Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Netherlands

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
International Handbook of Cooperative Law

Abstract

The Netherlands has a long tradition in the development of highly competitive cooperatives in several areas of the agricultural and food processing industry like dairy, sugar root, potato and stark products, fruit and vegetables, meat processing and agricultural service cooperatives as well as in retail banking and insurance. Cooperatives are also used for other sectors, such as housing, condominium, health care and educational organizations. Although the current number of cooperatives in the Netherlands is declining vis-à-vis non-cooperative business forms considering their number in the national commercial registers, agricultural cooperatives and banking cooperatives show a stable increase in company turnover and growth. Although the Netherlands legal environment does not mandate the use of the cooperative as a legal business form for agricultural cooperatives, it is still the dominant business in which agricultural producers organize their joint operations. Part of the explanation for this phenomenon is the long-standing legislative tradition with regard to cooperatives in the Netherlands to facilitate a suitable and flexible legal business form that over time has provided ample space to adjust the cooperative statutes to the organizational needs of its users.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For a complete and recent economic overview of the cooperative sector in the Netherlands and its relative position in Europe: Special issue Coöperatie [Cooperative], May 2012, n. 610, titled: Coöperatie +. De economische betekenis van de coöperatie [Cooperative+. The economic impact of the cooperative], publication on behalf of the The Netherlands’ Cooperative Council for agriculture (NCR), The Hague, as well as Cogeca, Agricultural cooperatives in Europe. Main issues and trends, Brussels, 16 September 2010, pp. 1–175.

  2. 2.

    In 1994, 6,265 cooperatives were registered in the commercial register, 6,273 in 1998 and 4,771 in 2011. Part of the data is diluted by the fact that there are several secondary or federated cooperatives that operate as a cooperative group. The Commercial Register NV produced this data.

  3. 3.

    Examples from the Netherlands are: the Rabobank Group, FrieslandCampina, The Greenery, Forfarmers and Royal Cosun. We define transnational cooperatives as cooperatives with members from other Member States, and international cooperatives as cooperatives with patronage-like transactions with non-members in other Member States. In both cases, the cross-border dimension required for the establishment of an SCE is most likely present, since in the latter case the cooperatives operate through subsidiaries in the other Member State. See art. 2, SCE R.

  4. 4.

    A translation of the Second Book of the NCC on Legal Persons can be found in: Warendorf et al. (2009). It is a non-official translation, also accessible on line via the paid website of Kluwer Law International.

  5. 5.

    Before the NCC in 1992 came into force, cooperatives were regulated in one single act, the Wet op de Coöperatieve Vereenigingen [Act on Cooperative Associations] 1925, replacing the initial act of 1876. The 1925 Act contained a comprehensive set of rules for cooperatives, the core of which has been transferred into the NCC 1992, however separating specific rules for cooperatives from the general rules for associations. However, the major part of the current general rules for associations are transplants from the 1925 Wet op de Coöperatieve Vereenigingen. For an historical overview of the regulatory development, van der Sangen (1999) (with a summary in English).

  6. 6.

    Article 3, Second Book, NCC is generally referred to as article 2:3 NCC.

  7. 7.

    The statutory two-tier regime for cooperatives has been extensively analyzed by Galle (1993), Schreurs-Engelaar (1995), and by van der Sangen (1999), Chapter 4, § 6.4, pp. 263–270 and van der Sangen (2002), pp. 100–105.

  8. 8.

    The option to facilitate cross-border mergers between SCEs and cooperatives from other Member States has not been used while implementing the Tenth Directive into Netherlands law. See art. 3, par. 2, Tenth Directive on cross-border mergers, Directive 2005/56/EC of 26 October 2005, OJ L 310/1 of 25 November 2005.

  9. 9.

    We would like to refer to Dirks (2011), pp. 231–250. However, this instrument has not been used by members of cooperatives to scrutinize the cooperative’s strategy and policy on a regular basis. See e.g. the cases OK 21 June 2007, JOR 2007/182 (The Greenery) and OK 12 April 2010, JOR 2010/183 (Almatis).

