1. Cf., the judgment of the Local Court of The Hague of 14 November 1979, in J.P.H. v. the Indonesian State. J.P.H., who had been employed by the defendant since 1961, contested the termination of his contract of employment, and requested a declaratory judgment that the employment was not terminated. The defendant failed to appear in court. The Court examined ex officio whether it had jurisdiction to hear the case. Held: “We deem that we are competent to hear the present case and that the defendant is subject to our jurisdiction, since the present issue is concerned with a contract of employment concluded in the Netherlands with a natural person of Dutch nationality, the employment to take place in the Netherlands. When the plaintiff entered the defendant's service, the defendant was acting as a private person for legal purposes.” The Court gave judgment for the plaintiff. (Institute's Collection No. 1345).

2. In a similar labour dispute between the Consulate-General of Italy at Rotterdam and a teacher employed by the Comitato Consolare di Coordinamento, established by the Consulate, the (consular) immunity exception was not pleaded; the Local Court dismissed the teacher's claims because the contract of employment was not governed by Dutch law, and the teacher appeared to be employed by the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Local Court of Rotterdam, 18 December 1979, Institute's Collection No. 1344).

3. Comment by Bamhoorn, L.A.N.M., “Lijfsdwang tegen een personeelslid/deskundige van ESTEC” [Civil imprisonment of an employee/expert of ESTEC], De Praktijkgids (1979) pp. 378–385.Google Scholar

4. The organization was founded in the Agreement between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the European Space Research Organization on the Establishment and Operation of the European Space Technology Centre, of 2 February 1967 (Trb. 1967 No. 9). Article 13 of the Agreement declares the provisions of the 1963 Protocol on privileges and immunities of the European Space Research Organization (ESRO) applicable to ESTEC (Trb. 1964 No. 22). The States Parties to the Convention establishing ESRO signed another agreement, establishing a European Space Agency (ESA), by merging ESRO with the European Organization for the Development and Construction of Space Vehicle Launchers (ELDO) (Trb. 1975 No. 123). This ESA agreement includes an Annex which contains a new regulation of ESA privileges and immunities to be substituted for the ESRO Protocol of 1963.

5. The President's order was carried out on 17 May 1979, when Y. was arrested in a public highway on his way home from work. He was detained in The Hague, but was released the next day, following payment of the sums outstanding.

6. Note by J.C. Schultsz. Discussed by d'Oliveira, H.U. Jessurun in “Vermolming van het nationaliteitsbeginsel”, [The decay of the principle of nationality], 31 Het Personeels Statuut (1980) pp. 4–5.Google Scholar

7. By Decree of the Reichsminister des Innern of 10 July 1940, published in the Deutscher Reichsanzeiger of 12 July 1940, by virtue of the provisions of the Act of 14 July 1933 (Reichsgesetzblatt, 1933 No. 480).

8. Art. 116(2): “Former German citizens who, between 30 January 1933 and 8 May 1945, were deprived of their citizenship for political, racial or religious reasons, and their descendants, shall be regranted German citizenship on application. They shall be considered as not having been deprived of their German citizenship if they have established their domicile (Wohnsitz) in Germany after 8 May 1945 and have not expressed a contrary intention”. See Peaslee, A.J., Constitutions of Nations, 1968, Vol. III, Europe p. 391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9. 10 NYIL (1979) pp. 447–448.

