Authentic Registers in The Netherlands

Home / News / Authentic Registers in The Netherlands

January 1, 2011 /

An attempt to be one of the leaders in the field of ICT applications and digital service concepts in 2015. How does this effect the cooperation between government, notaries and the Dutch Cadastre? This article successively describes the development of the digital service concepts in time (Chapter 1), Authentic Registers[1] in general (Chapter 2), linking the Authentic cadastral registration (BRK) to the Municipality Personal Data Register (Chapter 3) and to the Registration on Adresses and Buildings (Chapter 4).

I. The development of digital service concepts

I.1. No wrong doors

Citizens and companies want their dealings with the government to be easy and efficient. They expect reliable information in clear language, one contact and no superfluous questions, rules and procedures[2]. In 1996 the Dutch government started the program called ‘Overheidsloket 2000’ (OL2000), a program to create ‘a better government’ with better public services and a reduction of administrative burden. The goal is to establish a nationwide network of electronic counters, opened 24/7, for the Dutch citizens and companies. In 2015 the Dutch municipalities should be the gateway to public services. One of the greatest improvements these counters should create is the delivery of the exact information citizens and companies would like to receive. A customer should not be referred to another counter more than once. In other words: ‘there will be no wrong door.’ Each citizen or company can consult the counter at the municipality of his or her residence, where te municipality uses shared services.

To achieve this, processes need to be standardized and better information and architecture are necessary. The magic word is interoperability[3]. But the connection of all governments to a nation-wide network where information is shared quickly, efficiently and accurately was proven complex. Although OL2000 has not led to that particular network, the program encouraged all governments to make use of the Internet.

I.2. Lost on the Internet

Every ministry, every province, municipality or water board district has built a website. Even different departments of each state component built a website, resulting in hundreds of sites. These sites were not only built for sharing information and for providing services to citizens and companies, but also for profiling purposes. In the end the citizens, searching for specific information got lost on the Internet.

1.3. Streamlining data

For that reason the Dutch government embarked on a three year programme (2000-2003) called ‘Streamlining Key Data’. This program aimed at encouraging an “irreversible restructuring” of the government’s information infrastructure. To achieve this the government has created a data infrastructure. Phase 2 of this program took place between 2004 and 2007.

It’s not just in favour of the citizens and companies that the streamlining of key data would or should be implemented. The Dutch government also has some advantages. To make the right decision as a public authority, you need to have the exact information. In the case of assigning a social security benefit, the social security office wants to know if the applicant has a job, an income or a real estate property or not.

The acquisition, storage and dissemination of this kind of information cost a lot. Also the creation and maintenance of a data infrastructure is very expensive. All government bodies gathered the required information from the other government bodies and kept it in their own system. To avoid multiple data collection, storage and multiple dissemination, data should be shared between the different government bodies. Therefore, the Dutch government came with the idea of Streamlining Key Data, as afterwards implemented by the National Implementation Programme for Services and e-Government, abbreviated as NUP. NUP is a program, based on an administrative agreement in which the governments agreed to prioritise the development of a number of basic facilities. These facilities jointly constitute the basic infrastructure for proper electronic traffic between the government and citizens and companies and between governments.

I.4. NUP and i-NUP: digital basic infrastructure

To realize proper electronic traffic between governments, citizens and companies the NUP has set guidelines[4] for all governmental websites. The purpose of these guidelines is to create government websites that are linkable, retraceable and accessible to all users (search engines, browsers, mobile applications and people with a (visual) limitation). The NUP also required the government to connect to so-called Collaborating Catalogs[5]. These catalogues ensure that the requested products and services at the counter of the right government are findable. In addition, software providers and programmers had to rely on the same standards.
In the past few years investments have been made in the development of a “Digital Basic Infrastructure“ for the electronic information exchange[6] between the government, citizens and companies and also between governments. The implementation of the basic infrastructure progressed considerably at the end of 2010. The large scale implementation and use of the basic services will become the next target for the years to come. NUP is followed on by i-NUP, the government-wide implementation agenda for the provision of services and e-government. Each individual government organization (municipality, provincial authority, water authority and implementing body) itself will be responsible for the implementation and use. With a large scale use the services to citizens and companies will improve, but also doing business digitally is worthwhile[7]. To implement the above, the implementing bodies, united in the Manifestgroep[8], mostly use the message box of MijnOverheid[9] (My Government). This message box makes it possible to receive, file, search and forward government messages electronically.

