Introduction
The Executive Board (BoG) of the Theological University Apeldoorn (TUA) has asked us to advise it on the legal status of the CGK denomination. There is much confusion (in our view, incidentally, unnecessary) about this status after the last General Synod (gs). The TUA is closely associated with the CGK. Confusion about the legal status of the CGK therefore also affects the position of the TUA.
Due to the importance of the subject for the church body, the BoE agreed that an edit of the memorandum should be1 made available to churches.
In this note, we answer the question of what is the legal status of the CGK's denomination and what this means for its multiple assemblies. Our approach is that of civil law, more specifically that of legal personality law. We are not concerned with an ecclesiological assessment, not even primarily with church law, except where it is relevant to the civil-legal assessment.
We will also relate in this note to what some others (including the moderates of the last gs and the CG Council) have written on the subject.
The intention is to publish an article on the subject of this memorandum in an academic journal in the field of church law. The memorandum forms the basis for this article.
Summary
In this note, we will set out the following based on a civil law analysis:
- The (national) CGK and its several assemblies possess legal personality as ecclesiastical legal persons.
- The rules of Title 1 of Book 2 of the Civil Code on, among other things, the nullity or annulment of resolutions and the dissolution of legal persons apply to the CGK's denomination.
- Only the gs can decide to reorganise the CGK's denomination.
- The CGK denomination exists in a legal sense as long as the gs has not taken a decision to dissolve it.
- The meeting structure of the CGK is still legitimate, even if Articles 30 and 31 KO are in tension.
- In itself, local churches are free to set up their own alliances. But if that alliance takes on an institutional character (with its own multiple assemblies), a new church alliance is created. That alliance will not replace the existing CGK alliance.
The CGK as a church legal entity
A denomination is a separate figure in the law of legal persons. According to article 2:2 paragraph 1 of the Civil Code, denominations and their independent parts and bodies in which they are united possess legal personality by operation of law - i.e. without the need to fulfil formal requirements including a notarial deed and registration in the Chamber of Commerce. They are governed by their own statute (to the extent not contrary to law[2]) and the provisions of Title 1 of Book 2 of the Civil Code apply (with the exception of Article 2:5 of the Civil Code[3]) not for them. Corresponding application of that provision is, however, permissible 'insofar as it is compatible with their status and the nature of their mutual relations'(Article 2:2 paragraph 2 BW).
It is not in dispute that local churches of the CGK are each independent ecclesiastical legal persons. But also the supra-local associations in which they are organised have legal personality. This at least applies to the classes, ps and the gs. They are 'bodies in which the local churches are united' within the meaning of Article 2:2 paragraph 1 of the Civil Code and are therefore ecclesiastical legal persons.[4] It follows from Article 84 KO that the CGK itself sees it that way[5], although this is not so explicitly stated in the KO, as it is in the KO of Reformed congregations.[6]
The national ecclesiastical association of the CGK, like other ecclesiastical associations of Reformed confession (such as the Reformed congregations), is also itself to be regarded as an ecclesiastical legal person; it is a body in which the local churches are united within the meaning of article 2:2 paragraph 1 of the Civil Code and for that reason possesses legal personality. In this context, it is significant that national church workers enter into an employment contract with the CGK.[7]
It is then obvious to consider the gs as an organ of this ecclesiastical legal entity. A common definition of the term organ of a legal entity is as follows[8]:
‘A functional unit consisting of one or more persons vested by law or by the articles of association with decision-making powers in matters concerning the legal entity.'
Based on this definition, the gs is (also) an organ of the CGK: The KO (article 50) stipulates that there is an institute such as the gs, that that institute meets regularly and regulates that the gs takes decisions (has decision-making power) on numerous matters that concern the church body.
Applicable rules of law
Church legal entities, as mentioned above, are regulated not only by their own statute but also by the provisions of Title 1 of Book 2 of the Civil Code, which are not incompatible with the nature of the denomination. Articles 2:14 and 2:15 of the Civil Code are in Title 1 of Book 2 of the Civil Code and are therefore not directly applicable. Literature and case law also assume that these provisions may be applied analogously.[9]
Article 2:14 of the Civil Code states that a resolution of a body of a legal entity that is contrary to the law or the articles of association is null and void, unless something else follows from the law. Thus, nullity exists when the following requirements are met:
- a decision of an organ of a legal person;
- that is contrary to the law or the articles of association (unless something else follows from the law).
If a decision is null and void, it is deemed not to have existed. In any case, it has no effect.