10. The Explanatory Memorandum to the Draft Budget for 1980 of the Ministry of Justice includes the following information (Bijl. Hand. II 1979/80 – 15 800 X VI No. 2 pp. 66–67): “During 1978, 625 appeals were made to the Judicial Division [Afdeling Rechtspraak] of the Council of State [Raad van State] (in 1976: 1044, 796 of which involved decisions made within the framework of regularization procedures; in 1977: 676, of which 254 involved decisions made within the regularization framework). Of the 625 cases in 1978, 4 involved decisions made within the regularization framewrok. On 1 January 1979, the position on the 621 cases other than those involving regularization was as follows: 7 cases had been dismissed; 35 cases had been declared inadmissible; in 3 cases the contested decision had been reversed; 65 cases had been withdrawn following the grant of a residence permit; 1 case had been withdrawn following the admittance of the appellant as a refugee; 27 cases had been withdrawn for other reasons; 483 cases were pending. In 1978, 9 cases involved a petition for review on the basis of Arts. 84(8) and 61 of the Council of State Act (1). The 172 decisions (other than those on cases involving regularization) result in the following picture. Decisions on appeals lodged in 1976: 18. Of the 18 cases, 13 were dismissed; 2 were declared inadmissible; in 2 cases the contested decision was reversed; in 1 case, objection based on Art. 79 of the Council of State Act was declared unfounded; Decisions on appeals lodged in 1977: 102. Of these, 78 were dismissed; 14 were declared inadmissible; in 8 cases the contested decision was reversed; 1 was pending; in 1 case, objection based on Art. 79 of the Council of State Act was declared unfounded. Decisions on appeals lodged in 1978: 52. Of the 52 cases, 7 were dismissed; 35 were declared inadmissible; in 3 cases, the contested decision was reversed; 2 cases were pending; 2 petitions for application of Art. 80 of the Council of State Act were declared inadmissible; in 3 cases, objection based on Art. 79 of the Council of State Act was declared inadmissible. In the period from 1 January to 1 May 1979, 389 appeals were made to the Judicial Division; in 239 of these, a defence plea was requested. In 1978, summary proceedings were instituted in 219 cases for the purpose of obtaining an injunction prohibiting expulsion until the request for a residence permit or for admittance as a refugee had been decided on review or at the highest instance on appeal (1977: 76). In 58 cases, the summary proceedings were discontinued, generally because the request for review or the appeal was given a staying effect with regard to expulsion; 122 cases were dismissed, 39 claims were allowed; 33 claims were taken to further appeal by the alien, 4 by the State. In the period from 1 January to 1 July 1979, summary proceedings were instituted in 220 cases. In 42 cases, the claim was withdrawn; 130 cases were dismissed, 45 claims were allowed; 40 claims were taken to further appeal by the alien, 6 claims by the State; 3 cases were pending….”

11. With note by the Editors. Summarized in WRvS/R.2.61/79”.

12. Trb. 1970 No. 50. Art. 12(1): “1. The Yugoslav worker may, upon expiry of the labour contract, either renew this contract or conclude a new one with another employer.” Art. 17: “If Yugoslav workers are to be employed in the Netherlands by Yugoslav enterprises, the relative provisions of the present Agreement shall be applied accordingly.”

13. Stb. 1964 No. 72.

14. Note by L.A.N.M. Barnhoorn.

15. 120 UNTS p. 71. Trb. 1951 No. 34. Art. 6(1): “1. Each Member for which this Convention is in force undertakes to apply, without discrimination in respect of nationality, race, religion or sex, to immigrants lawfully within its territory, treatment no less favourable than that which it applies to its own nationals in respect of the following matters: (a) in so far as such matters are regulated by law or regulations, or are subject to the control of administrative authorities– (i) remuneration, including family allowances where these form part of remuneration, hours of work, overtime arrangements, holidays with pay, restrictions on home work, minimum age for employment, apprenticeship and training, women's work and the work of young persons;… (d) legal proceedings relating to the matters referred to in this Convention.”

16. In a similar action brought by an Egyptian, the Local Court of Alkmaar dismissed the invocation of Art. 6(1), not because the Convention was not directly operative, but because the Convention was concerned with permanent migrant workers and not with temporary migrants. The Court followed the distinction made in the [Government] Note on the [Parliamentary] Report on the Bill of Approval (Bijl. Hand. II 1950/51 No. 2060 No. 15) (Judgment of 21 November 1979, De Praktijdgids (1980) No. 1493 with note by J.W. Soek; Rechtspraak Vreemdelingenrecht (1979) No. 118 with note by the Editors). The question of the Convention's direct operation also played an implicit role in the judgment of the Council of State, Judicial Division, of 14 December 1978 (Rechtspraak Vreemdelingenrecht (1978) No. 150 with a note by the Editors; Gids Vreemdelingenrecht No. D 24–1) In this case, the appellant relied on Art. 8 of the Convention, which provides that a migrant worker may not be returned because he is unable to work for the reason of illness or injury sustained subsequent to entry. The Council of State rejected this argument, not because Art. 8 was not directly operative, but for lack of evidence that the migrant (a Moroccan) was unable to work for medical reasons.

