecase is struck out in an early stage if the claimant does notpay the court fee in time (Art. 127a CCP).6 If the defendantdoes not appear, he is sentenced by default on the facts asstated by claimant (Art. 139 CCP). If the defendant appears heis only allowed to file a statement of defence after payingthe court fee (Art. 128 CCP), unless no court fee is due.7 Thestatement of defence may include a counterclaim (Art. 136CCP).When the court fee is not paid in time, the defendant issentenced by default on the facts as stated by the claimant(Art. 128 CCP). Exchange of pleadings takes place in a cause-list sitting, i.e. a sitting that is only used to exchangepleadings, which is mostly electronic nowadays. In almost allcases, the statement of defence is followed by a post-defencehearing. An interim judgment sets a date for this post-defencehearing. During this hearing, which on average takes about5 The time limits for pleadings and the scheduling of hearings and sittings are laid down in uniform court regulations. Comparing the regulation for the single judge track (Landelijk procesreglement voor civiele rol van de kantonsectoren [National regulation for single judge civil cases starting with a writ of summons]) and the regulation for the regular track (Landelijk procesreglement voor civiele dagvaardingszaken bij de rechtbanken [National regulation for regular track civil cases starting with a writ of summons]) , will show the differences. Theseregulations can be found on the website of the Council for the Judicature, <www.rechtspraak.nl>.6 All parties can be partly exempted from court fees when their income and assets are below the limits set by the Wet op de Rechtsbijstand [Act on Legal Aid] (Art. 16 Civil Court Fee Act). In that case, the court fee for first instance cases is set at € 75 fornatural persons and and at € 75 until € 1474 (depending on the amount claimed) for legal persons.7 See supra no. 3.

5

forty-five minutes, parties are usually given some time topresent their opinions, information is gathered and attemptsare made to reach a settlement. This hearing is and cannot benot used to produce evidence, since the court decides on theburden of proof in a separate interim judgment, if necessary.After the hearing, the court is supposed to give a judgment.Several options are open, such as ordering a witness hearing(enquête or getuigenverhoor) or a site inspection (descente orplaatsopneming), but more often than not a final judgment can begiven. Accordingly, at the end of the hearing a date is setfor the pronouncement of this judgment. If it is not possibleto give a final judgment, the interim judgment will order oneor both of the parties to proof specific facts, as indicatedand described by the court. Sometimes the proof has to comefrom court appointed experts. If proof has been ordered, newhearings will be scheduled to hear the witnesses from bothsides. After this court directed fact finding (in which onlythe selection of the witnesses is left to the parties), thecourt decides on the claim (and eventually the counterclaim).

In case of a default judgment, the party judged by defaulthas the remedy of opposition before the court that gave thejudgment (Art. 143 and 147 CCP). Opposition is commenced by awrit of summons containing the statement of defence andpossibly a counter claim (Art. 146 and 147 CCP). The procedureis identical with the procedure described above (Art. 147CCP), with the difference that in the end the court will haveto decide if and to what extent the default judgment has to beupheld.

The remedies of appeal to the Court of Appeal and cassationto the Supreme Court are available to both parties within thelimits mentioned in no. 3. Cassation is possible against alljudgments, unless another ordinary remedy (appeal oropposition) is available. In opposition and appeal, theattacked decision is fully reviewed on all points of law andfact. Cassation is limited to points of law and proceduralcomplaints (Art. 79 Act on the Organisation of the Judiciary).The enforcement of decisions will be discussed in no. 7.

5. There are no special procedures for debt collection andthere is no fast track for cases in which no defence isexpected (in fact, there is no fast track at all). Theseprocedures are not missed either, since most debt collectioncases fall under the provisions of the single judge track,

6

which produces default judgments within two weeks after thedate for appearance mentioned in the writ of summons. However,especially in regular track cases, debt collection may profitfrom the possibility to obtain an interim order from a summaryproceedings judge (kort geding, Art. 254 CCP). These summaryproceedings are definitely faster than the default procedure,since there are no written pleadings, the writ of summons isimmediately followed by a court hearing that has beenscheduled in advance and judgment follows within two weeks,also when a defence has been filed (against 6-12 months whenthe default procedure is followed). To obtain an interim orderfor a money claim, on the whole three requirements have to bemet:8

- the claim must be uncontested or only be contested bydefences that are clearly ill-founded;

- the claimant must show to be in real need of the money(imminent problems of liquidity);

- the restitution risk (i.e. the risk that the claimantwill not be able to pay the money back in case the finaljudgment proves that he is wrong) must be limited.

6. Electronic litigation on the whole is not possible yet,although some aspects of electronic litigation have alreadybeen introduced and for other aspects preparatory work hasbeen done.

Older case law of the Supreme Court already allowed thesubmission of pleadings by fax, if the fax is followed by thesigned paper version of the document immediately thereafter.9

This has been codified in 2008 in Art. 33 CCP.10 This articlealso foresees a more general electronic communication betweenthe parties and the court, but the requirements set by theBesluit betrouwbaarheid en vertrouwelijkheid elektronisch verzenden van verzoekenen mededelingen met betrekking tot de rol [Decree on reliability andconfidentiality of electronic communication of requests andannouncements regarding the cause-list sitting]11 include the development and installation of new software forthe courts. This has only partly been realized and is onlyavailable for “chain partners” like lawyers admitted to the8 HR 22 January 1982, NJ 1982, 505; HR 19 February 1993, NJ 1995, 704; HR 14 April 2000, NJ 2000, 489. 9 HR 16 February 1996, NJ 1997, 55; HR 20 March 1998, NJ 1998, 548. 10 Kamerstukken [Parliamentary Proceedings] II 2006/07, 30815, 3, p. 16.11 Dutch Bulletin of Acts, Orders and Decrees 2008, 275.

