level of private international law(the growing recognition and accommodation of foreign legal phenomena and acceptance of uniform private international law rules)and at the level of substantive law(growing harmonisation and unification). A famous(or infamous?) example of what is happening at the private international law level is the recognition of the common law trust by civil law countries. For civil law systems, it is a major problem who should be considered the ownerof trust property. To solve these problems, the Hague Trust Convention was drafted which entered into force in the Netherlands on 1 February 1996.28A trust/beneficiary regime violates the fiducia ban, as it is, from a civil law viewpoint, a transfer of ownership with limited purposes(it is not a true or real transfer, as its purpose is division between entitlement to benefits and the management thereof). Consequently the act to implement the provisions of the Hague Trust Convention states in Article 4 that the legal consequences of the recognition of a trust according to article 1 l of the Convention is not te be overridden by provisions of Dutch law conceming the transfer of ownership, security interests or the protection of cred itors in the case of insolvency. 29 A further statutory exception to Book 3, Article 843)of the NCC was made as a consequence of the participation of the Netherlands in the European and Monetary Union. By special statute, the fiducia ban was declared non-applicable to repo transactions. 30 In the Explanatory Memorandum it is stated that this statutory provision is necessary to avoid interpretation problems and that the special statutory provision should not be seen as an exception to Book 3, Article 84(3)of the NCC. Whether"interpretation' or not, this article does not apply to repo transactions. Also, the Bill on financial collateral arrangements contains a provision declaring the fiducia ban non-applicable to transactions made in performance of such arrangements. 3I Finally, when the legislature wanted to give rules on so-called qualitative For the text, see the web site of the Hague Conference on Private International Law. http:/lwwwhcchnet/elconventionshext30ehtml:forthestatussee:bttn:wwwhcch.net/e/status/stat30ehtml Law of4 October 1995, Staatsblad( Bulletin of Acts and Orders)1995, 508 (Bepalingen van onverlet. " )More recent Dutch legislation as well as parliamentary documents can D.as Nederlands recht inzake eigendomsoverdracht, zekerheidsrecht of de bescherming van schuldeisers in geval van insolventie laten de in artikel 1 l van het Verdrag omschreven rechtsgevolgen van de erkening van een trust http:/www.overheidnopdutch) Law of 17 Decem ber 1998. Staatsblad 1998.716. Article 5 of the Act amends the securities Transactions(Supervision)1995(Wet Toezicht effectenverkeer )and added Article 2(a)to the latter Act In Book 7(Special Contracts), a new title 2 on Financielezekerheidsovereenkomsten(financial collateral arrangements)will be added. The Bill implements Directive 2002/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2002 on financial collateral arrangements, OJ 2002(voL. 45)L 168, pp 43 ff. http:/leuropa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oi/dat/2002/1168/116820020627en00430050.ndf,alsotobefoundonthe web site of the Electronic Bulletin of European Documentation of the Universite catholique de louvain: http://130.104. 48/Bede/EBED622002/OL 168043ndf The relevant Article ofthe Bill is(Book 7)Article 55 NCC, which reads: Een overdracht ter nakoming van een financielezekerheidsovereenkomst tot overdracht is geen overdracht tot zekerheid of een overdracht die de strekking mist het goed na de overdracht in het vermogen van de verkrijger te doen vallen in de zin van artikel 84 lid 3 van Boek 3. De regels betreffende pandrecht zi]n op een zodanige overeenkomst en de uitvoering daarvan niet van toepassing of overeenkomstige toepassing.