Party Autonomy in International Property Law - Peace Palace Library

2. Party Autonomy in Dutch International Property Law
We may call this type of choice of law a ‘direct choice of law’: the parties
make a specific juridical act in the field of proprietary rights law (the
transfer of shares) the subject matter of their choice of law.
Article 3 paragraph 2 of the Dutch Property Law (Conflict of Laws) Act,
which lays down conflict rules for retention of title, likewise concerns
a direct choice of law. It provides that buyer and seller may agree that
the proprietary consequences of retention of title – regarding of whose
property the goods form a part and who has the power of disposal of the
goods – shall be governed by the law of the country of destination:
‘In derogation from the first sentence of paragraph 1, the contracting
parties may agree that the proprietary effects of retention of title to
goods intended for export shall be governed by the law of the country
of destination provided that the retention of title does not cease to be
effective under that law until the purchase price has been fully paid.
Such choice of law will only be effective if the goods are actually imported
into the designated country of destination.’ 33
In drafting this latter provision, the legislature specifically had in mind
Dutch exporters who, by choosing German law as applicable law when exporting
goods from the Netherlands to Germany, could avail themselves
of the wider forms of retention of title for which German law provides:
for example, Eigentumsvorbehalt mit Verarbeitungsklausel (retention of title
with processing clause). 34 This German form of retention of title extends
the retention to cover goods (e.g. steel chains) manufactured out of the
33
In its original Dutch version, Article 3 paragraph 2 of the Dutch Property
Law (Conflict of Laws) Act (Article 10:128 paragraph 2 Civil Code) reads as
follows: ‘In afwijking van de eerste zin van het eerste lid kunnen partijen overeenkomen
dat de goederenrechtelijke gevolgen van een eigendomsvoorbehoud
van een voor uitvoer bestemde zaak worden beheerst door het recht van
de staat van bestemming indien op grond van dat recht het eigendomsvoorbehoud
niet zijn werking verliest totdat de prijs volledig is betaald. De aldus
overeengekomen aanwijzing heeft slechts gevolg indien de zaak daadwerkelijk
in de aangewezen staat van bestemming wordt ingevoerd.’
34
See Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal, vergaderjaar 2001-2002, 28 239,
nr. 3, p. 8; Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal, vergaderjaar 2006-2007, 30
876, nr. 6, p. 10.
Jeroen van der Weide
51
© sellier. european law publishers
www.sellier.de