7

bar. The basis of this system, known as Roljournaal, is stillthe paper version of all pleadings. The Minister of Justicerecently put forward a new plan (Kwaliteit en Innovatie rechtspraak (KEI)[Quality and Innovation of the Administration of Justice])that encompasses the functionality that is necessary for fullelectronic litigation, including the electronic submission ofthe statement of claim without the intervention of a bailiff.12

This plan should be realized in 2015.The enforcement of garnishment orders can be done

electronically (art. 475 CCP) since 2009, but the third partyhas to supply an electronic address for this purpose. Tosupply this address, new software has to be implemented by thethird party, which appears to be rather costly. Despite thepossible profits of electronic service of garnishment orders,until now only two organisations (a bank and a township)submitted an electronic address. Therefore electronicenforcement of these orders is virtually inexistent.13

As of 1 July 2012, the Code of Civil Procedure alsoprovides for the electronic submission of the writ of summonsthat has been served in the ordinary way (Art. 125 (3) CCP),but subsequent regulation has not been implemented yet.14

7. All judgments (like all other titles of execution)containing orders against one of the parties are enforceableby all means provided by the law as of right. No leave orcourt permission is needed; the choice of the method ofenforcement is entirely left to the creditor. All assets ofthe debtor can be liquidated, including his wages and claimson third parties (Art. 3:276 CC). There are some restrictionsregarding clothes, food, tools and the monthly minimum to liveon (Art. 447, 448 and 475b-475d CCP). However, enforcementmeasures can only be taken by bailiffs, who will have to checkwhether the means of enforcement chosen by the creditor are in

12 Letter of the Minister of Justice and Security to the Chairman of Parliament of 11 June 2013, ref. 394323 (Parliamentary Proceedings II 2012/13, 29279,no. 164).13 This information was obtained by telephone from the Koninklijke Vereniging voor Gerechtsdeurwaarders [Royal Bailiff Association]. 14 The Besluit elektronische indiening dagvaarding [Decree on the Electronic Submission of a Writ of Summons] (Dutch Bulletin of Acts, Orders andDecrees 2012, 292) has been enacted, but the courts did not install all the necessary IT facilities yet.

8

accordance with the law and reasonable in the givencircumstances.

8. Enforcement is stayed in case the debtor filed an ordinaryremedy (opposition, appeal, cassation) against the judgment,unless the judgment has been declared provisionallyenforceable by the court (Art. 145, 350 and 404 CCP). Theorder of provisional enforceability is left to the discretionof the courts,15 but in practice an application for such anorder (usually combined with the claim itself in the writ ofsummons) is almost always granted. Contesting the provisionalenforceability is very hard, since the Supreme Court ruledthat the creditor is assumed to have a sufficient interest,16

that the restitution risk has to be proven,17 that the expectedoutcome of a remedy is not relevant18 and that irreparableconsequences of enforcement are not more than one of thefactors that should be taken into account when balancing theinterests of the parties.19

Enforcement of a provisionally enforceable judgment is atthe risk of the creditor. If the judgment is quashed later,the creditor will have to reimburse what has been collectedand he will be liable for all the damages caused by theenforcement under the requirements set by tort law.20

9. There are no special procedures for creditors to obtaininformation about their debtor's assets. It is just a matterof fact finding, for which specialized agencies like detectivebureaus offer their services. When permission has beenobtained from the President of the District Court to freezecertain assets of the debtor (Art. 700 CCP), the rules ofthird party garnishment apply (see infra no. 10). If thirdparties have documents in their possession that are related tothe claim of the creditor on the debtor, the third party canbe forced by means of a special procedure to provide a copy orto allow examination (Art. 843a CCP).

15 Art. 223 and 234 CCP. 16 HR 27 February 1988, NJ 1998, 512.17 HR 17 June 1994, NJ 1994, 591.18 HR 29 November 1996, NJ 1997, 684.19 HR 28 May 1993, NJ 1993, 468.20 HR 1 May 1964, NJ 1965, 339; HR 8 October 1976, NJ 1977, 485; HR 11 April 2008, NJ 2008, 225.

9

Once enforcement is possible (thus after the judgment hasbeen rendered), the debtor has a general obligation to specifyhis sources of income to the creditor's bailiff (Art. 475g(1)CCP). Earlier case law already extended this obligation to theassets of the debtor that are liable for recovery of thecreditor's claim.21 From this case law it also became clearthat this obligation is limited in character in the sense thatthe debtor does not have to submit his completeadministration. Later court decisions have been in line withthese starting points as set out by the Dutch Supreme Court.22

When the bailiff has good reasons to assume that the debtor isentitled to periodic payments from a third party, this thirdparty is obliged to answer the bailiff's questions regardingthese payments (Art. 475g (3) CCP). The bailiff can also lodgerequests with administrative authorities to obtain informationabout the debtor and the third party (Art. 475g (4) and (5)CCP). However, these obligations to give information are notreinforced by specific sanctions.

10. In case of (third party) garnishment, the Code of CivilProcedure provides for a specific procedure (Art. 476a, 476b,477 and 477a CCP). To start with, the garnishee is required tofill out a form stating the assets and claims that he is dueto the debtor. This has to be done four weeks after theattachment. If the garnishee does not comply with thisobligation, he will be ordered by the court to pay the amountdue by the debtor to the creditor. What is in the statementhas to be handed over or paid to the creditor’s bailiff up tothe amount for which the attachment took place. If thecreditor has reasons to believe that the garnishee'sdeclaration of assets and claims is false, the creditor hasthe possibility to contest the garnishee's declaration in aspecial procedure, in which the truthfulness of thisdeclaration is at stake. This procedure starts with a writ ofsummons and the rules of the default procedure apply (Art.477a CCP). The garnishee can be ordered to issue a newdeclaration and to pay the correct sums viz. hand over thecorrect assets to the bailiff.

21 HR 20 September 1991, NJ 1992, 552. 22 A.W. Jongbloed, Hoever reikt de schuldenaarsverplichting inkomensbronnen op te geven? [To what extent the debtor is under an obligation to specify his sources of income?], TvPP 106, 115 (2011).

