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

07.04.2020 NL law
OECD issues guidance on the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on tax treaties

Short Reads - As noted in our Short Read of 31 March 2020, multiple states have been implementing travel restrictions and mandatory quarantines in an effort to stop the spread of the corona virus (COVID-19). Governments have also taken measures to mitigate the economic impact of the virus (we refer to our Tax Alerts of 17 and 19 March 2020 regarding measures taken by the Dutch government in this context).

Read more

06.04.2020 BE law
Coronavirus and insurance

Short Reads - The coronavirus will impact almost all aspects of the insurance sector and will trigger many insurance policies. It is important to analyse your insurance policy terms and conditions and to determine whether and to what extent you are covered.

Read more

07.04.2020 NL law
E-book β€˜Tijdelijke noodmaatregel overbrugging voor behoud van werkgelegenheid (NOW)’

Articles - De gevolgen van de maatregelen die zijn getroffen wegens de uitbraak van het coronavirus (COVID-19), treffen vrijwel alle werkgevers. Op 17 maart 2020 kondigde de regering een ‘noodpakket banen en economie’ aan met tijdelijke financiële regelingen voor onder andere werkgevers, mkb’ers en zelfstandig ondernemers. Deze maatregelen zijn bedoeld om werkgelegenheid te behouden en inkomens te beschermen.

Read more

06.04.2020 NL law
Rechtsbescherming onder de NOW

Short Reads - Vanaf 2 april 2020 is de Tijdelijke noodmaatregel overbrugging voor behoud van werkgelegenheid (NOW) van kracht, en kunnen werkgevers subsidie als tegemoetkoming in de loonkosten aanvragen bij het UWV. Het online aanvraagloket is vanaf 6 april 2020 geopend.

Read more

This website uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential for the technical functioning of our website and you cannot disable these cookies if you want to read our website. We also use functional cookies to ensure the website functions properly and analytical cookies to personalise content and to analyse our traffic. You can either accept or refuse these functional and analytical cookies.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring