1. The European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms—hereinafter referred to as the “Convention” or the “Treaty”—was concluded in Rome on 4 November 1950, under the auspices of the Council of Europe. The Convention came into force on 3 September 1953 after it had been ratified by ten States. There is a (First) Additional Protocol to the Convention, signed in Paris on 20 March 1952. This Protocol came into force on 18 May 1954. The Convention and Protocol were ratified by the Netherlands with effect as from 31 August 1954, Act of 29 July 1954, Staatsblad 335. Recently three new Protocols have been added to the Convention, of which the numbers two and three relate to certain formal points of law; the fourth Protocol adds four rights and freedoms to the fundamental rights which already had been secured in the Convention and the First Protocol. Protocols numbers Two and Three were submitted for tacit parliamentary approval on 4 August 1966. The Fourth Protocol is still under consideration by the government. As these new Protocols have not as yet entered into force, they will not be dealt with in this article. For the text of the Convention and Additional Protocols see Eur. T.S. nos 5, 9, 44, 45 and 46.

2. Vide infra paras. 5–8.Google Scholar

3. At the Second International Colloquium on the European Convention of Human Rights, held in Vienna on 18–20 October 1965, Mr. A. H. Robertson, Head of the Directorate of Human Rights of the Council of Europe, stressed the need for making the practice and case-law on the domestic legal order relating to the Convention better known, in the interests of securing a more uniform interpretation. (Council of Europe Document H/Coll. (65) 41). Cf. Pinto, Conséquences de l'application de la Convention à la fois sur le plan du droit interne et sur le plan international, Report presented to the Second International Colloquium on the European Convention of Human Rights, Council of Europe Document H/Coll. (65) 17, pp. 9–10.

4. These rights and freedoms are: Right to life (Article 2); Prohibition of torture and degrading treatment or punishment (Article 3); Prohibition of slavery, servitude and compulsory labour (Article 4); Right to liberty and security of person (Article 5); Right to fair judicial treatment (Article 6); No retro-activity of crimes and punishment (Article 7); Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence (Article 8); Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9); Freedom of expression (Article 10); Freedom of assembly and of association (Article 11); Right to marry and found a family (Article 12); Right to own property (Article 1 Protocol I); Right to Education (Article 2, Protocol I); Right to free elections (Article 3, Protocol I).

5. On the nature of these restrictions, see Tammes, “Het Europese Verdrag tot bescherming van de rechten van de mens en het nationale recht”, Report presented to the Dutch International Law Society, Mededelingen van de Nederlandse Vereniging voor Intemationaal Recht, No. 43 (1960), pp. 6–13.Google ScholarVan Emde Boas, , “La Convention Européenne de Sauvegarde des Droits de l'Homme et des Libertés Fondamentales dans la Jurisprudence Néerlandaise”, 10 The European Yearbook (1962), pp. 232–233.Google ScholarIdem, “Het Andere Belang” in de Europese Conventie voor de “rechten van de mens”, 18 Bestuurswetenschappen (1964), pp. 56 ff.Google Scholar

6. On this aspect in general, see Vasak, , La Convention Européenne des Droits de l'Homme, 1964Google Scholar; Golsong, , Das Rechtsschutzsystem der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention, 1958Google Scholar; Idem, “The Implementation of International Protection of Human Rights”, 110Google ScholarRecueil des Cours (1963–III), pp. 62–139.Google ScholarRobertson, , “The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights”, 20 B YIL (1950), pp. 145–163.Google Scholar

7. Criticism of the stringent control of the European Commission of Human Rights was voiced by Siegmann in the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe, AS (16) CR, pp. 281–320. Cf. Mosler, , “Kritische Bemerkungen zum Rechtsschutzsystem der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention”, Festschrift für Jahrreis, 1964, pp. 289–317.Google Scholar

8. Cf. 3 Yearbook (1960), p. 149 and 7 Yearbook (1964), p. 21. Text in Tractatenblad 1961 no. 8 and Tractatenblad 1964 no. 163.

9. Handelingen II Bip. 1952–53, 3043 no. 3, p. 4 (left col.). Ibidem 1953–54, 3043 no. 6, p. 4 (right col.). Handelingen II 1953–54, pp. 825–826 and 831. Handelingen I Bijl. 1953–54, 3043 passim. Handelingen I 1953–54, p. 623. Cf. Handelingen II Bijl. 1953, 5359 no. 4, p. 1 and Oud, Handelingen II 1959–60, p. 287 (left col.).

10. Handelingen II 1953–54, pp. 807–808, 810 (right col.), 814, 827–828 and 830. Handelingen I 1953–54, pp. 614–616 passim, 618, 619 and 620. Cf. Röling, “Het individuele klachtrecht in de Europese Conventie voor de Mensenrechten”, Nederlands Juristenblad 1956, pp. 293–302 and 309–315.Google Scholar

11. Act of 25 May 1960, Staatsblad 226. Cf. 3 Yearbook (1960), p. 127. The Parliamentary debates on recognition by the Netherlands of the right of individual petition have been recorded in part in Ibidem, pp. 548–596. The question was raised of whether it was proper constitutional practice to seak parliamentary approval for a unilateral declaration based upon an already approved international agreement, even if new international obligations flowed from the declaration. Most knowledgeable speakers were of the opinion that, in respect of optional clauses like those contained in the Articles 25 and 48 of the Convention, normal parliamentary ex post facto control would suffice. In conformity with this view, the Government refrained from requesting Parliamentary approval when renewing its recognition of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights and the individual right of petition in 1964.

