X v Y (*grumbles his usual grumble about anonymisation*) ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2023:1759 is an interesting judgment discussing, yet not determining, the extent of Rome I’s Article 18’s ‘burden of proof’ provision. Clearly the discussion has echoes for the similar provision in Article 22 Rome II.
Article 18 Rome I
Burden of proof
1. The law governing a contractual obligation under this Regulation shall apply to the extent that, in matters of contractual obligations, it contains rules which raise presumptions of law or determine the burden of proof.
2. A contract or an act intended to have legal effect may be proved by any mode of proof recognised by the law of the forum or by any of the laws referred to in Article 11 under which that contract or act is formally valid, provided that such mode of proof can be administered by the forum.
Article 22 Rome II
Burden of proof
1. The law governing a non-contractual obligation under this Regulation shall apply to the extent that, in matters of non-contractual obligations, it contains rules which raise presumptions of law or determine the burden of proof.
2. Acts intended to have legal effect may be proved by any mode of proof recognised by the law of the forum or by any of the laws referred to in Article 21 under which that act is formally valid, provided that such mode of proof can be administered by the forum.
The court first of all [5.6] justifiably confirms that A24(1) BIa does not stand in the way of its jurisdiction, which parties agreed to in a choice of court clause per A25 BIa: the claim concerns monies allegedly still owed on the transfer of a share of ownership in German real estate. It does not have rights in rem in that property as the object of the proceedings.
Choice of law was made for German law. The A18 Rome I issue is triggered by a declaration made by the claimant in the main proceedings, in front of a German notary. Claimant argues that statement was made to speed up the entry of the sale in the German land register, not to discharge the defendant in the main proceedings of the monies owed. The court [5.9] holds that German law as a result of A18 only determines the burden of proof and evidentiary value of that statement, to the degree German law has specific rules relating to the law of obligations generally or for the specific contract at issue.
On the facts, the court [5.16] holds that it need not determine the lex causae issue for evidentiary value under the Dutch ‘antikiesregel’ ―meaning the court being absolved of the proprio motu obligation to determine applicable law if the alternatives lead to the same result― for under neither laws the notarial statement has discharging effect. I for one am not convinced that the antikiesregel complies with the effet utile of EU private international law, but that is a different matter.
Geert.
gavc law - geert van calster 
One Reply to “”