1. Partly published in Advocatenblad (1973) p. 586.Google Scholar

2. The text of the decision included the contents of the letter, a summary of which was published in Advocatenblad (1973) p. 581.Google Scholar

3. 286 U.N.T.S. p. 266; Trb. 1954 No. 40.

4. Summarized in Milieu en Recht (1975) pp. 26–27Google Scholar. Note by Langelaar, K.. Comment by T.P.J.N. van Rijn in N.J.B. (1975) pp. 1096–1097Google Scholar and N.J.B. (1976) pp. 98–99.

5. Official Journal of the European Communities 221/59.

6. Note by J.C. Schultsz. For the English text of the Court's findings, see 22 N.I.L.R. (1975) pp. 206–209; note by J.P. Verheul on pp. 209–212. The question was also discussed by Voskuil, C.C.A. in W.P.N.R. (1975) pp. 673–674.Google Scholar

7. Trb. 1969 No. 101. Article 17 provides that the parties, of whom one at least is domiciled in the territory of a Contracting State, are free to designate, by written agreement, a tribunal in one of the Contracting States which shall have exclusive jurisdiction.

8. Stb. 1949 No. J 455; 36 U.N.T.S. p. 364. The text of the Convention was modified by agreement of 4 November 1957: Tbr. 1960 No. 82; Art. 3 (4) provides that setf-emptoyed nationals are governed by the legislation of the country where they are liable to income tax.

9. The Explanatory Memorandum to the Draft Budget for 1976 for the Ministry of Justice includes the following information: (Bijl. Hand. II 1975/76 - 13.600 VI No. 2 pp. 53–54): “During the year 1974, 164 appeals were made under Article 34 of the Aliens Act. For 1973 this figure was 115; so 1974 saw an increase from 115 to 164 = 42,6 per cent; on 1 January 1975, 107 of the 164 appeals were pending. The remaining 57 were settled as follows: In accordafrce with the advice given by the Afdeling Contentieux of the Raad van State: 23 appeals were dismissed; 9 appeals were declared non-receivable; and in no case was the contested decision reversed. Further, 19 appeals were withdrawn, after a residence permit was eventually granted; and 6 appeals were withdrawn after the appellants had eventually decided to leave the Netherlands.

Of the 115 appeals made in 1973, 14 were still pending on 1 January 1975. The remaining 101 were settled as follows: In accordance with the advice given by the Afdeling Contentieux of the Raad van State: 45 appeals were dismissed; 19 appeals were declared non-receivable, and in 19 cases the contested decision was reversed. Further, 23 appeals were withdrawn, after a residence permit was eventually granted, while, 5 appeals were withdrawn by reason of departure.”

10. Stb. 1965 No. 40. Article 11 (5): “A residence permit as well as extension of its validity may be refused on the basis of reasons of the general interest.”

11. Article 7: “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.” Article 13 contains the right to freedom of movement and residence.

12. Stb. 1954 No. 596. Article 43: “1. Each of the countries shall promote the observance of fundamental human rights and freedoms, the rule of law and the integrity of administration. 2. The safeguarding of these rights and freedoms, the rule of law and the integrity of administration shall be a Kingdom affair.”

13. Article 23 provides for the right to work, Article 25 for rights relating to standards of living.

14. Article 33(1): “The decision on the request for review shall be made with statement of reasons and shall, without delay, be brought to the notice of the petitioner.”

15. Comment by the Editors.

16. Art. 95: “1. A favoured EEC national may be refused a residence permit only where he constitutes a danger to public order, national security or public health. 2. Refusal to extend the period of a residence permit of a favoured EEC 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. 3.… 4. For the purpose of paras. 1 and 2, danger to violation of public order, or danger to national security is established exclusively on the ground of the conduct of the favoured EEC national. Where such conduct has lead to conviction, the nature of the offence and the degree of punishment are to be taken into consideration. 5. …”

17. Note by J.H. van der Veen.

18. Article 91: “1. For the purposes of this Section the following shall be regarded as favoured EEC nationals: (a) any alien who is a national of a Member State of the European Economic Community, and who is resident in or proceeding to the Netherlands in order to work there whether as a wage-earner or otherwise, or in the capacity of a recipient of services; (b) any national of Belgium or Luxembourg not resident in or proceeding to the Netherlands for one of the purposes stated in (a);”