The so-called ‘digital basic infrastructure’ is mandatory and consists of five categories. These categories are: Social Security numbers, e-information exchange, e-information exchange, authentic registers and e-access and e-authentication. Only the last two categories will be explained. In paragraph 1.5 the long and short of the category e-access and e-authentication will be told. In chapter 2 the (principles of the) category of the authentic registers will be explicated.

I.5. e-access and e-authentication

To log on to the website www.mijnoverheid.nl the government should ensure that those who wish to gain access to the data are also authorized. E-Mail access and authentication are adjusted by using DigiD[10]. A citizen or a company can use its own – unique – DigiD over the Internet to communicate and deal with many different government agencies. As a citizen one does not need to remember different usernames and passwords for visiting different government websites. In return, the government can check the identity of the user via DigiD. DigiD prevents the development of different authentication systems by different government agencies. It therefore contributes to the efficiency of the government.

The Dutch Cadastre is affiliated with mijnoverheid.nl and also uses DigiD to verify the identity. For sending deeds and seizures, the use of DigiD not suitable. To implement the Directive[11] of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1999 on a Community framework for electronic signatures (PbEG L 13) the Electronic Signatures Act was introduced at the 8th of May 2003. In the Dutch Cadastre Act an article[12] is introduced which submits a link to the Electronic Signatures Act and gives further substance to sending deeds for registration electronically. Under this particular statutory provision the use of a qualified electronic signature is required for sending deeds and seizures.

II. The description of Authentic Registers

II.1. Introduction

In the Netherlands, data from the government have been collected in as many as 30,000 different systems. Certain data were recorded in multiple systems and were not always maintained properly. Furthermore the government bodies did not always respond adequately to requests from Citizens and businesses. It was time for a change.

The Dutch government improved its services to citizens and businesses through sharing data that was already registered within the different government bodies. Authorities just asking the same information only once saves time and effort for individuals and businesses in their contact with the government. Sharing data also contributes to fraud-prevention, improves law enforcement and has a positive influence on the reduction of administrative burden. Tot take real advantage of these benefits the Dutch government implemented a system of authentic registers.

Within the authentic registers system the basic data are collected and managed in one place, improving the quality and actuality of the data and improving the interchangeability of the data. Van der Molen and Welter[13] describe the goals of the Authentic registers within the Program ‘Streamlining Key Data’, as

  1. The communal use of data: in principle data would be collected on one occasion, and
    repeatedly used for the implementation of series of laws.
  2. The joint use of data: data from different records required for the performance of a
    specific government duty would be combined in one database.

II.2. Vital information and privacy

Authentic registers are defined in the Programme’Streamlining Key Data’ as ‘high quality databases accompanied by explicit guarantees ensuring for its quality assurance that, in view of the entirety of statutory duties, contains essential and/or frequently-used data pertaining to persons, institutions, issues, activities or occurrences and which is designated by law as the sole officially recognised register of the relevant data to be used by all government agencies and, if possible, by private organisations throughout the entire country, unless important reasons such as the protection of privacy explicitly preclude the use of the register’[14].

It also follows that government agencies and other governing bodies with public duties (such as notaries) have to use authentic data from different registers to carry out their work. This is mandatory and gives further substance to the system of authentic registers. All government organizations, but also other administrative bodies should use data from these registers. Authentic Registers contain the vital information from the government, as the data of all citizens, businesses and institutions are included. They play a key role in providing information (sharing data) to government organizations, because of the concept of authentic registers: they are guaranteed by the government regarding the availability, access, continuity, up-to-dateness, quality and price. Because of this high quality, the government can use this information without further investigation in their work. But there is also a risk. Because of the mandatory use of authentic data and the chain integration of data, identity theft is alluring. That is why the privacy should be respected as much as possible. states that governmental bodies and their civil servants only get access to the personal data if required and necessary for performing their public duties. A civil servant responsible for providing parking licenses can get access to data from the authentic register of vehicles. He or she may never use this data for any other purpose. The Data Protection Authority supervises the compliance with the law.

The Personal Data Protection Act also states that everyone is entitled to inspect the registered data concerning him or her and that he or she is entitled to ask for correction if the data is recorded improperly. Via www.mijnoverheid.nl (paragraph 1.5) residents can gain access to their personal data.

