doorkruising/doorkruisingsleer/twee-wegenleer

English translation: thwarting doctrine

GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW)
Dutch term or phrase:doorkruising/doorkruisingsleer/twee-wegenleer
English translation:thwarting doctrine
Entered by: Isabeau Sas

06:53 Aug 18, 2011
Dutch to English translations [PRO]
Law/Patents - Law (general) / Doorkruisingsleer/Twee-wegenleer
Dutch term or phrase: doorkruising/doorkruisingsleer/twee-wegenleer
"Verhaal van kosten Eerste Tranche is een onaanvaardbare doorkruising van het publiekrecht (doorkruisingsleer)"

Does anyone have a translation for this Dutch legal term. Below is the Dictionary Denotation.


Uitgangspunt is dat de positie van de overheid als contractspartij een wezenlijk andere
is dan die van een particulier. Dit komt omdat de overheid nu eenmaal geacht wordt
het algemeen belang te behartigen. Deze bijzondere positie waarin de overheid zich
bevindt brengt mee dat de regels van het gewone overeenkomstenrecht niet
klakkeloos op contracten met de overheid van toepassing zijn. Aan de vraag naar de
normen die van toepassing zijn op privaatrechtelijk handelen van de overheid gaat een
vraag vooraf: mag de overheid zonder meer gebruik maken van het privaatrecht als
ook de publiekrechtelijke weg openstaat? Mag een gemeente er bijvoorbeeld voor
kiezen bepaalde kosten via een overeenkomst op de burger te verhalen terwijl zij dit
via een belastingverordening kan bewerkstelligen? Dit leerstuk staat bekend onder de
benaming “doorkruisingsleer” of “twee-wegenleer”.
Isabeau Sas
South Africa
Local time: 23:41
thwarting doctrine
Explanation:
"The question raises if a govemment (administrative authority) which enjoys
the power to act on a public law basis, could still make use of its powers under
private law. This question cannot be answered in general. In a concrete case several
determinants should be taken into account. One should first see whether the public
regulation at issue provides for an answer. If this is not the case, the answer should,
according to consistent jurisprudence, be found by applying the so-called 'thwart-
ing-doctrine' (doorkruisingsleer).
The main idea in this doctrine is that the use of
private law powers by govemments will only be allowed, as long as that use does
not thwart an existing public regulation in an unacceptable way. In order to exam-
ine whether this is the case, one should, according to the Dutch Supreme Court in
the Windmill-case, take into account several aspects, like the content and the
purpose of the public regulation (which could also be derived from its history)
and the way in which the interests of civilians have been protected by the
regulation. All these aspects should be weighed against the background of other
written and unwritten rules of public law. Moreover, it has to be examined whether
the same result could be reached by using the powers provided for by the public
regulation. When this is the case, use of private law powers will probably not be
allowed. 28"
https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/.../Effective_application_E...
Selected response from:

FX Fraipont (X)
Belgium
Local time: 23:41
Grading comment
2 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer



Summary of answers provided
4 +2thwarting doctrine
FX Fraipont (X)
3interference/doctrine of unacceptable interference/two-way doctrine
sindy cremer


  

Answers


8 mins   confidence: Answerer confidence 4/5Answerer confidence 4/5 peer agreement (net): +2
thwarting doctrine


Explanation:
"The question raises if a govemment (administrative authority) which enjoys
the power to act on a public law basis, could still make use of its powers under
private law. This question cannot be answered in general. In a concrete case several
determinants should be taken into account. One should first see whether the public
regulation at issue provides for an answer. If this is not the case, the answer should,
according to consistent jurisprudence, be found by applying the so-called 'thwart-
ing-doctrine' (doorkruisingsleer).
The main idea in this doctrine is that the use of
private law powers by govemments will only be allowed, as long as that use does
not thwart an existing public regulation in an unacceptable way. In order to exam-
ine whether this is the case, one should, according to the Dutch Supreme Court in
the Windmill-case, take into account several aspects, like the content and the
purpose of the public regulation (which could also be derived from its history)
and the way in which the interests of civilians have been protected by the
regulation. All these aspects should be weighed against the background of other
written and unwritten rules of public law. Moreover, it has to be examined whether
the same result could be reached by using the powers provided for by the public
regulation. When this is the case, use of private law powers will probably not be
allowed. 28"
https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/.../Effective_application_E...

FX Fraipont (X)
Belgium
Local time: 23:41
Native speaker of: Native in FrenchFrench
PRO pts in category: 2

Peer comments on this answer (and responses from the answerer)
agree  Halyna Smakal
3 mins
  -> thanks!

neutral  writeaway: imo, c'est du dunglish pur et dur. thwarting doctrine ne donne aucun (autre) résultat sur Google
1 hr
  -> c'est malin - c'est un concept spécifique à la loi hollandaise, si vous avez lu. est-il donc étonnant que l'équivalent ne se trouve pas tel quel sur Google?

agree  W Schouten: Crossover or two-way doctrines are also listed in the Lexicon.
2 hrs
  -> thanks
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)

13 hrs   confidence: Answerer confidence 3/5Answerer confidence 3/5
interference/doctrine of unacceptable interference/two-way doctrine


Explanation:
Although many websites use “doorkruisingsleer” and ‘twee-wegenleer’ (or ‘tweewegenleer’) synonymously, some authors treat them as separate concepts, e.g.

http://dare.uva.nl/document/98996 :
“Ten tweede is er de zogenaamde tweewegenleer. Deze leer stelt, dat de
overheid in beginsel vrij is een verhouding publiekrechtelijk of privaatrechtelijk te regelen, tenzij een wettelijke regeling de blijkbare bedoeling heeft voor een bepaalde materie een regeling te treffen, waarvan de afwijking niet geoorloofd is. Als derde wordt de doorkruisingsleer onderscheiden. Hierin ligt het primaat bij het publiekrecht en zal bij de toepassing van privaatrecht bekeken moeten worden of dit niet leidt tot een onaanvaardbare doorkruising van de publiekrechtelijke regeling.”

http://www.bestuursacademie.nl/opleidingen/detail/privaatrec... :
‘inzicht in tweewegenleer en doorkruisingsleer’

http://books.google.nl/books?id=8LMunY28dTMC&pg=PA76&lpg=PA7...

http://www.jongbloed.nl/Boek/Privaatrechtelijk-kostenverhaal... :
“Hiermee samenhangende leerstukken als de tweewegenleer en de doorkruisingsleer worden behandeld.”

======================================================

I favour the second option - to treat them as different concepts.

The key word in the 'doorkruisingsleer' is ‘onaanvaardbaar’, see e.g. http://books.google.nl/books?id=UIXGOq6TJIYC&pg=PA19&lpg=PA1...

Hence my suggestion ‘doctrine of unacceptable interference’ for 'doorkruisingsleer'.

I welcome alternatives for 'two-way doctrine' but in fact, haven't given the term much thought as I focused on finding an appropriate translation for 'doorkruisingsleer'.



sindy cremer
Specializes in field
Native speaker of: Native in DutchDutch
PRO pts in category: 60
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade)



Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.

You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.

KudoZ™ translation help

The KudoZ network provides a framework for translators and others to assist each other with translations or explanations of terms and short phrases.


See also:
Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search