Conflict of Laws
  • About
  • Editorial board
  • Subscription
  • Submission
  • Materials
  • Contact
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu

Fraude à la loi

May 16, 2007/in /by Thalia Kruger
image_pdfimage_print

In a judgment of 17 April 2007, the Court of first instance of Hasselt found that the exception of fraude à la loi did not apply to the following case: A man from India and a woman from The Netherlands married in Sweden. They had no connection to that country (no friends or family; never lived there). The city where they moved to in Belgium refused to recognise their marriage on the basis of fraude à la loi (arguing that the couple should have married in The Netherlands or in Belgium, and only went to Sweden because of the less stringent requirements regarding documents etc.). The court found that this exception did not apply. In its considerations, the court mentioned that this was not a simulated marriage.

Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on X
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Share on Vk
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png 0 0 Thalia Kruger https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Thalia Kruger2007-05-16 17:42:462007-05-16 17:44:38Fraude à la loi

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • Private International Law and European Society August 4, 2026
  • The New Zealand Supreme Court’s judgment in Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley on anti-enforcement relief August 3, 2026
  • Beyond Domicile: The BHP Litigation and the Functional Interconnection of Public and Private International Law August 3, 2026
  • Conflicts of jurisdiction in Senegal: lesson from the Senegalese Supreme Court on Lis Pendens and the Exequatur of foreign judgments July 27, 2026
  • Adoption in the proposal for a European Parenthood Regulation July 21, 2026
  • Copyright, Targeting and Geo-Blocking: The CJEU Stirs the Pot July 15, 2026
  • A Follow-Up: The German Judges Association’s Response to the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions July 15, 2026
  • Private International Law Dimensions of Singapore’s New Legislation to Combat Online Harms July 14, 2026
  • The 1961 HCCH Apostille Convention: Why All African Countries Should Ratify It? — Insights from Judicial Practice in Africa July 14, 2026
  • The enforcement of an advance on costs for substitute performance at the expense of a Russian debtor in German-French legal relations July 2, 2026
  • “Yes, in principle, but not quite there yet…” – Some Observations on the Public Consultation on the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions June 29, 2026
  • Judgment Mobility Rules in India’s Private International Law Regime: No place for a revision au fond? June 26, 2026
  • Nothing to See Here: The CJEU’s Decision in Case C-232/25 Idzinski June 18, 2026
  • Refusal to Enforce in Egypt of a Californian (U.S.) Judgment for Lack of Reciprocity: What Has Gotten into the Egyptian Supreme Court? June 15, 2026
  • PRC Double Interest neither Double nor Penal: Australian Courts Clear Its Name When Enforcing Chinese Judgments June 10, 2026
Link to: Legalisation attachments in Belgium Link to: Legalisation attachments in Belgium Legalisation attachments in Belgium Link to: Rome II: Agreement Reached in the Conciliation Committee Link to: Rome II: Agreement Reached in the Conciliation Committee Rome II: Agreement Reached in the Conciliation Committee
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top