19. Article 96 (1)(a): “Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 95, (a) a Belgian or Luxembourg national as defined in Article 91 (1)(b) may be refused a residence permit if he does not possess sufficient means of existence or cannot produce a certificate of good character;”

20. Article 95 (1): see supra n. 16.

21. Trb. 1960 No. 135, B.T. I. Article 2: “Nationals of each of the Contracting Parties are allowed to establish themselves on the territory of any other Contracting Party if they possess sufficient means of existence and are of good character.”

22. Trb. 1965 No. 71, B.T. IV-I. Article 6 (4)(1): “A Court [national court] such as is defined in para. 2 or 3, will not, however, [refer the question to the Benelux Court] (1) if it considers that there is no reasonable doubt as to the solution of the question concerned;”

23. With comment by the Editors. The Royal Decree is discussed by Maas Geesteranus, G.W. in Nederlands Juristenblad (1975) pp. 1201–1209Google Scholar in an article entitled “Ongeschreven Nederlands recht als nawerking van een vervallen verdrag” [Unwritten Dutch law as an after-effect of an obsolete treaty]. Maas Geesteranus refers to this article in 55 Advocatenblad (1975) pp. 607–608 under the title: “Processuele rechten van Indonesiërs en van staatlozen, voormalig Indonesiërs”

[Procedural rights of Indonesians and stateless former Indonesians].

24. Note by J.H. van der Veen.

25. Stc. 1969 No. 43. This regulation was officially terminated by the Decree of 11 September 1975, Stb. 1975 No. 502.

26. Stc. 1949 No. J 570, 69 U.N.T.S. p. 208.

27. Stb. 1964 No. 72.

28. Similarly, Court of Appeal of Arnhem, 23 March 1971, N.J. (1971) No. 333; see 2 N.Y.I.L. (1971) pp. 245–246. The District Court of Amsterdam made a different decision on 29 November 1973 (N.J. 1975 No. 67), to the effect that Indonesians who had applied for free legal aid in proceedings involving the issue of residence permits, could still rely on the 1949 Act of Transfer of Sovereignty to Indonesia (Stb. 1949 No. J 570 pp. 117–118; 69 U.N.T.S. p. 374), as no further arrangements on this matter had been made between the Netherlands and Indonesia since then, and the Act of Transfer of Sovereignty to Indonesia had not ceased to be operative on other grounds.

29. See 6 N.Y.I.L. (1975) pp. 272–273.

30. Note by J.R. Stellinga.

31. Mentioned in Rechtspraak Vreemdelingenrecht (1974) No. 33 with comment by the Editors.

32. Explanatory note by Robert Maccrate.

33. 556 U.N.T.S. p. 89; Trb. 1964 No. 99. Cf. van Wees, G.N.J., “Compensation for Dutch property nationalized in East European Countries”, 3 N.Y.I.L. (1972) pp. 62–96 at pp. 65, 73–74, 85–87 and 95.Google Scholar

34. The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal of Den Bosch, but at the request of the parties, the Court suspended the case on 24 February 1976 and removed it from the roll.

35. The President uses the term eigenstandig persoon.

36. The President recalled the following facts involving South-Moluccans: (a) 31 august 1970: raid on the residence of the Indonesian Ambassador; (b) 26 September 1970: demonstration resulting in disorder in the surroundings of the house of detention at The Hague; (c) 27 December 1973: procession following which the Indonesian flag was burned; (d) 27 December 1974: procession resulting in a raid on and damage to the Peace Palace at The Hague. The processions mentioned in (b), (c) and (d) had been permitted by the Mayor.

37. Article 92 makes detention of the King punishable by life imprisonment or by imprisonment not exceeding 20 years. Article 96 makes conspiracy for the offence as referred to in Article 92 punishable by imprisonment not exceeding ten years.