II.3 Several Authentic Registers

For each category of data a registration is present within the government. That is why perhaps hundreds of registers within the government`s information infrastructure could apply as a authentic register. To prevent a system with hundreds of authentic registers and again a lot of administrative burden, the Program proposed to start with the designation of 6 Authentic registers. These registers form the core of the system and consist of the data that is considered as the true identifying data, such as persons, addresses, buildings, land cadastral parcels, businesses and base geography.

Nowadays, jointly with twelve other government registrations the Authentic cadastre registration, the cadastral maps and the topographic maps of the Kadaster are formally appointed as authentic registers of the governmental information infrastructure.

For this publication, in addition to the Authentic cadastre registration, there are two authentic registers of interest, all belonging to the first six authentic registers. These are the Municipal Authentic Registration[16], held and disclosed by the municipalities and the Registration of Addresses and Buildings, held by the municipalities and also[17] electronically accessible through the Authentic cadastre registration. Finally, the Authentic Registration Notaries, an authentic registration in the process of formation, is of interest. Their relation to the Authentic cadastre registration will be explained later on.

II.4 Becoming an Authentic Register

To become an ‘authentic’ register there are specific demands[18], such as

  1. Transparent legislation. The register should be governed by law, the use of authentic registers is mandatory and the liability issues are explicitly rendered. Each authenttic register has its own legislation. This hampers the exchange of data, since definitions of terms are not always unambiguous. It is therefore important that legislation is harmonized where possible[19]. Where harmonization is not possible mutual agreements have to be made.
  2. Transparent finances. The implementation and operations are effected at reasonable costs, and there are explicit specifications of the apportionment of the costs
  3. Explicit content and structure. The content and scope of the register has been rendered explicit.
  4. Explicit responsibilities and procedures. Exhaustive agreements and procedures have been drawn up with respect to the owner of the register and the suppliers and users of the data. Explicit procedures have been drawn up governing the accessibility of the authentic register. A stringent quality-assurance scheme has been implemented and there have been laid down necessary specifications.
  5. Part of the system. The position of each authentic register within the system of authentic registers has been rendered explicit, and the relation with the authentic registers have been specified. The control of the authentic register rests with an administrative body[20], and a Minister has been assigned the responsibility for the implementation and operation of the register.

III. Linking the BRK to the Municipal Personal Data Registration

III.1 Authentic data

On the 1st of January 2008, the cadastre registration, as it is an entrance to the Land Register, elevated to authentic registration, the authentic Cadastre registration (BRK). The Dutch land registry Act is extended with provisions on the BRK. This includes the previously existing formal administrative and mapping components of the Land Registry, the «cadastre registration» and «cadastral map» risen.
Characteristics of an authentic data are:

  1. administered in conjunction with other data by a large number of administrative bodies in different processes and therefore used for information exchange between administrations;
  2. The administrator of an authentic registration is responsible for the reliability of that data;
  3. The data is subject to internal and external quality research, and
  4. the data is suitable for mandatory use by government agencies and non-recurring provision by citizens and businesses to government.

The BRK has three kinds of data:

  1. authentic data which BRK itself is the source;
  2. authentic data taken from another authentic registration;
  3. non-authentic data[21].

In Article 7f of the Dutch Cadastral Act is stated which data are authentic. These are mainly the cadastral data of an object or a plot, the size of the plot and the designation of the (limited) rights in rem. Where data are complementary to the BRK, certain information is taken from other authentic registers. A good example will be the data from the Municipal Personal Data Registration (abbreviated to MPDR), including first names, last name / names, date and place of birth. MPDR was designated as the authentic registration on personal data[22] on the 1st of April 2007.

Paragraph 2 of Article 7f Kw states that the data referred to in Article 48, paragraph 2 b of the Dutch Cadastral Act or authentic data. However, under paragraph 3 of Article 7g Kw, the afore mentioned personal data are supposed to be obtained from the municipal population (MPDR).

The reason is that these data already be regarded as authentic data because of the Municipal Personal Data Registration Act. Annex 1d of this Act designated which information should be applied as authentic. That means that the data included in the MPDR, have to be used by users of the BRK.

