LAWS , REGULATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE TAKING-UP AND PURSUIT OF THE BUSINESS OF CREDIT INSTITUTIONS ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1977 , L 322 , P . 30 ).
2 IN JULY 1981 THE MUNICIPALITY OF HILLEGOM , THE APPELLANT IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS , DEPOSITED HFL 600 000 WITH THE AMSTERDAM AMERICAN BANK NV WHICH WAS DECLARED INSOLVENT IN OCTOBER OF THAT YEAR . THE MUNICIPALITY SOUGHT AN ORDER FROM THE ARRONDISSEMENTSRECHTBANK , AMSTERDAM , FOR THE PROVISIONAL EXAMINATION OF A NUMBER OF WITNESSES . UNDER NETHERLANDS LAW THIS PROCEDURE MAY BE USED IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES BEFORE AN ACTION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT . ONE OF THE PERSONS IT WISHED TO GIVE EVIDENCE WAS CORNELIS HILLENIUS , HEAD OF THE ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT OF THE NEDERLANDSE BANK WHICH , PURSUANT TO THE WET TOEZICHT KREDIETWEZEN ( LAW ON THE SUPERVISION OF CREDIT ), EXERCISES OVERALL SUPERVISION OF CREDIT INSTITUTIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS AND IS THE BANK SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSES OF DIRECTIVE 77/780 .
3 AFTER THE ARRONDISSEMENTSRECHTBANK HAD GRANTED THE ORDER FOR THE PROVISIONAL EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES , MR HILLENIUS CLAIMED HE WAS ENTITLED TO BE EXEMPTED FROM GIVING EVIDENCE AND REFUSED TO ANSWER A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS WHICH HAD BEEN PUT TO HIM IN HIS CAPACITY OF WITNESS AND WHICH RELATED TO THE SUPERVISION BY THE NEDERLANDSE BANK OF THE AMSTERDAM AMERICAN BANK NV .
4 MR HILLENIUS APPEALED TO THE GERECHTSHOF ( REGIONAL COURT OF APPEAL ), AMSTERDAM , AGAINST THE EXAMINING JUDGE ' S ORDER REFUSING TO ALLOW HIM TO BE EXEMPTED FROM GIVING EVIDENCE . BY ORDER OF 30 MAY 1983 THE GERECHTSHOF QUASHED THE EXAMINING JUDGE ' S ORDER . IT TOOK THE VIEW THAT MR HILLENIUS HAD BEEN JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING HIS STATUTORY DUTY NOT TO DIVULGE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION RECEIVED IN THE COURSE OF HIS DUTIES AS A GROUND FOR HIS REFUSAL TO GIVE EVIDENCE AS A WITNESS . THE MUNICIPALITY APPEALED IN CASSATION TO THE HOGE RAAD AGAINST THAT ORDER .
5 THE HOGE RAAD STATES FIRST OF ALL THAT IN REFUSING TO GIVE EVIDENCE AS A WITNESS MR HILLENIUS RELIES ON ARTICLE 46 ( 1 ) OF THE WET TOEZICHT KREDIETWEZEN WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS :
' ANY PERSON PERFORMING ANY DUTY BY REASON OF THE APPLICATION OF THIS LAW OR ORDERS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO THIS LAW SHALL NOT MAKE USE OF OR DIVULGE DATA OR INFORMATION PROVIDED PURSUANT TO THIS LAW OR OBTAINED DURING AN INSPECTION OF BOOKS AND RECORDS ANY FURTHER OR IN ANY OTHER WAY THAN IS NECESSARY FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTY OR THAN IS REQUIRED BY THIS LAW . '
THE HOGE RAAD THEN OBSERVES THAT THE DISPUTE ESSENTIALLY CONCERNS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ARTICLE 46 ( 1 ) OF THE WET TOEZICHT KREDIETWEZEN AND ARTICLE 1946 OF THE NETHERLANDS CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE , WHICH PROVIDES THAT :
' ALL PERSONS CAPABLE OF ACTING AS WITNESSES SHALL BE OBLIGED TO GIVE EVIDENCE IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS .
NEVERTHELESS THE FOLLOWING PERSONS SHALL BE