We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 January 2008
Last year saw the 200th anniversary of one of the most influential national codes,1 the French Code civil of 1804. The celebration of this Napoleonic achievement has led in turn to renewed discussions on the understanding, purpose and contemporary form of codification.2 At the same time 2004 saw Belgium adopt its very first Code of private international law.3 Codification is so closely associated with continental Europe4 that it may be startling to read that civilian legal systems are not entirely codified. In fact despite the arguable closeness of domestic substantive rules and conflict of law rules, this area of law largely escaped the codification process of the 19th century. What is more remarkable is the fact that the new Code de droit international privé appears to be a codification in the classical form. It represents not simply a compendium of existing statutes but a detailed reform of the entire area.5 It is certainly true that in contemporary Europe the elaboration of classical codes, once viewed as the expression of affirmed political power,6 has become a rather exceptional occurrence. This is not to say that codification is no longer a fundamental constant of the civilian tradition. Civil law systems are still essentially founded on the precedence of enacted and in principle codified7 general rules on the basis of which solutions are to be deduced. However, codification is polymorphic,8 and codes, which ideally display a number of attributes— coherence, logical structure, absence of contradiction, conformity of codified and applied law, completeness, clarity, ease of use and publicity9—may seek to achieve the general purpose of the formal simplification or systematization of the law in different ways. Indeed in Europe the aspiration of creating ‘perfect laws’10 that prevailed throughout the golden age of classical codification in the 19th century, has largely given way to less demanding forms of codification.11 Recent years have concurrently seen movements of decodification12 as well as recodification,13 and witnessed the creation of generally less ambitious codification-compilations14 which gather and order existing rules in specific areas without engaging in reform.15 This final development ought not to be regarded as surprising as the combination of reform and codification is far from simple:
experience shows that it is very difficult truly to do both at the same time […] The reform shall precede the codification process so that the latter may integrate the former, or the codification shall precede the reform in order to facilitate its realisation: it is more opportune and more intelligible to reform in view of the legal state clearly revealed by codification.16
1 The Code Napoléon was not the first modern civil code to be elaborated in Europe; over a century before the Danish civil code had entered into forces first in Denmark itself (Danske Lov, 1683) and then in Norway (Norske Lov, 1687). However, the French code is notable for the strong influence it has had on other legal systems, a fact that has been attributed to the Napoleonic conquests, colonization or its inherent qualities (among which its revolutionary legacy).Google ScholarSee, eg, Zweigert, K & Kötz, H, An Introduction to Comparative Law (3rd ednOUP Oxford 1998) 98–118.Google Scholar
2 Lequette, Y and Leveneur, LLe Code civil: 1804–2004: un passé, un présent, un avenir (Dalloz Paris 2004)Google Scholar; Cour de cassation Le Code civil, 1804–2004: le livre du bicentenaire (Dalloz Litec Paris 2004)Google Scholar; ‘Bicentenaire du Code civil’ Le Dalloz 8 Apr 2004Google Scholar; ‘1804–2004: Bicentenaire du Code civil’, Journal des Tribunaux (2004), 224 et seq.Google ScholarSee also Clive, E ‘Thoughts from a Scottish Perspective on the Bicentenary of the French Civil Code’ 8 Edinburgh Law Review (2004) 415–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3 Loi du 16 juillet 2004 portant le Code de droit international privé, Moniteur Belge 27 July 2004, ed 1, 57344–57374. An English translation by Clijmans, C and Torremans, P, is available onhne: <www.ipr.be/data/B.WbIPR%5bEN%5d.pdf>..>Google Scholar
4 On the different acceptation of the notion of codification in common law systems, see Tallon, D ‘La codification dans le système de common law’ Droits (1998) 39–47Google Scholar; North, P ‘Problems of Codification in a Common Law System’ RabelsZ (1982) 490–508.Google Scholar