To avoid misunderstandings, I stress that data are important for public as well as privat law, but the indication «authentic» is only relevant for the public responsibilities and services of the government and therefore has less meaning for private law. This will be explained in the next paragraph and in the next chapter.

III.2. Current

Data in the various authentic registers should be current. The term ‘current’ means that the user may assume a complete and accurate acquisition of data from the source (notarial deeds) in the BRK. This does not mean that the data in the registration show the ‘legal reality’ at the time of consulting the BRK. Although the BRK contains the data as contained in the notarial deed which underlies entering the data in the BRK (the notarial deed) and is therefore current as we speak in terms of authentic registers, but these data in the source document (the deed) do not always display the full legal reality at the time of consulting the BRK, since consultation can also (and usually will) occur after some time. In the intervening period, changes may have occurred. Two examples.

Example 1
Person A deceases. Provided the data of ownership are included in the MPDR, the date of death of person A recorded will be registered in the BRK, since the BRK uses a link to the MPDR. Now users of the BRK know that the owner (person A) of a specific plot has deceased. But the user of the BRK wants to know who is the current owner (heir).
To register the heirs, it is necessary to record a certificate of inheritance, or in case of termination of the usufruct a specific declaration (Article 30 Dutch Cadastral Act) in the Land Register. After recording the deed, the BRK will be updated. Practice shows only a small portion of certificates of inheritance in cases of death related to cadastral recipients are recorded in the Land Register[23]. That is why the BRK does not always show the actual information about ownership.

Example 2
The marital status at the time of consulting the BRK is not always known. The current marital status is ‘current’ if the term ‘current’ is explained as intended in the law on Authentic registers. The marital status of the person entitled is recorded in the BRK as included in the notarial deed (the source) and is thus ‘current’.

The indication at the time of consulting the BRK does not necessarely display the legal reality.

Suppose person A was unmarried at the time of the acquisition of the plot, then married to person B, bought another house together with person B, then divorced and bought a another house with person C, the new partner. Without a prenuptial agreement, person B could also become co-owner of the plot. Without a deed of division/transfer it is not clear if person B will still be entitled to (part of) the revenues. Also the (co-)ownerships of the two houses is not clear to the user of the BRK because the actual marital status may differ from the marital status at the time of the purchase of the plot (and the houses).

III.3. Content of the notarial deed; the checks done by the notary

The notarial deed contains at least the surname, first names, date and place, residence with address and marital status of individuals who appear in the deed (Article 40 of the Notarial Act)[24].

Under Article 3b of the Municipal Personal Data Registration Act (hereinafter Wgba), the original authentic data, available in the MPDR, must be used by the notary while fulfilling his duties. There is but one exception[25]: the notary is not obliged to use the authentic data if he or she has reasonable doubt about the accuracy of the authentic data. He of she has to make a statement and send this to the administrator of the specific authentic registration.

Every Act on Authentic Registers has this rule of exception, so users are obliged to make improvements and inaccurate information will be eliminated[26].

Since the 1st of January 2010 the notary has to use the data from the MPDR in all cases and has to directly report any doubt about the accuracy of the original data to the Municipality. The notary has to report by stating the underpinning reasons. The reasonable doubt can arise from a copy of a ruling, a judicial sentence or any other document (e.g. the client ID shown at the notarial office) or personal knowledge.

If the notary consults the MPDR at the outset of his work, he or she can find any inaccuracies and report them before using the (wrong) data in the deed. The mayor (Article 63 of the MPDR Act) has to give feedback to the notary within five days after receipt and has to inform the notary if the data in the MPDR have been improved, added or deleted. There is also the possibility to make a note in the registration (Article 54) that the accuracy of the data is under investigation. The notary will be informed about any correction, addition or deletion afterwards.

Because deeds of transfer are usually not executed within this period of investigation, the municipality, provided that the notary reports early, has already checked the data for errors. The notary can use the (corrected or added) information in the deed he is executing. The same goes for possible errors in the BRK. To support reporting possible mistakes, the Kadaster has introduced a central reporting facility. Notaries may report an alleged inaccuracy written or electronic to this central facility. To prevent users of the BRK doing research on alleged inaccuracies that are prooven wrong afterwards, the Kadaster tries to avoid placing the text «under investigation» as much as possible. This can be done if the report or complaint is dismissed within one day. To promote the speedy processing of a report, an electronic feedback system with standard forms is implemented.