38. N.J. (1975) No. 418. Part of the General Plea, Part II, of the appellant was reported, with comment, in Recht en Kritiek (1975) pp. 270–277Google Scholar. The case was discussed by Orie, A.M.M. and Verburg, J.J.I. in 5 D.D. (1975) pp. 475–489.Google Scholar

39. With comment by the Editors.

40. Article 34 (3): “Appeal lies to the Crown in the following cases: (a) if the decision on the request for review is contrary to a provision binding on everyone… ”

41. 189 U.N.T.S. p. 137; Trb. 1951 No. 131 amended by Protocol of 31 January 1967, 606 U.N.T.S. p. 267; Trb. 1967 No. 76.

42. Article 15 (1): “Aliens originating from a country where they have well-founded grounds to fear persecution for reasons of religion, political opinion or nationality … may be admitted as refugees by Our Minister.”

43. With comment by the Editors.

44. Article 15 (1), see supra n. 42.

45. Article 34 (3)(a), see supra n. 40.

46. With comment by the Editors.

47. Article 1 (A): “For the purposes of the present Convention the term “refugee” shall apply to any person who … (2) … owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country;…”

48. Article 15 (1), see supra n. 42.

49. Article 34 (3)(a), see supra n. 40.

50. With comment by the Editors.

51. Article 1 (A), see supra n. 47.

52. Article 15 (1), see supra n. 42.

53. Article 34 (3)(a), see supra n. 40.

54. With comment by the Editors.

55. Article 15 (1) see supra n. 42.

Article 15 (2): “Admittance cannot be refused save for important reasons in the public interest, if refusal would force the alien immediately to return to a country as defined in para. 1.”

56. The Crown explained in detail what this special status implied, using the definition given in the case of I.L.J. v. State-Secretary of Justice of 10 January 1974: 6 N.Y.I.L. (1975) pp. 349–350.

57. With comment by the Editors.

58. Other judgments of the Supreme Court in cases involving extradition, in 1975, include: (a) 14 January 1975 (L.C.B. v. Public Prosecutor). Summarised in 5 D.D. (1975) No. 77; continuation from 3 December 1974, summarized in 5 D.D. (1975) No. 57. (b) 27 May 1975 (O.P.A.C.L. v. Public Prosecutor) N.J. (1975) No. 393 with Note by Van Veen, Th.W., summarised in 5 D.D. (1975) No. 142Google Scholar; continuation from 18 April 1975, N.J. (1975) No. 392, summarised in 5 D.D. (1975) No. 132. (c) 18 November 1975 (F.M.T. v. Public Prosecutor) summarised in 6 D.D. (1976) No. 26; continuation from 10 June 1975, summarised in 5 D.D. (1975) No. 158.

59. Note by van Veen, Th.W., summarised in 5 D.D. (1975) No. 141.Google Scholar

60. Stb. 1897 No. 211.

61. N.J. (1975) No. 390. Summarised in 5 D.D. (1975) No. 92.

62. Summarised in 5 D.D. (1975) No. 169.

63. Article 28: “1. After the investigation in court has been closed, the Court shall as soon as possible decide on the request for extradition. A reasoned judgment shall be delivered. 2. … If the Court finds that, with regard to the person claimed, there can be no reasonable suspicion of guilt concerning the acts for which extradition is requested, the Court will in its judgment declare extradition inadmissible. 3. In cases other than those mentioned in the previous paragraph the Court will in its judgment declare extradition admissible…”

64. Summarised in 5 D.D. (1975) No. 181.

65. Article 10 (1): “Extradition shall not be allowed in cases where, in Our Minister's opinion, there are well-founded reasons to assume that compliance with the request will result in the person claimed being persecuted, punished or otherwise affected by reason of his religious or political opinion, his nationality, race or social group to which he belongs.”

66. With comment by the Editors.

67. Art. 22 (2) of the Aliens Act

68. Trb. 1966 No. 166.

69. With comment by the Editors.

70. This regulation which was intended to legalise the illegal residence of a large group of foreign workers, was laid down in a circular letter of the Ministry of Justice of 30 May 1975.