10

II. National order for payment procedure

11. There are no special procedures exclusively for therecovery of money claims. There has been one from 1942 until1991 (betalingsbevelprocedure [order for payment procedure]) , butthat procedure has been repealed in 1992 when the new CivilCode entered into force. The betalingsbevelprocedure was almostidentical with the order for payment procedure as introducedby the Order for Payment Procedure Regulation (1896/2006). Itstarted with a simple form that had to be submitted to thecourt, after which the court would send the application to thedefendant. If the application remained uncontested, a defaultjudgment was issued. In the case of defence, the case wasremitted to the default procedure. Legal representation wasnot needed (Art. 125a-125k CCP (old)).

Initially, when proposing to reform the single judge trackprocedure of that time, the government aimed at extending thiscompletely satisfying, simple procedure in a new form to morecases, since until then it could only be applied in proceduresleading to a default judgment.23 However, during theparliamentary debate, the government decided to add a new rulestating that whenever the letter with the application was notreceived or even refused by the defendant, the plaintiffcould only reintroduce his claim by means of a writ of summons(Art. 104 CCP (old)). This made the order for paymentprocedure extremely inattractive and it disappeared eventuallyin 2002.24

Therefore, the recovery of money claims follows the rulesfor all other claims, although these claims in most cases willbe brought before the cantonal judge (see supra no. 3). Theexisting summary procedure for interim orders before thesummary proceedings judge is also used for debt collection(see supra no. 5). This procedure is much faster than thestandard procedure, since a date for an oral hearing withintwo or three weeks will be fixed before the writs of summonsis served. The judgment will be given within two weeks. Thedrawbacks are that a) legal representation is in most casesmandatory for the plaintiff, b) the order for payment willonly be issued in case of a pressing need for liquid assets of

23 Parliamentary Proceedings 1986/87, 19976, no. 3, p. 6. 24 Parliamentary Proceedings 1999/00, 26855, 5, p. 47.

11

the plaintiff; c) the order will be denied in case of any non-frivolous defence (see supra no. 5).

12. Since debt collection follows the general rules, there areno special facilities at all. The general procedure isavailable in all cases in which the Dutch courts arecompetent, which is mainly governed by Council Regulation (EC)No 44/2001. The procedure starts with a writ of summons, thathas to state all facts that support the claim, the defencesthat are already known and the means of evidence available tothe claimant, like witnesses (Art. 111 CCP). From recent caselaw it can be derived that documentary evidence should betterbe filed immediately, because in case the defendant does notfile a defence, there will be no second chance to submitdocumentary evidence.25 However, in case of a default judgmentin most cases documentary evidence will only be needed if thecourt has doubts regarding the factual basis of the claim(Art. 139 CCP).

All first instance cases belong to the competence of theDistrict Court only. Legal representation is mandatory whenthe (value of the) claim is over € 25.000 or € 40.000 in caseof consumer credit agreements (see supra no. 3).

13. When the claim goes uncontested, the judgment will bebased on the facts stated by the claimant, even if thenecessary proof (documents) is not submitted (Art. 139 CCP).When facts and claim do not match, the claim is adjustedaccordingly, but only in downward direction.26 If the factsstated do not justify the claim at all, the claim is rejected.In that case, the claimant has the right to appeal subject tothe general rules for appeal (see supra no. 3 and 4).Enforcement of the judgment is only possible when it has beenserved on the defendant (Art. 430 (3) CCP) and when thedefendant has been summoned by writ to comply with thejudgment (Art. 439 (2) CCP). All judgments are enforceable asof right, without leave or permission of the court (see suprano. 7).

14. When the claim is awarded in a default judgment (whichwill be the case in many debt collection cases), opposition is25 HR 9 March 2012, NJ 2012, 174.26 Nec ultra petitum is a principle of Dutch civil procedure, but not explicitly stated in the Code of Civil Procecure.

12

open to the defendant. This procedure is started by a writ ofopposition and belongs to the competence of the same courtthat issued the judgment (Art. 147 CCP). The opposition infact reopens the original procedure, which also means that thewrit of opposition is the statement of defence of the ordinaryprocedure (see supra no. 4). The normal rules apply.

15. Art. 237 CCP obliges the courts to issue a costs order inthe judgment against the losing party. Costs orders cannot beissued separately.27 When part of the claim has been rejected,the costs can be divided over the parties in the way the courtdeems fit. Costs can only include court fees, bailiff costs,the costs of legal representation, the costs of courtappointed experts and the costs of court awarded compensationof witnesses (Art. 239 CCP). Except for lawyer's costs, allcosts are awarded for the full amount. Lawyer's costs arecalculated according to a fixed rate, that is based on theinterest at stake and the work that has been done.28 Thistariff has been determined by a commission of court judges andlawyers admitted to the bar, but in practice it does not coverthe real costs of the winning party. Courts are allowed toaward the full costs,29 but they are extremely hesitant to doso.

Pre-trial costs of debt collection are treated as damagesresulting from default or tort. Discussions about the heightof these costs have led to a fixed tariff, based on art. 6:96CC, as of 16 March 2013. This tariff only applies if thedebtor is a natural person and his debt is not related to hisprofession or trade. The tariff to be paid by the debtor is:

- at least a minimum of € 40 and otherwise- 15 % of the part of the claim that lies below € 2.500;- 10 % of the part of the claim that lies between € 2.500

and € 5.000;- 5 % of the part of the claim that lies between € 5.000

and € 10.000;

27 However, omissions can be repaired at the request of the interested party (Art. 32 CCP). 28 Liquidatietarief [Tariff for Court Costs], which can be found on the website of the Dutch courts (<www.rechtspraak.nl/Procedures/Landelijke-regelingen/Sector-civiel-recht/Pages/Liquidatietarief-rechtbanken-en-gerechtshoven.aspx>, visited 14 October 2013). 29 HR 3 April 1998, NJ 1998, 571.