Under Article 2:15(1) of the Civil Code, a resolution of a body of a legal person is voidable is due to violation of a statutory provision or a provision in the articles of association governing the passing of resolutions, due to violation of reasonableness and fairness as referred to in Article 2:8 of the Dutch Civil Code or due to violation of a regulation. That a resolution is voidable means that it is not void by operation of law (i.e. automatically), but that an appeal to the voidability is made by an interested party. If that appeal is rightly made, and is upheld by the court, the court annuls the decision (Article 2:15(3) of the Civil Code). The authority to claim annulment expires at the latest one year after the interested party was able to take note of it (2:15 paragraph 5 BW).
When a legal entity resolves something contrary to the articles of association, the resolution is void. If the manner of passing the resolution is contrary to the articles (e.g. the members were not given 14 days' notice when they should have been), the resolution is voidable.
It follows from the above that decisions of a gs can also be affected by invoking Sections 2:14 or 2:15 of the Civil Code. In the proceedings brought by the Broeksterwoude-Petrus, this congregation also invoked these provisions, arguing, among other things, that the decision not to appoint a calling church was null and void due to violation of Section 50 KO. In our view, this is a very defensible argument.[10]
Church 'reorganisations'
In the legal literature[11] it is assumed that the freedom of organisation of denominations includes the freedom to reorganise themselves, for example by merging or splitting. In addition, denominations may dissolve or wind themselves up. The various forms of reorganisation are governed by the statute of the denomination, at least as far as the ecclesiastical aspects of the organisation are concerned.[12] These include decision-making (who is authorised to take which reorganisation decisions), organisational consequences, grounds for assessing the validity of the reorganisation and determination of the property-law consequences of the reorganisation envisaged by the denomination. Less clear is how other aspects of the reorganisation - especially property law consequences, involving third party interests - are regulated.
It is therefore important to consider whether the CGK's KO contains provisions that are significant for any administrative reorganisation of the church body.
The KO lacks specific provisions on splitting, merger or dissolution of the CGK. What does have relevance is that the KO contains a regulation on the cooperation of local churches with other churches of Reformed confession (Appendix 1.8 to the KO). It follows from this annex that the church council of a congregation cannot simply decide to do so on its own. All steps to be taken in a process of cooperation first of all require a sufficiently 'unanimous feeling' of the congregation. The classis must 'satisfy itself' that the substantive and formal requirements for the various steps have been met.
That role of the classis is also there under the KO in the foundation and dissolution of local congregations. In both cases, the advice of the classis is necessary (Article 38 KO).[13] The church council decides to dissolve, but not outside the classis. It can also be inferred from this regulation that the church council of a local congregation cannot simply withdraw that congregation from the connection of churches.
Finally - and certainly 'last but not least' in this context - the KO contains regulations for situations when a local congregation wants to transfer to another classis. Article 41 under 2 KO states - in brief - that this is only allowed when both classes involved consent, failing which the ps decides. Thus, a local congregation cannot transfer to another classis without the consent of the classis to which it belongs.
In view of the above, under the KLA, church councils of local congregations cannot decide on the foundation and dissolution of local congregations without the involvement of the classis, not even on cooperation with congregations of another denomination that affect the structure of the local congregation, nor on the classis to which the local congregation belongs.
It follows that the KO does not give church councils of local congregations room to formally organise themselves outside the existing classic structures in alternative classes. Admittedly, the KO does not prevent local churches from cooperating on an informal level with other local churches of the denomination with whom they wish. But such cooperation, where the official structure and decision-making of the CGK is concerned, does not constitute an alternative to that structure. Indeed, a local church may cooperate intensively with other local churches, or not at all with other local churches of the confederation, but it remains part of the classis to which it belongs until that classis gives it permission to transfer to another classis. That other classis will then be another pre-existing classis, which, moreover, must give its consent to that transfer.
Given this structure, it is obvious that a large-scale - nationwide - 'reorganisation' would require a decision by the gs. In this context, we point out that in the past the gs has decided[14] to explore a reorganisation of classes. Apparently, and quite understandably, the reorganisation of the churches' organisational structure was seen as a matter for the gs.
The idea that like-minded local churches on the basis of a shared conviction 'from the bottom up', to the exclusion of churches that do not share or practise that conviction, can rebuild the CGK outside the currently existing structures of classis and ps is, in view of the foregoing, contrary to content and structure of the KO. Besides, if the intention is to do so from the 'four-layer' Scripture-Confession-KO and synodal decisions, that is by definition impossible. Indeed, as explained above, one of the elements of that four-layer - the KO - stands in the way of local churches organising themselves outside the existing classical structures in (newly formed) classes or other 'multiple assemblies'.
The end of church affiliation
Legal entities can terminate, 'be dissolved' as it is called in the terminology of Book 2 of the Civil Code. Article 2:19 of the Civil Code regulates the cases in which a legal entity is dissolved. The provision lists six cases of dissolution, of which only the first case - dissolution by decision of the competent body - is relevant. We therefore leave the other cases aside. The literature assumes that Article 2:19 of the Civil Code - a provision from Title 1 of Book 2 of the Civil Code - can also be applied by analogy to ecclesiastical legal persons.[15] This means that ecclesiastical legal persons can end by a resolution for dissolution. If the statute of the ecclesiastical legal entity contains an arrangement for dissolution, that arrangement must be followed. In the absence of such an arrangement, a resolution for dissolution can still be passed. By interpreting the statute, it should be determined which body can decide to dissolve and which procedure should be followed. In doing so, a connection can be sought with the procedures laid down in the statute for decision-making on serious matters.[16]
The KO does not contain a provision on dissolution of the denomination, classis or ps. This does not mean that dissolution of these ecclesiastical legal persons cannot be decided. But dissolution does require a decision necessary. Until that decision is taken, the legal entities are not dissolved and therefore still exist as a legal entity.
The gs - indisputably the only competent body that could take such a decision - did not decide to terminate or dissolve the CGK's denomination.[17] This means that the CGK still exists as a church legal entity and thus as a legal entity.
This applies not only to the national church confederation, but also to the regional and supra-regional confederations (classis and ps). If the church affiliation still exists, it is hard to imagine that it would be different at a 'lower level of aggregation'. The church association exists not only at the synodal level, but also at the level of classis and ps (cf. article 29 KO where these three multiple assemblies are mentioned).
We note here that a classis or ps in theory could take a dissolution decision - concerning its own classis or ps. But such a decision would mean that congregations that (do) want to continue to belong to the national denomination would have to reorganise themselves. In effect, this would mean a reorganisation of the regional alliances. And, as explained above, such a reorganisation cannot be achieved by a single classis. Moreover, legal remedies (revision and appeal) are available against a decision to dissolve a classis. It seems to us that appeals against such a decision are successful as long as the gs has not decided to dissolve the CGK. It is not for an individual classis or gs to 'get ahead of the (weeping) music' on this point.
The conclusion is that both the national church body and its regional associations (classis and ps) still exist.
Does the existing meeting structure still apply?
After the conclusion of the last gs held, the question arose as to whether the CGK church body still existed and, in connection with this, whether the existing meeting structure (with meetings of classis, ps and gs) was still legally valid (legitimate). In the letter of 5 June 2025 from deputies of representation to the church councils, the deputies asked that question and gave the following answer:
"The denomination of the Christian Reformed Churches still exists. After all, all 181 local churches still exist. And Lord willing, those 181 local churches will all convene their worship services again next Sunday. Those local churches also still have their shared responsibilities: the TUA, emeritikas, missionary work, etc. But the church body's meeting structure appears to be stuck. With Articles 30 and 31 of our Church Order no longer functioning, it is up to the local churches to decide how they relate to the current situation. Do they want to reconvene in synodal context? How then? And with which other congregations then? Those weighty questions are now on the table of the local churches."
Earlier in the letter, deputies had written in an explanation of decision of the gs - the decision to give them mandate to act on the situation as it arises after the gs closes:
"Decision 5 was taken in view of the situation after the conclusion of the synod. That situation is highly uncertain. It is up to local congregations to decide how they wish to convene."
The CG Council, in a post on its website dated 19 June 2025, cited these passages in support of its claim that the synodal side of the church system no longer functions and that the only church assembly left is the council of churches. The CGB Council on this:
"Meetings where more churches come together take valid decisions for those churches that consider these decisions to be for "firm and binding". These decisions cannot be considered binding on the other churches as a matter of course. The ordinary multiple assemblies (classis, private synod, general synod) can no longer meet lawfully, because that has rendered the church order basis (articles 30 and 31 KO) powerless and ineffective."
