¹ In an excellent study of the field of internationa criminal law, Professor Legros distinguishes between the real competence, the active and passive personality theory, the universal competence, the active collaboration (e.g. Interpol), international conventions and criminal international law (Nuremberg and Tokyo trials). All these techniques are now used to extenuate the rigidity of the territoriality principle of the criminal law.

Legros, R., “Domaine et Méthode du Droit Pénal International”, 34 Rev. de Drt. Pén. et de Crim. 843 (1954).Google Scholar

² Conseil Interparlementaire Consultatif de Benelux (hereafter cited as Cons. Interparl. Consult. BNL), Projet de Traité sur l'exécution des décisions judiciaires rendues en matière pénale, Exposé des motifs, Doc. 56–1, p. 1 (1964).

³ Treaty of Rome, 03 25, 1957Google Scholar; Belgian Law of 12 2, 1957Google Scholar, Monit. Belge, 12 25, 1957.Google Scholar

⁴ Traité instituant l'Union Economique Benelux, Convention transitoire et Listes annexes, Protocole d'exécution, Protocole de signature, Echange de lettres concernant la Question des primes rhénanes, signed at the Hague, Febr. 3, 1958.

Monit. Belge, 10 27, 1960, in force since 11 1, 1960.Google Scholar

See also: Karelle, and de Kemmeter, , Le Benelux commenté, textes officiels, Brussels (Bruylant) 364 p. (1961).Google Scholar

⁵ Union Internationale des Magistrats, 2nd Int'l Congress, held in The Hague, June 10–14, 1963: section of criminal law: “The international effects of criminal judgments”, Actes du Congrès, 209 (1963).Google Scholar

VIIIe Congrès de l'Association Internationale de Droit Pénal, held in Lisbon, , 09 21–27, 1961Google Scholar: 4th question: “The applications by the national judge of foreign criminal legislation”, reports in: 31 Rev. Intle de Drt. Pén. 387 (1960)Google Scholar, 70 Tijdschr. vr. Strafr. 187 (1961).Google Scholar

See also: 42 Rev. de Drt. Pén et de Crim. 483 (1961–1962)Google Scholar.

IXth Congrès de l'Association Internationale de Droit Pénal, held in The Hague, Aug. 24–30, 1964: 4th question: “The extraterritorial effects of criminal judgments”, reports in: 34 Rev. Int'le de Drt. Pén. 3 (1963)Google Scholar; resolutions in: 18 Rev. Int'le de Crim. et de Pol. Techn. 228, at 232 (1964)Google Scholar, Rev. Pénit. et de Drt. Pén. 233, at 255 (1965)Google Scholar.

Several problems have been or are being discussed by the Legal Committee of the Council of Europe (Sub-committee, n° 10: questions of criminal law and criminology) e.g. extradition and mutual assistance (cfr. infra) and conflicts of jurisdiction in criminal matters (Consult. Assembly of the Counc. of Eur., 16th sess. Doc. 1873).

⁶ Parallels can be drawn between the Benelux treaties on extradition and mutual assistance in criminal matters and the two European conventions: the one on extradition of Dec. 13, 1957 and the one on mutual assistance of April 20, 1959. There are also Benelux and European drafts on the execution of judicial decisions in criminal matters and on the adoption of criminal proceedings. The interaction between the two texts is being carefully studied. There is indeed a special study group for “Mutual judicial co-operation”. Cons. Interparl. Consult. BNL, 9e Rapport commun, Rapport fait au nom de la Commission de Législation pénale, civile et commerciale, Doc. 63–3, p. 3 (1965).Google Scholar

⁷ Cons. Interparl. Consult. BNL, 9e Rapport commun des Gouvernements belge, néerlandais et luxembourgeois au Conseil Interparlementaire Consultatif de Benelux au sujet de la coopération entre les trois Etats en matière d'unification de droit (hereafter cited as: Rapports commun), Doc. 65–1, p. 9 (1965).Google Scholar

⁸ Règlement de la Commission Benelux pour l'Etude de l'Unification du Droit (hereafter cited as: Regi. BNL Stud. Com.), art. 1.

