Einde inhoudsopgave
Remedies for infringements of EU law in legal relationships between private parties (LBF vol. 18) 2019/4.2.8.7
4.2.8.7 The supplementary function of reasonableness and fairness
mr. I.V. Aronstein, datum 01-09-2019
- Datum
01-09-2019
- Auteur
mr. I.V. Aronstein
- JCDI
JCDI:ADS141415:1
- Vakgebied(en)
EU-recht / Algemeen
Burgerlijk procesrecht / Algemeen
Voetnoten
Voetnoten
For an English publication on the Dutch concept of good faith see Snijders 2014.
Article 6:216 BW stipulates that Article 6:248 BW also applies to all kinds of – versatile – juridical acts in patrimonial law, insofar as their nature allows this. This has been stressed by Article 6:216 BW. Hence, all juridical acts in the sphere of property are subject to the standards and requirements of reasonableness and fairness. Case law has had its share in broadening the scope of application of the open norm. Cf.HR15 November 1958, ECLI:NL:HR:1957:AG2023 (Baris/Riezenkamp). Asser/Sieburgh 6-III 2018/403-406. Consequently, the open norm applies too in for instance matrimonial property law or inheritance law: fields outside the scope of Book 6 BW.
See also Asser/Sieburgh 6-III 2018/398-401. Hesselink 1999, p. 25 and pp. 377-397. Some scholars even argue that the norm applies to private law in general: Van Schilfgaarde & De Winter 2009, pp. 36-37. Also the Hoge Raad has repeatedly ruled that parties to a legal relationship governed by reasonableness and fairness have to take into account each other’s legitimate interests E.g. HR15 November 1958, ECLI:NL:HR:1957:AG2023 (Baris/Riezenkamp)andHR19 October 2007, ECLI:NL:HR:2007:BA7024 (Vodafone/ETC).
According to Article 6:250 BW Article 6:258 BW is mandatory. Also Article 6:248 BW is of mandatory law, but is not referred to in Article 6:250 BW. Hartkamp and Sieburgh state that it is so obvious that this provision constitutes mandatory law that the legislature did not consider it necessary to refer to it in Article 6:250 BW. Cf. Asser/Sieburgh 6-III 2018/380.
Asser/Sieburgh 6-III 2018/398-401.HR15 November 1958, ECLI:NL:HR:1957:AG2023 (Baris/Riezenkamp) andHR19 October 2007, ECLI:NL:HR:2007:BA7024 (Vodafone/ETC). Hesselink 1999, pp. 25 and 377-397.
Cf. Snijders 2014, pp. 547-549.
Asser/Sieburgh 6-III 2018/386. Hondius, Mijnssen & Van Zeben 1982, p. 419.
Cf. Asser/Sieburgh 6-III 2018/378-386 and 403-406. Hondius, Mijnssen & Van Zeben 1982, pp. 418-419 and 754-756. Cf. Gerechtshof Amsterdam 14 April 1919, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:1919:6;HR31 October 1941, ECLI:NL:HR:1941:194; HR19 December 1958, ECLI:NL:HR:1958:172;HR16 January 1959, ECLI:NL:HR:1959:206 (Benzol I); HR29 June 1962, ECLI:NL:HR:1962:68 (Staalman/Horeca). HR4 December 1970, ECLI:NL:HR:1970:AB6961 (Bouchette/Van Limburg); andHR29 June 1979, ECLI:NL:HR:1979:AC6643. Note that the distinction between the supplementary function and the restrictive function of reasonableness and fairness has gradually faded and that these functions frequently intertwine. Besides, with regard to the supplementary function, Member States are rather equal in determining their meaning and application. See Aronstein 2011a, p. 36. Hesselink 1999, pp. 52 and 58-59. Van Gerven & Covemaeker 2006, pp. 106-108.
E.g.HR16 October 1992, ECLI:NL:HR:1992:ZC0717 (Bruinsma/Schuitmaker);HR12 January 2001,ECLI:NL:HR:2001:AA9434 (Vonk Montage/Van der Hoeven);HR14 December 2001, ECLI:NL:HR:2001:AD6098 (Van den Wildenberg/Van Leeuwen Systeembouw); andHR9 August 2002, ECLI:NL:HR:2002:AE2113 (De Bont/Oudenallen and Knoppen/NCM). See also Asser/Sieburgh 6-III 2018/403-406.
Article 6:2(1)BW and Article 6:248(1) BW. Asser/Sieburgh 6-III 2018/386.
Asser/Sieburgh 6-III 2018/386 and 403et seq.
218. Since 1992 reasonableness and fairness – the Dutch term for objective good faith1 – is codified in the Dutch Civil Code. Although the concept of reasonableness and fairness serves as the foundation of a number of leges speciales the general norm in Article 3:12BW2, Article 6:2BW and Article 6:248BW – applicable to all juridical acts3 – is a lex generalis that is considered to apply to all legal relationships in patrimonial law.4 The norm is of such a fundamental nature that it is considered to be of mandatory law5 and applicable to all legal relationships in private law.6 In the event that a national provision is disapplied as a result of a substantive compatibility review against Union law and a lacuna occurs in the horizontal legal relationship, Article 6:248(1) BW can be used to find a reasonable solution for the horizontal legal relationship insofar as remaining legislation does not regulate the consequences of the disapplication of the problematic rule: it has a gap-filling function.7 More precisely, Article 6:248(1) BW stipulates that an agreement not only has the legal effects that parties have agreed upon, but also those which, to the nature of the agreement, arise from law8, usage9, or the standards of reasonableness and fairness10.11
219. When a contract containsa lacuna, for instance resulting from the nullity of a clause on the basis of Article 13 WGBL, the lacuna should be remedied – i.e. the contract should be supplemented. With regard to the application of the supplementary function of reasonableness and fairness, and of open norms in general, the law as a whole has to be taken into account.12 When law or usage do not bring solace, reasonableness and fairness is an autonomous source for the supplementation of obligations.13 In supplementing an obligation, the character and the objective of the obligation, the legitimate interests of the parties and the legislative system have to be taken into account.14