The text appeared in 124 Algemeen Politieblad (1975) pp. 325–327. There had been a previous circular dated 17 March 1975 and summarized in 124 Algemeen Politieblad (1975), pp. 181–182, 226 and 330, and in the Nederlands Juristenblad (1975) pp. 469–471 and 539–540Google Scholar. Comments on the circulars in Nederlands Juristenblad (1975) pp. 610–611.Google Scholar

To qualify for regularisation the foreign worker was required, among other things, to produce evidence that he had entered the Netherlands before 1 November 1974 and that he had been working for wages since his entry. The latter condition caused a number of illegal workers to institute summary proceedings against their (former) employers in order to obtain an employer's declaration. Cf. District Court of Arnhem, 30 September 1975, N.J. (1975) No. 493; Rechtspraak Vreemdelingenrecht (1975) No. 37 and District Court of Amsterdam, 17 November 1975, N.J. (1976) No. 115, Rechtspraak Vreemdelingenrecht (1975) No. 43. Closing date for applications for regularisation was 1 November 1975.

71. Pending trial A. was released on bail.

72. 213 U.N.T.S. p. 221; Trb. 1951 No. 154. Article 5 (1)(f): “(1). Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law;…(f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.”

73. Article 26 (1)(a): “1. If the interests of public peace, public order or national security so require, the following persons may be detained: (a) Aliens whose explusion has been ordered, …”

74. Article 11 (5): see supra n. 10.

75. The considerations mentioned under (c) were similarly dealt with by the President of the Hague District Court in the judgment in re M.B. v. the State of the Netherlands, 13 November 1975, N.J. (1975) No. 514, Rechtspraak Vreemdelingenrecht (1975) No. 40 (with comment by the Editors). In his case the President also dismissed the request made by B, of Moroccan nationality, for an injunction forbidding the State to proceed to expulsion in the absence of a decision, on appeal, on his application for a residence permit on the basis of the regularisation regulation.

76. With comment by the Editors.

77. Article 34 (3)(a), see supra n. 40. It was a case of conflict with Article 33 (1), Aliens Act, see supra n. 14.

78. Comment by the Bedrijfschap Horeca in 24 Misset's Horeca (1976) No. 20 p. 11.Google Scholar

79. Article 429 quater: “Any person who in the exercise of his profession or business, discriminates against a person on account of his race when proffering goods or services or when fulfilling an offer, shall be liable to a term of detention [hechtenis] not exceeding one month of a fine not exceeding one thousansguilders.” Cf. also 4 N.Y.I.L. (1973) p. 432.

80. On the same day five other persons were charged with infringement of Article 429 quater, with the following results: (a) in the case of S., porter in H.'s bar: conviction without punishment; (b) in the case of T., owner of a bar: acquittal (2x); (c) in the case of K., porter in T.'s bar: a fine of Dfl. 50,– or two days detention (2x); (d) in the case of W., hotel-owner: a fine of Dfl. 100,– or four days detention, and (e) in the case of S., receptionist in W.'s hotel: conviction without punishment.

81. N.J. (1975) No. 231, with note by Th. W. van Veen.

82. Article 137 e: “(1) Any person who for reasons other than the provision of factual information (i) publishes an utterance which he knows, or which he has reasonable cause to suspect is insulting to another group of persons on account of their race, religion or beliefs, or which incites to hatred of or discrimination against other persons, or to violence against the person or property of others on account of their race, religion or beliefs; or, (ii) distributes, or has in his possession with the intention of effecting distribution or publication, any object which he knows or which he has resonable cause to suspect contains such an utterance; shall be liable to aterm of imprisonment not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding five thousand guilders.” Cf. also 4 N.Y.I.L. (1973) pp. 431–433.

83. See 6 N.Y.I.L. (1975) pp. 353–354.

84. 660 U.N.T.S. p. 195; Trb. 1966 No. 237.

85. N.J. (1975) No. 450, with note by Mulder, G.E.. Summarized in 5 D.D. (1975) No. 173.Google Scholar

86. With comment by the Editors.

87. 213 U.N.T.S., p. 221; Trb. 1951 No. 154. Article 8: “(1) Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. (2) There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

88. Reported in 12 Cahiers de droit européen (1976) p. 327Google Scholar. On 7 November 1975, the Rotterdam District Court dismissed the defendant's appeal without the European Convention being invoked.

