Party Autonomy in International Property Law - Peace Palace Library

9. Party Autonomy and Assignment
property aspects of assignment. 27 The effectiveness of an assignment against
third parties concerns rules pursuant to which a transfer, which – under the
property law designated by Article 14(1) – is intrinsically valid, cannot
be objected to by certain (or all) creditors. 28
In many jurisdictions rules on voidable preference (pauliana) or the attachment
of claims by individual creditors have this effect. For instance,
as a consequence of Article 475h of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure,
an assignment of a claim cannot be invoked against a creditor who has
previously levied an attachment on this claim. Although as a matter of
property law a transfer of the claim from the assignor to the assignee has
taken place, a creditor of the assignor who has levied the attachment can
treat the claim as if it still belongs to the assignor. A similar effect takes
place where an individual creditor is able to attack an assignment as constituting
a voidable preference (actio pauliana). As a matter of property
law the claim would still belong to the assignee. However, this creditor
can take recourse against the claim, as if it was still owned by his debtor
(the assignor).
These rules concerning attachments and voidable preferences, although
directly affecting the legal consequences of an assignment, are clearly not
within the scope of Article 14(1) Rome I. As a consequence, although a
claim may have transferred under the chosen (property) law applicable
pursuant to Article 14(1) Rome I, the question of whether certain creditors
can ignore this transfer, may be governed by a different law. 29
27
See also A. Flessner, Die internationale Forderungsabtretung nach der Rom I
Verordnung, IPRax 29 (2009), p. 38-43; A. Flessner, Rechtswahlfreiheit auf
Probe – zur Überprüfung von Art 14 der Rom I-Verordnung, in: J.F. Baur et
al (eds.), Festschrift für Gunther Kühne zum 70. Geburtstag, 2009, p. 703-
704; D. Einsele, Die Forderungsabtretung nach der Rom I-Verordnung – Sind
ergänzende Regelungen zur Drittwirksamkeit und Priorität zu empfehlen?,
RabelsZ 74 (2010), p. 96; C. Reithmann & D. Martiny, Internationales Vertragsrecht,
Köln: Verlag Dr. Otto Schmidt 2010, p. 295.
28
See also H.L.E. Verhagen & S. van Dongen, Cross-Border Assignments under
Rome I, Journal of Private International Law (JPIL) 6 (2010), p. 6-13.
29
See also H.L.E. Verhagen & S. van Dongen, Cross-Border Assignments under
Rome I, Journal of Private International Law (JPIL) 6 (2010), p. 10-11. On
voidable preference under the EU Insolvency Regulation, see Michael Veder’s
contribution to this book (Chapter 12).
Hendrik Verhagen
201
© sellier. european law publishers
www.sellier.de