12. In this sense Schätzel, , Festschrift für Giese, 1953, p. 215 ff.Google ScholarHenricks, , Monatschrift für Deutsches Recht 1953, p. 140Google Scholar and, with some hesitation, Vasak, , op. cit. footnote 6, p. 227 ff.Google Scholar Gerritson in the First Chamber, Handelingen I 1953–54, p. 619. Rechtbank (Court of First Instance) Maestricht 27 January 1959, Nederlandse Jurisprudente 1959 no. 361Google Scholar, in English in 8 Neth.I.L.Rev. (1960), p. 73.Google Scholar Court of Summary Jurisdiction Luxemburg 24 October 1959, 4 Yearbook (1960), p. 623 at p. 628.Google Scholar Riphagen in “Enige aantekeningen over de relatie volkenrecht — nationaal recht”, 9 Neth.I.L.Rev. (1962)Google Scholar Special Volume p. 402, is inclined to accept the validity of the arguments put forward in favour of this view, though Riphagen himself does not subscribe to it. See note 14.

13. This theory is defended by, inter alia, Modinos, in “La Convention Européenne des Droits de l'Homme, ses origines, ses objectifs, ses réalisation”, 1 European Yearbook (1952), pp. 141–172Google Scholar; Golsong, , op. cit. footnote 6Google Scholar; Idem, “Die Europäische Konvention zum Schutze der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten”, 10 Jahrbuch des Oeffentlichen Rechts der Gegenwart (1961), pp. 128–129Google Scholar; Robertson, , loc. cit. footnote 6Google Scholar; Süsterhenn, , “L'application de la Convention sur le plan de droit interne”, in La protection internationale des Droits de l'Homme dans le cadre européen, 1961, p. 318Google Scholar; Buergenthal, , “The Effect of the European Convention of Human Rights on the Internal Law of Member States”, in The European Convention of Human Rights”, I.C.L.Q. Suppl. no. 11 (1965), p. 92Google Scholar; Scheuner in his learned report to the Second International Colloquium on the European Convention of Human Rights, Council of Europe Document H/Coll. (65) 16, pp. 9–12.

14. Beaufort, , “Some Remarks about the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms”, Liber Amicorum François, 1962, pp. 42–48Google Scholar; Röling in his annotation in Nederlandse Jurisprudent 1960 no. 483Google Scholar; Van Panhuys, , Nederlands Juristenblad 1964, pp. 48–49Google Scholar; Tammes, , loc. cit. footnote 5Google Scholar; Riphagen, , Nederlands Juristenblad 1964, p. 49.Google Scholar

15. Quoted by Schermers, in Het Europese Verdrag tot bescherming van de rechten van de mens en de fundamentele vrijheden, 1964, p. 17.Google Scholar

16. loc. cit. footnote 14.

17. On Articles 65 and 66 of the Dutch Constitution see Van Panhuys, , “The Netherlands Constitution and International Law”, 47 AJIL (1953), pp. 553–558.CrossRefGoogle ScholarIdem, “The Netherlands Constitution and International Law—A Decade of Experience”, 58 AJIL (1964), pp. 100–106Google Scholar; Brades — Gould, The Application of International Law in the United States and the Netherlands, 1962, pp. 321–326Google Scholaret passim. Van Emde Boas, 10 European Yearbook (1962), pp. 226–229.Google Scholar

18. Bosch v. Uytenboogaart, H.R. 18 05 1962Google Scholar, Nederlandse Jurisprudentie 1965 No. 115Google Scholar, in English in 12 Neth.I.L.Rev. (1965), p. 318.Google Scholar

19. H.R. 10 december 1954, Nederlandse Jurisprudentie 1956 no. 240Google Scholar, in English in 4 Neth.I.L.Rev. (1957) p. 85.Google Scholar H.R. 28 november 1961, Verkeersrecht 1962 no. 3Google Scholar, in English in 11 Neth.I.L.Rev. (1964), p. 83.Google Scholar However, the question of the selfexecutive character of provisions of the E.E.C, and E.C.A. treaties will finally have to be settled by the Court of the European Communities at Luxembourg, in virtue of Article 177 E.E.C.-Treaty (Article 150 E.C.A.-Treaty). Cf. Brinkhorst, , “Le juge néerlandais et le droit communautaire”, in Le juge national et le droit communautaire, 1966, p. 106.Google Scholar

20. Tammes, , “‘Een ieder verbindende’ verdragsbepalingen”, Nederlands Juristenblad 1962, pp. 69–80 and 89–100.Google ScholarIdem, “Artikel 65 van de Grondwet opnieuw bezocht”, Nederlands Juristenblad 1964, pp. 597–602.Google Scholar

21. Meuwissen, , “Enige opmerkingen over de plaats van het internationale recht in de nationale rechtsorde”, Nederlands Juristenblad 1965, pp. 57–66.Google Scholar

21a. Art. 1401 of the Dutch Civil Code states as follows:

“Any wrongful act which causes damage to be suffered by another person renders the person through whose fault the damage was caused liable to pay compensation”.