89. See supra n. 87.

90. Reported in Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights (1975) p. 427 and 12Google ScholarCahiers de droit européen (1976) pp. 331–332.Google Scholar

91. Article 10 (1): “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers…”

92. With comment by the Editors.

93. Reported in Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights (1975) p. 428 and 12Google ScholarCahiers de droit européen (1976) pp. 328–329.Google Scholar

94. Article 34 (5): “Review cannot be requested in cases where Our Minister has decided in accordance with advice from the commission, unless the alien, on the day when the decision was made, had been resident in the Netherlands for a year.”

95. See supra, n. 87.

96. Article 13: “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

97. Note by Th.W. van Veen in N.J. and by van Duyn, Y.-D.C. in B.N.B. Reported in Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights (1975) p. 429 and 12Google ScholarCahiers de droit ēuropéen (1976) p. 229Google Scholar. Discussed by Wisselink, M.A. in 44 Belastingbeschouwingen (1975) pp. 29–33.Google Scholar Mentioned by Alkema, E.A. in Bestuurswetenschappen (1975) p. 627Google Scholar. Detailed report of procedures in District Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court with comment in 22 A.A. (1975) pp. 673–683 by D.A. van der Stelt and J.H. Christiaanse.

98. Stb. 1959 No. 301. Article 49 (1): “Anyone who, within the Realm, carries on a trade or profession shall produce to the Commissioner any books and other documents which it may be important to inspect in order to establish the facts that may influence tax levies on third parties.”

99. See supra n. 87.

100. See 6 N.Y.I.L. (1975) pp. 358–359, and 12 Cahiers de droit européen (1976) pp. 326–327. The Public Prosecutor's requisitory in the District Court has appeared in 5 D.D. (1975) pp. 54–74, with comment by de Graaf, F., entitled “Recht is iets kroms dat verbogen is” on pp. 230–233Google Scholar, and a reply to this by the Public Prosecutor on pp. 265–273, entitled “Privacy en belastingontduiking” [Privacy and tax evasion]. A previous publication by de, Graaf, entitled “Belastingontduiking en Privacy” [Tax evasion and privacy] appeared in N.J.B. (1974) pp. 202–208.Google Scholar

101. Reported in Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights (1975) p. 430.Google Scholar

102. M.R.T. (1975) p. 203.

103. See supra n. 87.

104. Note by van Veen, Th.W.. Summarised in 5 D.D. (1975) No. 75.Google Scholar

105. Article 5: “1. The Dutch Penal Code is applicable to Dutch nationals committing outside the Netherlands: (1) … (2) an offence regarded as a misdrijf in Dutch criminal law, and punishable under the law of the country where committed.”

106. Article 14: “The enjoyment of rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”

107. Note by Melai, A.L.. Summarised in 5 D.D. (1975) No. 127Google Scholar. Discussed in 5 D.D. (1975) pp. 465–468 by A.L. Melai under the title: “Outspan en de vrijheid van meningsuiting” [Outspan and the freedom of expression].

108. Article 10 (1), see supra n. 91.

Article 10 (2): “The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”

109. Article 7: “No person shall require previous permission to publish thoughts or feelings by means of the printing press, without prejudice to every person's responsibility according to law.”

110. Article 6: “(1) In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law … (2) Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.”

111. Note by G.E. Mulder; summarised in 5 D.D. (1975) No. 187. Comment by van der Heijden, Th.J. in De Praktijkgids (1976) pp. 97–98Google Scholar in his article “Immuniteit van diplomatieke vertegenwoordigers” [immunity of diplomatic agents].

112. Article 8: “The applicability of Articles 2–7 is subject to exceptions under international law.” Articles 2–7 contain provisions on territorial and personal jurisdiction.

113. In cassation, the Supreme Court is bound by what, in the contested judgment, has been established in respect of the facts. It may not make a fresh investigation into the facts (Article 441(2), Code of Criminal Procedure).