  10. 10.

    However, guidelines on the interpretation of accounting rules for cooperative are also to be found in self-regulatory rules in the Richtlijnen voor de jaarverslagging [Guidelines for accounting], in particular with regard to redeemable capital instruments provided for by members. On this issue, van der Sangen (2012), pp. 438–449.

  11. 11.

    van der Sangen (2010), pp. 779–801.

  12. 12.

    Wet Vereenvoudiging en flexibilisering bv-recht, Parliamentary Papers 31 058 (the so-called Flex-BV Act) and Invoeringswet Vereenvoudiging en flexibilisering bv-recht, Parliamentary Papers 32 426 (the so-called Implementation Act Flex-BV), entered into force 1 October 2012. For an overview: Kroeze and Wezeman (2010), pp. 181–197.

  13. 13.

    In this respect, it is questionable whether the tax facility in the Netherlands Corporate Income Tax 1969 for cooperatives constitutes an infringement of the EU rules on state aid, giving the ruling of the ECJ in the joint cases C-78/08—C-80/08 (Ministero dell’Economia e della Finanze v Paint Graphos Sarl), 8 September 2011: the core principle to which a cooperative has to adhere in order not to contravene against rules on state aid, is mutuality. Given the strict requirements, among which is the requirement for immediate distribution of profits according to the volume of member patronage, we assume that the concept of mutuality is covered by the requirements to apply for the tax facility for cooperatives in the Corporate Income Tax 1969. See also § 11.

  14. 14.

    Council Regulation (EC), n. 1435/2003 of 22 July 2003 on the Statute for a European Cooperative Society (SCE), OJ L 207/1 of 18 August 2003.

  15. 15.

    Act Implementing Directive 2003/72/EC of 22 July 2003, OJ L207, leading to amendments of the Netherlands Act on the Involvement of employees in European Legal Persons (‘Wet rol werknemers bij Europese rechtspersonen’) (Staatsblad 2006, 361). This Netherlands act was initially passed to implement the SE Directive on employee involvement. After the introduction of the SCE and the need for implementation of the SCE Directive on employee involvement, the provisions related to the SCE were inserted into this act, in Chapter 2. The act implementing the SCE Directive was passed on 17 March 2005 and came into force 18 August 2006 by Royal Decree (Staatsblad 2006, 362).

  16. 16.

    On these principles: van der Sangen (2005), pp. 167–214.

  17. 17.

    For an overview, Galle (2006), pp. 255–260.

  18. 18.

    Essentially what is required is some kind of patronage. See Hansmann (1996), p. 12.

  19. 19.

    Which is the long-standing tradition of the Rabobank Group. The general opinion in legal scholarship confirms this practice to be in line with current cooperative law. See however Kemperink (2006), p. 234, arguing that members are entitled to ask for a distribution of profits at all times.

  20. 20.

    Bijman et al. (2012) and Bijman and van Dijk (2009).

  21. 21.

    van der Bijl (2010), pp. 130–136 and Asser et al. (2012), nr. 224.

  22. 22.

    van der Bijl (2010), p. 130.

  23. 23.

    Dijk and Van der Ploeg (2007), p. 59 and 362; Asser et al. (1997), nr. 158.

  24. 24.

    For example, the Netherlands Act on Financial Supervision (Wet financieel toezicht), implementing not only capital market regulation, but also supervision of banks, insurance companies and pension funds.

  25. 25.

    No reference was made in the Parliamentary Papers with regard to cooperative legislation to the ICA Principles. On the subject whether and to what extent Netherlands agricultural cooperatives adhere to the ICA Principles: van der Sangen (2012), pp. 438–449, arguing that the absence of a legal obligation to adhere to cooperative ideological principles formed an important driving factor for the development of large agricultural cooperatives in the Netherlands to facilitate the regulation of growing heterogeneity between members.

  26. 26.