Although, in terms of its wording, Article 1401 only deals with compensation, the courts are also competent, on the basis of that Article, to prohibit unlawful actions if they continue or threaten to re-occur at the time of summons or judgment.

22. Institut national des appelations d'origine des vins et eaux de vie v. Mettes, H.R. 1 06 1956Google Scholar, Nederlandse Jurisprudentie 1958 no. 424Google Scholar with annotation by D. J. V(eegens), in English in 6 Neth.I.L.Rev. (1959), p. 399.Google Scholar Cf. Van Panhuys, , 58 A.J.I.L. (1964), p. 101.Google Scholar

23. Tammes, , Nederlands Juristenblad 1965, p. 601.Google ScholarMeuwissen, , loc. cit.Google Scholar

24. H.R. 1 June 1956, Nederlandse Jurisprudents 1958 no. 424Google Scholar, in English in 6 Neth.LL.Rev. (1959), p. 399.Google Scholar H.R. 6 March 1959, Nederlandse Jurisprudente 1962 no. 2Google Scholar, in English in 10 Neth.I.L.Rev. (1963), p. 82.Google Scholar H.R. 24 February 1960, Nederlandse jurisprudentie 1960 no. 483Google Scholar, in English in 8 Neth.I.L.Rev. (1961), p. 285.Google Scholar Cf. the case-law mentioned by Van Panhuys, loc. cit. footnote 22, at p. 102 (note 65).

25. Handelingen II Bijl. 1952–53, 3043 no. 3, p. 4 (left col.). Handelingen II 1953–54, pp. 806–820 passim.

26. Handelingen II 1953–54, p. 826 (right col.).

27. Handelingen II Bijl. 1953–54, 3043 no. 6, p. 2 (right col.), Ibidem no. 5, p. 2 (left col.). Handelingen II 1953–54, p. 812 (right col.).

28. Cf. H.R. 30 October 1946, Nederlandse Jurisprudentie 1946 no. 737Google Scholar with annotation D. J. V(eegens), Bijzondere Raad van Cassane (Extraordinary Court of Cassation) 5 December 1945, Na-oorlogse Rechtspraak (Post-War Case-Law) no. 150 and H.R. 15 02 1953Google Scholar, Nederlandse Jurisprudent 1953 no. 52.Google Scholar

29. Cf. Borst, , “Enige beschouwingen over marginale toetsing in publiek- en privaatrecht”, Weekblad voor Privaatrecht, Notariaat en Registratie nos. 4735, 4736 and 4737.Google Scholar

30. See Comm. 14 December 1962, Appl. no. 1086/61 X. v. the Netherlands, concerning the conformity of the 1952 Act on Bovine Tuberculosis with Article 9 of the Convention, 5 Yearbook (1962), p. 278 at p. 284:Google Scholar

“In the present case it is not necessary to determine this particular issue, as the right invoked by the Applicant is, according to paragraph (2) of the Article, subject “to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society… for the protection of health and morals”. The obligation placed upon the applicant was duly based on valid law, while in regard to the other conditions mentioned in paragraph (2), a considerable measure of discretion is left to national parliaments in appreciating the vital interests of the community. However, it is ultimately for the Commission to judge whether or not a measure taken by a government is justifiable under the provisions of the paragraph…

“The 1952 Act was considered by the Netherlands Parliament to be necessary to prevent tuberculosis among cattle. It appears to the Commission that the term “protection of health” used in paragraph (2) of Article 9 may reasonably be extended to cover such schemes set up for the protection of disease among cattle…” (italics added).

Cf. Comm. 28 September 1964, Appl. no. 764/60, X. v. Belgium, 16 Decisions (11 1965), p. 1Google Scholar at p. 19”….Qu'il appartient, ua premier chef, aux autorités compétentes des Etats contractants d'apprécier à partir de quel moment certaines restrictions exceptionnelles aux droits et libertés fondamentales, introduites pour faire face à une crise nationale d'une ampleur et d'une acuité particulières, cessent de constituer “une mesure nécessaire dans une société démocratique” au sens de l'article 10, alinéa 2 de la Convention; que les Etats contractants conservent, à cet égard, un pouvoir d'appréciation étendu; Que si ce pouvoir, de toute évidence, doit s'exercer dans le cadre de la Convention et sous le contrôle des organes chargés de veiller au respect de celle-ci, il ne semble pas que le Gouvernement et le Parlement belges en aient abusé dans le cas d'espèce;…”

Cf. Nulty, Mc, “The Practice of the European Commission of Human Rights”, 11Google ScholarHoward L. J. (1965), p. 430 at p. 438Google Scholar; Meuwissen, , “Nederlandse Burgers zocken recht in Europa”, 19Google ScholarNieuw Europa (1966), p. 148.Google Scholar

31. H.R. 19 January 1962, Nederlandse Jurisprudentie 1962Google Scholar no. 107 in English in 9 Neth.I.L.Rev. (1962), p. 319. V. infra para. 47.Google Scholar

32. Austrian Verfassungsgerichtshof 11 December 1958. Z I 2453/58–I, German Bundesverfassungsgericht 10 May 1957, 6 Entscheidungen BVG 389, Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg 31 March 1958, 2 KLS 2/57. All these cases are reported in Council of Europe Document H (65) of 7 March 1965.

