Onder 3.1 Hoge Raad 15 juni 2018

It is also true that a partial arbitral award in this matter does not specify in any manner what part of the asserted claim is concerned and the panel that issued the award subject to review dated 4 August 2008 (on page 100) simply subtracted this previously awarded amount from the lost profits. The fact that the court did not decide on the entire asserted claim does not make it a partial decision (as may be inferred, for example, from the reasoning of the Supreme Court, file No. 22 Cdo 411/98) regardless of its name. Each procedural act, including a decision, must be considered from an objective point of view in terms of its contents (as may be inferred from the decision of the Supreme Court, file No. 2 Cdon 1646/96) and the accuracy of the final and conclusive decision can no longer be reviewed or attributed other legal effects, even if it is not correct (as decided by the Supreme Court under file No. 32 Cdo 4343/2013). Pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court, file No. 1 Afs 80/2013, the failure to comply with the prescribed form of the decision alone cannot create unlawfulness of the decision and rule out its effects as determined by its contents. The objections of the Defendant that the decision formally titled as partial is not actually such a partial decision must be agreed to.

$ curl -s https://bron.page/api/v1/blobs/fdff564c219954c0cd14d5eeb7d80422d41b7d86ab4aaa8abfe3313739fc1eca | shasum -a 256