III.4. content of the BRK; checks done by the Registrar

When processing deeds by the Registrar, the content of the document is leading. After recording the deed, the data are processed in the BRK. The registration of a person in the BRK takes place through recording the detailed data of the person as mentioned in the deed. There is a ‘public name’ created. Once the data are entered in the BRK and the deed is fully processed, the Registrar will try to establish a link to the MPDR. In most cases, a perfect match is the result. If a link is created, the data from MPDR will be shown in the BKR. Both ‘public name’ and the name as mentioned in the MPDR can be used as an search entry, so no information is lost.

But there are cases with differences between the data in the deed and the data known by the MPDR. In these cases, the data from the MPDR will not be recorded in the BRK and there will be no link shown with the MPDR[27]. In those cases, the data in the deed are leading and these data will be shown in the BRK.

If there is a significant difference between the personal data mentioned in the deed and the personal data in the MPDR, further investigations will be made. The registrar investigates whether the data was processed in a correct and complete way. If the Registrars concludes that there was a mistake made by one of the civil servants, then this error will be corrected immediately.

IV. Linking the BRK to the Authentic Register on Adresses and Buildings

IV.1. Authentic data

The authentic register on Adresses records all residential areas, street names and number designations. The authentic register on buildings contains data on buildings, objects and stay (semi-) permanent pitches and moorings. Both registers (the Authentic Register on Adresses and Buildings, abbreviated as ARAB) are municipal registers and are managed by and publicly accessible via Kadaster. ARAB includes the purpose, the surface, the year of construction, and the address(es) of the building. If possible, the data of the BRK and ARAB are linked to each other. The information is electronically accessible via mijnkadaster.nl.

The ARAB entered into force since the 1st of July 2011. Basic question is whether an address, allocated to a cadastral parcel is equal to the address known in the ARAB. As a governing body, the notary is obliged to use the authentic data from the ARAB[28].

IV.2. Coordinates versus address; checks done by the notary

The place where a building is situated, is defined by coordinates. Notaries are not interested in coordinates. Only the addresses of buildings are of interest[29]. The statements of the parties involved in the transaction regarding data on addresses, must be regarded as data, that the notary receives in the performance of his duties. The notary has to check whether an address exists and that the notation is correct. For example, if the parties declare to transfer the parcel with the building, owned by A, and to the parties known as “Hoofdstraat 2” while the ARAB does not know this specific address, then the notary should report a «reasonable doubt» as to the accuracy of the data in the ARAB.

To help the notary find an answer to the question whether the adresses are the same, the Registrars states a declaration in the registration in most cases. If the address from the ARAB and the BRK differ, the address derived from the BRK will be maintained and no declaration will be stated in the BRK. Only positive matches will result in a declaration. In all other cases the notary has to investigate. In case of a report executing or recording the deed does not have to be delayed. The notary can enter the address as stated by the parties. To clarify the differences between the ARAB-address and the Address mentioned in the deed, the notary can use a text similar to the text with the MPDR.The text in the document could be: «The parties agreed on selling 7311 KZ Apeldoorn, Hoofdstraat 2 (in the ARAB known as: Hoofdstraat 4)…’.

IV.3. Content of the BRK and the ARAB; checks done by the Registrar

When the notary uses the above mentioned text, the Registrar knows the notary fulfilled his duty on doing research and he or she reported to the municipality. As already written, the registrars state a declaration in the registration to help the notary find an answer to the question whether the addresses in BRK and ARAB are the same.

A deviated ARAB-address can not be included in the BRK. The same goes for the declaration by the registrar; no declaration will be stated when the data in ARAB and BRK do not match. If the registrar would do so, the relevant ARAB-declaration (important for public law) would prevail over the private law relevant BRK addresses. That would be inconsistent with the text from the Explanatory Memorandum that is important for the changes made to the Dutch Cadastre Act on behalf of the introduction of ARAB.

Technically speaking, it is not possible for the registrar to use two types of addresses (the BRK-address and the ARAB-address) in the BRK. That is why the registrar uses the BRK-address and will only state a declaration in the case of a positive match. Whenever the notary sees the text of this declaration (“Location data derived from ARAB”) he or she does not need to check these address. But if the address in ARAB and BRK differ, the notary has to investigate. He or she does not need to investigate the technical part; the only question that should be answered by the notary is whether the address exists or not and whether the notation is correct or not.