Contrariwise, Oberlandesgericht Bremen 16 May 1962, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1962, p. 1735.Google Scholar

33. Comm. 18 September 1961, Appl. 912/59, X. v. Sweden, 7 Decisions (03 1962), p. 128.Google Scholar Comm. 8 May 1962, Appl. 1092/61, X. v. Austria, 9 Decisions (01 1963) p. 37 at p. 39 and the cases cited therein.Google Scholar

34. Council of Europe, Manual of the European Convention of Human Rights, 1963, p. 71.Google ScholarVasak, Contra, op. cit., p. 27–28.Google Scholar

35. Riphagen, , 9Google ScholarNeth.I.L.Rev. (1962) Special Volume, p. 405.Google ScholarTammes, , Nederlands Juristenblad 1962, pp. 96–97Google Scholar, Ibidem 1964, p. 601. In this sense too, Röling in his annotation of this case in Nederlandse Jurisprudente 1960 no. 483.Google Scholar

36. Concerning the Old Age Pension Act see infra para. 18.

37. loc. cit.

38. See, on the notion of “mandate”: Van Panhuys, “Relations and Interactions between International and National Scenes of Law”, 112 Recueil des Cours (1964–II), pp. 9–10 and in particular pp. 34–48.Google Scholar

39. Wallace v. the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Rechtbank (District Court) Rotterdam 19 07 1963Google Scholar, Nederlandse Jurisprudentie 1964Google Scholar no. 388, in English in 12 Neth.I.L.Rev. (1965), p. 179.Google Scholar

40. Janssen-Pevtschin, Velu and Vanwelkenhuyzen, “La Convention de Sauvegarde des Droits de l'Homme et le fonctionnement des juridictions belges”, Chronique de politique étrangère 1962, p. 199 at p. 216.Google Scholar Buergenthal, Report to the Second International Colloquium on the European Convention of Human Rights, Council of Europe Document H/Coll (65) 15. Scheuner, , op. cit. at p. 22Google Scholar: “Art. 1 bis 12 der Konvention sind ohne Ausnahme anwendbares Recht” (italics added).

41. Note, however, the one exception to this rule, which is contained in Article 177 of the E.E.C.-Treaty (Article 150 E.C.A.-Treaty). Cf. Costa v. E.N.E.L., Court of Justice of the European Communities, case 6/64, 10 Recueil de la Jurisprudence de la Cour (1964), p. 1141, at pp. 1158–1160.

42. H.R. 13 September 1963, Nederlandse Jurisprudentie 1964 no. 389Google Scholar, annotated by B.V.A.R(öling), in English in 11 Neth.I.L.Rev. (1964), p. 303.Google Scholar The Supreme Court stated in its decision that the Applicant's appeal had been lodged in accordance with rules laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure; that, however, the decision appealed against did not concern a criminal matter and that, consequently, an appeal submitted in accordance with these rules could not be admitted; that, moreover, it was not necessary to decide whether an appeal would have been possible in the instant case since the applicant had, in any event, not complied with the provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure when lodging his appeal.

43. Comm. 13 July 1966, Wallace v. the Netherlands, Appl. no. 1983/63, 20 Decisions (10 1966), p. 68 at pp. 76–77.Google Scholar Cf. Comm. 4 October 1962, Messina v. the Netherlands, Appl. no. 121/61, 9 Decisions (04 1963), p. 48, quoted infra para. 37.Google Scholar

44. See Comm. 25 September 1965, X. v. Federal Republic of Germany, Appl, no. 1611/62, 17 Decisions (04 1966), p. 42 at p. 47Google Scholar, where the Commission held that nationals of a State fall under its “jurisdiction” even if they are domiciled abroad. The diplomatic and consular authorities of a State may, by their actions, involve the liability of that State by violations of the Convention.

45. Article 5, paragraph 4, of the Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf, Tractatenblad 1959 no. 126. Cf. the jurisdiction which the coastal State exercises over a contiguous zone up to twelve miles from the coast under Article 24, paragraph 1, of the Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, Tractatenblad 1959 no. 123. See, in particular, the North Sea Installations Act of 3 December 1964, Staatsblad no. 447. English text in 60 AJIL (1966). p. 340Google Scholar Cf. Van Panhuys and Van Emde Boas, “Legal Aspects of Pirate Broadcasting—A Dutch Approach”, 60 AJIL (1966), pp. 303–340.Google Scholar

46. Handelingen II Bijl. 1964–65, 7643 no. 7, p. 20 (left col.).

47. Handelingen I Bijl. 1964–65, 7643 no. 18a, p. 7 (right col.).

48. V. supra note 46.

49. 1 Yearbook (1955–1956–1957), pp. 45–46.Google Scholar

50. See, with regard to the international legal aspects of the Statute of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Van Panhuys, , “The International Aspects of the Reconstruction of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in 1954”, 5 Neth.I.L.Rev. (1958), pp. 1–44, particularly pp. 14–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

51. Though the Statute of the Kingdom had not yet come into force at the time of the approval and the ratification of the Convention, the government, anticipating the spirit of the reconstruction of the Kingdom, did not wish to extend the application of the provisions of the Convention to the non-metropolitan territories before it had been made absolutely certain that the local governments of these territories were in agreement therewith, Handelingen I 1953–54, pp. 624–625.