114. Discussed by Vermeer, W.H. in M.R.T. (1975) p. 459Google Scholar, who in this connection mentions an identical decision of the Supreme Military Court involving the Opium Act (Judgment of 23 August 1973 reported in M.R.T. (1975) p. 256). Also discussed by Verwer, Ch.P. and van den Bosch, Th.W. in “De reikwijdte van artikel 4 van het Wetboek van Militair Strafrecht” [The reach of Article 4 of the Code of Military Criminal Law] M.R.T. (1976) pp. 326–332.Google Scholar

115. Judgment of 13 December 1974, M.R.T. (1975) p. 288.

116. Note by van Veen, Th.W.. Summarised in D.D. (1975) No. 117Google Scholar and discussed in D.D. (1975) p. 514. Also discussed by van Haaren, L. in 124 Algemeen Politieblad (1975) p. 6.Google Scholar

117. With a postscript by H.J.F. Bijvoet.

118. Discussed by Poell, J.P.G. in 24 Verkeerswet (1976) pp. 2–7Google Scholar in an article entitled “De territoriale en extraterritoriale werking van de Wegenverkeerswet” [The territorial and extraterritorial operation of the Road Traffic Act].

119. Article 307, Penal Code: “Any one who is guilty of another person's death is liable to a term of imprisonment or detention not exceeding nine months.”

120. Article 36, para 1 makes manslaughter resulting from a car crash punishable with a term of imprisonment of detention not exceeding one year. Para. 3 extends this term to a maximum of three years, where the collision occurred under the influence of drink.

121. Cf. decisions mentioned in 5 N.Y.I.L. (1974) pp. 324–325.

122. The Supreme Court contended inter alia that Article 36 of the Road Traffic Act was a lex specialis of Article 307 of the Penal Code. Since Article 307 was extraterritorially operative, so was Article 36.

123. By judgment of the Court of Appeal of The Hague of 20 June 1975 V. was sentenced to two months imprisonment, suspended, and a fine of Dfl. 250 (Institute's Collection No. 970).

124. Cf. the decisions mentioned in 5 N.Y.I.L. (1974) pp. 324–325.

125. Article 162 makes it punishable for members of the Armed Forces to drive a vehicle under the influence of drink.

126. Article 26 (1): “The driver of a vehicle is forbidden to drive it or cause it to be driven while he is under such influence of a substance the consumption of which he knows, or ought reasonablly to know,… is liable to reduce his driving-skill, that he cannot be deemed to be capable of proper driving.”

127. M.R.T. (1975) p. 404; V.R. (1976) No. 2.

128. Of 23 May 1973. Stb. 1973 No. 282. Discussed by J.P.G. Poell, see supra n. 118.

129. Discussed by Vermeer, W.H. in M.R.T. (1975) pp. 459–461Google Scholar, where he also mentions a decision of the Supreme Military Court of 9 July 1975, M.R.T. (1975) p. 448; V.R. (1976) No. 5 in which the Supreme Military Court found Article 26(2) also not to be applicable in an almost similar situation, but decided to acquit the respondent since the proportion of alcohol in his blood amounted to 76 pro mille. Both judgments are also reported by J.P.G. Poell, see supra n. 118. Cf. also Maaldrink, G.L., “Bloedproef en autogordels niet verplicht voor militairen” [Bloodtest and car-belts not compulsory for members of the Armed Forces], N.J.B. (1975) p. 1070Google Scholar; M.R.T. (1975) pp. 587–588 with postscript by W.H. Vermeer.

130. Article 26(2): “The driver of a vehicle is forbidden to drive it or cause it to be driven after consuming such a quantity of alcohol that the proportion of alcohol in his blood appears, after testing, to be higher than 0,5 milligramme per mijfimeter of blood.” (50 pro mille).

131. M.R.T. (1975) p. 449.

132. Stb. 1904 No. 7.

133. Institute's Collection No. 934.

134. European Agreement for the Prevention of Broadcasts transmitted from Stations outside National Territories, 22 January 1965, Trb. 1965 No. 92.