13

- 1 % of the part of the claim that lies between € 10.000,-and € 200.000;

- 0,5 % of the rest of the claim with a maximum (in total)of € 6.775.30

The tariff is only due when the debtor has been summoned topay his debt within 14 days and has been notified of the extracosts according to this tariff (Art. 6:96 (6) CC).

16. Compared to the EU order for payment procedure, the Dutchsystem is in fact quite efficient, since it does not involve adouble procedure. Moreover, the fact that the normal rulesapply, makes debt collection part of business-as-usual.Obviously, the drawback of the Dutch system is the writ ofsummons, that has to be served by a bailiff. The expenses forthe service of a writ are now around € 80 31 and in the case ofdebt collection it is quite uncertain if these expenses can berecovered. Just sending a statement of claim to the court byordinary letter, which is then sent by the court to thedefendant by registered letter (as is done when a petition hasto be filed) , would be much easier. In fact, this has beenrecommended by a special commission appointed by the Ministerof Justice.32 Recently the Minister of Justice announced thatthe writ of summons will be made optional.33

III. Implementation of Order for Payment ProcedureRegulation (1896/2006) in the Netherlands

17. The Order for Payment Procedure Regulation (1896/2006) hasbeen implemented by means of a separate act, the Uitvoeringswet

30 Besluit vergoeding voor buitengerechtelijke kosten [Decree on the compensation of the costs of pre-trial debt collection], Dutch Bulletin of Acts Orders and Decrees 2012, 141.31 Art. 2 Besluit tarieven ambtshandelingen gerechtsdeurwaarders [Decree on the Tariffs for Official Acts of Court Bailiffs]. 32 W.D.H. Asser, H.A. Groen, J..M. Vranken, Uitgebalanceerd [Balanced], Eindrapport Fundamentele herbezinning Nederlands burgerlijk procesrecht [Final report Fundamental Rethinking of Dutch civil procedure], Den Haag: Boom Juridische Uitgevers 2006, p. 97.33 Letter of the Minister of Justice and Security to the Chairman of Parliament of 11 June 2013, ref. 394323 (Parliamentary Proceedings II 2012/13, 29279,no. 164).

14

verordening Europese betalingsbevelprocedure ([Implementation Act ofthe European Order for Payment Procedure Regulation],henceforth: OPA). The statute entered into force on 6 June2009.34 It has been modified in 2010 to make it comply with thenew Dutch Civil Court Fee Act.35 Its scope is identical withthe scope of Regulation 1896/2006.

18. Art. 2 OPA designates the ordinary court (District Court)as the competent court and makes the same distinction asregards cases allocated to the single judge track (see suprano. 3). This means that claims under € 25.000 are decided bythe cantonal judge. The geographical competence of theDistrict Courts is not affected, but currently a new bill isunder review that will concentrate all OPA cases at theDistrict Court of Den Haag.36 This is a confirmation of theexisting practice to let the District Court Den Haag examineall OPA cases as an ancillary court of all other Dutchcourts.37 If the application is contested, the most appropriatecourt will be appointed by the Den Haag court to deal with thecase (Art. 6 of the proposal). Parliament did not work on thisbill since November 2011, when it submitted a number ofquestions to the government that have not been answered yet.38

19. Applications under the OPA can only be submitted inwritten form. The OPA refers to the Regulation, which meansthat the form prescribed by the Regulation has to be used.39

This form can be downloaded from the website of the Counsilfor the Judiciary (<www.rechtspraak.nl>).The case is pending34 Dutch Bulletin of Acts Orders and Decrees 2009, 232. 35 Dutch Bulletin of Acts Orders and Decrees 2010, 715. The changes entered into force on 1 January 2011 (Dutch Bulletin of Acts Orders and Decrees 2010, 726).36 Parliamentary Proceedings II 2010-2011, 32834, no. 2. Please note that before 1 January 2013 the official name was District Court ’s-Gravenhage. 37 This is made possible by the Aanwijzingsbesluit ’s-Gravenhage als nevenzittingsplaats Europees betalingsbevel [Decree Designating the District Court of ’s-Gravenhage as Ancillary Court for European Order of Payment Procedures] of 8 December 2008, Stcrt. [Government Gazette] 11 december 2008, 241. 38 Parliamentary Proceedings II 2010-2011, 32834, no. 5.39 European Court of Justice 13 December 2012, C-215/11 (Szyrocka v. SiGer Technologie GmbH) (NJ 2013, 335), shows that domestic law is even not allowed to stipulate any further requirements.

15

from the day of submission at the court registry.40 There areno provisions concerning the language to be used,41 which meansthat the application has to be written in Dutch42 or Frisian.43

Since the defendant may not speak these languages, translationmay be required when a decision or other documents have to benotified.44 The OPA does not specify the number of copies,which means that the general rules of the petition procedureapply (Art. 12 OPA), which require not more than one copy(Art. 278 CCP). Deliberate incorrect statements in the formwould amount to forgery, which is a criminal offence foreseenin Art. 225 of the Dutch Criminal Code and can be punishedwith six years of imprisonment or a fine up to € 78.000 (€780.000 for legal persons) (Art. 23 Dutch Criminal Code).