Also: Buckinx, , “Wetgeving in Beneluxverband” (Legislation in Beneluxcontext), 29 Rechtsk. Weekbl. 513, at 520 (1965).Google Scholar

⁹ The Commission, consisting of 26 members (10 Dutch, 10 Belgian and 6 Luxembourg), can be enlarged by the addition of eminent specialists (art. 5 par. 2 of the Rules of Procedure), who play an important part in particular in the sub-committees (set up to study particular subjects, art. 5, par 1 of the Rules). The Commission meets not less than 4 and not more than 10 times each year (art. 13), normally for 2 or 3 days. Continuity in its work is however ensured by regular meetings of the numerous sub-committees, in which the members have informal exchanges of views on other current problems.

¹⁰ Regi. BNL Stud. Com., art. 2.

¹¹ Set up by the Agreement of Nov. 5, 1955 (in force since Sept. 9, 1956) and consisting of 49 Members of Parliament (21 Belgian, 21 Dutch, 7 Luxembourg). Its main functions are consultative and advisory, in connection with the functioning of the Economic Union, cultural contacts, the foreign policy of the Benelux countries and the unification of law.—Law of July 4, 1956, Monit. Belge 10 17, 1956Google Scholar. Buckinx, , supra, note 8, at 521 (1965).Google Scholar

¹² Supra note 4.

¹³ The Treaty provides for: the Committee of Ministers, the Benelux Inter-Parliamentary Consultative Council, the Council of the Economic Union, commissions, the General Secretariat, Joint Departments and the Board of Arbitrators.

¹⁴ Convention entre le Royaume de Belgique, le Grand Duché de Luxembourg et le Royaume des Pays-Bas concernant le transfert du contrôle des personnes vers les frontières extérieures du territoire du Benelux, signed at Brussels, Apr. 11, 1960, Monit. Belge 07 1, 1960 (in force since the same date).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Treaty of Sept. 19, 1960 (not yet in force).

¹⁶ The following table shows the stages reached by the various drafts: (a) in the Study Commission:

—civil law section: 1. purchase and sale, 2.3. arbitration in private law and transport insurance, 4.6. Penalty clause, 5. commorientes;

—criminal law section: 7. the taking over of criminal proceedings, 8. the extraterritorial application of criminal law;

(b) being studied by the governments: 9Google Scholar. international private law, 10. compulsory third party insurance for motorists, 11. general agreement on administrative and judicial co-operation, 12. designs or models, 13. perjury before international courts, 14. offences of fraud, 15. protection of the emblem and the name of the United Nations, 16. harmonization of legislation relating to weapons and munitions, 17. standardization of Dutch legal terminology;

(c) laid before the Inter-Parliamentary Council: 18Google Scholar. agency agreement and power of attorney, 19 draft treaty relating to the execution of judicial decisions in criminal matters, 20. treaty relating to the establishment and the statute of a Benelux court of justice;

(d) laid before the national Parliaments for approval: 21Google Scholar. treaty of 16.3.1961 relating to co-operation in the regulation of imports, exports, and transit of goods, 22. treaty of 24.11.1961 relating to judicial competence, bankruptcy and the authority and execution of judicial decisions, arbitral awards and authentic acts, 23. treaty and uniform law of 19.3.1962 relating to trade marks, 24. treaty of 27.6.1962 on extradition and mutual assistance in criminal matters (ratified in Belgium since June 1, 1964);

(e) in force: 25Google Scholar. Benelux Economic Union, supra, note 12; 26. Benelux treaty on free circulation of persons, supra, note 14; 27. Benelux agreement relating to the voluntary payment of fines, Febr. 1, 1965.

¹⁷ The Ministers of Justice have set up a working group to co-ordinate the Benelux positions in the E.E.C, in the field of company law. There is also close co-operation in drafting the treaties of the Council of Europe (extradition, mutual assistance, punishment of trafic offences, …).

Cons. Interparl. Consult. BNL, 9e Rapport commun, Doc. 65–1, p. 8 (1965).Google Scholar

¹⁸ The Commission's draft treaty on third-party insurance for motor vehicles has not yet been approved, but its influence can be felt in the Belgian law of July 1, 1956 on compulsory insurance.

Monit. Belge, 07 15, 1956.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Cons. Interparl. Consult. BNL, Doc 56–1, p. 1 (1964).Google Scholar

²⁰ Infra, page 21et seq.Google Scholar

²¹ Hulsman, L. H. C., “Transmission des poursuites pénales à l'Etat de séjour et exécution des décisions pénales étrangères”, in: Le Droit Pénol International, Receuil d'études en hommage à Jacob Maarten van Bemmelen, 108, at 112 (1965)Google Scholar (hereafter cited as: Receuil van Bemmelen).

