[If you do use the blog for research, practice submission or database purposes, citation would be appreciated, to the blog as a whole and /or to specific blog posts. Many have suggested I should turn the blog into a paid for, subscription service however I have resisted doing so. Proper reference to how the blog is useful to its readers, will help keeping this so.]
X v Y ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2025:1020 at the courtroom of Den Haag, appearing upon attraction is an fascinating ‘residual’ utility of the Rome I Regulation 593/2008 and a very good case to understand ordre public.
The events had married in Iran in 2009. The divorce was established by the courts at The Hague in 2022. Jurisdiction is established below Regulation 2016/1103 (‘Rome IVa) and [5.1], with respect to the dower, below residual Dutch regulation.
The primary occasion courtroom held that no lis pendens could possibly be accepted with concurrent divorce proceedings in Iran, as a consequence of there not being a recognition Treaty with Iran below which any Iranian discovering will be recognised and enforced in The Netherlands. This a part of the ruling had not been appealed.
The courtroom additionally held that the events’ prenuptial preparations have to be enforced, and that ordre public issues don’t forestall that.
The prenup gave the spouse a 50% share within the husband’s property, until it was the spouse who initiated divorce proceedings; and it included the husband’s dower preparations, consisting of a (modest) money fee and moreover 150 Bahar-Azadi gold cash. Fee is certainly by the use of dower and never dowry as I had first erroneously reported on X, Bluesky and Linkedin. Thanks
The primary occasion courtroom argued that ordre public have to be utilized in advert hoc vogue relatively than throughout the board; that the spouse had negotiated a pre-nup which canceled out the ordinarily relevant rule that spouses don’t share their property, as a substitute every protecting their separate property, each that introduced into the wedding and that acquired earlier than it; that subsequently if the spouse initiated the divorce, she was introduced again to the scenario as exists had there not been a prenup (and the identical scenario which utilized to the person at any charge); and that the Dutch authorized order’s objection to the strain the person could subsequently placed on the spouse to provoke the divorce, isn’t of such an intense nature as to offend ordre public.
As for the dower, the primary occasion courtroom held that 110 cash be paid instantly and an extra 40 when the ex-husband’s monetary preparations so enable: this adopted from the applying of Iranian regulation, as clarified by skilled report, that any dower above 110 cash could also be postponed to take account of the husband’s monetary scenario.
The attraction courtroom seemed on the relevant regulation difficulty from a extra express worldwide /European angle than the primary occasion courtroom.
For the matrimonial property difficulty (the 50% difficulty), the courtroom, just like the events, applies the 1978 Hague Conference. Consequently Iranian regulation applies. Somewhat than the primary occasion courtroom’s evaluation of ordre public viz the Dutch provisions on identical, the attraction courtroom assessments it in opposition to Article 14 of the Hague Conference, but it involves the identical conclusion. Like the primary occasion courtroom it does so with a lot reference to the usual Iranian apply. [5.10] ff it holds obiter that even when the supply had been to offend Dutch ordre public, the influence of that discovering would give the spouse an inalienable proper to 50% of the husband’s share (not reciprocated for the husband) which in flip would offend ordre public for it could go straight in opposition to Iranian regulation’s intention each social gathering autonomy and safety for the spouse: viz that latter component the courtroom factors out that in accordance with the relevant Dutch regulation provisions for upkeep, the spouse will likely be sorted, on prime of the dower entitlement which the courtroom addresses subsequent, [5.13] ff:
Rome I A1(2)b excludes “obligations arising out of household relationships and relationships deemed by the regulation relevant to such relationships to have comparable results, together with upkeep obligations” and in (c) it excludes “obligations arising out of matrimonial property regimes, property regimes of relationships deemed by the regulation relevant to such relationships to have comparable results to marriage, and wills and succession”.
The dower component of the declare within the case clearly isn’t lined by Rome I itself. Nevertheless The Netherlands, like as an illustration Belgium, applies Rome I ‘even when it doesn’t apply’ – as lengthy the dower will be thought of a contract below the related Dutch PrivIntLaw provision (not: the Rome I autonomous interpretation) which the courtroom [5.14] holds it’s. [5.17] That the money funds have been made, isn’t contested.
The husband claims that the spouse divorced him by khul, or khula, with relinquishment of the dower. The courtroom [5.21] disagrees. The divorce is topic to Dutch regulation, which doesn’t have a khul-type process. As for the ordre public arguments below Dutch regulation (which apply right here; opposite to the matriomonial property points the place as famous above, the Hague Conference applies) the attraction courtroom confirms the decrease courtroom’s findings. A dower is a component and parcel of Iranian regulation. The case at hand doesn’t offend Dutch ordre public with such depth that fee of the dower have to be dismissed.
[5.21] lastly the courtroom holds that events don’t think about that the dower funds of the gold cash are lined by Iranian export sanctions.
An fascinating case.
Geert.