52. Declaration of 27 August 1964. Text in 7 Yearbook (1964), p. 12.Google Scholar

53. Declaration of 27 August 1964. Text in 7 Yearbook (1964.), p. 20.Google Scholar

54. In Holland almost all important constitutional lawyers side with the majority. See Struycken, , Het Staatsrecht van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, 2nd ed. 1928, pp. 166–172.Google ScholarVan der Pot, and Donner, , Handboek van het Nederlandse Staatsrecht, 7th ed. 1962, pp. 445–460.Google Scholar Cf. Jeukens, , Burgerlijke Openbare Dienst, 1959, pp. 148–156.Google Scholar The reserinority view is defended by Kranenburg in Staatsrecht, 8th ed. 1958, pp. 497Google Scholar ff. and, with some reservations, by Van der Hoeven, , in De plaats van de Grondwet in het constitutionele recht, 1958, pp. 196–197.Google Scholar

55. Report cited footnote 5, at pp. 29 ff. See too, to the same effect, Eissen, , “La Convention et les devoirs de l'individu” in La protection internationale des droits de l'homme dans le cadre européen, 1961, p. 167.Google Scholar Janssen-Pevtschin, Velu, and Vanwelkenhuyzen, , loc. cit. footnote 40, p. 225Google Scholar, Vasak, , op. cit., pp. 78–79 and 249–250.Google ScholarMorvay, Contrary, “Rechtsprechung nationaler Gerichte zur Europäischen Konvention zum Schutze der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten vom 4. November 1950”, 21 ZfaöRV (1961), pp. 317 ff.Google Scholar De Brauw, Report to the Dutch Law Society (Nederlandse Juristenveremging), 94 Handelingen N.J.V. (1965–I), pp. 18–19.Google ScholarScheuner, , op. cit. footnote 13, p.31 and literature cited therein (footnote 105).Google Scholar

55a. Scheuner, , loc. cit.Google Scholar, seems to overlook the fact that the application of the rights and freedoms as between individuals (“Drittwirkung”) cannot arise for the Commission because of the limitations on its competence ratione personae. This is, however, not a point of principle, but a purely procedural matter.

56. Cf., for Belgium, Janssen-Pevtschin, Velu, and Vanwelkenhuyzen, , loc. cit., p. 225.Google Scholar

57. Cf. Polak, C. H. F., Report to the Dutch Law Society. 83 Handelingen NJV (1953–I), p. 194Google ScholarJanssen-Pevtschin, , Velu, and Vanwelkenhuyzen, , loe. cit.Google Scholar

58. See, on this indirect effect of rules of international law in the domestic legal order, Van Panhuys, “Reflecties over volkenrechtelijke reflexen”, in Nederlands Juristenblad 1963, pp. 73–80 and pp. 124–125.Google Scholar Cf. Tammes, , Internationaal Publiekrecht, 1965, p. 65.Google Scholar For an application of this effect outside the Netherlands see In Re Drummond Wren, Canada, High Court of Ontario 31 10 1945Google Scholar, Annual Digest 1943–1945, p. 178.Google Scholar

59. See Scheuner, , op. cit., p. 5.Google Scholar Cf. Bundesgerichtshof, 20 05 1958, 27Google Scholar Entscheidungen BGZ, p. 284, criticized by Scheuner, , loc. cit.Google Scholar Cf. Boukema, , Enkele Aspecten van de Vrijheid van Meningsuiting in de Duitse Bondsrepubliek en Nederland, 1966, pp. 23–27.Google Scholar

60. Ermacora, , Handbuch der Grundrechte und Menschenrechte, 1963, pp. 29 ff.Google ScholarHuber, Hans, Zeitschrift f. Schweiz. Recht 1963, pp. 131 ff.Google ScholarMüller, J. P., Die Grundrechte der Verfassung und die Persönlichkeitsschutz des Privatrechts, 1964, pp. 74 ff and pp. 160 ff.Google Scholar

61. Cohen Jehoram, 95 Handelingen NJV (1965–II), p. 23.Google Scholar

62. Handelingen I 1964–1965, Aanhangsel p. 61.

63. H.R. 25 July 1965, Nederlandse Jurisprudentie 1966 no. 115.Google Scholar

64. To this effect, see Bookimpex v. Jacoby & Krüger, Gerechtshof (Court of Appeal) The Hague 23 11 1960Google Scholar, Nederlandse Jurisprudente 1961 no. 501Google Scholar, with regard to the freedom of the press.

65. See further infra paras. 26, 29–30 and 53.

66. It may be contended that the European Convention of Human Rights itself forms part of European “public order”. See Articles 3 and 8 of the Statute of the Council of Europe, and Comm. 11 January 1961, Appl. no. 788/60, Austria v. Italy, 4 Yearbook (1961), p. 117 at p. 140Google Scholar, where it was held that the obligations of the High Contracting Parties under the Treaty are essentially of an objective character, being designed rather to protect the fundamental rights of individual human beings from infringements by any of the contracting parties than to create subjective and reciprocal rights for the contracting States themselves. Cf. Van Asbeck, , “De Universele Verklaring van de rechten van de mens en haar doorwerking”, 18 Internationale Spectator (1964), p. 657.Google Scholar Ganshof van der Meersch, “La Convention européenne des Droits de l'Homme a-t-elle, dans le cadre du droit interne, une valeur d'ordre public?”, Council of Europe Doc. Coll. H (6s)/17. Tammes, cited footnote 58.