Duk, W., “Collaboration au sein du Benelux pour la lutte contre les délits fiscaux et économiques”, in: Receuil van Bemmelen, 137, at 139 (1965).Google Scholar

²² Benelux Convention relating to co-operation in Customs and Exise matters, art. 6.

Benelux Convention on extradition and mutual assistance in criminal matters, art. 27 (hereafter cited as: BNL Extrad. Tr.).

²³ BNL Extrad. Tr., art. 13.

²⁴ For example, extradition will not be called into play for a motoring offence, and adjudication by the judex loci delicti will be dificult when milieu investigation is essential, or the accused does not speak the language of the country.

²⁵ Art. 13 of the L. of Apr. 17, 1878, as modified by Exec. L. of Aug. 5, 1943 (Preliminary Title of the Code of Criminal Procedure):

“… les dispositions précédentes ne seront pas applicables lorsque l'inculpé, jugé en pays étranger du chef de la meme infraction aura été acquitté ou lorsque après avoir été condamné il aura subi ou prescrit sa peine ou aura été gracié”.

²⁶ Belg. Cass. 23 Sept. 1907—Pas 1907–1–356. Belg. Cass. 16 Dec. 1919—Pas 1920–I–10. Belg. Cass. 15 Dec. 1952—Pas 1953–I–262.

²⁷ Court of Appeal, Brussels, Nov. 26, 1868—Pas 1868–II–88:

“Attendu que si cet arret, rendu en pays étranger, ne peut etre invoqué en Belgique comme ayant l'autorité de la chose jugée, il en découle au moins de puissantes présomptions de la vérité des faits articulés par l'intimé à l'appui de sa demande” (a case of larceny)

and also: Court of Appeal, Ghent, March 19, 1924, Belg. Jud. 1925, 207:

“Un jugement correctionnel étranger de condamnation du chef de délit d'adultère, rendu par défaut, tout en n'étant pas irrévocable et n'ayant pas acquis la force de la chose jugée, peut constituer la preuve par présomptions graves de l'adultère formant une cause déterminée de divorce”.

²⁸ E.g. Convention d'extradition et d'entraide judiciaire en matière pénale entre le Royaume de Belgique et la République fédérale d'Allemagne (signed in Brussels, Jan. 17, 1958) art. 33 (Monit. Belge, 06 19, 1959);Google Scholar

BNL Extrad. Tr. art. 36;

Rommel-Devos, J., “De erkenning en tenuitvoerlegging van vreemde strafvonnissen-Het Beneluxontwerp in strafzaken” (the recognition and execution of foreign judgments-Benelux draft in criminal matters), 29 Sechtsk. Weekbl. 609, at 612 (1965);Google Scholar

Legros, R., “Effets internationaux des jugements répressifs en Communautés Européennes”, 41 Rev. de Drt. Pén. et de Crim. 795, at 803 (1961).Google Scholar

²⁹ Law of March 15, 1874, art. 3;

Belg. Cass. Sept. 23, 1907—Pas 1907–I–360.

The period spent under provisional arrest in our own country will be subtracted from the punishment awarded.

³⁰ Supra, note 5.

Some recent international treaties contain different provisions:

Agreement between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty regarding the Status of their Forces, London, June 19, 1951 (in force since Aug. 24, 1953) Monit. Belge, 03 15, 1953Google Scholar Art. VII, 7, b: “The authorities of the receiving State shall give sympathetic consideration to a request from the authorities of the sending State for assistance in carrying out a sentence of imprisonment pronounced by the authorities of the sending State under the provision of this Article within the territory of the receiving State”.

The Coal and Steel Community Treaty, whereby the sanctions, fines and penalties imposed by the High Authority which may be referred to the European Court of Justice, are to be executed by the competent Minister, who is only authorized to check on the authenticity of the decision; this is only a very limited exequatur (artt. 44 and 92).

³¹ Art. 4, par. 1 Draft convention, Cons. Interparl. Consult. BNL, Doc. 56–1, p. 35, at 36 (1964).Google Scholar

³² An exception is provided for in the case of deprivation or disqualification in respect of which the Public Prosecutor's Office can state a requirement ex officio (art. 50 of the draft) This does not prevent execution of sentence in the sentencing state. It is equally important that those deprivations and disqualification which still have a territorial flavor, should be allowed to penetrate into other areas (e.g. ban on driving).