    Dortmond (2007), as well as van der Sangen (2007), p. 5 and 68 respectively; Dijk and Van der Ploeg (2007), p. 44, arguing that an association and a cooperative requires more than two members.

  27. 27.

    Asser et al. (2012), nr. 216.

  28. 28.

    In fact, this possibility has been used in practice for tax purposes in order to circumvent the payment of the Dividend Withholding Tax, because the Dividend Withholding Tax is not applicable to cooperatives. What is needed is that a parent company establishes a sub-holding cooperative with one single member (the parent), while the sub-holding cooperative becomes the single shareholder of the subsidiary. Distributions of profits from the subsidiary to the parent through the cooperative sub-holding were, until 1 January 2012, not taxed with a Dividend Withholding Tax.

  29. 29.

    Parliamentary Papers II 2011/12, 33 003. On this subject: Nillesen and van den Hurk (2012), pp. 430–437.

  30. 30.

    Dijk and Van der Ploeg (2007), p. 342. From article 8 of the Act implementing the EEIG Regulation follows that an EEIG established according to Netherlands law can be transformed into a cooperative and vice versa. However, in practice this facility has not been used. See Act of 28 June 1989, Staatsblad [Official Gazette] 1989, 245, implementing Regulation 2137/85 of 25 July 1985, OJ L 199/1.

  31. 31.

    It is argued that this situation, although legally accepted, should be the exception to the general idea that the cooperative intents to associate members. The exception is primarily used to cover the situation that legal persons being members of the cooperative are merging into one single membership. van der Sangen et al. (2007), p. 5.

  32. 32.

    Lang and Weidmüller (2005), nr. 39.

  33. 33.

    In order to impose financial obligations upon members, case law requires an explicit provision in the articles of association, which provision identifies these obligations as specific as possible in this way, art. 2:34a NCC protects minority members from a board decision to recover the cooperative’s losses, even when a majority in the general meeting supports the board’s decision. Furthermore, members are entitled to immediately withdraw from the cooperative unless this option has been excluded in the articles of association (art. 2:36, par. 3, NCC). Dijk and Van der Ploeg (2007), pp. 134–136 en Asser et al. (2012), nr. 54.

  34. 34.

    Dortmond (1991), van der Sangen (1999), pp. 405–412 and van der Sangen et al. (2007), pp. 168 and 169.

  35. 35.

    While implementing art. 59, par. 3, SCE R, the Netherlands legislature explicitly referred to this existing option in art. 2:38, par. 3, NCC in its Memorandum to the Act implementing the SCE Regulation, Parliamentary Papers II 30 382, nr. 3, p. 15. On this subject: van Veen et al. (2006), p. 68 and Asser et al. (2012), nr. 476. It is worth mentioning that the voting restriction in art. 8 Act implementing the SCE Regulation, is maximized to 25 % of all votes, not the votes that have actually been cast in the general meeting, which is the criterion in art. 2:38, par. 3, NCC.

  36. 36.

    Essentially, this means that a cooperative can be established without any equity raised by members. However, according to case law the management board may be held liable by creditors of the cooperative if the management board enters into contracts, knowing that creditors will not be paid by the cooperative and will have no recourse on the assets of the cooperative. HR 6 October 1989, NJ 1990, 286 (Beklamel).

  37. 37.

    van der Sangen (2012), pp. 438–449.

  38. 38.

    van der Sangen (1999), Chapter 6, describing several techniques employed by Netherlands cooperative and van der Sangen (2010), pp. 145–175 and van Bekkum and Bijman (2006). One recent example is Cooperative From Farmers and its sub-holding For Farmers that introduced tradable securities on a multi-trading facility.

  39. 39.

    Dortmond (1991), Galle (1993), passim, van der Sangen (1999), passim and van der Sangen (2012), pp. 438–449, van der Bijl (2010), p. 130 and Asser et al. (2012), nr. 225.

  40. 40.

    Art. 2:55, par. 5, NCC and HR 26 March 1976, NJ 1977/612 (Sol/Cebeco).

  41. 41.