The registrar checks the addresses at an automated way. The ARAB and BRK are not linked via the address. The cadastral information is registered via the unique cadastral number and the ARAB-information is available via a unique ID-number. This ID-number is associated with a specific object via the coordinates of a point of the building. By comparing the coordinates of that point (ARAB) with the coordinates of the cadastral field boundaries (BRK), the determination of the location of a building in a specific parcel is done automatically. The results of this technical comparison are combined in a linking table that is accessible for al users. The linking table shows the relationship between the addresses of ARAB objects with the spelling of the ARAB and the addresses of cadastral parcels (BRK). If further studies should be conducted, the linking table also provides information on the type of research that needs to be done. These studies can involve both geometric accuracy as well as addresses. If concluded that ARAB addresses are correct, the BRK will be adjusted. If, after investigation can be concluded that the ARAB-data are incorrect, that will be reported back to the municipality that is responsible for the accuracy of the information.
Because the utilization rooms within an building containing apartment rights is not displayed as an object in ARAB, the registrar does not make any ARAB-declaration to the indices for apartment rights. The comparison between ARAB and BRK therefore still remains limited to the parcel that is divided into apartment rights.

In conclusion

The legal position of the registration for the private legal matters are not changed by introducing a system of authentic registers. The law is therefore not intended to apply in any way altering the system of the Civil Code regarding real property or ownership.
The BRK is kept by means of mutations of the private legal situation. This is leading, also for the use within public duties. The treatment of reports by governments should not lead to conflicts with the private situation. The introduction of the BRK as part of a system of authentic registers was meant to share the needed information at an easy way, to contribute to fraud-prevention, to improve law-enforcement and to help reduce administrative burden. Implementing a system of authentic registrations requires creativity and inventiveness of all parties, but particularly (also) of the registrar. He or she must carry on between the private and the public (law) interest, without favoring either one of them. Both jurisdictions must be served by the registrar, each with its own purpose and under its own terms.

Footnotes

[1] Authentic Registers are also known as Base Registers, Key Registers or Basic Registers.

[2] See brochure in English about i-NUP: http://e-overheid.nl/images/stories/publicaties/engelse_publieksversie_inup.pdf.

[3] Duijvelaar, K. (only available in Dutch), Eén overheid en toch: Steeds meer portals en loketten, in Proces en Document, see: http://www.procesendocument.nl/artikelpd/eén-overheid-en-toch-steeds-meer-portals-en-loketten.

[4] Governments had to meet 125 quality standards that are (partly) based on the International Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). See for these guidelines: www.w3.org/TR/WCAG.

[5] See (only available in Dutch): http://e-overheidvoorburgers.nl/binaries/overheidheeftantwoord/pdf/factsheets/samenwerkende-catalogi–factsheet-def.pdf. In 2009 the Collaborating Catalogs received the Good Practice Label of the European e-government awards Consortium, see: http://www.epractice.eu/en/awardsfinalists2009.

[6] Next to the possibility to exchange information electronically, there is the possibility to send an electronical request or assignment regarding licences, exemptions or social benefits since the establishment of the Administrative Electronic Communications Act. Both government and citizens individually have to determine the extent (for which products or services) they are electronically accessible and indicate this as such (article 2:14 and 2:15 General Administrative Law Act, in short: GALA). Obviously, the communication between citizens and government needs to be sufficiently reliable and confidential. There may also be additional requirements by the relevant governing body. Finally there are requirements for the electronic signatures (stated in article 2:16 of the GALA).

[7] The estimate made by KING [Quality Institute of Dutch Municipalities] is that the Central Government will be able to save 123 million euro’s per year. For municipalities this means an amount of 125 million euro’s per year. Implementation NUP, the benefits portrayed, KING, The Hague 29 October 2010.

[8] The Dutch Cadastre also participates in the Manifestgroep, an informal multisectoral partnership between thirteen implementing bodies. The objectives of this partnership are improving service, reducing operating costs, a more effective government and simplifying and speeding up processes between organizations.

[9] See (only available in Dutch): www.mijnoverheid.nl.

[10] DigiD is an identification and authentication methods, designed by the government on behalf of all governments in the Netherlands. See: www.digid.nl/english.