³³ Art. 4, par. 2 draft convention.

³⁴ In contrast with the European Treaty (art. 6, par. 2), the Benelux Treaty does not otherwise mention the out dedere, out punire expressly, but the Law of April 17, 1878 can be applied in such case.

³⁵ The example most frequently quoted is that of road traffic: differing rules such as driving on the left or on the right, priority, parking regulations, do not in the least imply the existence of a different conception of norms. Driving on the wrong side of the road is equally punishable in both countries.

³⁶ Art. 3, par. 1 and art. 55 draft convention.

Luxembourg has no legislation on sea-defence works and the Netherlands have none for the protection of viniculture. Execution of sentence is possible because of inclusion in the list.

³⁷ Art. 5, par. 2 draft convention.

³⁸ Rommel-Devos, , supra, note 28, at 614.Google Scholar

³⁹ Art. 5, par. 1 draft convention.

⁴⁰ Art. 11 par. 1 draft convention.

⁴¹ Legros, , supra, note 28, at 801in fine.Google Scholar

⁴² Art. 37, 42 or 50 draft convention.

⁴³ Cons. Interparl. Consult. BNL, Exposé des Motifs, Doc 56–1, p. 1 (1964).Google Scholar

43bis “Détention” is used in the Netherlands for punishment in case of a common criminal offence, while in Belgium the term is only used for offences of a political nature.

⁴⁴ Parole is a very useful example of this: in Belgium it can be obtained after serving 1/3 of the sentence and a minimum of 3 months; in the Netherlands the corresponding figures are 2/3 and 9 months, in Luxembourg 3/4 and 9 months.

⁴⁵ Art. 38, par. 1 and 2; art. 39; art. 51 draft convention.

⁴⁶ Art. 38, par. 3 draft convention.

⁴⁷ It may happen that the legislation of the requested state allows the punishment to be increased if this is desirable in the interest either of society as a whole, or of the offender. But under the provisions of the draft convention (art. 38), the judge cannot increase the punishment.

⁴⁸ Art. 25 draft convention.

⁴⁹ Cons. Interparl. Consult. BNL, Exposé des Motifs, Doc. 56–1, p. 6 (1964).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Ibid., at 13.

⁵¹ Art. 24 draft convention.

⁵² Art. 21 draft convention.

⁵³ Art. 22 draft convention.

⁵⁴ Chap. II draft convention

⁵⁵ Chap. III draft convention.

⁵⁶ Chap. IV draft convention.

⁵⁷ Chap. V draft convention.

⁵⁸ In this connection the civil, commercial and criminal legislation committee of the Benelux Advisory Inter-Parliamentary Council has submitted an amendment intended to solve this problem: in Belgium and Luxembourg the correctional tribunal would be competent and in the Netherlands the Arrondissemmtsrechtbank (district court). Oppositions are to the judge who would normally be competent if the offence was committed within the territory. If this means that in Belgium the Court of Assizes is competent, the competence of the investigating court is maintained, in order to leave open the possibility of referring the case to the correctional tribunal on the grounds of extenuating circumstances.

Cons. Interparl. Consult. BNL, Doc. 56–2, p. 20 (1965).Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Art. 7, par. 2 of the Law of April 17, 1878, as modified by the Law of March 16, 1964 (Chap. II of the Preliminary Title of the Code of Criminal Procedure).

⁶⁰ Hulsman, , supra, note 21 at 128.Google Scholar

⁶¹ BNL Extrad. Tr. art. 42.

⁶² Art. 9 of the treaty reads “Sur requête de l'autorité poursuivante du pays où, d'après les dispositions de l'article 7, alinéa 1er, l'infraction doit être poursuivie, et pour autant que l'alinéa 2 de cet article ne soit pas applicable, les poursuites peuvent aussi être intentées dans le pays où le prévenu a sa résidence”.

⁶³ Art. 12, par. 2 alin. 4 reads: “A la demande de l'administration des douane ou des accises du pays où, d'après les dispositions du premier alinéa du présent paragraphe, la répression peut être exercée, les poursuites peuvent aussi être intentées dans le pays où le prévenu a sa résidence. L'initiative appartient dès lors à l'administration de ce dernier pays. Les sanctions appliquées ne peuvent être plus lourdes que celles prévues, pour le fait incriminé, par la législation du pays où l'infraction a été commise”.