5 Cf Braibant, G, v° codification, Encyclopedia universalis.Google Scholar
6 The code was viewed as serving the personal prestige of the leader (Hammurabi, Justinian, Napoleon …) or the unity of a newly-emerged nation.Google Scholar
7 On the close relationship between enacted and codified rules, see Bureau, D, v° Codification, in Alland, D and Rials, S (ed) Dictionnaire de la Culture juridique (Lamy-PUF Paris 2003).Google Scholar
8 On the different types of codifications see Oppetit, B. ‘De la Codification’ Recueil Dalloz 1996 Chr 33.Google Scholar
9 Vanderlinden, JLe concept de code en Europe occidentale du XIIIé au XIXé siécle—essai de définition (Institut de sociologie Brussels ULB 1967) 163 et seq.Google Scholar
10 Ost, F ‘L'amour de la loi parfaite’ in Boulab Ayoub, J et al. (eds) L'amour des lois (PU Laval 1995) at 53.Google Scholar
11 There are, however, exceptions: the Belgian Code judiciaire of 1967 is also a classical code.Google Scholar
12 Decodification affects several legal systems of the romano-germanic family. See Oppetit, B ‘De la Codification’ Recueil Dalloz (1996) Chr 33Google Scholar; Thunis, X and Van der Mensbrugghe, F-R ‘Codification and décodification: le droit comparé à contribution’ Annales de Droit de Louvain (2001), 59 et seq.Google Scholar
13 The recent renovation of the law of obligations in Germany or the introduction of a number of family law reforms in France in the past decades may be described as attempts at a recodification of these areas.Google Scholar
14 Simonart, H ‘La codification en droit belge: rayonnement et limites de la codification napoléonienne’ Actualité Juridique Droit Administratif (1997), 672 et seqGoogle Scholar; Hoeffler, J ‘L'avenir de la codification en Belgique’ Revue Juridique et Politique. Indépendance et coopération (1986), 770 et seq.Google Scholar
15 Codification-compilations do not induce a structural reform of the law but nevertheless alter it by improving its textual consistency, removing archaic concepts or obsolete norms and guaranteeing respect for the normative hierarchy. See Art 3 of the (French) Law No 2000–321 of 12 Apr 2000 on the rights of citizens in their relations with administrative entities.Google ScholarOther, more surreptitious, modifications might result from the mere gathering and thematic organization of what used to be distinct sets of provisions, Cf Lienhard, A & Rondey, C, ‘Incidences juridiques et pratiques des codifications à droit constant (à propos du nouveau code de commerce)’, Recueil Dalloz (2000) Chr 523.Google ScholarSee also Molfessis, N, ‘Les illusions de la codification à droit constant et la sécurité juridique’ Revue Trimestrielle de Droit Civil (2000) at 192.Google Scholar
16 Rapport d'activité de la Commission Supérieure de Codification (2003) La documentation française (Paris 2004) 11–12 (author's translation).Google Scholar
17 See, pleading for the end of codification-compilations, Moysan, H ‘La codification à droit constant ne résiste pas à l'épreuve de la consolidation’ La semaine juridique (JCP) ed G (2002) I 147.Google Scholar
18 Ost, F ‘La codification: idéal et métamorphoses’ Journal des Tribunaux 2004, 227 et seqGoogle Scholar; Braibant, G and Zaradny, A ‘L'action de la Commission supérieure de codification’ Actualité Juridique Droit Administratif (2004) 1858–9.Google Scholar
19 See the communication of the European Commission COM (2003) 71 final, at 5: at the end of 2002, the legislative corpus represented 97000 pages in the OJ. This far exceeded the estimates made just two years before; see COM (2001) 645 final, at 7.Google Scholar
20 See: Resolution of the European Parliament of 26 May 1989 on the simplification, clarification and codification of Community law (OJ 1989 C 158/0386); Inter-institutional Agreements of 20 Dec 1994 (OJ 1996 C 102/02), of 22 Dec 1998 (OJ 1999 C 73/01) and of 28 Nov 2001(JO 2002 C 77/01).Google ScholarOn the codification and simplification of European rules, see Petite, M et al. ‘L'accessibilité du droit, la méthode communautaire’ Actualité Juridique Droit Administratif (2004), 1862 et seqGoogle Scholar; Dragone, S ‘La codification communautaire: techniques et procédures’ Revue du Marché Unique Européen (1998) 77 et seq.Google Scholar
21 Symeonides, S ‘Private International Law Codification in a Mixed Jurisdiction: The Louisiana Experience’ 57 RabelsZ (1993) at 461.Google Scholar
22 Oppetit, B ‘Droit international privé, droit savant’ Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law 234 (1992 III) at 342.Google Scholar
