De werkrechtersraad van beroep van Gent

In Belgium, the administration of justice with regard to labour law is in the hands of specialised courts, staffed by a combination of professional and lay judges. This has historical roots. An important step in the evolution of these courts is the establishment of the ‘werkrechtersraden van beroep’ (‘conseils de prud’hommes d’appel’). From their creation in 1913 until their reform in 1967, these councils were the highest authority in Belgium to settle disputes on the work floor and consequently the highest interpreter of labour legislation. The institution constantly balanced on the remarkable interface between law and labour. In this contribution, a fact check is carried out to see how this balance worked in practice. An exceptional episode are the periods in which this system was placed under tension. Therefore, this contribution pays special attention to the case law pronounced by the werkrechtersraad van beroep of Ghent in the crisis-ridden period 1935-1950.

Echtscheiding in de Leuvense rechtspraktijk in de nasleep van de ‘Groote Oorlog’

In order to contribute to the existing gap in the Belgian legal history, the divorce jurisprudence from 1919 to 1922 of the court of first instance in Leuven was studied. The challenges resulting from the Great War were clearly visible in the examined judgments. First, there were regular references to the war and more specifically to the German enemy and the behaviour of the women who remained on the home front. In addition, due to circumstances created by the war some Belgians were unable to go before the civil registrar to have their divorce pronounced. The suspension contained in the Royal Decree of 26 October 1914 could, contrary to its purpose and due to the uncertainty surrounding the date of the end of the war, not be applied. Finally, the judges showed a flexible attitude in the analysis of the divorce motive ‘gross insults’. In this analysis, the role soldiers played during the war clearly aroused sympathy among the judges.

‘’s Graeflijckheyts spaer-pot met sulck ellendigh in-komen … te verrijcken’

In the Middle Ages, goods washed up on the beach or fished up from the sea were an important economic asset. The customs and rules that determined the status of these goods are referred to as the ‘law of wreck’ or ‘right of wreck’. Several competing interest groups were involved: the local inhabitants as salvagers, finders or beach combers; merchants, skippers and ship-owners; landowners and the prince. Seventeenth century Dutch lawyers like Hugo Grotius and Johan van Heemskerk painted a favourable picture of the law of wreck in the Dutch Republic by pointing to the greed of the medieval counts of Holland who would only have exploited the misery of castaways. This article shows how the law of wreck developed in Holland and Zeeland in the late Middle Ages and how its rules were applied in the stewardship of North Holland between 1340 and 1400. Although the preserved accounts of the stewardship show that the count did take advantage of washed up goods, the count also had drowned people found on the beach buried and allowed merchants who could prove their goods had washed up on the Dutch beach to recover them.

De advocaat in de vroegmoderne stedelijke justitie

Hermanus Noordkerk was a famous barrister in eighteenth-century Amsterdam. After his death multiple necrologies were written in which the general tone was laudatory. This article investigates the reliability of the necrologies by answering the question why Noordkerk became such a famous barrister. What qualities did he have that made him so memorable? It becomes clear that together with his virtuous character Noordkerk was considered to be an inventive lawyer as well as an outstanding pleader and that, by combining these three characteristics, he embodied for contemporaries the ideal barrister. But besides, Noordkerk had another quality: he had the ability to exploit the public interest of a court case for the benefit of his client. Due to the political dynamics within an early modern city this might have been important for Noordkerk’s fame. The case study of Noordkerk thus sheds light on the qualities that a barrister should have in an early modern city.

Geen leven na Oxford? Rechtshistorici uit de Lage Landen (16)

Apart from details about youth and family, the focus of this interview with Boudewijn Sirks is on his academic career. After studying law, theology and philosophy, he graduated with a DPhil on an aspect of Roman administrative law. He then specialised in Roman law in all its aspects and in almost all of its periods of application. An extension of this led him to research further in the legal history of the Dutch East Indies. Having worked at the Universities of Utrecht, Amsterdam and Leiden, he became Professor at the J.W. Goethe University in Frankfurt for private law and legal history, then Regius Professor of Civil Law in the University of Oxford, where he is still Fellow of All Souls College. The interview deals with the differences between legal educations in the Netherlands, Germany and England and with his views concerning the methodology of legal history.

‘Het quaestieuse verdronkene goud’

Zacharias Huber (1669-1732) evaluated in the revised Heedensdaegse Rechtsgeleertheyt arguments, hitherto unknown, which were brought forward in a case, pursued before the Court of Friesland and decided on December 14th 1718. The case dealt with the ownership of a box with gold, found on the beach of Schiermonnikoog in 1710 and which came from the ship De Witte Haas, shipwrecked off the coast in 1674. Newly found civil records show that Maria Wilree (1667-1729) from Amsterdam started the procedure to recover the box with gold, because it purportedly belonged to her father Dirck Wilree (1636-1674), director-general for the West India Company in Guinea and who died in the shipwrecking. She took legal action against Henrica Helmhout, regent of Schiermonnikoog and receiver of wrecks, and Gillis Vermeersch, representative of the West India Company. Only Vermeersch was successful in his argument, which he based on the instructions of the Company: it was forbidden to transport unregistered private goods. Such goods forfeited immediately to the Company. Consequently, Wilree claimed for the Company ownership and possession of the box with gold. Helmhout claimed to be the owner by prescription. Their arguments appear not to have been convincing.

Rogier versus Jottrand: dure beledigingen in de Belgische opiniepers (1861-1863)

The Belgian Constitution guaranteed political liberty, exemplified by the mandatory competence of the jury for judging political and press offences. However, the constitution did not literally mention quasi-delicts. In 1861, liberal statesman Charles Rogier was insulted by the ultramontanist Catholic newspaper Le Journal de Bruxelles. He sued the newspaper’s printer under tort law, and obtained a considerable amount of damages, bypassing the jury. Progressive radical lawyer Lucien Jottrand, former member of the Constituent Assembly, argued at length that the constitution exclusively reserved competence for both civil and criminal liability to the jury. The Brussels Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation rejected this reasoning and insisted on the superior natural law-origins of tort law. Yet, this decision created a risk of private censorship, well documented in the press and in private archives on the legal battle around the Journal de Bruxelles.