    This is very common for agricultural cooperatives in the Netherlands. See on this subject and the adjustments of board models induced by this practice: Bijman and van Dijk (2009), as well as Chaddad and Iliopolous (2012).

  42. 42.

    On the statutory two-tier regime for cooperatives, not to be confused with the statutory two-tier regime for private companies limited by shares: Galle (1993), Schreurs-Engelaar (1995), and by van der Sangen (1999), Chapter 4, § 6.4, pp. 263–270 and van der Sangen (2002), pp. 100–105, as well as Asser et al. (2012), nr. 261–272.

  43. 43.

    van Veen et al. (2006), p. 196.

  44. 44.

    These board models have been described by Schreurs-Engelaar (1995), van der Sangen (1999), pp. 129–140 and Galle (2007), pp. 11–31.

  45. 45.

    van der Sangen, et al (2007), p. 24. In the same vein: Bijman and van Dijk (2009).

  46. 46.

    Dortmond (1991), passim, van der Sangen (1999), passim, van der Sangen et.al (2007), p. 168, P.C.S. van der Bijl (2010), p. 130 and Asser et al. (2012), nr. 225. According to Netherlands law, the adjudication of voting rights to non-members is admissible under the conditions set out in art. 2:38, par. 3, NCC. It does not, however, imply that they become a formal member of the cooperative.

  47. 47.

    For example, the Rabobank Group complies with the current Netherlands CGC on a voluntary basis.

  48. 48.

    Engelaar (2012), pp. 409–417.

  49. 49.

    According to the definition of a cooperative in art. 2:53a, par. 1, NCC, a cooperative is not allowed to act as an insurance company for its members. According to art. 3:20 Act on Financial Supervision, this is the prerogative of the mutual insurance company (onderlinge waarborgmaatschappij) as defined in art. 2:53a, par. 2, NCC, the public company (naamloze vennootschap) or the SE. However, it is debatable whether a cooperative is allowed to operate as the parent company of a public company with insurance activities. Asser et al. (2012), nr. 231.

  50. 50.

    ECJ 13 December 2005, C-411/03 (Sevic Systems). On this issue: van der Sangen et al. (2007), p. 77, van Veen et al. (2006), p. 6 and Asser et al. (2012), nr. 454.

  51. 51.

    See van Boxel and Rensen (2012), pp. 450–459.

  52. 52.

    The tax regime for cooperatives has been described by: Jansen (1996); Kemperink (2006); Nillesen (2009); and Nillesen and van den Hurk (2012), pp. 430–437.

  53. 53.

    Jansen (1996), p. 199, van der Geld (2000) and van Weeghel (2007), p. 85ff and p. 99ff respectively, as well as Nillesen and van den Hurk (2012), pp. 430–437.

  54. 54.

    On this issue: van der Bijl (2010), p. 130 and Nillesen (2009), p. 29.

  55. 55.

    Information to be found on: www.cooperatie.nl.

  56. 56.

    However, this is not specific for the Netherlands, but applies to the EU as a whole and relates to the Common Market Organization and the position of agricultural cooperatives and producer organizations in it. See Gerbrandy and de Vries (2011), mapping competition law regulation for agricultural cooperatives and producer organizations.

  57. 57.

    In this respect, we would like to refer to the analysis and conclusions of van der Sangen (2010), pp. 779–801.

References

  • Asser C, Van der Grinten WCL, Maeijer 2-II JMM (1997) De rechtspersoon [The legal person]. W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink, Zwolle

    Google Scholar 

  • Asser C, Rensen GJC, Blanco Fernandez JM (2012) Mr. C. Assers Handleiding tot de beoefening van het Nederlands Burgerlijk Recht. 2. Rechtspersonenrecht. Deel III. Overige Rechtspersonen. Vereniging, coöperatie, onderlinge waarborgmaatschappij, stichting, kerkgenootschap en Europese rechtsvormen [Other legal persons. Association, Cooperative, Mutual Company, Foundation, and European Business Forms]. Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Bijman J, van Dijk G (2009) Corporate governance in agricultural cooperatives: a perspective from the Netherlands. Paper presented at the international workshop rural cooperation in the 21st century: lessons from the past, pathways to the future, Rehovot, 15–17 June 2009