67. Cf. the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. (1948) 1.Google Scholar It was here held that a judge may not enforce a contract between private persons which discriminates against negroes. Although such a covenant is not necessarily invalid, by enforcing such an agreement a judge, being a State organ, would be guilty of racial discrimination, thereby violating the 14th and 15th amendment of the U.S. Constitution. See Cushman, Leading Constitutional Decisions (11th ed. 1960), p. 176; Schwartz, , American Constitutional Law (1955), pp. 230–233.Google Scholar Cf. Rolin, , “La Protection internationale des droits de l'homme dans le cadre européen”, First Colloquium on the European Convention of Human Rights, Strasbourg 1960, p. 215.Google Scholar

68. Cf. German case-law: Oberverwaltungsgericht Koblenz, Zeitschrift für Beamtenrecht 1955, p. 314Google Scholar; 14 BVerw. Entscheidungen, G., pp. 25–29Google Scholar cited by Scheuner, , op. cit., p. 51Google Scholar, according to which the freely accepted obligation, when entering military or police service, not to marry during a certain period without the previous permission of the authorities does not constitute a violation of Article 12 of the Convention. Such acceptance represents an “Ausdruck persönlicher Selbstbestimmung”, which must be weighed against the protection of the right to marry.

69. Gerechtshof Amsterdam, 11 april 1963, Nederlandse Jurisprudente 1964 no. 25.Google Scholar

70. Handelingen I 1963–64, p. 400 and p. 417.

71. Comm. 9 June 1958, Appl. no. 214/56, De Becker v. Belgium, 2 Yearbook (1958–1959), p. 214 at p. 234.Google Scholar

72. Handelingen II 1953–54, p. 806 (left col.).

73. Comm. 30 June 1959, Appl. no. 434/58, X. v. Sweden, 2 Yearbook (1958–1959), p. 354 at p. 372.Google Scholar Comm. 30 June 1964, Appl. no. 2143/64, X. v. Austria and Yugoslavia, 14 Decisions (01 1965), p. 15 at p. 24.Google Scholar

74. Austria has changed its Code of Criminal Procedure because of Article 6 of the Convention. 5 Yearbook (1962), p. 340Google Scholar and 6 Ibidem (1963), p. 804. Cf. the Cases Ofner, Hopfinger, Pataki and Durshirn v. Austria, Appl. nos. 524/59, 617/59, 593/59 and 789/60, 6 Yearbook (1963), pp. 676–738.Google Scholar But see Comm. 6 July 1964, Appl. no. 1936/63, Neumeister v. Austria, 7 Yearbook (1964), p. 224.Google Scholar The latter application was submitted to the European Court of Human Rights on 7 October 1966.

Belgium changed some Articles of its Penal Code on political crimes because of Article 10 of the Convention. See Eur. Court of Human Rights, De Becker-case, Series B 1962, p. 139, pp. 183 ff. and p. 189.Google Scholar Cf. the opinion of the Commission, Ibidem, at pp. 125 ff.

Germany has, under the pressure of two pending applications, changed some of its legal provisions with regard to the control of the extent and duration of preventive detention, Act of 19 December 1964, Bundesgesetzblatt I, p. 1067. Cf. Comm. 2 July 1964, Appl. 20, 2122/64, Wemhoff v. Federal Republic of Germany, 7 Yearbook (1964), p. 280Google Scholar, submitted to the European Court of Human Rights on 7 October 1966, and Comm. 16 December 1964, Appl. no. 2294/64, Gericke v. Federal Republic of Germany, 15 Decisions (05 1965), p. 50.Google Scholar

Though it had made a reservation respecting its prohibition of the entry and settlement of Jesuits, Norway nevertheless amended Article 2 of its Constitution so as to abolish this prohibition. Cf. Modinos, n ICLQ (1962), p. 1102.Google Scholar

75. The legal regulation under which protection is sought or afforded does not necessarily have to be a provision of the Human Rights Convention. An appeal may also be based upon a provision of municipal law, covering the same subjectmatter as one of the provisions of the Convention. Cf. Scheuner, , op. cit. footnote 13, p. 23.Google Scholar

76. Van Asbeck, , “De geleding van het recht in de Statensamenleving” (with English summary), 9 Neth.I.L.Rev. (1962), Special Volume, p. 45.Google Scholar

* Humanism connotes in the Netherlands a philosophical non-religious conviction, based upon humanist principles, the origin of which lies in classical Greek and Roman thought as developed since the Renaissance. Its followers in the Netherlands are grouped together in the Humanist Movement (Humanistisch Verband).

77. See infra paras. 39–41.

78. See Van Panhuys, 47 A.J.I.L. (1953), p. 551.Google ScholarIdem, 58 A.J.I.L. (1964), pp. 98–99.Google Scholar

79. Oud, Handelingen II 1953–54, pp. 807–808. Cf. Veegens, Report presented to the Dutch International Law Society; Mededelingen van de Nederlandse Vereniging van Internationaal Recht, no. 43 (1960), p. 42passim.Google Scholar

80. See Mulderije and Duynstee, Reports presented to the Dutch International Law Society on the Law of Aliens, Mededelingen van de Nederlandse Vereniging voor Intemationaal Recht no. 36 (1956).Google Scholar

80a. Handelingen II 1966–67 Bijl. 8800–VI no. 2, pp. 19–20. The Act has meanwhile entered into force as from 1 November 1966. See note 82a.