20. The order for payment application is examined by thecourt. This means in practice that the check is done by acourt clerk without legal schooling but under theresponsibility of a judge. The judge will only be asked totake a decision himself if the court clerk has the feelingthat there is something out of the ordinary in a givenapplication.45 Obviously, the order for payment is issued bythe court and in name of the court and duly signed by theresponsible judge. As every title of execution, the order forpayment has to be served on the defendant by a bailiff (seesupra no. 13). The rules for service of documents (Art. 45 ffCCP) allow for many possibilities, varying from service on thedefendant in person, service on a housemate, service on his40 Rb ’s-Hertogenbosch 16 May 2012, LJN BW5305.41 This was criticized by M. Freudenthal, Uitvoering van de Verordening Europese betalingsbevelprocedure, Hoe Europees is Nederland [Implementation of the Order for Payment Regulation, How European are the Netherlands],NJB 2008 p. 1858 at 1860, who urged to acccept English as language,but this did not help. 42 Parliamentary Proceedings I 2007-2008, 31513, C, p. 2. 43 Art. 7 Wet gebruik Friese taal in het rechtsverkeer [Act on the Use of Frisianin Court Matters]. 44 As was ordered in Rb Almelo 28 February 2010, LJN BL9357, after the submission of a statement of opposition. 45 The way the cantonal judges work and are supported by their staff is described in detail in R. Bloemink et al., ‘Immediate Judgments in Civil Proceedings - An Experiment’, in R. van Rhee & A. Uzelac (eds.), Truth and Efficiency in Civil Litigation: Fundamental Aspects of Fact-Finding and Evidence-taking in a Comparative Context, 391-400 (Intersentia 2012).

16

address and ‘public service’ by means of an announcement inthe newspaper in case no place of residence could beestablished. In every instance, service can only be done by acourt bailiff. As alternative to service by a bailiff, Art. 5(a) OPA stipulates that the order for payment can be notifiedby registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt. Sincethis is cheaper than having the decision served by a bailiff,the courts seem to opt for this possibility.46

21. The OPA does not contain special rules for the statementof opposition. By referring to Art. 17 of Regulation 1896/2006in Art. 6 (1) OPA, the Dutch law expresses that the paperversion of the form foreseen in the Regulation should be used.When the form has been lodged, Art. 69 CCP applies (see suprano. 2) and the case is remitted by the court to the defaultprocedure, allocating it if necessary to the single judgetrack (depending on the amount claimed). Nothing is foreseenregarding the status of the order for payment after thestatement of opposition. However, from Art. 5 (2) OPA it canbe derived that the statement of opposition will always befollowed by an ordinary court judgment, which means that theorder for payment has to be considered as non-existent andthus unenforceable.

22. It cannot be said that the court will decide on thestatement of opposition, since the statement of oppositionwill in most cases be devoid of grounds (Art. 16 (3)Regulation 1896/2006). The parliamentary proceedings do notdiscuss this problem.47 Published case law (a bit more than 10cases in total, to be found in the footnotes) does not makeclear how this problem is dealt with. Probably the defendantis asked to submit a statement of defence containing thegrounds for his opposition when the case is remitted to theordinary procedure.48 On the other hand, if grounds arementioned in the statement of opposition, they will beexamined in the procedure following the lodging of this46 As was foreseen by A.L.H. Ernes, The Payment Order Procedure in the Netherlands, II JLE 224, 231 (2010). In Rb ’s-Gravenhage 9 August 2012, LJN BX6428, the defendant complained about this way of notifying, but the objection was dismissed since the acknowledgement of receipt had been signed by the defendant. 47 Parliamentary Proceedings II 2007-2008, 31513. 48 As must have been the case in Rb Amsterdam 17 March 2010, LJN BN3631.

17

statement.49 Art. 6 (2) OPA makes clear that whether or not thedefendant appears in the procedure after remittal, thejudgment resulting from it is still considered to be ajudgment in a defended action (in Dutch: vonnis op tegenspraak).That means that opposition as foreseen in the Code of CivilProcedure is not possible. The possibility of appeal andcassation are regulated by ordinary civil procedure rules (seesupra no. 3 and 4).

23. In absence of timely opposition, the certificate procedureof Art. 18 Regulation 1896/2006 is executed. No special rulesfor this procedure have been enacted. Art. 7 OPA stipulatesthat the order for payment and the enforceability certificateare deemed to be a title of execution as described in Art. 430CCP, which means that this set of documents is enforceablethroughout the Kingdom without further requirements other thanthat the court registry should not forget to add the words ‘Innaam des Konings’ [In name of the King] to the head of thesedocuments.50 Orders for payment accompanied by a certificate ofenforceability issued in another member state are directlyenforceable, provided that the order for payment is translatedinto Dutch (Art. 8 (1) and (2) OPA). The previous remarks onenforceability apply (see supra no. 13). If no statement ofopposition is filed in time, the order for payment will becomefinal except for the possibility of review as foreseen in Art.20 Regulation 1896/2006. An untimely statement of oppositionis − if all applicable requirements are met − treated as anapplication for review.51

24. There are no specific procedures for rectification orwithdrawal of the declaration of enforceability. The defendantwill have to fall back on the possibility of review, whereasboth the claimant and the defendant may apply forrectification of the certificate under the general procedureof Art. 31 CCP, which gives parties the opportunity to demandrectification of any court decision in the case of apparentmistakes that are suitable to be rectified. There is nopublished case law about alleged mistakes in theenforceability certificate.49 As appears from Rb Rotterdam 6 April 2011, LJN BQ1170.50 The OPA does not specify that both documents should bare this header, whichshould better be done for safety reasons. 51 Rb ’s-Gravenhage 10 August 2012, LJN BX6433.

18

25. The review procedure is regulated by Art. 9 OPA. Thegeneral rules for the petition procedure apply, but legalrepresentation is not mandatory (Art. 9 (3) OPA). The timelimit for review is set at four weeks

- from the day the defendant got to know the order forpayment in the case of Art. 20 (1) (a) Regulation 1896/2006;

- from the day the defendant was no longer prevented fromobjecting to the claim in the case of Art. 20 (1) (b)Regulation 1896/2006;

- from the day the defendant got to know the circumstancesthat can be invoked under Art. 20 (2) Regulation 1896/2006.

