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.
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 SasKudoZ activityQuestions: 11 (none open) ( 1 without valid answers) ( 2 closed without grading) Answers: 0
| | Local time: 12:52
|
| | 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
Belgium
Local time: 12:52
| Grading comment | 2 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer |
| |
| Discussion entries: 0 |
|---|
Automatic update in 00:
|
8 mins confidence:   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
Belgium
Local time: 12:52
Native speaker of:  French
PRO pts in category: 2
|
| |
| KudoZ™ translation helpThe KudoZ network provides a framework for translators and others to assist each other with translations or explanations of terms and short phrases. See also: Search millions of term translations  |
| |
The translation workplace 