[11] Directive pf the European Parliament and the Council of December the 13th 1999 on a Community framework for electronic signatures (PbEG L 13), 1999/93/EC, see http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&numdoc=31999L0093&model=guichett.

[12] Article 7e Dutch Cadastre Act.

[13] Molen. P. van der & Welter, K. 2004, “Authentic Registers and Good Governance”, U ECE WPLA Workshop on Advanced Property Administration, Vilnius, Lithuania, See: https://www.itc.nl/library/Papers_2004/n_p_conf/vandermolen_authentic.pdf

[14] Duivenbode. H van., & Vries, M de, 2003, Upstream! A chronicle of the Streamlining Key

Data Programme, The Hague and Parliamentary Papers 26 387, No 11.

[15] This registration contains the personal information (first and last names, birth dates, details of the parents but also of any children, the (ex-) spouse, etc.).

[16] As will be explained later on Chapter 4.

[17] Four (soon five) of these thirteen authentic registrations are managed by Kadaster: the authentic register of (small) Topography, the authentic register on Addresses and Buildings, the authentic register on Large-Scale Topography and the BRK. On a short term the authentic register on immovable property value.

[18] Molen. P van der & Welter, K. 2004, “Authentic Registers and Good Governance”, U ECE WPLA Workshop on Advanced Property Administration, Vilnius, Lithuania, See: https://www.itc.nl/library/Papers_2004/n_p_conf/vandermolen_authentic.pdf

[19] Some authentic registers have their own system, concept and synopsis.

[20] Such as the Chambers of Commerce, the Municipalities in the Netherlands and the Kadaster.

[21] The qualification non-authentic data does not automatically mean that these data are less reliable and of lower quality than the authentic data. The parliamentary history emphasizes that within the BRK there are also non-authentic data, in quality equal to the authentic data and equally reliable.

[22] In addition to the people who live in the Netherlands (since 1994 or lived), it is intended to include the data from people who do not live (non-residents), in the MPDR. The MPDR is extended with a registration of non-residents who have links with the Dutch government. This registration is called RNI. Upon registration in the RNI non-residents do get a citizen service number (BSN) appointed. Combined with the MPDR this results in a complete system of registration of natural people.

[23] In The Netherlands the certificate of inheritance is not obligatory recorded in the Land Register. Right now there are plans for new legislation on this matter. It will probably become mandatory to register the certificate of inheritance with the Cadastre so that both registers reflect the same and actual situation. Therefore, the Cadastre registration will be of greater importance and perhaps in the nearby future, the Land Register and Cadastre registration will have the same evidential value. In the Dutch deed system the transfer deeds are recorded in Land Register under a unique document identification. Because the Land Register is public, everyone can assess it through consultation and see who has what right(s). By using the unique document identification, the deed of conveyance can be found quite easily. At the moment only the most recent deed is investigated in most cases. That is because a third person in good faith may trust the validity of the last agreement. In fact, the validity of the last agreement is examined by the Civil Law Notary who prepares a new deed of conveyance. The Registrar checks the deed for registration requirements but does not guarantee a title, as in countries with a title system. In theory the judge decides whether rights are acquired and by whom, but the collaboration between Registrar and Notary is in fact more or less the same as in a title system. That is why lawsuits on ownership are very rare.

[24] These requirements are also stated in Article 18 of the Dutch Cadastre Act, with one exception (Article 18 paragraph 1, final part), but that will be left out of scope. There are more requirements for recording a deed, such as the obligation to include in the Act, if any, a local indicator and at least the cadastral designation of the property (Article 20 Dutch Cadastre Act), but these requirements will also be left undiscussed.

[25] Article 3b Wgba, 2nd paragraph, referring to Article 62 Wgba.

[26] In the Dutch Cadastre Act the mandatory use is stated in Article 7k Dutch Cadastre Act. The mandatory reporting is stated in article 7n of that same Act.

[27] When there are minor deviations, the outcome will be neglected and a link with the MPDR will be established.

[28] Article 35 and 36 of the Authentic registers on Adresses and Buildings.

[29] In case of conflict between the description of the parties in the deed and the administrative information, the description of the parties prevails, see Dutch Surpreme Court, Koene v. Los/ Dukkers, HR December the 2nd 1988, NJ 1989, 160.