(A transfer resulting from the performance of a financial collateral arrangement, from which an obligation to transferensues, is not a transfer of property for purposes of security or a transfer which does not have the purpose of bringing the property into the patrimony of the acquirer, after transfer, as meant in Article 84(3)of Book 3. The provisions on pledge do not apply or do not apply mutatis mutandis to such an arrangement or its performance'-my translation)8 level of private international law (the growing recognition and accommodation of foreign legal phenomena and acceptance of uniform private international law rules) and at the level of substantive law (growing harmonisation and unification). A famous (or infamous?) example of what is happening at the private international law level is the recognition of the common law trust by civil law countries. For civil law systems, it is a major problem who should be considered the ‘owner’ of trust property. To solve these problems, the Hague Trust Convention was drafted, which entered into force in the Netherlands on 1 February 1996.28 A trust/beneficiary regime violates the fiducia ban, as it is, from a civil law viewpoint, a transfer of ownership with limited purposes (it is not a true or ‘real’ transfer, as its purpose is division between entitlement to benefits and the management thereof). Consequently, the Act to implement the provisions of the Hague Trust Convention states in Article 4 that the legal consequences of the recognition of a trust according to Article 11 of the Convention is not to be overridden by provisions of Dutch law concerning the transfer of ownership, security interests or the protection of creditors in the case of insolvency.29 A further statutory exception to Book 3, Article 84(3) of the NCC was made as a consequence of the participation of the Netherlands in the European and Monetary Union. By special statute, the fiducia ban was declared non-applicable to repo transactions.30 In the Explanatory Memorandum it is stated that this statutory provision is necessary to avoid interpretation problems and that the special statutory provision should not be seen as an exception to Book 3, Article 84(3) of the NCC. Whether ‘interpretation’ or not, this Article does not apply to repo transactions. Also, the Bill on financial collateral arrangements contains a provision declaring the fiducia ban non-applicable to transactions made in performance of such arrangements.31 Finally, when the legislature wanted to give rules on so-called qualitative 28 For the text, see the web site of the Hague Conference on Private International Law: http://www.hcch.net/e/conventions/text30e.html; for the status see: http://www.hcch.net/e/status/stat30e.html. 29 Law of 4 October 1995, Staatsblad (Bulletin of Acts and Orders) 1995, 508. (‘Bepalingen van Nederlands recht inzake eigendomsoverdracht, zekerheidsrecht of de bescherming van schuldeisers in geval van insolventie laten de in artikel 11 van het Verdrag omschreven rechtsgevolgen van de erkenning van een trust onverlet.’) More recent Dutch legislation as well as parliamentary documents can be found at: http://www.overheid.nl/op (Dutch). 30 Law of 17 December 1998, Staatsblad 1998, 716. Article 5 of the Act amends the Securities Transactions (Supervision) 1995 (Wet Toezicht effectenverkeer) and added Article 2(a) to the latter Act. 31 In Book 7 (Special Contracts), a new title 2 on Financiëlezekerheidsovereenkomsten (financial collateral arrangements) will be added. The Bill implements Directive 2002/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2002 on financial collateral arrangements, OJ 2002 (vol. 45) L 168, pp. 43 ff.: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2002/l_168/l_16820020627en00430050.pdf, also to be found on the web site of the Electronic Bulletin of European Documentation of the Université catholique de Louvain: http://130.104.105.148/Bede/EBED622002/OJL168043.pdf. The relevant Article of the Bill is (Book 7) Article 55 NCC, which reads: ‘Een overdracht ter nakoming van een financiëlezekerheidsovereenkomst tot overdracht is geen overdracht tot zekerheid of een overdracht die de strekking mist het goed na de overdracht in het vermogen van de verkrijger te doen vallen in de zin van artikel 84 lid 3 van Boek 3. De regels betreffende pandrecht zijn op een zodanige overeenkomst en de uitvoering daarvan niet van toepassing of overeenkomstige toepassing.’ (‘A transfer resulting from the performance of a financial collateral arrangement, from which an obligation to transfer ensues, is not a transfer of property for purposes of security or a transfer which does not have the purpose of bringing the property into the patrimony of the acquirer, after transfer, as meant in Article 84(3) of Book 3. The provisions on pledge do not apply or do not apply mutatis mutandisto such an arrangement or its performance’ - my translation.)