⁶⁴ This paper contains no references to the official documents. The draft is still in the hands of the Study Commission. The author wishes to thank MrBekaert, H., Commissaire Royal à la réforme de la procédure pénaleGoogle Scholar, member of the Commission, and the Secretariat of the Benelux Study Commission for permission to consult the working papers.

⁶⁵ Exception made for art. 9 of the Law of April 17, 1878 concerning minor offences against legislation on forests, fishing, hunting and rural exploitation.

⁶⁶ The theory of the two-fold classification (offences against the social order; offences against the conventional structure) corresponds better with the machinery of criminal justice than the classical three-fold classification. Reference of crimes to the correctional tribunal and of misdemeanors to the police court (the so-called “cor-rectionalisation” and “contraventionalisation”—Law of Oct. 1, 1867) by the “Chambre des mises en accusation” and the “Chambre du Conseil” respectively, makes the classification more flexible without permitting the courts to divest themselves of their competence.

Bekaert, H., Handboek voor de Studie en praktijk van het Belgisch strafrecht (Manual for the study and practice of Belgian criminal law), 93 Brussels, (Univ. Publications) 1965.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ The earlier law of 1878 provided for a limited double incrimination by requiring, before prosecuting a Belgian for an offence committed against a foreigner, that the alleged offence was covered by the Belgian law of extradition. By 1907 the Court of Cassation had accepted the principle in general.—Cass. July 15, 1907, Pas 1907–I–334; Belg. Jud. 1907, 1228 + note.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Hulsman, , supra, note 21, at 131.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Staubach, , Die Anwendung ausländischen Strafrechts durch den inländischen Richter, 230 (1964).Google Scholar

VI Conf. Int'lepr. l'Unification du Droit pénal and Sect. “Extradition”. (Copenhague 1935), Actes de la Conférence, 233, at 251 et seq. (1938)Google Scholar.

Furtado Dos Santos, Rapport Portugais sur l'application de la loi pénale étrangère par le juge national—8e Congrès de l'Assoc. Int'le de Drt. pén., 31 Rev. Int'le de Drt. pén., 562, at 569 (1960)Google Scholar.

Van Bemmelen, , Rapport général définitif sur la question de l'application de la loi étrangère par le juge national, 31 Rev. Int.le de Drt. pén. 641, at 652 (1960).Google Scholar

In general: VIIIe Congrès de l'Association Internationale de Droit Pénal, supra note 5.

⁷⁰ On the basis of article 10 of the Law of April 17, 1878 it is possible in Belgium to presecute a foreigner who commits an offence against the Belgian State or against Belgian or foreign currency. For the sake of completeness one must add that it is possible to prosecute a foreigner who is an accomplice or accessory of a Belgian (art. 11 of the same law).

⁷¹ See also art. 12 of the treaty of march 1961 on import, export and transit; art. 22, alin. 4 of the draft on execution of criminal judgments.

⁷² Refusal is possible on various grounds: the political nature of the offence; military offences; offences committed outside the territory of the requesting state; accused not a national of one of the three countries and not residing permanently in one of the territories; prosecution in conflict with the international obligations of the requested state or with the fundamental principles of its legal system (as judged by itself).

Refusal is obligatory on grounds of: immunity from prosecution in the requested state by reason of lapse of time, or final judgment already passed in respect of the same offence or offences (in third countries: in the event of conviction, punishment undergone, prescribed or pardoned).

⁷³ European Convention on Extradition, signed in Paris, Dec. 13, 1957, European Treaty Series, no. 24. Has been ratified by Sweden (22.1.59), Turkey (7.1.60), Norway (19.1.60), Greece (29.5.61), Danmark (13.9.62) and Italy (6.8.63).

European Convention on mutual assistance in criminal matters, signed in Strasbourg, April 20, 1959, European Treaty Series, no. 30. Has been ratified by Italy (23.8.61), Greece (23.2.62), Norway (14.3.62) and Danmark (13.9.62).

⁷⁴ Supra note 14.

⁷⁵ In the Benelux context the two forms of secondary assistance have been included in one treaty, while under the Council of Europe two treaties were drawn up. The Benelux solution is the most logical since extradition is really only a form of passive assistance, even though it is the most important form. For the sake of clarity, extradition and minor assistance are treated separately in this study.