In a case in which a statement of opposition was lodged afterexpiry of the time limit of 30 days after notification, thisstatement was examined as a request for review. The startingdate of the time limit was in that judgment not related to theday of notification, but to the day the defendant stated thatshe got to know of the order for payment. Nevertheless, theapplication was not filed within said period of four weeks andit was declared inadmissible.52 However, being in time does nothelp as such, since the requirement that service was noteffected in sufficient time to enable the defendant to arrangefor his defence, without any fault on his part, is notfulfilled when an employee of the defendant signed for receiptof the order for payment.53 The same decision was taken in acase in which the order for payment was served on a caretakerworking in the building of defendant's company.54

It can hardly be said that the review procedure guaranteesthe right of the defendant to put forward defences to theclaim. After all, the review procedure is meant forexceptional circumstances and defences that are related tothose circumstances.55 Accordingly, an application for reviewon the ground that the claim was time-barred, was rejected.56

52 Rb ’s-Gravenhage 10 August 2012, LJN BX6433. The same approach is found in Rb Amsterdam 3 November 2010, LJN BO3259.53 Rb ’s-Gravenhage 9 August 2012, LJN BX6428.54 Rb ’s-Gravenhage 24 January 2012, LJN BV2920. For service on an employee see Rb ’s-Gravenhage 30 September 2010, LJN BN9635.55 Recital 25 to Regulation 1896/2006. 56 Rb ’s-Gravenhage 24 September 2010, LJN BN9631.

19

The same happened when the jurisdiction of the court waschallenged.57

26. The costs of the application for an order for payment mustbe very low, even when the applicant is represented by alawyer.58 After all, filling out a form is less cumbersome thandrafting an elaborate statement of claim and there is no needto do more than superficial research into procedural law ofanother member state. The court fees are subject to theordinary provisions of the Civil Court Fee Act (Art. 11 OPA)and will be due only once, even if a statement of oppositionor an application for review has been lodged.59 On the side ofthe defendant, no court fees have to be paid, unless the caseis remitted to the regular track.

The applicable rules in the first phase provide for thepossibility of a full costs order against the losing party,which is left to the discretion of the court since the rulesof the petition procedure apply (Art. 289 CCP). In Dutchpractice, these costs orders are rare. In Parliament thispossibility was mentioned as a remedy against abuse of theorder for payment procedure,60 but such cases did not occuruntil now. In fact, in all review cases until now, no costsorders were issued at all. Apparently, the Dutch courts arereluctant to use their discretionary power.

27. Enforcement of European enforcement orders is subject tono other rules than the enforcement of Dutch titles ofexecution. As was explained before (see supra no. 7 and 13),all titles of execution are enforceable as of right, withoutneed for leave or permission of a court. The title should betranslated in Dutch (see supra no. 23). Enforcement measuresare taken by a court bailiff, acting on the instruction of thecreditor of the title, but with his own responsibility underthe Court Bailiff Act.

For opposition against enforcement measures the generalprocedure of Art. 438 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies(Art. 10 OPA). The District Court or its summary proceedings57 Rb ’s-Gravenhage 30 September 2010, LJN BN9638. 58 Note that after remittal to the default procedure representation by a lawyer admitted to the bar is mandatory when the case is allocated to the regular track. Until then, this is excluded by Art. 24 Regulation 1896/2006.59 Parliamentary Proceedings II 2007-2008, 31513, 3, p. 8. 60 Parliamentary Proceedings II 2007-2008, 31513, 3, p. 8.

20

judge is competent to examine applications for orders againstenforcement. These demands cannot be based on defences againstthe debt expressed in the title, but only on facts andcircumstances related to the enforcement itself, including thestatement that the debt has already been paid. The rules forthe default procedure (starting with a writ of summons) apply(see supra no. 4).

28. No statistics regarding the application of this order forpayment procedure have been published. Based on the number ofpublished decisions it can be safely assumed that there willbe no more than 20-30 applications each year.

IV. National small claims procedure

29. There are no special procedures exclusively for therecovery of money claims and there are no special proceduresfor the recovery of small claims. The distinctions made havebeen described in the previous paragraphs (see supra no. 3).All that has been said regarding the non-existing nationalorder for payment procedure applies in this case as well (seesupra no. 11-16).

V. Implementation of Small Claims Regulation(861/2007) in the Netherlands

30. The Small Claims Regulation (861/2007) has beenimplemented by means of a separate act, the Uitvoeringswetverordening Europese procedure voor geringe vorderingen ([ImplementationAct of the European Small Claims Procedure Regulation]henceforth: SCA). The statute entered into force on 10 June2009.61 It has been modified in 2010 to comply with the newDutch Civil Court Fee Act.62 Its scope is identical with thescope of the Regulation 861/2007 (Art. 1 (b) SCA, referring toArt. 2(1) Regulation 861/2007).

61 Dutch Bulletin of Acts Orders and Decrees 2009, 234. 62 Dutch Bulletin of Acts Orders and Decrees 2010, 715. The changes entered into force on 1 January 2011 (Dutch Bulletin of Acts Orders and Decrees 2010, 726).

21

31. The provisions of the SCA have to be understood as suchthat the District Court is the competent court for claimsfalling under its scope. These claims are allocated to thesingle judge track (Art. 2(1) SCA, see supra no. 3). The rulesof the petition procedure apply, unless the SCA or Regulation861/2007 provides otherwise (Art. 9 SCA). This implies thatgeographical jurisdiction is determined by Art. 262-269 CCP.According to Art. 262 CCP, jurisdiction is assigned to thecourt of the place of residence of the applicant, unless oneof the special provisions applies (which will be exceptional).If the applicant does not have his place of residence in theNetherlands, the case belongs to the competence of theDistrict Court of Den Haag (Art. 269 CCP). The courts arebound to remit the case if it does not belong to thegeographical jurisdiction of that court (Art. 270 CCP).63

32. The rules regarding formal and language requirements arethe same as those applying to the order for payment procedure(see supra no. 19).

