The admissibility of repudiation: Recent developments in Dutch, French and Belgian private international law

Hawwa

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 10-32

  Foblets, Marie Claire ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ CATHOLIQUE DE LOUVAIN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34548476278     PISSN: 15692078     EISSN: 15692086     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1163/156920807781787662     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. For comparative studies, see among others S.A. Aldeeb Abu-Sahlieh and A. Bonomi (eds.), Le Droit musulman de la famille et des successions àl'épreuve des ordres juridiques occidentaux (Zürich: Schulthess, 1999);
2. K. de Laet, De erkenning van vreemde echtscheidingen in Europese en islamitische landen [The recognition of foreign divorces in European and Muslim countries] (Brussels: Larcier (Cahiers Antwerpen Brussel Gent), 2004).
3. Much has been written about the exception of public order in private international law. For a general study see R. Libchaber, "L'exception d'ordre public en droit international privé", in B. Beignier et al. (eds.), L'Ordre public àla fin du XX' siècle. Recueil, thèmes et commentaires (Paris: Dalloz, 1996),: 65ff.;
4. FJ.A. van der Velden, Talaq in de rechtszaal? Verstoting en openbare orde [Talaq in court? Repudiation and public order], Deventer: Kluwer Ars Notariatus CXVIII, 2003.
5. See among others P. Lagarde, "La théorie de l'ordre public international face à la polygamie et à la répudiation, " in X., Nouveaux itinéraires en droit. Hommages à François Rigaux (Brussels: Bruylant, 1993): 272ff;
6. R. el-Husseini, Le droit international privé fiançais et la répudiation islamique (Paris: L.G.DJ., 2002).
7. ere civ., 17 February 2005, judgments nrs. 01-11.549; 02-11.618; 02-15.766; 02-17.479 and 02-10.755,
8. Dalloz, 2004, 824 (concl. F. Cavarroz) and 815 (note P. Courbe);
9. Rev. crit. D.I.P., 2004, 423 (note P. Hammje);
10. RTD civ., 2004, 367 (note J.-P. Marguenaud);
11. JCP éd. G., 2004, nr. 10128 (note H. Fulchiron), JDI (Clunet), 2004, 1200 (note L. Gannagé).
12. M.-L. Niboyet, "L'avenir du nouveau revirement de la Cour de cassation sulla reconnaissance des répudiations musulmanes", Gazette du Palais (3-4 September 2004): 27-31; 27.
13. A husband can in fact sometimes delegate his right of repudiation to his wife (see below).
14. This is the case in Morocco, for instance, since the entry into effect on 5 February 2004 of the new Family Code. See among others F. Sarehane, "Le nouveau Code marocain de la famille", Gazette du Palais (3-4 September 2004): 2-17;
15. M.-Cl. Foblets, J.-Y. Carlier, Le Code marocain de la famille. Incidences au regard du droit international privé en Europe (Brussels: Bruylant, 2005): 63 ff.
16. On this discussion, see among others L.Jordens-Cotran, "Instemming met de verstoting, naturalisatie en de erkenning van Marokkaanse verstotingen: artikel 3 of 2 WCE [Approval of repudiation, naturalisation and recognition of Moroccan repudiations; article 3 of 2 WCE]", Tijdschrift voor Familie- en Jeugdrecht (1995): 7;
17. S. Rutten, "De realiteit van verstotingen: niet alleen een morele kwestie [The reality of repudiations: not only a moral question]", Nederlands Juristenblad (1996): 25.
18. See among others F. Moneger, "Une première application du nouveau Code de la famille marocain par la Cour d'appel de Paris" (note under: Paris, 1ère chambre, section C, 22 December 2004), forthcoming in Droit et Patrimoine (2005).