135. The “Mebo II” stopped its radio broadcasts on 31 August 1974 at 8 p.m. (R.G.D.I.P. (1975) p. 523). The Strasbourg Agreement was ratified by the Netherlands on 26 August 1974 and became operative on 27 September 1974 (Trb. 1974 No. 194). The Act for the prevention of broadcasts transmitted from stations outside national territory (Stb. 1974 No. 25) was, by decree of 30 July 1974 (Stb. 1974 No. 478), made operative on 1 September 1974. See also 5 N.Y.I.L. (1974) pp. 356–357.

136. E.B. appealed in cassation to the Supreme Court which dismissed the appeal against the decision. Ex officio, the Court quashed the decision in respect of the qualification and penalties, and referred the case to the Court of Appeal for further trial and settlement. (Judgment of 21 October 1975, N.J. (1976) No. 119 with note by Mulder, G.E.. Summarised in 6 D.D. (1976) No. 2)Google Scholar. The Court of Appeal of The Hague decided upon a similar punishment to that imposed in its previous decision, but omitted the obligation of giving security (Judgment of 2 January 1976. Institute's Collection No. 1049). Then B. appealed a second time in cassation to the Supreme Court, but the Court also dismissed this appeal (Judgment of 18 May 1976, Institute's Collection No. 1081).

137. Cf. a more comprehensive report of this case with comment by Verheul, J.P. in 22 N.I.L.R. (1975) pp. 203–206Google Scholar. Cf. also Alfred, Rest, “Zuständigkeitsprobleme bei grenzüberschreitenden Umweltbeeinträchtigungen”, 8 Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitiek (1975) pp. 281–285Google Scholar; Alfred, Rest, “Der Begehungsortnach Art. 5 des E.W.G. Vollstreckungs-Abkommen vom 27.9.1968 bei grenzüberschreitenden Umweltschäden, 21 Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft (1975) pp. 663–670Google Scholar; Alfred, Rest, “Judicial competence with respect to transfrontier environmental damages and the forum delicti commissi”, 1 Environmental Policy and Law (1975) pp. 127–131Google Scholar and van Hoogstraten, S., “La salinité du Rhin et le Tribunal de Rotterdam”, 1 Environmental Policy and Law (1975) pp. 73–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

138. Article 5: “Any defendant domiciled in a Contracting State may, in another Contracting State, be sued in … (3) The Court of the place where the tortiuus act occurred, in matters of tort or quasi-tort.”

139. Institute's Collection No. 1052.

140. Cf. the discussion of this case in the Nederlands Juristenblad (1975)Google Scholar: Langemeijer, G.E., “De drie van Breda” [The three of Breda] pp. 129–131Google Scholar, with comments by I. Kisch on pp. 201–202, by J.C. Schultsz, Prof. J.C. Schultsz and J.M. Loonstein on pp. 253–254, and with reply by Langemeijer on p. 254. Also commented by D.L. Lilienthal with reply by Langemeijer on pp. 385–386.

141. Stb. 1968 No. 620. Article 3: “Exports to Southern Rhodesia other than those from the free market are prohibited.” See also 3 N.Y.I.L. (1972) p. 231 and 5 N.Y.I.L. (1974) p. 358.

142. Stb. 1935 No. 599.

143. Article 2: “(1) Imports from Southern Rhodesia other than to the free market are prohibited.”

144. Stb. 1935 No. 621.

145. The four Syrians were on 2 June 1976 released early and put on a plane to Damascus.

146. Note by Zonderland, P.. 1 Yearbook Commercial Arbitration (1976) pp. 195–198Google Scholar reports this decision and the four previous decisions in this case.

147. 330 U.N.T.S. p. 3; Trb. 1958 No. 145.

148. See 4 N.Y.I.L. (1973) pp. 390–391; 5 N.Y.I.L. (1974) pp. 291–292 and Revue de l'Arbitrage (1974) pp. 313–318Google Scholar. The decision at first instance by the President of the Rotterdam District Court appears at 3 N.Y.I.L. (1972) p. 294.

149. See 5 N.Y.I.L. (1974) pp. 290–296 and Revue de l'Arbitrage (1974) pp. 318–322Google Scholar with note by H. Batiffol.

150. See 6 N.Y.I.L. (1975) pp. 374–377 and Revue de l'Arbitrage (1974) pp. 322–326.Google Scholar