16a. Other relevant judgments of the Supreme Court in cases involving extradition in 197y include: (a) 13 February (K.E.W.C), summarized in DD(1979) No. 187. (b) 20 February (L.P.A.M.), NJ(1979) No. 312, summarized in DD (1979) No. 189. (c) 13 March (R.M.), summarized in DD(1979) Nos. 219, 220, 221. (d) 27 March (K.H.C.), NJ(1979) No. 419, summarized in DD(1979) No. 232. (e) 27 March (MJ.d.B.), summarized in DD(1979) No. 233. (f) 27 March (V.-H.B.), NJ(1979) No. 354 with note by Th.W. v. Veen, (g) 10 April (N.P.L.), summarized in DD(1979) No. 256. (h) 10 April (P.G.M.), NJ(1979) No. 433, summarized in DD(1979) No. 257. (i) 10 April (J.M.W.), summarized in DD(1979) No. 258. (j) 15 May (W.B.). (k) 19 June (D.Z.). (l) 24 July (J.C.D.W.). summarized in DD(1979) No. 368. (m) 11 September (R.R.), summarized in DD(1979) No. 373. (n) 11 September (E.M.), summarized in DD(1980) No. 68-I. (o) 30 October (K.J.), NJ(1980) No. 78 with note by Th.W. v. Veen, (p) 30 October (J.G.H.). (q) 13 November (R.P.-C), NJ(1980) No. 98 summarized in DD(1980) No. 54 and p. 162. (r) 27 November (E.M.), NJ(1980) No. 355, summarized in DD(1980) No. 68–11. (s) 18 December (L.G.d.W.), NJ(1980) No. 218, summarized in DD (1980) No. 108. (t) 18 December (A.P.Mc.G.), summarized in DD(1980) No. 109.

There is also one judgment of the Chairman of the Judicial Division of the Council of State involving extradition: 14 August 1979 (H.B.), summarized in W RvS/R. 103/79.

16b. With note by the Editors.

17. Cf., Kuyper, J.R.H., “The Netherlands Law of Extradition”, in International Law in the Netherlands Vol. II (Leyden: Sijthoff, 1979) p. 238.Google Scholar

18. Cf., Kuyper, op.cit., pp. 230–231.

19. Amending Act of 25 July 1977, entered into force in January 1978.

20. Summarized in DD(1979) No. 374. Note by Barnhoorn, L.A.N.M. in NJCM Bulletin (1980) pp. 134–139.Google Scholar

21. 213 UNTS p. 221; Trb. 1951 No. 154. Art. 6(1): “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. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.”

22. 359 UNTS p. 273; Trb. 1965 No. 9.

23. The Netherlands made a reservation, inter alia, in respect of violation by the requesting state of the right laid down in Art. 6(3)(c) of the European Convention. Cf., Kuyper, J.R.H., “The Netherlands Law of Extradition”, in International Law in the Netherlands, Vol. II (Leyden: Sijthoff, 1979) p. 221Google Scholar. For other reservations: ibid., pp. 229–231. Cf., Trb. 1969 No. 62 p. 13.

24. The Supreme Court also rejected H.W.A's argument in which he pointed to formal defects in respect of the advice of the District Court to the Minister, referred to in Art. 30(2) of the Extradition Act. The Court considered that under Art. 30(2) such an advice had no relevance until extradition had been declared admissible. This meant that in cassation in respect of admissibility the advice could not be assessed.

25. On 4 December 1979, the Minister for Foreign Affairs withdrew the plaintiff's Dutch passport. The plaintiff then contested the lawfulness of the withdrawal before the President of the Judicial Division of the Council of State. The President found the withdrawal was unlawful since it was based on the unlawful warrant of arrest, and ordered the passport to be returned to the plaintiff (Judgment of 19 December 1979, De Gemeentestem (1980) p. 327Google Scholar summarized in WRvS/R.77/80).

26. Summarized in NJB (1979) pp. 291–292.

27. Art. 16(1): “A prohibited legal entity may be dissolved by the Court at the request of the Public Prosecutor.”

28. Art. 15: “A legal entity is prohibited if its purpose or activities are in conflict with public order or morals.”

29. 10 NYIL (1979) pp. 482–483.

30. The Electoral Council relied upon the decision of the District Court (Judgment of 29 March 1979) when refusing to enter the name “Nederlandse Volksunie” and the designation “NVU” on the reigster for the elections to the European Parliament.

The NVU “Foundation for Assistance and Supervision” appealed against this decision to the Crown. The Crown held that, where the District Court had dismissed the application for dissolution of the association, the use of that name and designation could not be considered incompatible with public order within the meaning of Art. 11 of the 1978 European Elections Act (Stb. 1978 No. 652) combined with Art. G 1(3)(a) of the Electoral Law of 1951 (Stb. 1951 No. 290). Since, in addition, the name and designation were not, as such, in conflict with public order or morals, the decision of the Electoral Council was reversed (Judgment of 21 April 1979 No. 6, AB (1979) No. 309). Cf., Eskes, J.A.O., “Niet de Kiesraad, maar de kiezers” [Not the Electoral Council, but the electorate], NJB (1979) pp. 797–803Google Scholar; Flinterman, C., “Nederland op het matje bij de commissie voor uitbanning van rassendiscriminatie” [The Netherlands on the carpet before the Committee on the elimination of racial discrimination], NJCM Bulletin (1980) pp. 47–50Google Scholar; and Aanh. Hand. II 1978/79 No. 1465.