19. Law of 16 July 2004 containing the Code of Private International Law, Belgian Official Gazette, 27 June 2004;
20. J. Erauw and M. Fallon, De nieuwe wet op het international privaatrecht. Wet van 16 juli 2004 [The new Code of private international law, The law of 16 July 2004] (Mechelen: Kluwer, 2004);
21. J.-Y. Carlier, M. Fallon and B. Martin-Bosly, Code de droit international privé (Brussels: Bruylant, 2004).
22. Report on behalf of the Senate Justice Commission, Parl. St. Senate, nr. 3-27/7.
23. Report on behalf of the Chamber Justice Commission, Parl. St. Chamber, nr. 51-1078/5.
24. For a detailed overview of the jurisprudence see, among others, M.-C. Foblets (ed.), Marokkaanse migrantemrrouwen in gezinsgeschillen/Femmes marocaines et conflits familiaux en immigration (Antwerp: Maklu, 1998).
25. S. Sarolea, "Chronique de jurisprudence (1988-1996)", Rev. trim, dr. fam. (1998): 7-79.
26. Cass., 29 April 2002, R.W. 2002-2003, nr. 22, 864 (note by J. Erauw, "De strenge voorwaarden voor de erkenning in Belgie van een buitenlandse echtscheiding door verstoting [The strict conditions for recognition by Belgium of a foreign divorce by repudiation]",
27. Rev. trim, dr.fam. (2003), p. 94 (note byJ.-Y. Carlier, "La reconnaissance mesurée des répudiations par l'examen in concreto de la contrariété àl'ordre public",
28. J. T. (2002): 583;
29. E.J. (2003/7): 101 (note by M. Traest).
30. Published on www.ipr.be, January 2004, nr. 1.
31. This would be the case if a woman, after being repudiated abroad, had then to begin divorce proceedings in Belgium if she still wanted to her marriage be dissolved.
32. Parl. St. Senate 2000-2001, nr. 2-820/1.
33. In the same vein, see C. Nyssens, amendment nr. 1, Parl. St., Senate, 2000-2001, nr. 2-820/2.
34. Y. Linant de Bellefonds, Traité de droit musulman comparé (Paris: Mouton & Cie, 1965): 315-346.
35. The expression "dissolution of the marriage on the grounds of the will of one spouse" should be understood to refer both to unilateral repudiation (talaq) and to repudiation with compensation (khul'). In the latter case the wife asks her husband to repudiate her and in return gives him some compensation. Since the thorough revision of family law in Morocco at the beginning of February 2004, Moroccan women also have the right under article 97 of the revised Mudawannah to have their marriage dissolved on grounds of a permanent breakdown of the marriage. This new article did not, on the whole, receive any consideration in the discussions surrounding the new Private International Law Code. Self-repudiation, henceforth provided for in article 89 (tamlik), could also prove to be relevant to a correct interpretation of article 57 of the new Code of Private International Law. We will return to this again below.
36. Her presence was, however, required in the first version of the bill. This condition was dropped because in practice such a condition would end up excluding the majority of women from the recognition process. For in many countries where the law recognizes repudiation as a form of marriage dissolution, women are not summoned to appear at the proceedings.
37. In an earlier version of article 57 there was another exception to this ride, namely, that in cases where the spouses no longer had any meaningful link with Belgium at the time of the repudiation (with the exception of possessing Belgian nationality), the judge or official could set aside the prohibition and for the time being accept the dissolution of the marriage by repudiation in Belgium. This meant, in other words, that the criterion of nationality would not be taken into account in this case. However, according to the Council of State (Conscil d'État) it is not acceptable to leave it to the judge to rule on the meaning of this bond between the State and its subjects. This exception was dropped from the final version of article 57.
38. The wife can, if necessary, file for divorce in Belgium. It seems from the jurisprudence that courts accept divorce in such cases on grounds of abandonment of the couple's domicile. For a detailed overview of the jurisprudence, see among others Foblets (ed.), op.cit., 1998;
39. Sarolea, op.cit., 1998.
40. J. Erauw and M. Fallon, De nieuwe wet op het internationaal privaatrecht, 2004, 155 (cited from the Explanatory Memorandum to the first bill, 2002).
