Party Autonomy in International Property Law - Peace Palace Library

3. The Numerus Clausus and Party Autonomy in the Law of Property
were the rights treated in the code, and that all other rights were personal
only. The early drafts were superseded by codes modelled on the French
Code civil. A provision in the old Dutch Burgerlijk Wetboek of 1838 contained
a non-exhaustive catalogue of real rights, similar to Article 543 of
the French Code civil and equally inadequate as a statutory foundation for
a numerus clausus of property rights. Consequently, 19 th century Dutch
courts were inclined to grant parties considerable liberty to devise new
types of property rights outside the scope of the old Burgerlijk Wetboek.
The numerus clausus received a warmer reception in 19 th century Dutch
doctrine than in the courts. The works of both Diephuis 18 (1817-1892)
and Opzoomer 19 (1821-1892), two monumental 19 th century legal scholars
in the Netherlands, show a clear tendency to adhere to a strict interpretation
of the old Burgerlijk Wetboek; the statutory provisions were their main
focal point when describing and analysing the limits of the law of property.
Telling are a number of references in the work of Diephuis to the French
author Demolombe (1804-1887). 20 Where French courts and doctrine of
that period predominantly favoured a large role for party autonomy in the
field of property law, Demolombe argued extensively for adherence to the
types of property rights chosen and regulated by the French legislature.
The line taken by Diephuis and Opzoomer became so deeply entrenched
in Dutch legal thinking that opposition was too little and too late for the
numerus clausus to be rejected. As mentioned above, in 1905 the Hoge
Raad cemented the foundations of the numerus clausus in Dutch law.
It can be concluded that the numerus clausus, as the expression of the will
of the legislature, has been part of Dutch legal thinking since the era of
codification in the early decades of the 19 th century. However, the works
of Savigny and the Pandectists fleshed out this principle, resulting in what
is now understood as the numerus clausus and the closed system in the law
18
G. Diephuis, Het Nederlandsch Burgerlijk Regt naar de volgorde van het
Burgerlijk Wetboek, volume III, 1846 (1st edition) & 1857 (2nd edition); G.
Diephuis, Het Nederlandsch Burgerlijk Regt, volume VI, 1880 (1st edition)
& 1886 (2nd edition).
19
C.W. Opzoomer, Het Burgerlijke Wetboek verklaard, Volume III, Art. 555-
783, 1871; C.W. Opzoomer, Het Burgerlijke Wetboek – Aanteekening op de
artikelen die thans nog verklaring behoeven, Volume II, 1850.
20
C. Demolombe, Cours de Code Napoléon, band IX, De la distinction des biens;
de la propriété; de l’usufruit, de l’usage et de l’habitation, 1854, nrs. 462-532,
p. 351-470.
T.H.D. Struycken 65
© sellier. european law publishers
www.sellier.de