31. Art. 137(c): “Any person who by means of the spoken or written word or pictorially with intent gives public expression to views insulting to other persons or groups on account of their race, religion or beliefs, shall be liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding one year or a fine not exceeding ten thousand guilders”. Cf., 4 NYIL (1973) p. 431.

32. The Court of Appeal of The Hague dismissed an allegation of violation of Art. 137(c) during an investigation, by an investigating officer, on the ground that the observations had not been made in public, and could not be regarded as intentionally insulting on account of race, religion or beliefs (NJ (1979) No. 239).

33. With annotation by A.W. Heringa and L.A.N.M. Barnhoorn.

34. Art. 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 mont or a fine not exceeding one thousand guilders.” Cf., 4 NYIL (1973) p. 432.

35. Art. 1401 of the Civil Code regulates the obligation to pay damages for tort. On the basis of decided cases, however, a tort may also give rise to a prohibitive or mandatory injunction.

36. Summarized in WRvS/R.2.60/79.

37. For Art. 8, see infra n. 66. Art. 9: “1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion of belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.” For Art. 10, see infra n. 77.

38. Note by Th. W. van Veen.

39. Note by E. Myer. Cf., also, Myer, E., “Tekenen van een Hollandse lente” [Signs of a Dutch Spring], NJCM Bulletin (1980) p. 27Google Scholar, and Alkema, E.A., “Het Europees Verdrag voor de Rechten van de Mens. Overzicht rechtspraak 1977–1979” [The European Convention on Human Rights. A survey of jurisprudence 1977–1979], Bestuurswetenschappen (1979) p. 487.Google Scholar

40. For Art. 6(1), see supra n. 21.

41. Trb. 1969 No. 99. Art. 14(3)(c): “In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality: … (c) To be tried without undue delay;”

42. Where final judgments are based on obviously faulty grounds, annulment of such judgments may be obtained by making a request for review to the Supreme Court. See Art. 457 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

43. The “reasonable time” referred to in Art. 6(1) was also deemed to have been exceeded in the following cases: (a) District Court of Leeuwarden, 15 February 1979, NJ (1979) No. 286: no preliminary judicial investigation took place for more than a year (due to language barrier: Turkish), (b) Court of Appeal of Amhem, 20 February 1979, NJ (1979) No. 389, NJCM Bulletin (1979) No. 15 p. 39Google Scholar, with note by E. Myer: more than 14 months' hold-up in hearing and trial, with no good reason; (c) District Court of Haarlem, 26 April 1979, NJCM Bulletin (1979) No. 15 p. 43Google Scholar, discussed by Myer, E. in NJCM Bulletin (1980) p. 26Google Scholar: more than 21 months' between adjournment of investigation and resumption of the case.

Reliance on the “reasonable time” provision failed in a case involving a request for the return of seized property. The District Court of Rotterdam held that Art. 6(1) was not applicable to criminal garnishee proceedings. Judgment of 14 September 1979, NJ (1979) No. 642.

44. The Supreme Court found no “undue delay” within the meaning of Art. 14(3)(c) where the Registrar of the Hague Court of Appeal exceeded by approximately two months the thirty day time-limit for submitting papers to the Supreme Court laid down in Art. 433(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Judgment of 11 December 1979, NJ (1980) No. 366, with note by G.E. Mulder, summarized in DD(1980) No. 88).

45. Note by A.H.J. Swart.

46. With note by the Editors.

47. Art. 34: “(1) The Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions Act is applicable to decisions made under the provisions of this Act in the sense that appeal to the Judicial Division of the Council of State, as provided for in this Act, lies for (a) … (b) those whose request for review under Arts. 29 and 30 has been dismissed, either in whole or in part … on the understanding that, if the decision was made in accordance with the opinion of the [Advisory Committee for Aliens Affairs], such appeal lies only if, on the day such decision was made, the alien had been resident in the Netherlands for a year.”