⁷⁶ Law of March 15, 1874, as modified and completed by the laws of July 7, 1875; March 22, 1886; June 28, 1889; July 3, 1893; May 15, 1912; May 26, 1914; July 12, 1932; May 25, 1936; August 21, 1948; Febr. 22, 1956.

⁷⁷ Law of March 15, 1874, art. 1, par. 1.

According to article 8 of the Constitution, nobody can be taken away from his natural judge.

This is discussed by several authors:

1 Garraud, , Tratte théorique et pratique du droit pénal, 454 (3rd Ed. 1913)Google Scholar;

Goddyn, and Mahiels, , Le droit criminel belge au point de vue international, 162 (1880)Google Scholar;

Theys, “L'extradition”, in: Les Novelles, Procédure pénale, T. 1, vol. II 505, at 526 (1946);

A. De Geest, Preadvies over de wederzijdse rechtshulp op strafrechtelijk gebied (Preadvice on mutual assistance in criminal matters), 7 Jaarboek v.d. Vereniging voor de Vergelijkende stadie van het Recht van België en Nederland, 244 at 257 (1959)Google Scholar;

J. M. van Bemmelen, ibid., at 267;

Van Panhuys, “Uitlevering van eigen onderdanen. Schijnwerpers op een oud vraagstuk” (Extradition of nationals. Spotlights on an old problem) 70 Tijdschr. vr. Strafr., 23 (1961);

1, Marchal, and Jaspar, , Droit Criminel, 31 (no. 66) (Brussels 1965)Google Scholar;

Cybichowski, , “Le Compétance des tribunaux à raison d'infractions, commises hors du territoire”, 12 Rec. Cours Acad. Drt. Int. 247, at 298 (1926).Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Art. 1, par. 1 Law of March 15, 1874.

Brussels, Chambre des Mises en Accusation, 08 25, 1896Google Scholar, in: Olivier, and Ernst, , Code de l'extradition, 300 (1902).Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Art. 6 of the law of Oct. 1, 1833, still in force because of art. 12 of the law of March 15, 1874.

⁸⁰ Law of March 22, 1856.

This resulted from the difficulties in extraditing Jacquin after the attempt on the life of Napoleon III.

It must not be forgotten that the original intention of extradition was to enable political offenders to be tried by the ruler loci delicti.

⁸¹ Art. 7 of the law of March 15, 1874.

⁸² Art. 1 par. 1 and art. 2 of the same law.

⁸³ This rule can be found in all treaties. E.g. treaty between the U.S.A. and Belgium, Oct. 26, 1901, art. 3 (Monit. Belge 06 29–30, 1902)Google Scholar, treaty between the German Federal Republic and Belgium, Jan. 17, 1958, art. 12 (Monit. Belge, 06 19, 1959).Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Cons. Interparl. Consult. BNL, Doc 27–1, at 13 (1961).Google Scholar

Monit. Belge, 10 24, 1957, at 11097.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Between Belgium and the Netherlands: Extradition treaty of May 31,1889 (Monit. Belge, 07 21, 1889).Google Scholar Supplementary conventions of Febr. 14, 1895 (M.B. May 2, 1895) October 25, 1927 (M.B. Nov. 26, 1927).

Between Belgium and Luxembourg: Extradition treaty of Oct. 23, 1872 (Monit. Belge, Dec. 7, 1872). Supplementary conventions of

June 21, 1877 (M.B. Oct. 1, 1877)

Apr. 25, 1893 (M.B. Dec. 2, 1938)

Nov. 16, 1899 (M.B. Dec. 31, 1899)

Aug. 24, 1926 (M.B. Apr. 3, 1927)

Aug. 24, 1948 (M.B. nov. 21, 1951).

Between the Netherlands and Luxembourg: Extradition treaty of March, 10, 1893.

⁸⁶ European Convention, art. 2: for request based on punishable offences: deprivation of liberty of maximum 1 year at least; if based on a conviction: punishment of at least four months.

BNL Ext rad. Tr., art. 2: respectively 6 months and 3 months.

Belgian and Luxembourg criminal legislation provide for each offence a minimum and maximum penalty, while the Dutch laws only provide a maximum. In the Netherlands there is a general minimum penalty for all offences of 1 day.