81. Handelingen II 1962–63 no. 7163 no. 3, p. 10.

82. Comm. 30 June 1959, Appl. no. 434/58, X. v. Sweden, 2 Yearbook (1958–1959), p. 354 at p. 372.Google Scholar Comm. 30 June 1959, Appl. no. 2143/64, X. v. Austria and yugoslavia, 14 Decisions (01 1965), p. 15 at p. 24.Google Scholar

82a. It was provided in an executive order made under the Aliens Act of 1965, by Royal Decree of 19 September 1966, Staatsblad No. 387.

Art. 43: “Aliens who claim that, if they are refused entry into the Netherlands or removed from the Netherlands, they will be forced to travel immediately into a country where they have strong reasons to fear persecution on account of their religion, their nationality or their belonging to a specific race or social group, shall immediately be informed by an official charged with immigration matters or with the supervision of aliens, of the possibility of applying for a residence permit or for admission as a refugee, in accordance with the law and orders made thereunder”.

Art. 104:—expulsion of aliens shall not take place:…

“(c) if they claim to be refugee in terms of the 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees, unless in the unanimous opinion of Our Minister (of Justice) and Our Minister of Foreign Affairs—after consultation of the Representative of the High Commissioner for Refugees—the alien concerned obviously does not qualify for this description.”

83. Tractatenblad 1951 no. 131. Article 33 reads:

“1. No Contracting State shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

“2. The benefit of the present provision may not, however, be claimed by a refugee whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country in which he is or who, having been convicted by a final judgment, of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that country”.

84. Cf. Memorial of Reply, Handelingen II 1963–64, 7163 no. 7, p. 3 (left col.)

85. Handelingen II 1959–1960, Aanhangsel, p. 2039, Reply by the Minister of Justice to questions put to him by Dr. Berkhouwer, a member of the Dutch Lower House, regarding the prohibition on the making of a public speech by the Portuguese opposition leader General Delgado. The Minister of Justice stated, in answer to questions by Mr. Van der Goes Van Naters of the Dutch Lower House, with regard to the anti-Israeli activities of an Arab student organization, that it is incorrect when foreigners residing in Holland organize political activities which may be deemed grievious for a friendly State or eventually also for a part of the Dutch population, Handelingen II 1966–67, Aanhangsel p. 9.

86. According to Article 60, nothing in the European Convention shall be construed as limiting or derogating from any human rights or fundamental freedoms which are ensured under the law of any High Contracting Party or under any other agreement to which it is a Party.

87. Bill of 21 April 1965, Handelingen II 1964–65 Bijl. 8054. Ibidem 1965–66 Bijl. 8054.

88. Handelingen II 1964–1965 Bijl. 8054 no. 3, p. 15 (right col.).

89. Article 38, paragraph 5, of the Primary Education Act (Lager Onderwijswet) 1922, Staatsblad 778.

Article 97, General Civil Service Regulations (Algemeen Rijksambtenaren-reglement), Staatsblad 1931 no. 248.

90. Veegens, , loc. cit. footnote 79, pp. 63–64.Google Scholar

91. Handelingen II 1957–58, p. 286.

92. Act of 4 August 1958, Staatsblad 387.

93. Comm. 14 December 1962, Appl. no. 1497/62, Reformed Church of X v. the Netherlands, 5 yearbook (1962), p. 286 at p. 298.Google Scholar

94. Comm. 14 December 1965, Appl. no. 2065/63, X. v. the Netherlands, 18 Decisions (05 1966,) p. 40 at p. 43.Google Scholar

95. According to Article 4, paragraph 3, sub litt, (b), the term “forced or compulsory labour” in Article 4 is deemed not to include any service of a military character or, in the case of conscientious objectors, in countries where they are recognised, service exacted in lieu of compulsory military service.

96. Cf. Comm. 23 April 1965, Grandrath v. Fed. Rep. of Germany, Appl. no. 2299/64, 16 Decisions (11 1965), p. 41.Google Scholar

97. Handelingen II 1950–51 Bijl. 1189 no. 5, p. 21.

98. See Article 67 of the Prison Regulations (Gevangenismaatregel) 1953, Staatsblad 237.Google Scholar

99. Handelingen II 1966–67 Bijl. 8800–VI no. 2, p. 11 (left col.).

100. Amendment Daams, Handelingen II 1960–61 Bijl. 4141 no. 31. See Article 23 of the Child Welfare Act (Kinderbeginselenwet) 1961, Staatsblad 403.Google Scholar

101. Final Report of the Governmental Advisory Commission on Cremation, The Hague 1965, pp. 5–11.

102. Handelingen II 1965–66, pp. C 70 and C 73. Nieuwe Rotterdamse Courant 22 10 1965.Google Scholar

102a. Handelingen II 1966–67 Bijl. 8800–VII no. 2.

103. Handelingen II 1963–64, p. 400 (left col.).

104. Handelingen II 1965–66 Bijl. 83OO–VI no. 2, p. 2 (left col.). Handelingen II 1965–66 Bijl. 8342 no. 1, p. 2. Handelingen II 1965–66, p. C 9 (left col.). A working party has been set up under the chairmanship of the Permanent Under-Secretary of the Department of Justice, with the terms of reference to inquire into the desirability and the possibility of legislation to protect the privacy of individuals. Nieuwe Rotterdamse Courant, 24 05 1966.Google Scholar Handelingen II 1966–67 Bijl. 8800–VI no. 2, p. 7 (right col.).

