The notary’s duty to provide information is taken extremely seriously in the Netherlands. The notary must always be sure that his clients are properly informed, in their own language if needed. The importance of having a translator/interpreter present was highlighted again in the proceedings described below.
Several children were disinherited by their father. They accused the notary of failing to use a sworn interpreter in the Berber (Tamazight) language when explaining the will. According to the children, their father had only a rudimentary command of Dutch and communicated primarily in Berber (Tamazight). The notary argued in his defence that Dutch law does not impose an obligation to use a sworn interpreter in this case. In addition, according to advice given by the Royal Dutch Notarial Association, notaries may act as interpreters themselves, if they have sufficient command of a particular language. The advice also states that a notary does so at their own risk. If clients later claim that they did not fully understand, it is up to the notary to prove that they were properly informed. However, the testator in question never raised any complaints about this.
Furthermore, the notary states that his native language is Moroccan Arabic (Darija) and that he was able to communicate effortlessly with the father in that language. According to the notary, there was a fluent conversation on various topics, and the father even made jokes in Moroccan Arabic. The father did not opt for an explanation in Berber, even though there was an employee at the notary’s office who could have provided an explanation in Berber. The will also included a statement which read:
“Finally, I, the notary, declare that I have also communicated and explained to the testator the contents of the deed in the Arabic language (Moroccan dialect). The appearer has informed me that he fully understands the substance and purport of this deed.”
The Disciplinary Court declared the complaint by the children unfounded. In its view, the notary had given a full description of how he had communicated with the father at the time and the language in which he had explained the will. The notary also recorded this in the deed. According to the Court, the children failed to demonstrate that their father would have been insufficiently able to understand the will owing to the language barrier. The Chamber also concurred with the defence’s argument that the use of a sworn interpreter was not required.
25 May 2026
By Joep Ertem, Westvaer Notarissen, Rotterdam (Netherlands)