48. For Art. 6(1), see supra n. 21. Art. 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.”

49. For Art. 8(1), see infra n. 67.

50. Eur. Court HR, Series A, Vol. 28 (1979). Summarized in AA (1979) pp. 327–332, with a note by E.A. Alkema.

51. Cf., 7 NY1L (1976) p. 334: 18 Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights (1975) p. 428.Google Scholar

52. Eur. Court HR, Series A, Vol. 13 (1971).

53. Eur. Court HR, Series A, Vol. 27 (1978); NJ (1980) No. 54.

54. 10 Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights (1967) p. 478.Google Scholar

55. Eur. Court HR, Series A, Vol. 18 (1975); NJ (1975) No. 462 with a note by E.A. Alkema.

56. Note by E. Myer.

57. Art. 14(3): “In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality: …(d) To be tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing; to be informed, if he does not have legal assistance, of this right; and to have legal assistance assigned to him, in any case where the interests of justice so require, and without payment by him in any such case if he does not have sufficient means to pay for it; …”

58. The principle of fair hearing was also invoked in the Public Prosecutor v. H.J.K. The accused pleaded that real evidence (hashish) had been obtained in contravention of this principle. The Supreme Court did not share this view, considering that both his detention on a public road and a search of his house had taken place in accordance with the law. (Judgment of 17 September 1979, NJ (1979) No. 35, summarized in DD (1979) No. 375).

59. Note by G.E. Mulder, Summarized in DD (1980) No. 45 and p. 162.

60. Art. 6(3): “Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;”

61. Art. 14: “The enjoyment of the 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.”

62. Art. 26: “All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”

63. In its judgment of 19 June 1979, the Supreme Court rejected the plea that an accused who did not understand the Dutch language, was entitled to written translations of the record of the case under Art. 6 of the European Convention. Such a right could not be deduced from that Article (NJ(1979) No. 588. Summarized in DD (1979) No. 345).

64. Note by E. Myer.

65. Art. 6(3): “Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: …(b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;…”

66. Note by de Winter, R. in NJCM-Bulletin (1979) Nos. 16/17 p. 56Google Scholar. Summarized in DD (1979) No. 122.

67. Art. 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.”

68. According to Art. 95 of the Act on the Organization of the Judiciary (Stb. 1827 No. 20) the Attorney-General to the Supreme Court may “in the interest of the law” appeal in cassation to the Supreme Court against decrees and decisions of Courts of Appeal, District Courts and Local Courts (cassatie in het belong der wet). This provision aims at uniform application of the law. Such a decision of the Supreme Court does not affect the rights of the parties (Art. 98 of the Act on the Organization of the Judiciary).

69. Note by Th.W. van Veen.

70. Cf., 9 NYIL (1978) p. 337.

71. Under Art. 125(g), the Investigating Judge (Rechter Commissaris) may order telephone conversations to be tapped if there is a suspicion that the accused is involved in them.

72. In his appeal, the Attorney-General pointed out that the European Court of Human Rights had reached this conclusion in the Klass Case (Judgment of 6 September 1978).

73. With note by the Editors. Summarized in WRvS/R.2.96/79”.

74. The District Court of Alkmaar decided similarly in summary proceedings on 17 August 1978. The Court failed to see any conflict between Art. 8 and expulsion while an appeal was pending against refusal of a residence permit to a Moroccan minor born of a polygamous marriage, whose mother had remained in Morocco (Rechtspraak Vreemdelingenrecht) 1978 No. 65, with note by the Editors).

Family reunion in the light of Art. 8 was also at issue in the following cases:

(a) Council of State, Judicial Division, 6 September 1979: refusal to grant a residence permit to a Turkish boy of full age whose parents were living in the Netherlands was not contrary to Art. 8, because he was not dependent on them (WRvS/R.2.47/79”);

(b) Council of State, Judicial Division, 23 August 1979: refusal to extend a Turkish national's residence permit was not contrary to Art. 8 because there was no evidence that it would be unreasonable to required his wife to follow him to his homeland (WRvS/R.2.38/79”); likewise, District Court of Haarlem, 23 August 1978, in a judgment on expulsion while appeal pending (Rechtspraak Vreemdelingenrecht (1978) No. 127);

(c) District Court of Alkmaar, 18 July 1978: expulsion while appeal pending was not contrary to Art. 8, because it was doubtful whether the relationship between the man and the woman (that had existed for only 3 months) could be regarded as “family life”, and because there was no evidence that the relationship could not be continued if the woman was deported to Yugoslavia. (Rechtspraak Vreemdelingenrecht (1978) No. 57 with note by the Editors).

75. Summarized in DD (1979) No. 201. Discussed by Alkema, loc.cit. in n 39, at p. 494.

76. Stb. 1904 No. 7. Art. 3 requires the Minister's authorization for the use of a radio transmitter; para. 3 lays down, in addition to the conditions attaching to authorization in each individual case, the principal rule on the withdrawal of the authorization.

77. Art. 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. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. (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 of 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.”