To this, the CG Council linked the following advice to church councils wondering whether they should still attend classic meetings:
"Because the basis under the multiple assemblies has fallen away, the bottom line is that the classis can no longer meet legitimately to make decisions for the whole of the (former) resort. It is therefore unwise to participate in it at this time. Those who do so will once again give legitimacy to this classis. For this reason, it is also inadvisable to write to a calling church or permanent classis scribe. In fact, all these arrangements have lapsed. If a (former) classis does meet and you want to let it be known that you will not attend and that you dispute the legitimacy of this meeting, let it be known to all churches in the (former) classis. And please note: do not appeal against decisions taken, because by doing so you also give legitimacy to this assembly afterwards."
Possibly in response to this advice, deputies wrote representation in a letter dated 8 July 2025 to all church councils:
"From several quarters, we as deputies of representation have been asked the question whether regular classis meetings can still exist in the current situation.
The question can indeed be raised whether this is still a meeting of the classis meeting. However, since as much as possible must be done to prevent church members from falling between two stools because of the current situation, we advise the classis to at least allow matters such as the issuing and receiving of attestations of ministers, emergencies and classic examinations of candidates to continue for as long as necessary.
We express this opinion without thereby making definitive statements as to whether this is another meeting of the classis assembly. We do not feel called to do so at this time."
It follows from the deputies' letters of representation that they wrestle with the question of whether the CGK still exists as a denomination and also link that question to another question: whether legally valid classis meetings can still be held. They seem to seriously doubt the latter. The CG Council has no doubts about that: Classes can no longer meet legitimately.[18]
It follows from what we have set out above that there is no reason to doubt the existence of the CGK (and the classes and ps in which it is organised) as a legal entity. Thus, the CGK still 'simply' exists. The doubts expressed by the CG Council (and to a lesser extent Deputaten vertegenwoordiging) are therefore unfounded.
This also means that the starting point is that the organisational structure of the CGK still exists and that the assemblies that lead that structure (its organs - classis and ps) also still exist. Therefore, if those bodies meet, it is legitimate in principle. Indeed, it is precisely not legitimate when classes and pss do not meet at least twice and once a year respectively, because the KO unambiguously prescribes this (cf. Articles 40 and 47 KO). Not meeting is therefore contrary to the KO.[19]
So much for the premise. The question arises whether this premise can be set aside because Sections 30 and 31 KO do not work. This is - from the perspective of civil law - not the case. The following is important here:
- Articles 30 and 31 KO are important provisions that imply that local churches should abide by decisions of the gs (and certainly when those decisions have been confirmed after revision). It is understandable that local churches get confused and eventually desperate and frustrated when they find that other local churches do not comply with decisions of the gs, even if those churches believe they have good arguments for doing so.
- This does, incidentally, merit a note of perspective. The fact that local congregations do not comply in all respects with all decisions of the gs is not unique in the history of the CGK. With regard to liturgical matters (in particular the singing of spiritual songs) this has been the case for decades. And even now it is not the rule that congregations do not abide by decisions of the gs. On the contrary, most congregations abide by all decisions of the gs and those that do not abide by almost all synodal decisions. This is only different with regard to some specific topics, such as 'women and ministry' and dealing with homosexuality. So there is no situation in which many congregations 'do what is right in their own eyes' without limitation and without regard to decisions of the gs.
- The question is whether Articles 30 and 31 KO - as important as they are - constitute the 'church-orderly basis' for the multiple assemblies, as the CG Council believes. It is more obvious to look for that basis in Article 29 KO (where the multiple assemblies are mentioned) and in the specific provisions on the classis (Article 41 et seq. KO), the ps (Article 47 et seq. KO) and the gs (Article 50 KO), respectively. These provisions stipulate, among other things, that these multiple assemblies (must) exist, how they are composed, how often they meet and what topics they deal with. Articles 30 and 31 KO give general rules on the nature of the subjects ('ecclesiastical matters'), the manner of meeting ('in an ecclesiastical manner'), the demarcation between them and the right of appeal. Therefore, they are not so much provisions of a constituent, but of a regulatory nature.
- The mere fact that within a legal entity all the provisions of its statute - more specifically, provisions on decision-making and interrelationships - are not enforced does not affect the formal structure and/or decision-making process within that legal entity. If that situation arises, the legal entity may take measures to put its house in order and try to enforce compliance with its statute. If its statute does not provide it with sufficient opportunities to do so, it can amend its statute if it wishes and to the extent possible. If it is unable or unwilling to do so, the competent body may consider taking a decision to dissolve it. Until that decision is taken, the legal entity continues to exist and its organs and organisational structures remain intact.[20] Until then, the legal entity must also comply with the provisions of its statute.