33. The judgment is issued in written form. No special rulesapply other than those in Regulation 861/2007. The judgment issent to the parties by ordinary letter, unless the courtdecrees otherwise (Art. 290 (3), 291 and 271 CCP). There areno specific rules regarding the certificate procedure.

34. Appeal from the judgment in a SCA small claims case, isexcluded (Art. 2(2) SCA). This provision was mainly based onthe consideration that in all other cases claims up to € 1.750were already excluded from appeal (see supra no. 3).64 This isinterpreted in such a way, that this exclusion also extends toformal decisions, for instance regarding the jurisdiction ofthe Dutch courts.65 Cassation is possible, but only on limited,formal grounds, including jurisdiction issues (Art. 2(3) SCA,

63 As expressly stated in Parliamentary Proceedings II 2007-2008, 31596, 3, p. 4. These rules are usually overlooked, since courts do not expectat all that civil commercial cases follow the local jurisdiction rules of petition cases. For instance, in Rb ’s-Hertogenbosch 13 December 2010, LJN BO7878, the Court explicitly bases its jurisdiction on Art. 99 CCP, but that provision does not apply at all. 64 Parliamentary Proceedings II 2007/08, 31596, 3, p. 10.65 Hof ’s-Hertogenbosch 13 December 2012, LJN BZ1135.

22

see supra no. 3). Cassation can only be lodged with theSupreme Court. Since the rules of the petition procedureapply, the time limit for this appeal in cassation will bethree months, starting the day the judgment was pronounced inpublic (Art. 426 CCP).66 Some complications are foreseeable,especially in case the defendant did not appear, but there isno case law yet to say more about this. Anyway, oppositionafter a judgment by default is not possible in petitionprocedures.

35. There are no specific procedures for rectification orwithdrawal of the declaration of enforceability. The defendantwill have to fall back on the possibility of review, whereasboth the claimant and the defendant may apply forrectification of the certificate or the judgment under thegeneral procedure of Art. 31 CCP, which gives parties theopportunity to demand rectification of any court decision inthe case of apparent mistakes that are suitable to berectified. There is no published case law about allegedmistakes in the enforceability certificate.

36. The review procedure is regulated by Art. 6 SCA. Thegeneral rules for the petition procedure apply, so legalrepresentation is not mandatory, since the case has beenallocated to the single judge track (Art. 278 (3) CCP). Thetime limit for review is set at four weeks

- from the day the defendant got to know the judgment inthe case of Art. 18 (1) (a) Regulation 861/2007;

- from the day the defendant was no longer prevented fromobjecting to the claim in the case of Art. 18 (1) (b)Regulation 861/2007.

37. Costs of the SCA procedures will be low. The court feesare the same as in regular petition cases (Art. 3 SCA), butthe fact that the procedure has been pre-structured by meansof a form will imply that drafting the document to start theprocedure is less time consuming. Moreover, there will be noneed to do more than superficial research into procedural lawof another member state. On the side of the defendant, nocourt fees have to be paid.

66 Pronouncement in public does not exist and is deemed to have taken place onthe day mentioned in the judgment or the minutes.

23

Costs orders are governed by the “loser pays all” provisionof Art. 16 Regulation 861/2007. In Parliament it was assumedthat this rule has to be explained in the light of Dutch law.67

Art. 5 SCA refers to Art. 238 CCP and thus makes clear thattravelling expenses of the winning party can be included in acosts order if this party was not represented by a lawyer orother proxy.

38. The remarks made on enforcement apply to these proceduresmutatis mutandis (see supra no. 27), since both implementationlaws (OPA and SCA) are identical where possible.

39. No statistics regarding the application if this order forpayment procedure have been published.

VI. Final critical evaluation of EU Regulations onSimplifying Cross-Border Debt Collection

40. When assessing both regulations from the point of view oflegal practice, a distinction has to be made. A Dutch lawyerwho will have to litigate in another country on behalf of aclient, will benefit enormously from these regulations. Itwill cost him little time to find out which procedure tofollow, where to submit documents and how to proceed, whereasin addition the overall costs promise to be quite low. On theother hand, when looking at litigation in his own country, thefact that in some cases three procedures are available tostart proceedings against a defendant is not necessarily anadvantage and could lead to misunderstandings and confusion.

41. Working with forms also has its drawbacks. The forms tendto simplify matters, as a result of which the basis of a claimwill not be as solid as when a writ of summons has to bedrafted. Where usually default judgments do not more than copythe claim from the writ of summons, we see quite often inorder for payment and small claims procedures that the claimis not fully supported by the facts in the form.68

67 Parliamentary Proceedings II 2007-2008, 31596, 3, p. 3. 68 As in Rb Maastricht 5 February 2010, LJN BL4324, where the claimed interests were not covered by the stated facts. In Rb ’s-Hertogenbosch 19 January 2012, LJN BV1931, the form did not mention one of the parties on whosebehalf the claim was submitted.

24

42. Dutch civil procedure on the whole is quite efficient,fast and fair, especially when talking about cases allocatedto the single judge track. It is a pity that a writ of summonsserved by a bailiff is needed, but on the other hand thissometimes helps to avoid later complications when thedefendant claims not to have been notified of the proceedingsor decisions. On the whole, it would be better if the petitionformat would apply in all cases and this is a development thatis probably fuelled by these EU procedures. Apart from bailiffcosts and the difficulties of serving documents in othercountries, Dutch proceedings are quite adequate, whichexplains why the European procedures did not become verypopular until now. When they are chosen, this will probably benot because of the procedures themselves, but because ofadditional benefits like the exclusion of remedies and theenforceability without further ado. Therefore, caution isneeded when assessing the advantages of these procedures toavoid to draw inferences based on facts that are not relatedto the procedures themselves.