78. The Supreme Court delivered a similar judgment on 11 December 1979 in J.G.W. v. Public Prosecutor (DD (1980) No. 85). The Court of Appeal of Leeuwarden in its judgment of 15 March 1979, pointed out once again that the Act was intended to enable telecommunications in as densely a populated country as the Netherlands to function smoothly. Infringement of the law might imply an encroachment upon other persons' rights to undisturbed reception. Therefore application of the Act was not contrary to Art. 10 of the Convention (Institute's Collection No. 1410; cf., 10 NYIL (1979) p. 490).

79. Note by P. van Zanten.

80. Note by A.W. Heringa. Summarized in WRvS/R. 173/79”. Cf., de Meij, J.M., “Collecteren en de vrijheid van meningsuiting” [Collecting and freedom of expression], NJB (1979) pp. 781–786.Google Scholar

81. Art. 19: “1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference. 2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice. 3. The exercise of the rights provided for in para. 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.”

82. Note by R. Crince le Roy. Summarized in WRvS/R.3.242/79”.

83. On 11 June 1979, the President of the Judicial Division dismissed an appeal from S. Elzinga against a decision by the municipality of Ferwerderadeel, by which he had been refused permission to place an aerial 21 meters tall for a radio-electric transmitter. This decision was based on Art. 24 of the Ferwerderadeel Building Regulations, which provided that any construction should fit in with its surroundings aesthetically. The President found that, considering the appellant's purposes, refusal of permission under this Article was not incompatible with Art. 10 of the European Convention (Bouwrecht (1979) pp. 835–837. Discussed by R. van Beren in “27 m.c.-antennes: speerpunten in de strijd van vrije meningsvorming en -uiting?” [27 m.c. (citizens' band) aerials: spearheads in the struggle for freedom of expression?], NJB (1980) pp. 1063–1068 at p. 1065. Summarized in WRvS/R. 10/79”).

84. Summarized in WRvS/R.285/79. Discussed by Kors, A. in “Demonstratievrijheid en openbare orde” [Freedom to demonstrate and public order], NJCM Bulletin (1980) pp. 347–356.Google Scholar

85. For Art. 19, see supra n. 81.

86. In a judgment on 11 April 1979 the President dismissed the argument that permission for a march in Roermond by the Nederlandse Vereniging tot integratie van homosexualiteit C.O.C. Afdeling Limburg, [Netherlands Association for the integration of homosexuality, Lim-burg branch], should have been refused on the ground that such a march was insulting. This ground would have been inconsistent with the freedom of expression laid down in Art. 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. (NJCM Bulletin (1979) Nos. 16/17 p. 51; OB (1979) No. 40712; De Gemeentestem (1979) p. 394 with note by P. van Zanten; summarized in WRvS/R.195/79, discussed by J.M. de Meij, loc.cit in n. 80, at p. 785.Google Scholar

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

88. Note by H.J.M. Jeukens.

89. Note by R. Crince le Roy. Summarized in WRvS/R.3.79/79”.

90. For Art. 14, see supra n. 61.

91. 213 UNTS p. 262; Trb. 1952 No. 80: Art. 1: “Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”

92. Art. 66: “Legal regulations in force within the Kingdom shall not apply if this application should be incompatible with provisions, binding on anyone, of agreements entered into either before or after the enactment of the regulations.”

93. Note by W.H. Vermeer.

94. Stb. 1919 No. 310.

95. Decree of 27 May 1974, Stc. 1974 No. 101.

96. Act of 26 January 1961, Stb. 1961 No. 31.

97. 570 UNTS p. 127. Art. 4: “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 designated by the Government of the said State.

2. Pursuant to the provisions of the adjoining State referred to in para. 1, the crossing of the frontier shall take place within the zone upon the completion of frontier control operations by the State of exit.

3. Where offences are committed against the said provisions within the zone, the courts and authorities of the adjoining State shall be entitled to institute criminal proceedings and render decisions in the same manner as if the offences had been committed in the commune having jurisdiction over the control office”.

98. In his note, Vermeer observes that it would have been simpler to base the applicability of the Fire-arms Act on Art 4 of the Code of Military Criminal Law, as the Supreme Military Court did in its judgment of 5 March 1975 (7 NYlL (1976) p. 340). The Court acted similarly in its judgment of 7 November 1979 in the case of a Military Policeman (Koninklijke Marechausee) who was under the influence of drink within the zone referred to above, at the frontier control post Vaals-Vaalserquartier, thus infringing Art. 129, Code of Military Criminal Law (MRT (1979) p. 134, with a note by W.H. Vermeer). Vermeer further points out that the same Court found the 1903 Telegraph and Telephone Act inapplicable to a Dutch serviceman who had a radio transmitter in his possession in Germany without being authorized inaccordance with Art. 3 quater of the Act. (Judgment of 19 February 1979, MRT (1979) p. 273. See also, the Court Martial of Arnhem, 23 November 1978, in respect of a Dutch serviceman within the zone at the frontier control post Ter Apel/Rütenbrock. MRT (1979) p. 275, with a note by W.H. Vermeer).