    Google Scholar 

  • Bijman J, Hendrikse G, van Oijen A (2012) Accommodating two worlds in one organization: changing board models in agricultural cooperatives, available at ssrn, abstract 2156783

    Google Scholar 

  • Chadded F, Iliopolous C (2012) Ownership and control in agricultural cooperatives. Paper prepared for the international conference on cooperative responses to global challenges, Humboldt University, Berlin, 21–23 March 2012

    Google Scholar 

  • Dijk PL, Van der Ploeg TJ (2007) Van Vereniging en stichting, coöperatie en onderlinge waarborgmaatschappij [On Association and Foundation, Cooperative and Mutual Company], 5th edn. Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Dirks GAD (2011) Het recht van enquête bij de concerncoöperatie [The right of inquiry in case of a holding cooperative]. In: Holtzer M et al (eds) Geschriften vanwege de Vereniging Corporate Litigation 2010-2011 [Publications on behalf of the Association Corporate Litigation 2010-2011]. Kluwer, Deventer, pp 231–250

    Google Scholar 

  • Dortmond PJ (1991) De coöperatie: van vereniging naar houdstermaatschappij en beursrechtspersoon [The cooperative: from association towards listed firm]. Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Dortmond PJ (2007) De zuivere holdingcoöperatie: een coöperatie? [The pure holding cooperative: Is it a cooperative?]. In van der Sangen GJH et al (eds), De co­peratie: een eigentijdse rechtsvorm. Boom legal publishers, The Hague, pp 1–4

    Google Scholar 

  • Engelaar ME (2012) Corporate Governance bij coöperaties; de NCR-code 2011 [Corporate Governance in cooperatives; the NCR-Code 2011]. Ondernemingsrecht 2012(10/11):409–417

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Sangen GJH (2007) Grensoverschrijdende reorganisaties van coöperaties [Cross-border reorganizations of cooperatives]. In: van der Sangen GJH et al (eds) De coöperatie, een eigentijdse rechtsvorm [The cooperative, a contemporary legal business form]. Boom legal publishers, The Hague, p 5, 68

    Google Scholar 

  • Galle RCJ (1993) De coöperatie [The cooperative]. W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink, Zwolle

    Google Scholar 

  • Galle RCJ (2006) The Societas Cooperativa Europea (SCE) and National Cooperatives in Comparative Perspective. Eur Company Law 3(6):255–260

    Google Scholar 

  • Galle RCJ (2007) De bestuurlijke inrichting van de moderne coöperatie. Coöperaties van A tot Z [The internal governance of the modern cooperative. Cooperatives from A to Z]. In van der Sangen GJH et al (eds) De coöperatie: een eigentijdse rechtsvorm. Boom legal publishers, The Hague, pp 11–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerbrandy A, de Vries S (2011) Agricultural policy and EU competition law. Possibilities and limits for self-regulation in the dairy sector. Eleven International Publishing, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansmann H (1996) The ownership of enterprise. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen JJM (1996) Belastingheffing van coöperaties en haar leden [Taxation of cooperatives and their members]. Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemperink JBWM (2006) Vraagstukken rond (terug)storting op nv/bv-aandelen en van coöperatie [Questions on contributions on private company shares and on cooperatives]. Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroeze MJ, Wezeman JB (2010) Reform of Dutch private company law. In: McCahery JA, Timmerman L, Vermeulen EPM (eds) Private company law reform. International and European perspectives. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 181–197

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lang J, Weidmüller L (2005) Genossenschaftsgezetz [Act on cooperatives], 34th edn. De Gruyter, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Nillesen JTL (2009) Belastingheffing van coöperaties [Taxation of cooperatives]. Kluwer, Fed fiscale brochures Vpb, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Nillesen JTL, van den Hurk HTPM (2012) De coöperatie in investeringsstructuren – fiscale aspecten [The cooperative in investment structures – tax aspects]. Ondernemingsrecht 2012