It is no different for a church legal entity. If important provisions of the KO do not work, even if they are provisions on the governance and organisation of the denomination, the denomination should look for ways to put an end to that situation. If the KO does not provide such possibilities, it may consider amending the KO. Possibly, the appropriate body (in this case, the gs) may decide to dissolve the denomination. But until then, its meeting structure and decision-making processes - 'with all its leaks and defects'- remain intact.
However conceivable the feeling of frustration about the functioning of the church assemblies may be, there is no sound legal basis for the view that the assembly structure in the CGK (with classis, ps and gs) is not legitimate for the reason that Articles 30 and 31 KO (in a number of congregations and only with regard to decisions on some 'thorny issues') do not function.
Building the church body 'from the bottom up'?
It has been indicated above that the assumption that local congregations can rebuild the CGK outside the currently existing structures of classis and ps on the basis of a shared conviction 'from below', excluding churches that do not share or practise that conviction, is contrary to content and structure of the KO.
The question arises what the civil-law consequences are when local congregations belonging to the CGK nevertheless unite in supra-local associations. Depending on the nature and character of the cooperation, these churches then form a denomination, which has legal personality within the meaning of section 2:2 of the Civil Code. If the cooperation has an institutional character, for example by establishing its own 'multiple assemblies', this will soon be the case.
However, it is important to underline that they then form a different denomination from the existing CGK. After all, the CGK denomination still exists and has its own meeting structure, consisting of the multiple assemblies mentioned in the KO. Therefore, the much-heard idea that these cooperating local congregations continue the CGK, would be the actual CGK or replace the existing CGK lacks a sound legal basis.[21]
In principle, local churches are free to withdraw from the existing meeting structure and organise their own meeting structures. But if they decide to do so, they thereby separate themselves from the existing national CGK denomination. [22] The latter is only different when the gs (as yet) decides on a "reorganisation" of the church body, which, for example, amounts to like-minded local churches forming separate classes. After all, in that case there is no question of a decision by (the church council of) a local church, but of a decision by the gs. However, the gs has not (yet) taken such a decision, although a proposal to do so was tabled at the last gs.
Kampen/Dordrecht 16 September 2025
Mr H. de Hek Prof W.A. Zondag
[1] The sections specifically relating to the TUA have been omitted and the section on the CGK as a civil legal entity has been rewritten. Furthermore, some changes have been made at the detail level.
[2] It is clear from the parliamentary history that the term 'law' in this provision refers to provisions of a fundamental nature or 'strongly binding law', which is thought to include 'very weighty mandatory provisions'. HR 4 October 2019, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:1531 (NGK/Gort), NJ 2020/323 cf. Van Solinge, JAR 2019/274 citing. Zondag, JIN 2019/173 cf. De Jong.
[3] That provision states that a legal person is equivalent to a natural person in terms of property law. So this also applies to ecclesiastical legal persons.
[4] See the dissertation by T.J.T. van Kooten, Het kerkgenootschap in de neutrale staat, The Hague (Boom) 2017, para 8.14. and the conditions for legal personality stated there, which are, in our view, met. See also, for example, J.T. van den Berg, Lichamen waarin kerkgenootschappen zijn verenigd, in De rechtspersoonlijkheid van geloofsgemeenschappen (The legal personality of religious communities), The Hague (Boom), 2012, p. 41 et seq. and M. Tydeman-Yousef, Op zoek naar de heilige graal (diss.), Deventer (Kluwer) 2022, para. 5.5.1.
Thus also the judgment of Arnhem Court of Appeal in the case of De Boer vs CGK Zeewolde and classes. Arnhem Court of Appeal 24 June 2008, NL:GHARN:2008:BF3815, r.o. 5.3.3: "CGK Zeewolde is a denomination within the meaning of Article 2:2(1) of the Civil Code. The same applies to the classis". Idem at first instance: Rb. Zwolle-Lelystad 21 February 2005, ECLI:NL:RBZLY:2005:AS6771 (Prof J.M. van Slooten): "On this basis, CGK Zeewolde is a denomination with legal personality that can be sued. This also applies to the classis, as it can be regarded as a body in which denominations are united. A reasonable interpretation of the term 'material matters" further implies that it includes monetary claims arising out of an alleged employment relationship between a minister and a denomination".