23 Ibid 339 et seq.
24 See the definitions of the codification of private international law given by Nolde, B ‘La codification du droit international privé Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law 55 (1936 I) at 299Google Scholar; Jayme, E ‘Considérations historiques et actuelles sur la codification du droit international privé’ Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law 177 (1982 IV) 9 et seq.Google Scholar
25 The main articles in this area were Art 3 (devoted to choice of law) and Arts 14–15 (on jurisdiction). While they contain important principles, some of which have inspired later codifications, they cannot be deemed to constitute a codification.Google Scholar
26 See, eg, the Greek code of 1856, replaced in 1940; the Italian code of 1865, the Spanish code of 1889 or the Swiss federal law of 1891.Google ScholarSee Gutzwiller, M ‘Le développement historique du droit international privé’ Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law 29 (1929 IV) 332Google Scholar; Nolde, B ‘Les étapes historiques de la codification legislative du droit international privé’ Revue Critique de Droit international privé (1927) at 362.Google Scholar
27 Jayme, Eop cit, 39 et seq.Google Scholar
28 Its provisions were later largely reintroduced in the preliminary title of the 1942 civil code.Google Scholar
29 Jayme, Eop cit at 48Google Scholar; also Broggini, G ‘La nouvelle loi italienne de droit international privé’ Swiss Review of International and European Law (1996) at 2.Google Scholar
30 Einführungsgesetz zum bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, (Introductive law to the German civil code), containing the private international provisions.Google Scholar
31 Kegel, GInternationales Privatrecht (CH Beck Munich 1995), 163–5 suggests historical reasons for this.Google Scholar
32 This was on the basis that a private law code was not complete if it did not provide the key for the territorial application of the rules it contained.Google Scholar
33 For instance the Czechoslovakia Private International Law Statute of 4 Dec 1963, No 97/1963 Sb; or the Polish Law of 12 Nov 1965, Dziennik Ustav 17 Nov 1965 No 46 pos 290.Google Scholar
34 See, eg, the n ew Portuguese civil code of 1966. In France the first attempt to codify private international law rules was made by the Commission on the Reform of Civil Law which aimed at renovating the entire civil code after the Second World War.Google Scholar
35 Outside the existing codes.Google Scholar
36 IPR Gesetz, 15 Jun 1978, Bundesgesetzblatt No 304/1978.Google Scholar
37 Art 3–49 EGBGB, Bundesgesetzblatt (1994) I 2494.Google Scholar
38 LDIP, 18 Dec 1987, RO 1988, 1776.Google Scholar
39 Riforma del sistema italiano di diritto internazionale privato, 31 May 1995, Suppl Ord GU Serie Gen 128, 3 Jun 1995.Google Scholar
40 IPRG, 19 Sept 1996, Liechtensteinische Landesgesetzblatt (1996) No 194, 290.Google Scholar
41 See the text of the first draft (avant-projet de la Commission de réforme du Code civil), Revue Critique de Droit international privé (1950), 111Google Scholar; Louis-Lucas, P ‘Les principes directeurs posés par le projet de codification du droit international privé français’ Revue Critique de Droit international privé (1951) 393–415.Google Scholar
42 The draft remained unpublished for a decade: Revue Critique de Droit international privé (1970), 832.Google Scholar
43 Projet de loi complétant le Code civil en matière de droit international privé, American Journal of International Law (1970), 614Google Scholar; Foyer, J ‘Le nouvel avant-projet de réforme du droit international privé français’ Journal du Droit International (1971) 31–49.Google Scholar
44 Rigaux, F ‘Le nouveau projet de loi uniforme Bénélux relative au droit international privé’ Journal du droit international (1969), 334Google Scholar; Winter, De ‘La nouvelle version du projet Benelux de loi uniforme de droit international privé (1968) Revue Critique de Droit international privé 577.Google Scholar
45 Muir Watt, H ‘La codification en droit international privé’ 27 Droits (1998) 149–60. This author also examines—and rejects—conjectural and epistemological hypotheses.Google Scholar
46 Oppetit, B ‘Les principes généraux en droit international privé’ (1987) 32 Archives de Philosophie du Droit at 179Google Scholar; Ancel, B and Lequette, YLes grands arrêts de la jurisprudence française de droit international privé (4th ednDalloz Paris 2001), at VIIGoogle Scholar; Muir Watt, Hop cit at 157.Google Scholar
47 von Schwind, F ‘Problems of Codification of Private International Law’ (1968) 17 ICLQ at 430 supported codification on the basis that in the late 20th century no international legal body of general principles as had been created by the universalist doctrines of the Commentators and of Savigny's international community existed that could provide an adequate guide for the development of judicial decisions.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
48 Showing that these should not necessarily constitute an obstacle to a codification, Louis-Lucas, P ‘Le colloque des 20 et 21 mai 1955 sur la codification du droit international privé français’ (1956) Revue Critique de droit international privé at 394.Google Scholar
49 eg, Batiffol, H and Lagarde, PDroit International Privé (8th edLGDJ Paris vol 1 1993) at 456.Google Scholar
50 Doc Chambre 51–1078/005 at 7.Google Scholar
51 Doc Sénat 3–27é7 (2003–2004), at 12.Google Scholar
52 ibid at 11.