⁸⁷ Draft convention on extradition, confidential document of the Commission, p. 5 (10 1950).Google Scholar

See also: Cons. Interparl. Consult. BNL, Doc. 27–1, p. 5, under art. 3 (1961).Google Scholar

The European convention only permits the extradition for offences under military law if they are offences under oridinary law as well (art. 4).

⁸⁸ BNL Extrad. Tr., art. 4.

European convention, art. 5.

Constant, Traité, LeBenelux d'extradition et d'entraide judiciaire en matière pénale, 43 Rev. Drt. pén. et de Crim. 75, at 89 (1962).Google Scholar

Cons, interparl. Consult. BNL, Doc 27–1, at 5, under art. 4 (1961).Google Scholar

For the time being this still gives rise to some difficulties, since provisions exist in relation to customs matters which enable fines imposed in another country to be collected, while someone who is sentenced to deprivation of liberty for a more serious offence cannot be extradited before the treaty on the execution of sentences comes into force.

A.M., Over wetgeving. Benelux: uitlevering en rechtshulp in strafzaken. (On legislation. Benelux: extradition and mutual assistance in criminal matters) 70 Tijd-schr. vr Strafr. 38, at 41 (1961).Google Scholar

⁸⁹ BNL Extrad. Tr., art. 3.

Eur. conv. art. 3, par. 1.

A rule similar to that of the Eur. conv., art. 3 par. 2 (prosecution on account of race, religion, nationality or political opinion) has not been included in the Benelux convention, as there is no reason to take such measures.

⁹⁰ Draft convention on extradition, confidential document of the Commission, p. 31 (10 1950).Google Scholar

⁹¹ BNL Extrad. Tr., art. 5.

Eur. conv., art. 6: provides for the faculty to refuse extradition of nationals, but contains the aut dedere, aut punire provision.

⁹² Article 43 does regulate the possibility of information with a view to proceedings, but obliges the requested state only to investigate, not to take action. In this connection, the requested state must be competent on grounds of its own legislation relating to extra-territorial jurisdiction.

⁹³ Supra, note 77.

Constant, supra, note 88, at 91.

Cons. Interparl. Consult. BNL, Projet de Traité d'extradition et d'entraide judiciaire,; Rapport au nom de la Commission de la législation pénale, civile et commerciale, Doc. 27–2, at 5 (1961).

⁹⁴ Ibid., at 8.

⁹⁵ BNL Extrad. Tr., art. 11.

The Eur. conv. still refers to the classical procedure (art. 12), but parties may conclude direct agreements deciding on other means of communication.

⁹⁶ BNL Extrad. Tr., art. 15.

Eur. conv., art. 16.

⁹⁷ BNL Extrad. Tr., art. 19.

Not provided for in the European text.

⁹⁸ A.M., supra, note 88, at 43.

BNL Extrad. Tr.: the authorities “can”.

⁹⁹ Amongst other things it regulates the questions of the place of commission, the non bis in idem, lapse of time, capital punishment, the rule of speciality with its exceptions, surrender of the person to be extradited, handing over of property and transit.

¹⁰⁰ BNL Extrad. Tr., art. 22.

Eur. convention on mutai assistance in criminal matters, art. 1, though not providing for assistance in military and fiscal matter (art. 2).

Now regulated by: Belgian-Dutch convention of July 11, 1904; Belgian-Luxembourg convention of 06 24, 1948.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Cons. Interparl. Consult. BNL, Doc. 27–1, at 3 (1961).Google Scholar

Constant, supra, note 88, at 103.

¹⁰² BNL Extred. Tr., art. 24, par. 2.

¹⁰³ Ibid. art. 38. It is obvious that this measure results in an enormous acceleration of the procedure. It is even possible to call upon Interpol.

¹⁰⁴ BNL Extrad. Tr., art. 26.

Eur. conv. on mutual assistance on criminal matters, art. 4.

¹⁰⁵ A similar provision was already made in the conventions of 1952 on the co-operation of customs and exise matters, art. 4, and of 1961 on import, export and transit, art. 13.

At the time of signing the extradition treaty the three countries also signed a Protocol which was annexed to it, relating to the civil liability of officials acting in the territory of another party, under which the authorities are liable for torts committed by their officials in any Benelux country. Decisions in this connection can be carried out in all three countries.

¹⁰⁶ BNL Extrad. Tr., art. 34.

¹⁰⁷ Ibid., art. 31.

¹⁰⁸ Supra note 92.