99. Summarized in WRvS/R.1.19/79.

100. Stb. 1963 No. 284. For the content of Art. 82, see infra.

101. 199 UNTS p. 67; Trb. 1951 No. 114.

102. 481 UNTS p. 262; Trb. 1960 No. 37.

103. Art. 2(2)(b): “Should a member of a force or of a civilian component die or leave the Federal territory on transfer, the dependents of such member, including close relatives referred to in sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph, shall be considered to be, and treated as, dependents within the meaning of sub-paragraph (c) of para. 1 of Art. 1 of the NATO Status of Forces Agreement for a period of ninety days after such death or transfer if such dependents are present in the Federal territory.”

104. Art. I(l)(c): “‘dependent’ means the spouse of a member of a force or of a civilian component, or a child of such member depending on him or her for support;”

105. Art. 13: “1. Except where expressly provided otherwise, international agreements or other provisions in force in the Federal territory concerning social security, including social and medical assistance, shall not apply to members of a force or of a civilian component or to dependents …”

106. Convention of 11 December 1953, 218 UNTS p. 255; Trb. 1954 No. 100.

107. A similar case of the same date as mentioned in MRT (1980) p. 377.

108. On the Dutch UNIFIL Contingent, cf., infra p. 336.

109. Art. 129 prohibits, inter alia, desertion of one's post as a guard commander. Art. 114 makes wilful disobedience punishable.

110. On the jurisdictional powers of the Army Mobile Court Martial Abroad at Haris (Lebanon), cf., supra p. 225.

111. Note by J.C. Schultsz.

112. De Martens NRG 3rd series Vol 21 p. 711; Stb. 1913 No. 74.

113. Art. 11: “This Convention is not applicable to warships, or State vessels exclusively intended to be used for public service.”

114. Cf., 10 NYIL (1979) p. 506.

115. Summarized in WRvS/G.III.7/79.

116. Stb. 1969 No. 536. Art. 1(4) prohibits the unauthorized discharge into the high seas within a certain distance of the (Dutch) coast of any sewage or other pollutant or noxious substances transported from or across Dutch territory. Cf., 4 NYIL (1973) p. 325. Since the Marine Pollution Act entered into force on 1 January 1977 (Stb. 1976 No. 628; 8 NYIL (1977) p. 331. Cf., also infra p. 319), licenses for burning waste on the high seas are granted in accordance with this Act. From the same date, Art. 1(4) of the Pollution of Surface Waters Act was amended (by an Act of 5 June 1975), so that it is now prohibited to discharge into the high seas any sewage or other pollutant or noxious substances transported from or across Dutch territory by means of a construction designed for that purpose without express authorization. (Stb. 1975 No. 353).

117. Implementing Decree for Art. 1(4) of the Pollution of Surface Waters Act, Stb. 1972 No. 350. Cf., 4 NYIL (1973) p. 435–437.

118. The Crown reached the same conclusions in respect of the appeals entered by the Vereniging Milieu Defensie against the licences granted to Akzo Zout Chemie B. V. (Royal Decree of 30 March 1979 No. 27, WRvS/G.III.7/79) and to Philips Duphar B. V. (Royal Decree of 2 April 1979 No. 16, WRvS/G.III.8/79). Both cases involved objections to the release of chlorinated hydrocarbons as a result of combustion.

119. Note by J.R. Stellinga.

120. Stb. 1975 No. 352; 7 NYIL (1976) p. 372. Art. 3: “(1) It is prohibited to (a) discharge, or (b) take (substances) aboard a vessel or aircraft with the aim of discharging, or (c) deliver with the aim of discharging any waste, pollutant or noxious substances indicated by Royal Decree.

(2) Para. 1 does not apply to substances which constitute no more than a trace in a mixture with other substances and which have not been added to these other substances specifically for the purposes of discharge.”