53 Verwilghen, M ‘Vers un code belge de droit international privé’ Travaux du Comité français de droit international privé (1998–2000) (Pedone Paris 2001), at 126. Over 20 years the Cour de Cassation had rendered several decisions which were criticized as lacking coherence and clarity by Belgian scholars and practitioners alike.Google Scholar
54 Advisory opinion of the Conseil d'Etat 29.210/2 of 12 Feb 2001, Doc Sénat 2–1225/1 (2001–2002), annex at 243.Google Scholar
55 The International Commission on Civil Status as well as the Council of Europe also play a part, albeit limited, in the unification of private international law rules. On the role of the EC institutions, see below at 506.Google Scholar
56 Belgium is a party to the 1954 Convention on Civil procedure, the 1956 and 1958 Conventions on Maintenance obligations relating to children, the 1961 Convention on the Conflict of Law relating to the Form of testamentary Dispositions, the 1961 Convention abolishing the requirement of legalisation for foreign public documents, the 1965 Convention on Service abroad of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil and commercial matters and the 1971 Convention on the law applicable to traffic accidents. The final instrument was ratified in 1975. No other Hague Conventions were ratified until 1999 when Belgium belatedly became a party to the 1980 Convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction.Google Scholar
57 On the relativity of conventional instruments, see Oppetit, B ‘Droit international privé droit savant’, op cit, at 421 et seq.Google Scholar
58 Doc Sénat 2–1225/1 (2001–2002) at 8. It was nevertheless recognised that Hague Conventions dealing with aspects of jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement attracted far more parties (40 to 70), but only applied to situations involving contracting parties, so that domestic rules remained necessary to deal with other situations.Google Scholar
59 ibid at 7.
60 eg the use of identical connecting factors, or a common definition of public policy etc.Google Scholar
61 Advisory opinion of the Conseil d'Etat op cit at 244.Google Scholar
62 For its proponents the code was not an obstacle to the ratification of international instruments; should Belgium decide to become a party to new instruments, the Code de droit international privé would simply have to be amended accordingly, see Senate Doc 2–1225/1 (2001–2002) at 8.Google Scholar
63 This section will focus on the instruments containing private international law rules. However, the organs of the EC had and have also enacted other rules which apply to international private relationships. In addition to a number of directives containing material rules affecting the operation of choice of law provisions in certain areas (eg Directives 96/71, OJ 1997 L 018/1; 93/13, OJ 1993 L 095/29; 94/47, OJ 1994 L 280/83; 97/7, OJ 1997 L 144/19; 99/4, OJ 1999 L 066/26) or jurisdictional rules (eg Directives 96/71, OJ 1996 L 018/1, 93/7, OJ 1993 L 074/74), several directives have undertaken to harmonize choice of law rules applicable to insurance contracts (Directives 88/357, OJ 1988 L 172/1; 90/619, OJ 1990 L 330/50 and 92/96, OJ 1992 L 360/1).Google Scholar
64 Under the then Art 220 EC Treaty (now Art 293) or the then Art K3 Treaty on European Union.Google Scholar
65 Art 65 EC Treaty.Google Scholar
66 See Protocol to the Amsterdam Treaty on the Position of Denmark, OJ 1997 C 340/101.Google Scholar
67 See Protocol to the Amsterdam Treaty on the Position of the United Kingdom and Ireland, OJ 1997 C 340/99.Google Scholar
68 See, eg, Council Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 of 29 May 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgements in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility for children of both spouses OJ 2000 L 160/19, Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 of 29 May 2000 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil and commercial matters OJ 2000 L 160/37, Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 Dec 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters OJ 2001 L 012/1, Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 Nov 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000—OJ 2003 L 338/1.Google Scholar
69 The partisans of the code have expressed the view that non-universal regulations could be adopted, which would enable the continuing applicability of domestic rules or Convention rules to situations which would not fall within the territorial scope of the regulations in question. See Doc Sénat 2–1225/1 (2001–2002), at 10.Google Scholar
70 Even though work is already planned on several regulations, see for example Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (‘ROME II’) COM (2003) 427(01); the authors of the draft bill also indicated that EC legislation could well take the form of directives, which would imply that Member States would still have to provide appropriate implementation provisions.Google Scholar
71 Treaty of Nice Amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties Establishing the European Communities and Certain Related Acts, OJ 2001 C 80/1, Art 2(4).Google Scholar
72 Advisory opinion of the Conseil d'Etat op cit at 247.Google Scholar
73 See the introductive presentation of Professor Erauw, Doc Chambre 51 — 1078/005 of 23 June 2004 at 3 and 6. The short-term need to give global responses was also generally felt by the members of the Justice Commission, Doc Sénat 3–27/7 (2003–2004), at 240.Google Scholar
74 See above.Google Scholar
75 Doc Sénat 2–1225/1 (2001–2002), 242–94.Google Scholar
76 ibid 1–241. The bill was reintroduced before the Sénat a year later following the dissolution of the parliament. See Doc Sénat 3–27/1 (2003).
77 Loi du 16 juillet 2004 portant le Code de droit international privé, Moniteur Belge 27 July 2004, 57344–57374.Google Scholar
78 Art 140 (1). An exception was made for provisions relating to adoption, Art 140 (2) and (3), the entry into force of which was postponed until the entry into force of the law of 24 Apr 2003 reforming adoption. This solution results from an amendment introduced by the government, convinced that the importance of a number of the provisions of the code required that its entry into force take place just three months after its publication instead of seven months as was initially provided.Google Scholar
79 Note should be taken that a separate article remains in the Code of civil procedure for service abroad; see Erauw, J ‘Brief Description of the Draft Belgian Code of Private International Law’ 4 Yearbook of Private International Law (2002) at 147ad notam.Google Scholar
80 This is relatively unusual. In principle, legal provisions are not given titles in Belgium. The fact that the private international law code's provisions are does not only signal the will of its drafters to provide a clear text, it also reveals the influence of comparative law; the German, Austrian, Italian and Swiss private international law codes all contain titled provisions, as does the 1980 Rome Convention on the Law applicable to contractual obligations. But one might wonder what legal effect, if any, these headings will be given in Belgium.Google Scholar
81 This division, which is foreign to the Belgian legislative technique, is based on that of the Swiss Statute on Private International Law of 1987. It was supported by the Justice Minister.Google Scholar
82 The Council of State stressed the potent impact the adoption of new conflict of law rules might have on the individuals concerned (Advisory opinion of the Conseil d'Etat op cit 245–6).Google Scholar
83 See Arts 126–7. There is however one notable exception—marriage (Art 126 (2) in fine and Art 127 (3). This retroactive application of the code resulted from an amendment voted in Senate (Doc Senate 3–27/7 (2003–2004), at 384).Google Scholar
84 See above at 499.Google Scholar
85 Doc Chambre 51–1078/5 (2003–2004), 7–8.Google Scholar
86 Even conventions to which Belgium is not a party have been influential. For example, the Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Trusts and on their Recognition has inspired ch XII, even though it has not entered into force.Google Scholar
87 See the provisions devoted to marriage and non judicial divorce below 514 et seq.Google Scholar
88 Lagarde, P ‘Le principe de proximité dans le droit international privé contemporain’ 196 Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law (1986 I), 9–238.Google Scholar
89 Rules enabling a change of nationality have been liberalized in recent years.Google Scholar
90 While in the past the unity of nationality within the family was largely guaranteed, this is less often the case today.Google Scholar
91 Doc Sénat 2–1225/1 (2001–2002) at 4.Google Scholar
92 Refer to Gutmann, DLe sentiment d'identité: étude de droit des personnes et de la famille (LGDJ Paris 2000) para 468 et seq.Google Scholar
93 Art 34.Google Scholar
94 Art 46.Google Scholar
95 Art 51.Google Scholar
96 Art 55.Google Scholar
97 Art 4 also stresses the factual character of the criterion: registration is not necessary to acquire a habitual residence which can be recognized even in the absence of an authorisation of entry or stay in Belgium.Google Scholar
98 Res (72)1, 18 Jan 1972.Google Scholar
99 Advisory opinion of the Conseil d'Etat op cit at 243.Google Scholar
100 See repudiation and same-sex marriages 514 et seq.Google Scholar
101 Belgian law will only apply if it was manifestly impossible to identify the content of the foreign law designated by the choice of law rules, Art 15.Google Scholar
102 Art 20.Google Scholar
103 Art 14.Google Scholar
104 Art 22.Google Scholar
105 Many provisions of the code have been inspired by provisions of international instruments. Both the Rome Convention of 19 June 1980 and the Brussels I Regulation have marked the code, which may not be surprising as they are in force in Belgium. But, more interestingly, some articles of Hague Conventions (most notably the 1978 Convention on the law applicable to matrimonial property regimes, the 1989 Convention on the Law applicable to the estates of deceased persons, the 1973 Conventions on maintenance obligations or the 1985 Convention on the law applicable to trusts and their recognition) have been by and large copied.Google Scholar
106 See Mayer, P and Heuzé, VDroit International Privé (7th ednMontchrestien Paris 2001), at 23.Google Scholar
107 Art 83 (2) even extends the application of the 1961 Convention to other wills.Google Scholar
108 Doc Sénat 2–1225é1 (2001–2002), at 11.Google Scholar
109 For a systematic commentary of the provisions of the new code, see Boularbah, H et al. ‘Le nouveau droit international privé belge’ Journal des Tribunaux 03 2005.Google Scholar
110 Since Civ le 26 Nov 1974 Miniera di Fragne, Revue Critique de Droit International Privé (1975), 491 et seq, note Holleaux, D.Google Scholar
111 Art 9 LDIP.Google Scholar
112 Art 7 of the 1995 Italian Private International Law Statute.Google Scholar
113 ie an action between the same parties, with the same object and the same cause.Google Scholar
114 Art 3 LDIP.Google Scholar
115 See Doc Sénat 2–1225é1 (2001–2002), at 35 ad notam.Google Scholar
116 Art 14 c. civ. provided that Belgian courts had jurisdiction if the claimant had a Belgian nationality. It was followed by Art 15 which gave jurisdiction to Belgian courts in cases in which the defendant was a Belgian national. While Art 14 was abrogated in 1948, Art 15 continued to be applied until the 2004 code entered into force.Google Scholar
117 See, in a divorce case, Brussels 22 May 1985, Journal des Tribunaux (1986), 251.Google Scholar
118 Conventions concluded under the aegis of the Hague Conference often exclude this technique, which is also rejected in the 1980 Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Art 15). See however Art 3 (2) of the 1978 Hague Convention on Celebration and Recognition of the Validity of Marriage which considered that a marriage shall be celebrated where ‘each of the future spouses meets the substantive requirements of the internal law designated by the choice of law rules of the State of celebration’. See also Art 3 of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.Google Scholar
119 See, however, Art 14 of the Swiss Private International Law Statute and s 9(5) of the UK Private International Law Act (Miscellaneous Provisions) 1995.Google Scholar
120 Art 4(1) EGBGB.Google Scholar
121 Art 13 of the 1995 Private International Law Statute. Art 13 (2) however comprises a number of exceptions.Google Scholar
122 Cass lé 17 Oct 2002, No JC02AH 1-1 RTDF 2003, 341 note Fallon, M.Google Scholar
123 See North, P and Fawcett, JCheshire and North's Private International Law (13th ednButterworths London 1999), 50 et seq.Google Scholar
124 Doc Sénat 3–27/7 (2003–2004), at 38.Google Scholar
125 ibid.
126 ibid at 45.
127 See below at 513.Google Scholar
128 During the debates in Senate Professor Fallon referred to a case in which a Belgian court had been led to apply a Japanese choice of law rule designating the law of the State of nationality of the husband as governing the matrimonial property regime of the couple, even though it was contrary to the principle of equality between men and women. See Doc Senate 3–27/7 (2003–2004), at 44.Google Scholar
129 A renvoi to Belgian law is admitted in the field of capacity (Art 38 (1) (2)) so that one may achieve the specific goal of extending the protection of foreign incapable adults. This solution was introduced by the Senate. A renvoi to the law of habitual residence of the deceased is accepted under Art 78 (2) (2) in the area of succession to immovable property. This enables the whole succession to be governed by the same law. Equally, a limited renvoi is also open by Art 110 (2). If the law of the State in which a legal person has its main establishment designates the law of the State under which the legal person was created, then this law will apply.Google Scholar
130 Art 15 LDIP.Google Scholar
131 Doc Sénat 3–27/7 (2003–2004) at 48.Google Scholar
132 See above at 500.Google Scholar
133 See, eg, the exchange following a presentation of the draft Belgian private international law code to the French private international law committee, Travaux du Comité français de droit international privé op cit 158–9.Google Scholar
134 Advisory opinion of the Conseil d'Etat op cit at 272.Google Scholar
135 As in Art 35 (Law applicable to parental authority, guardianship and protection of incapable persons): if the law of the place of habitual residence does not provide the sufficient protection for the person or the assets, the protection will be governed by the law of the person's State of nationality. The use of alternative connecting factors in this article has been made because it responded to a specific goal of the legislator. Applying Art 19 in this situation would disregard this policy choice.Google Scholar
136 This sub-paragraph shows that the escape clause may be used to validate a legal relationship in the same way as the mechanism of renvoi might have. See Doc Sénat 3–27/7 (2003–2004) at 49.Google Scholar
137 Verwilghen, Mop cit at 138.Google Scholar
138 Doc Chambre 51–1078/5 (2003–2004) at 6.Google Scholar
139 Fiorini, A ‘New Belgian Law on Same-sex Marriage and its PIL Implications’ (2003) 52 ICLQ at 1047. See however the terms of the Circulaire du 23 Janvier 2004 remplaçant la circulaire du 8 mai 2003 relative à la loi du 13 février 2003 ouvrant le mariage à des personnes de même sexe et modifiant certaines dispositions du Code civil, Moniteur Belge 27 Jan 2004 ed 2, 4828–31, which states that provisions in foreign laws prohibiting same-sex marriage should not be applied as discriminatory and contrary to Belgian public policy.Google Scholar
140 Loi ouvrant le mariage à des personnes de même sexe et modifiant certaines dispositions du code civil, Moniteur Belge 28 Feb 2003 ed 3, 9880–3.Google Scholar
141 Art 21 (2). This innovation introduces in Belgian law a variation of the intensity of the reaction against unacceptable foreign provisions based on the proximity of the situation and the forum, which is similar to that first identified by German authors at the end of the 19th century (Inlandsbeziehung). See Kahn, F ‘Die Lehre vom Ordre Public (Prohibitivgesetze)’, 39 Jherings Jahrbücher fur die Dogmatik des heutigen römischen und deutschen Privatrechts (1898), 1–112.Google Scholar
142 But since the determination of the incompatibility also depends on the ‘significance of the consequences produced by the application of the foreign law’, it might have been the case.Google Scholar
143 provided the conditions of Art 44 are met: one of the spouses needs to be Belgian, domiciled in Belgium under Art 4 or habitually resident in Belgium for over three months.Google Scholar
144 It is to be noted that Art 127 provides that Art 46 (2) applies to any marriage concluded on or after 1 June 2003 (ie when the law opening marriage to same-sex couples entered into force). Art 126(2) also provides that a marriage between persons of the same sex may produce effects in Belgium as of 1 June 2003 provided the marriage satisfies the requirements of the Code de droit international privé.Google Scholar
145 eg Trib Brussels 15 Jan 1992, No JI921 Fl-1, Pasicrisie Belge 1992 III 42.Google Scholar
146 eg Trib Brussels 20 Nov 1990, No JB02299–1; see Foblets, MC ‘Quelques réflexions à propos de la regularization retroactive de marriages solo consensu’ Revue du droit des étrangers (1990) 354.Google Scholar
147 Cass lé 2 Apr 1981, No JC81422–1, Pasicrisie Belge 1981 I 835.Google Scholar
148 Doc Sénat 3–27/7 (2003–2004), at 96.Google Scholar
149 ibid at 97.