[5] The first part of this article reads, "The churches, meeting in classes, private synods and general synods, are represented in respect of property matters common to them by the respective classic, private synod or general synod assemblies or by deputies, who are appointed, instructed and dismissed by these assemblies and who are bound by their instruction in all their actions." On the background to this, see M. te Velde, Church affiliation and legal personality, in: J.W. Maris et al (ed.), Om de kerk, Theologische opstellen, presented to Prof W. van 't Spijker on his retirement as professor at Apeldoorn Theological University, Leiden 1997, p. 176 ff.
[6] Whereas the Church Order (Article 29a paragraph 2) explicitly states that Church Assemblies have legal personality: "The churches meeting in a superior assembly (the classis, the private synod and the general synod) form a body that has legal personality. This is legally represented by the president and scribe".
[7] See Art 84(1) KO and Annex 2.1 to the KO.
[8] J.B. Huizink (Green Series on Legal Persons), ann. 3.1 on 2:14 BW, with bibliographical references.
[9] See, e.g., P. Pel's dissertation. p. 233 (Pel is otherwise extremely cautious about the interference of government judges in ecclesiastical matters). See also Huizink (Green Series on Legal Persons), citation. 6.2.2 on 2:2 BW, with references to other literature. The Supreme Court has already applied Article 2:15(1) BW (then 2:11 BW-old) analogously once, see HR 15 March 1985, NJ 1985/191.
[10] This issue is beyond the scope of the subject of the note, so we will suffice with this observation for now. We are happy to elaborate our views on this point if required.
[11] See Asser/Rensen 2-III 2022/466 and 467, with reference to literature and Parliamentary History.
[12] Therefore, the ruling of the General Commission for the Handling of Objections and Disputes on the dispute of 73 so-called free-management congregations and the Dutch Reformed Church had to be reviewed only marginally: HR 19 December 2003, ECLI:NL:HR:2003:AN7818, NJ 2004, 559 cf. C.J.H. Brunner.
[13] See also the 'Handbook on church law, policy and pastoral aspects in the dissolution of a local congregation' adopted by the gs.
[14] Decision gs 2019-2022.
[15] See at length, with reference to much other literature, T.J.T. van Kooten, t.a.p., Chapter 11.
[16] Van Kooten, t.a.p., para 11.2.2 and Tydeman-Youssef, t.a.p., para 5.5.3.
[17] Nor can such a decision be read into the decision not to designate a calling church. Given the far-reaching nature of a resolution for dissolution and its far-reaching legal consequences, such a resolution cannot be implied. Moreover, nothing was decided on the liquidation (see 2:23 et seq. of the Civil Code), which would have been obvious if the intention was to take a dissolution decision.
[18] That would then suffer exception for matters such as emeritus, transfer and departure of ministers and class exams for candidates. It is not clear to us what the canonical basis for that exception is. It is one of two things: either the classes can no longer meet legitimately and that would apply to all subjects, or they do meet legitimately, in which case, of course, also to all subjects.
[19] Incidentally, the same applies to the gs, see Art 50 KO.
[20] This also applies, for example, to a so-called shell private limited company (bv) that no longer actively participates in legal transactions.
[21] The objected reformed congregations that now form the Restored Reformed Church can speak to this. They believed that not going along with the merger of the three SOW churches on 1 January 2004 would result in them being the continuation of the Dutch Reformed Church. In several court proceedings, they were deceived (possibly they were misled by J.J.H. Post's thesis, 'A sickle in a strange harvest? De juridische verhouding tussen hervormde gemeenten en de Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk in het bijzonder bij kerkfusie', diss. VU 2003). Even the use of the name 'Hersteld Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk' was forbidden to them: Rb. Arnhem 15 May 2006, ECLI:NL:RBARN:2006:AX1570, r.o. 4.7: "For the time being, it must therefore be assumed that the members of the former NHK who did not want to participate in the merger left this ecclesiastical association and formed a new ecclesiastical association, the HHK, shortly after the merger on 1 May 2004. To what extent they thereby continued the ideology of the NHK is a church law question, which can be left open in these summary proceedings". See the aforementioned Supreme Court judgment and further Rb. Arnhem 24 May 2005, ECLI:NL:RBARN:2006:AX4371 ("it follows from the foregoing that the Congregation in Hersteld Verband can only be a newly established legal person within the meaning of Section 2:2(1) of the Civil Code and that, for that reason, it cannot have ownership of the property that belonged to the Hervormde Gemeente te Gameren within the connection of the NHK"). While it is true that there are differences between the church system of the former Dutch Reformed Church and the CGK in terms of legal questions, there are also parallels.
[22] See also Section 37(2) KO on the procedure for a decision by the church council to withdraw from the church.
