1. Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, February 13, 1946, 1 U.N.T.S. p. 16. Article V, section 18 reads, inter alia:

“Officials of the United Nations shall

(a) …

(b) be exempt from taxation on the salaries and emoluments paid to them by the United Nations.”

2. General Act on State Taxes of July 2, 1959, Stb. 1959 No. 301, Article 40:

“When part of an income is received from an international organization and that part, by virtue of international legal provisions, is exempt from Dutch income tax levies, the income tax due on the remainder of the income will, except in so far as another method of calculation has been prescribed by those provisions, be the difference between the text calculated without account being taken of the exemption and the tax which according to rules made by Our Minister, should be ascribed to the exempted part of the income.”

3. Report of the decision in United Nations Juridical Yearbook 1969, New York 1971, pp. 239–240.Google Scholar

4. Recueil de la Jurisprudence de la Cour VI/2 (1960) p. 1165 ff.Google Scholar

5. Tribunal fédéral du Canton de Genève, November 5, 1958Google Scholar, Revue de droit administratif et de droit fiscal, 1959, p. 150 ff.Google Scholar

6. Of April 18, 1951, 261 U.N.T.S. p. 238 ff. With the “Merger Treaty” (Treaty establishing a single Council and a single Commission of the European Communities), a new Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities of April 8, 1965, was concluded.

7. Algemene Ouderdomswet (AOW) of May 31, 1956, Stb. 1956 No. 281.Google Scholar

8. Which reads: “Art. 11. On the territory of each of the Member States, and regardless of their nationality, the members of the High Authority and officials of the Community:

(a) …

(b) shall be exempt from any tax on salaries or emoluments paid by the Community

(c) …”

9. Ruling of February 25, 1969, No. 26358.

10. Recueil de la Jurisprudence de la Cour VI/2 (1960) p. 1165 ff.Google Scholar

11. Stb. 1966 No. 387, as amended by Decree of July 15, 1969, Stb. 1969 No. 305, giving effect to the Aliens Act of January 13, 1965, Stb. 1965 No. 40. Art. 95(2) of the Decree reads as follows: “Refusal to extend the period of a residence permit of a favoured E.E.C. national, as well as the withdrawal of such permit, may occur only if he has violated public order, presents a danger to national security, or if he has supplied false information on the basis of which a residence permit or an extension thereof was granted him.”

12. See in this connexion Art. 56(1) of the Treaty setting up the European Economic Community of March 25, 1957, 294 U.N.T.S. p. 56. Chapter Two, of which this Article forms part, deals with “The Right of Establishment”. Art. 56(1) reads: “The provisions of this Chapter and measures taken in pursuance thereof shall not prejudice the applicability of special legal and administrative provisions for aliens on the grounds of public order, public security, and public health.”

13. Which reads: “For the application of sections 1 and 2, danger to or violation of public order or danger to national security is assumed exclusively on the ground of the conduct of the favoured E.E.C. national. If such conduct has led to conviction, the nature of the offence and the degree of punishment are taken into consideration.”

14. Which reads: “A favoured E.E.C. national may be refused a residence permit only if he constitutes a danger to public order, national security, or public health.”

15. Stb. 1829 No. 28. Art. 9 reads: “The civil law of the Kingdom is equally applicable to aliens and Netherlands subjects in so far as the law does not expressly provide to the contrary.”

16. Trb. 1956 No. 131. Not yet in force.

17. While the first paragraph of Art. 855 contains the general provision on legal aid, the second paragraph expressly excludes aliens from legal aid unless provided otherwise by treaty.

18. Stb. 1957 No. 233.

19. Art. 10 reads: “With the exception of stateless residents, aliens are excluded from legal aid unless otherwise provided by international agreement.”

20. Trb. 1962 No. 97.

21. 359 U.N.T.S. p 273: Trb. 1965 No. 9.

22. Apparently the Court meant to refer to the Benelux Treaty.

23. Act of March 9. 1967. Stb. 1967. No. 139. Art. 2613 reads: Should the person whose extradition is sought contend that he can immediately demonstrate his innocence of the acts for which his extradition is requested, me Court will investigate such contence:”

24. Which reads: “It it does not appear that me person whose extradition is requested is assisted by legal counsel, the President of the Court ex officto places such counsel at his disposal.”

25. Containing the rule of “double punishability.”

26. 359 U.N.T.S. p. 273; Trb. 1965 No. 9 cr. also Art. 2 Benelux Extradition Treaty, supra n.20.

27. Verordening Verzekering Slachtdieren, October 30, 1957Google Scholar, in: Verordeningenblad Bedrijfsorganisatie No. VV 27/1958.Google Scholar

28. Act of January 13, 1965, Stb. 1965 No. 40. See for Art. 11(2): 1 N.Y.I.L. 1970 pp. 255 ff.

29. 213 U.N.T.S. p. 221; Trb. 1951 No. 154.