105. Handelingen I 1965–66, p. 358 (right col.). Handelingen II 1966–67 Bijl. 8800–VI no. 2, p. 7 (right col.). Ibidem 1966–67 Bijl. 8911 contains draft legislation for the further protection of the secrecy of telephone conversations.

106. Lately by Senator Siegmann, Handelingen I 1965–66, p. 324 (right col.).

107. Handelingen II 1963–64 Bijl. 7709 no. 2, pp. 18–19. It is expected that a report on necessary changes in the legal position of detainees will be submitted to the Minister of Justice presently. Handelingen II 1966–67 Bijl. 8800–VI no. 2, p. 7.

108. Comm. 13 April 1961, April. no. 892/60, X. v. Fed. Rep. of Germany, 4 Yearbook (1961), p. 240 at p. 252.Google Scholar Comm. 19 December 1961, Appl. no. 920/60, X. v. Fed. Rep. of Germany, 8 Decisions (06 1962), p. 46, at p. 48.Google Scholar Comm. 2 July 1964, Appl. no. 2122/63, Wemhoff v. Fed. Rep. of Germany, 14 Decisions (01 1965), p. 54 at p. 61.Google Scholar

109. Veringa-Geurts, , “De tenuitvoerlegging van de preventieve hechtenis”, 72Google ScholarTijdschrift voor Strafrecht (1963), pp. 83–95.Google ScholarBrongersma, , “De frequentie van de preventieve hechtenis”, Maandblad voor Berechting en Reclassering 1964, pp. 53–63.Google ScholarEnschede, , “Past Nederland de voorlopige hechtenis meer toe dan de landen om ons heen?” Nederlands Juristenblad 1965, pp. 515–520. See infra para. 37.Google Scholar

110. Staatsblad J 538 (1949). Cf. Van Rijn van Alkemade, “Afschaffing van het preventieve overheidstoezicht op verenigingen”. 7 Tijdschrift van Vennoot-schappen, Verenigingen en Stichtingen (1965), pp. 201–212.Google Scholar

111. Report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations 1959, p. 48. Ibidem 1961, pp. 73–75.

112. Handelingen II 1962–1963, Bijl. 7095. See especially Ibidem no. 3.

113. Van Rijn van Alkemade, loc. cit., p. 202.Google Scholar

113a. Handelingen II 1965–66 Bijl. 8300–VI no. 2, p. 2 (left col.).

114. Cf. Van Panhuys and Van Emde Boas, “Legal Aspects of Pirate Broadcasting”, 60 A.J.I.L. (1966) p. 303 at pp. 308–309.Google Scholar

115. Handelingen II 1962–63 Bijl. 6270 no. 3, p. 5 (right col.). V infra para. 30.

116. Handelingen II 1965–66 Bijl. 8579. Ibidem 1966–67. Bijl. 8579.

117. According to Article 13, paragraph 2 sub (4°) of the Broadcasting Bill (Ontwerp-Omroepwet), the aims of the Broadcasting Associations must be directed towards satisfying the cultural or religious or spiritual needs of the population to an extent such that their transmission may be considered in the general interest.

118. Handelingen II 1964–65 Bijl. 8099 no. 1, p. 2 (right col.).

119. Cf.supra p. 355 H.R. 27 january 1961, Nederlandse Jurisprudentie 1962 no. 355Google Scholar

12O. H.R. 25 June 1965, Nederlandse Jurisprudentie 1966 no. 116.Google Scholar

120a. Comm. 15 December 1966, Appl. no. 2690/65, “Televizier” v. The Netherlands (unpublished), considered that this application gave rise to a number of important issues regarding the interpretation of the Convention and therefore declared the application admissible, in order to examine the merits of the case.

121. Articles 22 and 23 of the Broadcasting Bill, Handelingen II 1965–66 Bijl. 8579 no. 2. See also Ibidem 1966–67 Bijl. 8579 no. 5.

122. Cf. Ballin, Hirsch, “Pseudo-auteursrechtelijke programmabescherming”, Nederlands Juristenblad 1966, pp. 710–718.Google Scholar A protest against this legislative proposal was also made by the Netherlands Committee of the Association littéraire et artistique internationale, an international association of experts in the field of copyright law, which corne to the conclusion that the Broadcasting Bill tries to make the notion of copyright serve interests that have nothing to do with the law of copyright, Nieuwe Rotterdamse Courant, 29 09 1966.Google Scholar

123. Proem van een Nieuwe Grondwet, 1st ed., Ministerio van Binnenlandse Zaken, 1966.Google Scholar

124. These are: Professor Dr. A. M. Donner, former professor of public law at the Calvinist University of Amsterdam, a member and former President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, Professor Dr. J. van der Hoeven, Chancellor of the University of Amsterdam, Professor Dr. H. J. M. Jeukens of the Roman Catholic University of Tilburg, Professor P. J. Oud, Minister of State, former Professor of Public Law at the Rotterdam School of Economics and Professor Dr. J. V. Rijpperda Wierdsma of the University of Leyden.

125. Op. cit., p. 51.

126. Ibidem, p. 52.

127. V. supra p. 344.

128. Op. cit., p. 55.