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreurs-Engelaar ME (1995) Organen van de coöperatie [Corporate bodies of the cooperative]. Kluwer, Deventer (With a summary in English, Chapter 4)

    Google Scholar 

  • van Bekkum OF, Bijman J (2006) Innovations in cooperative ownership: converted and hybrid listed cooperatives. Paper presented at the 7th international conference on management in agrifood chains and networks, Ede, 31 May–2 June 2006

    Google Scholar 

  • van Boxel HJMM, Rensen GJC (2012) Crossing borders met coöperaties [Crossing borders with cooperatives]. Ondernemingsrecht 2012 3(10/11):450–459

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Bijl PCS (2010) De coöperatie als houdstermaatschappij: houdstercoöperatie of concerncoöperatie [The cooperative as a holding company: a holding cooperative or a group cooperative]. Ondernemingsrecht (3):130–136

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Geld JAG (2007) Belastingheffing van coöperaties in Nederland, In: van der Sangen GJH et al (eds) De coöperatie: een eigentijdse rechtsvorm. Boom legal publishers, The Hague, pp 85ff

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Sangen GJH (1999) Rechtskarakter en financiering van de coöperatie [Legal nature and financing of the cooperative]. W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink, Zwolle (Chapter 3)

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Sangen GJH (2002) De structuurregeling bij coöperatie en onderlinge waarborgmaatschappij (ook) aanpassen? [The statutory two-tier regime for cooperatives and mutual companies to be adjusted?]. In: Ondernemingsrecht [Company Law] 3/4, pp 100–105

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Sangen GJH (2005) The European Company and the involvement of employees. In: Dumoulin SHMA et al (eds) The European company. Corporate governance and cross-border reorganizations from a legal and tax perspective. Boom legal publishers, The Hague, pp 167–214

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Sangen GJH (2010) National Report for the Netherlands. In: Cooperatives Europe, Euricse, Ekai (eds) Study on the implementation of the Regulation 1435/2003 on the Statute for a European Cooperative Society (SCE), pp 779–801

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Sangen GJH (2010) De evolutie van de coöperatie en haar financiering [The evolution of the cooperative and its financing]. In: van der Sangen GJH et al (eds) De coöperatie, een eigentijdse rechtsvorm. Boom Juridische Uitgevers, Den Haag, pp 145–175

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Sangen GJH (2012) Financiering van coöperaties. Tussen efficiency en fairness [Financing of cooperatives. Between efficiency and fairness]. In: Ondernemingsrecht [Company law]. 2012(10/11):438–449

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Sangen GJH et al (eds) (2007) De coöperatie, een eigentijdse rechtsvorm [The cooperative, a contemporary legal business form]. Boom legel publishers, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • van Veen WJM et al (eds) (2006) De Europese Coöperatieve vennootschap (SCE) [The European Cooperative Society (SCE)]. Serie Recht en Praktijk, vol 147. Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • van Weeghel S (2007) Coöperaties, dividendbelasting en internationale belastingheffing [Cooperatives, dividend withholding tax and international taxation] In: van der Sangen GJH et al (eds) De coöperatie: een eigentijdse rechtsvorm. Boom legal publishers, The Hague, pp 99ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Warendorf HCS, Thomas R, Curry-Summer I (2009) The civil code of the Netherlands. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business Law, Tilburg Law School, Tilburg, The Netherlands

    Ger J. H. van der Sangen

Authors
  1. Ger J. H. van der Sangen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ger J. H. van der Sangen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Buenos Aires, Argentina

    Dante Cracogna

  2. University of Molise, Campobasso, Italy

    Antonio Fici

  3. University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

    Hagen Henrÿ

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

van der Sangen, G.J.H. (2013). Netherlands. In: Cracogna, D., Fici, A., Henrÿ, H. (eds) International Handbook of Cooperative Law. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30129-2_25

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation