In the Kingdom of The Netherlands, as in several different countries, the social control of AN mediation award needs permission to enforce. A official will solely take social control measures, like the attachment of a checking account or the seizure of products, if he has written permission to enforce (in Kingdom of The Netherlands known as exequatur). The explanation behind this is often that
FIND additional LEGAL ARTICLES
Type any word(s)
SEARCH
the judiciary is that the final component all told legal proceedings, although they're settled entirely in private (such as arbitration).
Permission to Enforce Is Granted for the asking
The winning party to arbitration can raise the court for permission to enforce if the counterparty doesn't go with the award voluntarily. the applying proceedings for this square measure quite easy. Note: In some cases, the applying proceedings is also ex parte. In different cases, the counterparty might oppose the applying.
Refusal to Grant Permission to Enforce
In principle, the court should grant permission. However, if the mediation award or the mediation proceedings (under the previous arbitration law) would breach public order or public morals, the grant can be denied. this might be the case, for instance, within the event of a clear violation of due process of law, or if there's a scarcity of AN arbitration agreement. In different words, the court can solely refuse permission if there square measure elementary errors or if the proceedings were conducted in AN clearly improper manner.
Dispute concerning Accession Agreement
The case at the Court of Utrecht involved a dispute that had arisen once a hospital had terminated AN ‘accession agreement’ with a doctor. The doctor then instituted arbitration proceedings against the hospital with the Dutch tending Arbitration assembly. In the end, the arbitration assembly ordered the hospital to pay EUR three hundred,000 in damages. The hospital then instituted termination proceedings.
Inadmissibility, as a result of Arbitration Was Instituted Too Late?
The doctor then requested the court for permission to enforce the judgement. The hospital objected to the request. It argued that the doctor had instituted the arbitration proceedings once the amount of 1 month stipulated within the accession agreement, and so too late. consistent with the hospital, the assembly ought to have declared the medical specialist’s claim impermissible.
Reliance on written agreement termination amount Unreasonable
However, the assembly rejected the hospital’s reliance on the medical specialist’s failure to fulfill the written agreement termination amount, within the light-weight of standards of reasonableness and fairness. The assembly thought of that the doctor had initiated outline proceedings before the regular court at constant time because the arbitration proceedings. Moreover, the assembly thought of that the doctor had created it clear to the hospital that he wouldn't settle for the termination. The assembly found that, beneath these circumstances, the hospital wasn't entitled to invoke the written agreement (expiry) amount.
Request for Permission to Enforce through the Court
The hospital then applied to the court to stop the doctor from being granted permission to enforce by (again) wishing on the written agreement (expiry) amount. this might mean that the controversy would be reopened, however now concerning the question whether or not the doctor will enforce the mediation award. The hospital argued that the assembly had created an evident error by considering that the doctor had a explanation for action. The hospital claimed that if the court were to grant permission to enforce the mediation award – in spite of this obvious error – this might be contrary to due process of law of law (and so public order). The hospital, therefore, requested the court to not grant permission or a minimum of defer its call till a call has been created concerning the reversal of the judgement.
Procedure for Ordering Enforcement: Not AN charm in Disguise
Even though one thing will be aforementioned for not granting permission, unfinished the question of the unacceptability of the medical specialist’s action, the law (rightfully) stipulates otherwise. the very fact that the judgement might conceivably not be upheld within the termination proceedings isn't ample. only if it's (practically) bound that the judgement are going to be annulled, it'll be doable to refuse permission. The court, therefore, grants the doctor permission to enforce the award. The procedure for ordering social control isn't AN charm in disguise. The assembly has spoken and given that there square measure obvious errors, the court might refuse to grant permission.