Short Reads

A redundancy payment scheme for a bank manager and court's obligation to apply statutory provisions ex officio

A redundancy payment scheme for a bank manager and court's obligation

A redundancy payment scheme for a bank manager and court's obligation to apply statutory provisions ex officio

20.11.2018 NL law

What if an agreement between parties is in violation of a statutory provision, but the parties do not raise this point in proceedings? Should the court ascertain this violation ex officio and determine whether the contract is void or valid nonetheless (which may be the case under Dutch contract law)?

This question was recently submitted to the Dutch Supreme Court in a dispute about a redundancy payment scheme of a former manager at Rabobank. The manager had concluded the scheme with a local Rabobank office, before it merged with the national Rabobank. The national Rabobank did not agree to the scheme and suspended payment.

Statutory limit on redundancy payments for bank managers

In proceedings initiated by the former manager, Rabobank invoked a statutory provision under the Dutch Financial Supervision Act (Wet op het financieel toezicht) which limits redundancy payments of a bank manager to 100% of the beneficiary's fixed yearly income. Rabobank argued the redundancy scheme was in violation of this provision and therefore void. However, this argument was only introduced during the oral pleadings before the Court of Appeal, which was too late under Dutch civil procedure. Therefore, the Court of Appeal did not take this argument into consideration and upheld the redundancy payment scheme.

Decision of the Supreme Court

Before the Dutch Supreme Court, Rabobank argued that the limiting provision in the Financial Supervision Act was by nature a "public order" provision ("van openbare orde"). Consequently, the Court of Appeal should have applied the limiting provision ex officio, whether or not it had been invoked (in time) by Rabobank. In its judgment dated 1 June 2018 (ECLI:NL:HR:2018:818), the Supreme Court held that the provision limiting redundancy fee schemes to 100% of the fixed yearly income is important. It was introduced by the legislator to help prevent a new financial crisis, given that excessive "bonuses" were supposed to have contributed to the 2008 financial crisis. Yet the Supreme Court did not agree that the limiting provision was so fundamental that courts have to apply the provision ex officio as a public order provision. In addition, Rabobank argued that the Court of Appeal should have applied the limiting provision ex officio because, under the Financial Supervision Act, an agreement in violation of the limiting provision is void. The Supreme Court also rejected this argument. The mere sanction of nullity was not enough to establish an obligation for the court to apply a statutory provision ex officio, according to the Supreme Court.

Discussion

In this case, the Supreme Court was reluctant to assume an obligation to apply statutory provisions ex officio in proceedings about agreements. In my view, this approach should be welcomed. If courts too readily assume an obligation to apply statutory provisions ex officio, this would cripple the principle of party-autonomy in civil procedure. In civil procedure, it is up to the parties to decide which arguments to submit to the court. Applying statutory provisions ex officio should remain the exception. For a further discussion of the decision of the Supreme Court, including its approach in determining whether a statutory provision is a public order-provision, I refer to my publication in the 2018 November issue of the Dutch civil law journal Maandblad voor Vermogensrecht

Related news

02.07.2019 NL law
Debate night: HR Analytics: opportunity or threat?

Seminar - On 2 July 2019, Stibbe's Digital Economy Group will host a debate night in Amsterdam on the hot topic of HR analytics. During Stibbe's debate night, speakers from the world of business, politics, science and law will exchange views on HR analytics, how they can be used in practice, and their development in the context of employment and privacy law.

Read more

18.06.2019 NL law
Initial guidance from the Dutch State Secretary of Finance on the "Danish Cases" relating to beneficial ownership

Short Reads - On 26 February 2019 the European Court of Justice ("ECJ") ruled in various cases regarding the interpretation and non-application of the Parent-Subsidiary Directive ("PSD") and Interest and Royalties Directive ("IRD") in the context of tax avoidance and beneficial ownership (the so-called "Danish Cases").

Read more

25.06.2019 LU law
The dawn of a new era of cross-border mobility within the EU?

Seminar - François Bernard, Senior Associate at Stibbe Luxembourg, will conduct a seminar in Luxembourg on 25 June in collaboration with Legitech on Directive proposal COM2018 (241 final) amending the cross-border merger regime currently enshrined in Directive (EU) 2017/1132 and introducing a new regime applicable to cross-border conversions and divisions.

Read more

18.06.2019 NL law
Countdown. Een cursus aftellen voor juristen

Articles - Hoe lang duurt een verzetstermijn nu precies? Voor juridische fusie schrijft art. 2:316 lid 2 BW voor dat tot een maand nadat alle te fuseren rechtspersonen de fusie hebben aangekondigd iedere schuldeiser bij de rechtbank tegen het voorstel tot fusie in verzet kan komen. Art. 2:317 lid 2 BW bepaalt vervolgens dat een besluit tot fusie een maand na de dag waarop alle fuserende rechtspersonen de fusie hebben aangekondigd kan worden genomen. De vraag is wanneer nu precies die verzetstermijn eindigt.

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring