Short Reads

Dutch Supreme Court ruled on the time limit under which appeals must be brought

Dutch Supreme Court ruled on the time limit under which appeals must

Dutch Supreme Court ruled on the time limit under which appeals must be brought

22.09.2017 NL law

On 1 September 2017, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that the appeal period ends three months after the day on which the court has given its judgment, at the end of the day with the same number as the day on which the judgment was given (ECLI:NL:HR:2017:2225). However, when the appeal period of three months expires in a month that does not have a day with the same number due to the fact that it is shorter, the appeal period ends on the final day of that month. Therefore, it is important to be aware that the appeal period relating to judgments given on certain specific days might end earlier than expected.

Under Dutch law, the appeal period for substantive proceedings is three months. According to the General Extension of Time Limits Act, if the day on which the appeal period ends is a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday, this period is extended to the first following business day.

At first glance, this might seem like a clear-cut rule. For example, if the court gives a judgment on 9 October 2017, the appeal period ends on 9 January 2018. In practice, however, this can lead to some confusion. For example, if the court gives a judgment on 31 March, the appeal period is supposed to end on 31 June. However, such day does not exist, since 30 June is the final day of that month. In that case, does the appeal period end on 30 June or 1 July?

As follows from the wording of the Dutch Code of Civil Proceedings (DCCP), sections 339, 358, 402 and 426, the appellant has to bring an appeal against a judgment within three months, counting from (te rekenen van) the day of the judgment. Does this mean "three months beginning on", or, "a period of three months after the day of" the judgment? The Dutch Supreme Court ruled in 1919 that the wording of the DCCP should be explained in such way that an appellant has three months after the judgment to bring an appeal (HR 19 December 1919, NJ 1920, p. 82). This means that, using the example above, the appeal period would end on 30 June. This was confirmed by the Supreme Court in a ruling dated 12 March 2004 (ECLI:NL:HR:2004:AO1315).

On 1 September 2017, the Supreme Court considered the appeal period regarding a judgment which the subdistrict court had given on 29 February 2016, i.e. on the final day of a month that is shorter than the month in which the appeal period would expire (May). The claimant filed an appeal on 31 May 2016, possibly following the reasoning that the appeal period started on the day after the judgment (1 March 2016) which meant it would expire at the end of 31 May. However, the Court of Appeal ruled that the appeal had been lodged after expiry of the time limit.

Contrary to the opinion of the advocate general, the Supreme Court ruled that the appeal period ended on 29 May 2016 (at the end of the day) and therefore dismissed the appeal in cassation.

The Supreme Court took into account the following considerations. The rule that an appellant has to bring an appeal within three months counting from (te rekenen van)  the day of the judgment, means that the day of the judgment itself does not count. As a consequence, the appeal period ends three months after the judgment, at the end of the day with the same number as the day of the judgment. To illustrate this, the Supreme Court mentioned hypothetical judgments given on 28 or 29 February, 30 April and 30 September. The appeal period in such cases would end at the end of the day on 28 or 29 May, 30 July and 30 December respectively (of course notwithstanding applicability of the General Extension of Time Limits Act), because in any case an appellant has had three full months recourse to a remedy.

For the sake of completeness, the Supreme Court ruled that the only exception to this rule is when the appeal period of three months expires in a month that does not have a day with the same number due to the fact that it is shorter. In that case the appeal period ends on the final day of that month.

With this in mind, the appeal period relating to judgments given on 31 January, 31 March, 31 August, 29 and 30 November might end earlier than expected, namely on 30 April, 30 June, 30 November and 28 February respectively. In addition to this, the appeal period relating to judgments given on 28 February, 30 June, 30 September and 30 November ends on 28 May, 30 September, 30 December and 28 February. Therefore, when calculating the appeal period with regard to judgments given on these dates it is important to remember that the appeal period does not necessarily end on the final day of the month following three months after the month in which the judgment was given.

Related news

08.07.2020 NL law
Dutch State breached duty of care in providing information to victims and surviving relatives of plane crash

Short Reads - Earlier this year, the District Court in The Hague ruled that the Dutch State is liable vis-à-vis the victims and surviving relatives of a 1992 plane crash in Faro, Portugal. The State was found liable because it is responsible for the information provided by the Dutch Aviation Safety Board (a government agency) to the victims and surviving relatives. This information, on the causes of the crash was deemed by the court to be incorrect and incomplete.

Read more

07.07.2020 NL law
UBO-register gaat van start op 27 september 2020

Short Reads - Vandaag (7 juli 2020) is bekend geworden dat het UBO-register live gaat op 27 september 2020. De Wet tot implementatie van het UBO-register (“Implementatiewet”) en het bijbehorende inwerkingtredingsbesluit zijn vandaag in het Staatsblad verschenen. De wet treedt (deels) al op 8 juli 2020 in werking. Het betreft de verplichting voor rechtspersonen om informatie over hun UBO’s te verzamelen en bij te houden en de verplichting voor stichtingen om uitkeringen van 25 procent of minder bij te houden.

Read more

07.07.2020 NL law
Actualiteiten bescherming Nederlandse ondernemingen

Short Reads - Het afgelopen half jaar zijn er verschillende ontwikkelingen geweest op het gebied van bescherming van Nederlandse ondernemingen. COVID-19 zorgde daarbij voor een stroomversnelling. De verslechterde economische situatie als gevolg van COVID-19 maakt dat ondernemingen sneller bloot kunnen komen te staan aan ongewenste overnames of investeringen. Het Kabinet biedt ondernemingen handvatten ter bescherming tegen ongewenste overnames en investeringen als de nationale veiligheid in het geding komt.

Read more

02.07.2020 NL law
Aansprakelijkheid van de Staat bij vliegtuigcrash in Faro

Articles - In haar uitspraak van 8 januari 2020 oordeelde Rechtbank Den Haag dat de Nederlandse Staat onrechtmatig heeft gehandeld jegens de slachtoffers en nabestaanden van de vliegramp in Faro (Portugal) in 1992, waarbij een Nederlands toestel was betrokken. De onrechtmatigheid is gelegen in onjuiste dan wel onvolledige informatieverstrekking over de oorzaken van deze vliegramp door de toenmalige Raad voor de Luchtvaart, inmiddels opgegaan in de Onderzoeksraad voor Veiligheid (‘Raad’). 

Read more

07.07.2020 NL law
UBO-register starts on 27 September 2020

Short Reads - It was announced on 7 July that the UBO register will go live on 27 September 2020. The Act on the implementation of the UBO register ("Implementation Act") and the corresponding decree of entry into force have each been published today in the Bulletin of Acts and Decrees. The Act will (partially) enter into force on 8 July 2020, and concerns the obligation for legal entities to collect and maintain information about their UBOs and the obligation for foundations to maintain benefits of 25 percent or less.

Read more

27.05.2020 NL law
Accountants advising in real estate transactions: be aware of penalties in mortgage deeds

Short Reads - The Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden ruled on 3 March 2020 that an accountant did not properly advise her client with respect to a sale of real estate (ECLI:NL:GHARL:2020:1875). In her research concerning the consequences of the sale, the accountant had failed to properly review the contracts between the seller and the financier of the real estate. The accountant had therefore acted unlawfully.

Read more