25

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Literature

W.D.H. Asser, H.A. Groen, J..M. Vranken, Uitgebalanceerd[Balanced], Eindrapport Fundamentele herbezinning Nederlands burgerlijkprocesrecht [Final report Fundamental Rethinking of Dutch civilprocedure], 97 (Boom Juridische Uitgevers 2006)

R. Bloemink et al., Immediate Judgments in Civil Proceedings -An Experiment, in R. van Rhee & A. Uzelac (eds.), Truth andEfficiency in Civil Litigation: Fundamental Aspects of Fact-Finding and Evidence-taking in a Comparative Context, 391-400(Intersentia 2012)

A.L.H. Ernes, The Payment Order Procedure in the Netherlands,II JLE 224, 231 (2010)

M. Freudenthal, Uitvoering van de Verordening Europesebetalingsbevelprocedure, Hoe Europees is Nederland [Implementation of theOrder for Payment Regulation, How European are theNetherlands], NJB 1858, 1860 (2008)

A.W. Jongbloed, Hoever reikt de schuldenaarsverplichting inkomensbronnenop te geven? [To what extent the debtor is under an obligation tospecify his sources of income?], TvPP 106, 115 (2011)

International legislation

‒ European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights andFundamental Freedoms‒ Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 onjurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgmentsin civil and commercial matters (OJ L 12, 16.1.2001, p. 1.Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1791/2006 (OJ L363, 20.12.2006, p. 1))‒ Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament andof the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a EuropeanEnforcement Order for uncontested claims (OJ L 143, 30.4.2004,p. 15. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No1869/2005 (OJ L 300, 17.11.2005, p. 6)

26

‒ Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament andof the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European orderfor payment procedure (OJ L 399, 30.12.2006, p. 1)‒ Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of the European Parliament andof the Councilof 11 July 2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure(OJ L 199, 31.7.2007, p.1)

National legislation69

‒ Aanwijzingsbesluit ’s-Gravenhage als nevenzittingsplaats Europees betalingsbevel[Decree Designating the District Court of 's-Gravenhage asAncillary Court for European Order of Payment Procedures]‒ Besluit betrouwbaarheid en vertrouwelijkheid elektronisch verzenden vanverzoeken en mededelingen met betrekking tot de rol [Decree on reliabilityand confidentiality of electronic communication of requestsand announcements regarding the cause-list sitting]‒ Besluit elektronische indiening dagvaarding [Decree on the ElectronicSubmission of a Writ of Summons]‒ Besluit tarieven ambtshandelingen gerechtsdeurwaarders [Decree on theTariffs for Official Acts of Court Bailiffs]‒ Besluit vergoeding voor buitengerechtelijke kosten [Decree on thecompensation of the costs of pre-trial debt collection]‒ Burgerlijk Wetboek [Civil Code]‒ Faillissementswet [Bankruptcy Act]‒ Landelijk procesreglement voor civiele dagvaardingszaken bij de rechtbanken[National regulation for regular track civil cases startingwith a writ of summons]‒ Landelijk procesreglement voor civiele rol van de kantonsectoren [Nationalregulation for single judge civil cases starting with a writof summons]‒ Uitvoeringswet verordening Europese betalingsbevelprocedure([Implementation Act of the European Order for PaymentProcedure Regulation]‒ Uitvoeringswet verordening Europese procedure voor geringe vorderingen[Implementation Act of the European Small Claims ProcedureRegulation]

69 National legislation is officially published on <www.overheid.nl> and can be found there in its current and past versions, with references to changes inthe past per article, including references to the relevant parliamentary proceedings.

27

‒ Wet gebruik Friese taal in het rechtsverkeer [Act on the Use of Frisianin Court Matters]‒ Wet griffierechten burgerlijke zaken [Civil Court Fee Act]‒ Wet op de rechterlijke organisatie [Act on the Organisation of theJudiciary]‒ Wet op de Rechtsbijstand [Act on Legal Aid]‒ Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering [Code of Civil Procedure]

Case Law

‒ HR 1 May 1964, NJ 1965, 339‒ HR 8 October 1976, NJ 1977, 485‒ HR 22 January 1982, NJ 1982, 505‒ HR 27 February 1988, NJ 1998, 512‒ HR 20 September 1991, NJ 1992, 552‒ HR 19 February 1993, NJ 1995, 704‒ HR 28 May 1993, NJ 1993, 468‒ HR 17 June 1994, NJ 1994, 591‒ HR 16 February 1996, NJ 1997, 55‒ HR 29 November 1996, NJ 1997, 684‒ HR 20 March 1998, NJ 1998, 548‒ HR 3 April 1998, NJ 1998, 571‒ HR 14 April 2000, NJ 2000, 489‒ HR 16 March 2007, NJ 2007, 637‒ HR 11 April 2008, NJ 2008, 225‒ Rb Maastricht 5 February 2010, LJN BL4324‒ Rb Almelo 28 February 2010, LJN BL9357‒ Rb Amsterdam 17 March 2010, LJN BN3631‒ Rb ’s-Gravenhage 24 September 2010, LJN BN9631‒ Rb ’s-Gravenhage 30 September 2010, LJN BN9635‒ Rb ’s-Gravenhage 30 September 2010, LJN BN9638‒ Rb Amsterdam 3 November 2010, LJN BO3259‒ Rb ’s-Hertogenbosch 13 December 2010, LJN BO7878‒ Rb Rotterdam 6 April 2011, LJN BQ1170‒ Rb ’s-Hertogenbosch 19 January 2012, LJN BV1931‒ Rb 's-Gravenhage 24 January 2012, LJN BV2920‒ HR 9 March 2012, NJ 2012, 174‒ Rb ’s-Hertogenbosch 16 May 2012, LJN BW5305‒ Rb ’s-Gravenhage 9 August 2012, LJN BX6428‒ Rb ’s-Gravenhage 10 August 2012, LJN BX6433‒ Hof ’s-Hertogenbosch 13 December 2012, LJN BZ1135

28

‒ European Court of Justice 13 December 2012, C-215/11(Szyrocka v. SiGer Technologie GmbH)