17.05.2014 Views

Party Autonomy in International Property Law - Peace Palace Library

Party Autonomy in International Property Law - Peace Palace Library

Party Autonomy in International Property Law - Peace Palace Library

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

A. General Aspects of <strong>Party</strong> <strong>Autonomy</strong><br />

further implies that the content of the different types of property rights is<br />

likewise prescribed by statute (Typenfixierung).<br />

Under the wider <strong>in</strong>terpretation of the closed system, the rules on transferability<br />

also appear relevant. Article 3:83(1) BW states that (i) the ownership<br />

of th<strong>in</strong>gs, (ii) limited property rights and (iii) debts are transferable<br />

unless a statutory provision or the nature of the right dictates otherwise.<br />

Article 3:83(3) BW states that rights other than ownership, limited property<br />

rights and debts are transferable only if a statute so provides. Similarly,<br />

Article 3:80(3) and (4) BW states that assets are acquired or lost <strong>in</strong><br />

the manner prescribed for each type of asset by statute. 12<br />

F<strong>in</strong>ally, the controversial Article 3:84(3) BW enshr<strong>in</strong>es the prohibition<br />

of fiduciary transfers of ownership. 13 Any such fiduciary transfer, whether<br />

cum creditore or cum amico, is void. This prohibition is thought to create<br />

an obstacle to all forms of dual ownership and other ways of splitt<strong>in</strong>g<br />

ownership not laid down by statute. As such, Article 3:84(3) BW may<br />

be understood as one of the foundations of the numerus clausus <strong>in</strong> Dutch<br />

property law. 14<br />

The Dutch legislature considered the numerus clausus <strong>in</strong> some detail <strong>in</strong> the<br />

1960s and 1970s when it discussed the various drafts of the 1992 Burgerlijk<br />

Wetboek. The explanatory memorandum to the first draft, both written by<br />

the great 20 th century Dutch scholar Eduard Meijers, stated explicitly that<br />

the draft enshr<strong>in</strong>ed the numerus clausus pr<strong>in</strong>ciple. Later <strong>in</strong> the process,<br />

‘except for grounds of preference that are recognised by statute’ (behoudens<br />

door de wet erkende redenen van voorrang), and Article 4:42(1) BW def<strong>in</strong>es a<br />

disposition by last will and testament (uiterste wilsbeschikk<strong>in</strong>gen) as ‘a unilateral<br />

legal act [..], that is provided for <strong>in</strong> Book 4 BW or is recognised as such by<br />

statute’ (Een uiterste wilsbeschikk<strong>in</strong>g is een eenzijdige rechtshandel<strong>in</strong>g [..], die <strong>in</strong> dit<br />

Boek is geregeld of <strong>in</strong> de wet als zodanig is aangemerkt.).<br />

12<br />

As used <strong>in</strong> all these articles, the term ‘statute’ refers to a law enacted by parliament.<br />

Regulations and rules issued or passed by other governmental and local<br />

authorities fall outside the notion of statute.<br />

13<br />

Article 3:84(3) BW reads: ‘A juridical act <strong>in</strong>tended to transfer property for<br />

purposes of security or which does not have the purpose of br<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong>g the property<br />

<strong>in</strong>to the patrimonium of the acquirer, after transfer, does not constitute<br />

valid title for transfer of that property.’<br />

14<br />

See A.H. Scheltema, De goederenrechtelijke werk<strong>in</strong>g van de ontb<strong>in</strong>dende voorwaarde,<br />

2003 (thesis Leiden), p. 371, and Struycken, o.c. 2007, § 8.2.4.2.<br />

62<br />

T.H.D. Struycken<br />

© sellier. european law publishers<br />

www.sellier.de

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!