The Dutch postwar restoration of rights regime regarding movable property

Lars van Vliet
{"title":"The Dutch postwar restoration of rights regime regarding movable property","authors":"Lars van Vliet","doi":"10.1163/15718190-00874p11","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"During the Second World War Germany and German nationals looted the Netherlands and its nationals of many valuable assets, that were taken to Germany. Often the looting took the form of forced sales. In some cases, the sales price was too low, in other cases the German buyer paid market value or more, but often the buyer paid with guilders looted from the Dutch State. After the liberation of the Netherlands the 'restoration of rights regime' enabled victims of forced sales to seek annulment of the sales. This article concentrates on those movable goods that were sold to German buyers and that, after the war, returned from Germany to the Netherlands with the help of the Allied Forces, the so-called recuperation goods. If the seller did not seek annulment before the deadline of July 1951, for example because the price paid was considerable so that he preferred to keep the purchase price, or if his request was rejected, the Dutch State should not be forced to return these goods to their German buyer. Therefore, these goods were first subjected to Royal Decree E133 which expropriated all German owned property in the Netherlands. Upon return to the Netherlands the recuperation goods became State property, but this measure could be undone by the seller successfully seeking annulment of the sales contract under Royal Decree E100. However, if no annulment took place, the State remained owner of these goods.","PeriodicalId":43053,"journal":{"name":"Tijdschrift Voor Rechtsgeschiedenis-Revue D Histoire Du Droit-The Legal History Review","volume":"96 1","pages":"651-673"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tijdschrift Voor Rechtsgeschiedenis-Revue D Histoire Du Droit-The Legal History Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718190-00874p11","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

During the Second World War Germany and German nationals looted the Netherlands and its nationals of many valuable assets, that were taken to Germany. Often the looting took the form of forced sales. In some cases, the sales price was too low, in other cases the German buyer paid market value or more, but often the buyer paid with guilders looted from the Dutch State. After the liberation of the Netherlands the 'restoration of rights regime' enabled victims of forced sales to seek annulment of the sales. This article concentrates on those movable goods that were sold to German buyers and that, after the war, returned from Germany to the Netherlands with the help of the Allied Forces, the so-called recuperation goods. If the seller did not seek annulment before the deadline of July 1951, for example because the price paid was considerable so that he preferred to keep the purchase price, or if his request was rejected, the Dutch State should not be forced to return these goods to their German buyer. Therefore, these goods were first subjected to Royal Decree E133 which expropriated all German owned property in the Netherlands. Upon return to the Netherlands the recuperation goods became State property, but this measure could be undone by the seller successfully seeking annulment of the sales contract under Royal Decree E100. However, if no annulment took place, the State remained owner of these goods.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
荷兰战后动产权利恢复制度
在第二次世界大战期间,德国及其国民掠夺了荷兰及其国民的许多宝贵资产,这些资产被带到德国。劫掠通常采取强制出售的形式。在某些情况下,售价太低,在其他情况下,德国买家支付了市场价值或更高的价格,但买家支付的往往是从荷兰国家掠夺来的荷兰盾。荷兰解放后,“权利恢复制度”使强制销售的受害者能够寻求取消销售。这篇文章的重点是那些出售给德国买家的可移动物品,这些物品在战争结束后,在盟军的帮助下,从德国返回荷兰,即所谓的休养品。如果卖方在1951年7月的最后期限之前没有要求取消,例如因为所支付的价格相当大,所以他宁愿保留购买价格,或者如果他的要求被拒绝,荷兰国家不应被迫将这些货物退还给其德国买方。因此,这些货物首先受到没收德国在荷兰所有财产的皇家法令E133的约束。在返回荷兰后,回收物品成为国家财产,但卖方可以根据皇家法令E100成功地寻求取消销售合同,从而取消这一措施。但是,如果没有撤销,国家仍然是这些货物的所有人。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: The Legal History Review, inspired by E.M. Meijers, is a peer-reviewed journal and was founded in 1918 by a number of Dutch jurists, who set out to stimulate scholarly interest in legal history in their own country and also to provide a centre for international cooperation in the subject. This has gradually through the years been achieved. The Review had already become one of the leading internationally known periodicals in the field before 1940. Since 1950 when it emerged under Belgo-Dutch editorship its position strengthened. Much attention is paid not only to the common foundations of the western legal tradition but also to the special, frequently divergent development of national law in the various countries belonging to, or influenced by it.
期刊最新文献
Front matter Lauro Chiazzese, lo studio delle interpolazioni e i confronti ‘ritrovati’ The Oxford handbook of European legal history, edited by H. Pihlajamäkki, M.D. Dubber and M. Godfrey, 2018 Des clercs qui se mesleront de faire lettres et obligations Handwörterbuch zur deutschen Rechtsgeschichte HRG, 2., edited by A. Cordes, H. Lück, D. Werkmüller und C. Bertelsmeier-Kierst, 2016
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1