41. For a detailed overview of the jurisprudence, see among others Foblets, op.cit., 1998.
42. NJ 2002, 223.
43. On which see the criticism of: L. Jordens-Cotran, "De Hoge Raad en de erkenning van de verstoting tegen compensatie (khoel) [The Supreme Court and the recognition of repudation in return for compensation (khoel)]," Burgerzaken en Recht (2001): 290-294;
44. idem.,
45. "De erkenning van de Marokkaanse khoel en andere administrative echtscheidingen [The recognition of the Moroccan kind and other administrative divorces]," NIPR (2002): 138;
46. and (her references to) the summary of the vast IPR Commission of the NVVB [Dutch Commission for Civil Affairs] mat places the recognition of the khul'-repudiation under the terms of article 2 WCE, Burgerzaken & Recht (1997): 50-51 and 226-227
47. and Burgerzaken & Recht (2001): 236.
48. S.W.E. Rutten, "Verstotingen in de Marokkaanse rechtspraktijk [Repudiation in Moroccan judicial practice]," Migrantenrecht (2003): 221.
49. Jordens-Cotran argues in her article "De erkenning van de Marokkaanse khoel en andere administratieve echtscheidingen" that the intervention of a judge is not required for a Moroccan khul'-repudiation, NIPR (2002): 126, 128-129.
50. L. Jordens-Cotran, "Instemming met de verstoting, naturalisatie en de erkenning van Marokkaanse verstotingen, artikel 3 of 2 WCE?" Tijdschrift voor Familie- en Jeugdrecht (1995): 151;
51. FJ.A. van der Velden, "Het Marokkaanse huwelijksontbindingsrecht en het Nederlands IPR [The Moroccan marriage dissolution law and the Dutch PIL," WPNR 6577 (2004): 355;
52. S.W.E. Rutten, op.cit., (2003): 230.
53. The dilemma faced by the Netherlands regarding the choice between article 2 and article 3 is also familiar to other western European countries. For a comparative legal study see: Susan Rutten, "Recognition of Divorce by Repudiation (talaq) in France, Germany and the Netherlands", Maasticht Journal (2004): 263-285. For the United Kingdom, see article 46 of the Family Law Act 1986.
54. TK, 1995-1996, 24 709, nrs. 1-2.
55. Letter from the Minister regarding the bill, TK 1996-1997, 24, 709, nr. 6, p. 1.
56. Honesty demands that we also mention that the potential interests of women in the land of origin were also referred to by the Minister in the reactions to the proposed law. The Minister ultimately concluded that there seemed to be insufficient support for the bill, TK 1996-1997, 24 709, nr. 6, p. 2.
57. Note by Th.M. De Boer in NJ 2002, 223.
58. In the same vein see also A.P.MJ. Vonken, Personen- en Familierecht (unbound), Tide 1.9, ipr. Art. 3-12.
59. HR 31 October 1986, NJ 1987: 924.
60. HR 9 November 2001, NJ 2001, 279.
61. F.J.A. van der Velden, op.cit., 2003.
62. Van der Velden, op.cit., (2003): 12-14.
63. Vonken is of the opinion that if the Dutch legal system is veiy closely involved, which is the case if a woman holds Dutch nationality and both spouses have their regular residence in the Netherlands, then public order ought to be invoked against recognizing repudiation. Vonken, op.cit., Title 1.9.ipr., Art. 3-27.
64. The relevant argument ran as follows: "that the spouses' divorce was pronounced by Algerian judges, despite the woman's opposition, for the sole reason-accepted under Algerian law-that the power in marriage matters rests with the husband and that divorce should be pronounced by his will alone; that the appeal court deduced from this precisely that even if it resulted from a loyal and adversarial procedure, the decision granting recognition to a unilateral repudiation by the husband without giving judicial effect to any possible opposition on the part of his wife and depriving the competent authority of any power other than setding the financial consequences of the rupture of the marriage bond, is contrary to the principle of equality of the spouses at the time of the dissolution of the marriage", Cour de cassation (Ire Ch. Civ.) 17 February 2004, RCDIP 2004: 423ff.
65. Jordens-Cotran, op.cit., 2002: 140.