30. Act of September 13, 1935, Stb. 1935 No. 554, as amended. Art. 18(1) reads as follows:

“1. Anyone in the possession of a valid driving licence … who is presumed to be … incapable of driving a motor vehicle of a category … for which the licence has been issued is required, when so requested by a person appointed by Our Minister,… to submit himself to an examination as to his suitability or capability to drive such vehicle … ”

31. If one accepts “civil” as denoting rights and obligations under civil as distinct from administrative law, criminal law, constitutional law, etc. (Fawcett, , The Application of the European Convention on Human Rights, 1969, p. 127Google Scholar), the Court's dictum would appear to be rather sweeping as it does not take into account criminal cases to which Art. 6 of the Convention also refers. The relevant section of the Supreme Court's decision referred to is more qualified, however, and reads as follows:

“one must conclude from the wording of Art. 6 of the aforesaid Convention that the first paragraph of this article, to the extent that it provides that in the determination of his civil rights and obligations everyone is entitled to a public hearing and that the judgment shall be pronounced publicly, refers exclusively to contentious cases concerning civil rights and obligations;” (italics added –vdG.)

32. Which reads: “Apart from … [other provisions on] the co-responsibility of the owner or possessor and of the driver of a motor-vehicle, such owner or possessor shall be responsible for an offence committed by the driver … unless the identity of the driver is known or divulged by the owner or possessor on a request therefore … by the Public Prosecutor.”

33. Reference is made here to a report by Veegens for the annual meeting of the Netherlands International Law Association, Mededelingen van de Nederlandse Vereniging voor International Recht No. 43 (1960) p. 54.Google Scholar

34. Probably the Advocate-General meant to refer to Art. 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, GA Res. 217 (III) of December 10. 1948.

35. Reference is then made to (1) Schorn, Die Europäische Konvention zum Schutz der Menschenrechte und Gundfreiheiten und ihr Zusatzprotokoll in Einwirkung auf das deutsche Recht. Frankfurt/Main 1965, p. 223. who connects the fair trial guarantee to the question of guilt, (2) the decision of the Local Court of Dordrecht of April 28. 1965, NJ 1966 No. 254, (3) Remmelink, “Het verhoor in strafzaken” (lecture given before the Stichting Studiecentrum Rechtspleging in Groningen), in R.M. Themis 1966 p. 313 ff, and to (4) Morrison, C.C. JrThe developing European Law of Human Rights, Leyden, 1967 (“European Aspects” Series E No. 7) at p. 115.Google Scholar

36. Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights 1963 Case No. 788/60.

37. Stb. 1855 No. 32.

38. Union Statute (69 U.N.T.S. p. 208) and attached Exchange of Letters (69 U.N.T.S. p. 334) under the Round Table Conference Agreement between the Netherlands and Indonesia of November 2, 1949, 69 U.N.T.S. p. 200.

39. Letters Nos. 849 (Netherlands Delegation) and 7/E.L. (Indonesian Delegation) of 2 November 2, 1949, 69 U.N.T.S. p. 374.

40. By note of February 21,1956, see Bijl. Hand. II 1955/56–4264 No. 1, and subsequently by the Indonesian Act of April 21, 1956.

41. Agreement between the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia concerning the Financial Problems still outstanding between the two Countries, Trb. 1966 No. 199.

42. Agreement on Cultural Co-operation between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Indonesia of July 7, 1968, Trb. 1968 No. 98.

43. Stb. 1962 No. 370, amended by Act of July 7, 1965, Stb. 1965 No. 303. Art. 2 reads:

“1. Within the meaning of the Act, serious conscientious objections are the insurmountable conscientious objections to military service of anyone whose religious and moral convictions forbid him to participate in any warfare.

2. The objection may be directed against

(a) either military service, specifically related to the use of arms; or

(b) against military service of whatsoever nature …”

44. 570 U.N.T.S. p. 127; Trb. 1958 No. 81.

45. According to Article 95 of the Act on the Organization of the Judiciary (Stb. 1827 No. 20) the Public Prosecutor to the Supreme Court may “in the interest of law”, appeal in cassation to the Supreme Court against decrees and decisions of Courts of Appeal, District Courts and Local Courts (cassatie in het belang van de wet). This provision is aimed at bringing about uniform application of the law. Such a decision of the Supreme Court does not affect the rights of the parties (Article 98 of the Act on the Organization of the Judiciary).

46. Wet op de kansspelen of December 10, 1964, Stb. 1964 No. 483.

47. Art. 4(1) of the Agreement reads as follows:

“1. The legal and administrative provisions of the adjoining State relating to frontier control shall apply in the zone in the same manner as in the commune having jurisdiction over the frontier control office of the adjoining State. The commune in question shall be declared competent by the Government of the said State.”