Click here for the verdict.
Publication Court of Appeal the Hague ruling of 27-08-2013 Client N. Kreté: The woman who is the respondent Essence: explanation residence executor and was there a valid writ of attachment ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2013:3287
Appellant has not filed a complaint against the finding of the court that the claims of the respondent from who the assets where frozen were all related with his job as (former) executor. Also a former executor, still has obligations under the legal relationship, including the passing of accounts, see Article 4: 151BW. The freezing of the assets were related with his job as an executor and therefore the respondent was allowed to serve the writs at the address of the former executor. Furthermore, the respondent in the preliminary opinion of the Court has refuted sufficiently the presumption of Article 1:11 lid 2 BW so that the serving of the writs at the address in The Hague, also under Article 1:10 BW was legitimate.
The Court states that from Article 66 RV it follows that non compliance on pain of nullity prescribed form only nullity entails if this is necessary to protect the interests of the violated norm. The arrests for applying Article 705 RV contains no special rules. Although appellant, in the appeal indicates that it is mentioned in several documents that he would be in Thailand in September 2012, it follows from a phone message that he was already informed of the seizure of the assets on the day of the seizure. Under those circumstances, there are no grounds for lifting the embargoes. Reaffirms the judgment of the court and rejects the appeal further or other claims and condemned appellant to pay the costs of the appeal.