150 In the mind of the drafters, the function of the foreign legal construct will be decisive; in particular the fact that an obligation of fidelity or an impediment to contract a subsequent marriage are attached to a foreign ‘relationship of cohabitation’ would lead to a characterization as marriage, cf Doc Sénat 2–1225/1 (2001–2002), at 92. This is confirmed by the circular of 23 Sept 2004 (‘Circulaire relative aux aspects de la loi du 16 juillet 2004 portant le code de droit international privé concernant le statut personnel’), Moniteur Belge 28 Sept 2004 ed 2, No M5 at 69607. However, the situation of the German eingetragene Lebenspartnerschaft shows how complex this appreciation may be. The 2001 Gesetz über die Eigetragene Lebenspartnerschaft, which was modified by the Gesetz zur Überarbeitung des Lebenspartnerschaftsrechts (BGB1 2004 p 3396, entered into force on 1 Jan 2005) and the Gesetz zur Änderung des Ehe- und Lebenspartnerschaftsnamensrechts (accepted by the lower house of the German Parliament on 26 Nov 2004, BR-Drucks. 928/04) has created a construct which is not easy to characterize; it is very close to the Scandinavian partnerships (as the drafters of the Belgian code recognized in Doc Sénat 3–27/7 (2003–4), at 97), which would seem to justify the application of Art 46, and it does have a number of implications for the personal status of the partners; these may decide to bear a common name; their partnership also creates obligations of solidarity, mutual care and support; a partner is even given minor custody rights with respect to children of his/her partner, but the Lebenspartnerschaft does not create any impediment to contract a subsequent marriage, which the 2004 circular interprets as a sign that it should fall within the scope of Arts 58–60.Google Scholar
151 In para No M l of her circular of 23 Sept 2004, op cit at 69605–69606, the Belgian Justice Minister indicated that her services were trying to ascertain if some forms of registered partnership currently existed that could be assimilated to marriages. An additional circular clarifying this point is to be circulated ‘as soon as possible’.Google Scholar
152 Art 60.Google Scholar
153 Governed by the national law of the spouses (Art 46).Google Scholar
154 In principle governed by the law of the State in which the couple has its common habitual residence (Art 48).Google Scholar
155 Compare the wider notion of ‘judicial or other proceedings’ laid down in Part II of the Family Law Act 1986.Google Scholar
156 In the event of a bi-nationality, Art 3 (2) (1) applies: if one of the spouses possesses the Belgian and a foreign nationality, he/she will be considered a Belgian national.Google Scholar
157 A similar rule applies to the effects of international marriages (Art 48) and to international matrimonial property regimes (Art 51).Google Scholar
158 Doc Sénat 2–1225/1 (2001–2002), at 86.Google Scholar
159 See above at 509.Google Scholar
160 eg Art 46 of the Italian Private International Law Statute of 1995 or Art 90 of the Swiss Private International Law Statute of 1987.Google Scholar
161 For a comparison between the 1989 Hague Convention and the new Belgian code, see Bouckaert, F., ‘Professio Juris dans le Code de Droit international Privé Belge’, DNotl (2004) 417–29.Google Scholar
162 In Belgium, traditionally as well as under the new code, the law of the last habitual residence of the deceased only applies to succession of moveables while immovables are governed by the lex rei sitae. While Belgian practitioners were very much attached to this traditional two-tier rule, the possible disadvantages of the absence of unity were recognized. This partly explains why limited forms of renvoi and opinio juris were accepted in this field.Google Scholar