121. Trb. 1972 No. 62; ILM (1972) p. 262. Art 5: “The dumping of the substances listed in Annex I to this Convention is prohibited.” Art. 6: “No waste containing such quantities of the substances and materials listed in Annex II to this Convention as the Commission established under the provisions of Art. 16, hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”, shall define as significant, shall be dumped without a specific permit in each case from the appropriate national authority or authorities. When such permits are issued, the provisions of Annexes II and III to this Convention shall be applied.” Art. 7: “No substance or material shall be dumped without the approval of the appropriate national authority or authorities. When such approval is granted, the provisions of Annex III to this Convention shall be applied. Art. 8: (1)… (2) The provisions of Art. 5 shall not apply where these substances occur as trace contaminants in waste to which they have not been added for the purpose of being dumped. However, such dumping shall remain subject to Arts. 6 and 7.”

122. Trb. 1973 No. 172; ILM (1972) p. 1291. Art. IV: “(1) In accordance with the provisions of this Convention Contracting Parties shall prohibit the dumping of any wastes or other matter in whatever form or condition except as otherwise specified below: (a) the dumping of wastes or other matter listed in Annex I is prohibited; (b) the dumping of wastes or other matter listed in Annex II requires a prior special permit; (c) the dumping of all other wastes or matter requires a prior general permit.

(2) Any permitshallbeTssued only after careful consideration of all the factors set forth in Annex III, including prior studies of the characteristics of the dumping site as set forth in Sections B and C of that Annex.

(3) No provision of this Convention is to be interpreted as preventing a Contracting Party from prohibiting, insofar as that Party is concerned, the dumping of wastes or other matter not mentioned in Annex I. That Party shall notify such measures to the Organisation.”

123. For the text, see infra, Held.

124. For the text, see infra, Held.

125. Art. 4: “It is prohibited to discharge or take aboard a vessel or aircraft with the aim of discharging, or deliver with the aim of dischargingany waste or pollutant or noxious substances other than those covered by Art. 3(1) unless exemption is granted.” The Judicial Division concluded from the relation between Arts. 3 and 4 that Art. 4 also applies to substances which constitute no more than a trace, referred to in Art. 3(2).

126. Art. 16: “A Commission, made up of representatives of each of the Contracting Parties, is hereby established. The Commission shall meet at regular intervals and at any time when, due to special circumstances, it is so decided in accordance with the Rules of Procedure.”

127. Annex I, para. 9: “This Annex does not apply to wastes or other materials (e.g., sewage sludges and dredged spoils) containing the matters referred to in paragraphs 1–5 above as trace contaminants. Such wastes shall be subject to the provisions of Annexes II and III as appropriate.”

128. LDC III/12, Annex 6 p. 2. The Third Consultative Meeting was held in October 1978.

129. By testing the exemption against the criteria established by the Third Consultative Meeting in London, the Judicial Division appears to share the respondent's view that the London Convention, which has a wider scope, also applies to the limited area covered by the Oslo Convention, since it sets stricter rules than does the Oslo Convention.

130. De Martens NRG, Vol. 20 p. 355; Trb. 1955 No. 161. For the text of Art. 1, see infra, Held. The English translation is derived from Hertslet, E., The Map of Europe by Treaty (1875) Vol. 3 p. 1849.Google Scholar

131. The Breeddiep forms an entry from the Nieuwe Waterweg to the Europoort area.

132. For the text of this, see infra, under “Held”.

133. For Art. 66, see supra n. 92.

134. Summarized in Tijdschrift voor Milieu en Recht (1979) pp. 211–215Google Scholar, in ELD (1979) pp. 189 and 226 and in AA(1980) p. 788 with note by H.U. Jessurun d'Oliveira Comments by Vlas, P. in “Het Proces tegen de Franse Kalimijnen” [The French Potassium Mines Case], WPNR (1979) pp. 241–245Google Scholar, by Rest, A. in “A Decision Against France? – The Rhine Pollution”, 5 Environmental Policy and Law (1979) pp. 85–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and by Lammers, J.G., “New international legal developments concerning the pollution of the Rhine”, 27 NILR (1980) pp. 171–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf., also, Rhine Pollution, Legal, economic and technical aspects. La pollution du Rhin. Aspects juridiques, économiques et techniques, (Zwolle: Tjeenk Willink, 1978) 127 pp.Google Scholar [Series published under the auspices of the Nederlands Juristenblad, No. 5], and Volkenrechtelijke en internationaalrechtelijke aspecten van grensoverschridende vervuiling [international and national legal aspects of transfrontier pollution], Report of the Working Group on International Environmental Law of the Netherlands International Law Association, published in the Mededelingen [Proceedings] of the Association, No. 77a (Deventer: Kluwer, 1978), 41 pp.

135. Cf., Rousseau, Ch., “Chronique des faits internationaux”, 78 RGDIP (1974) pp. 822–824Google Scholar, and Charpentier, J., “Pratique française du droit international”, AFDI (1974) pp. 1052–1054.Google Scholar

136. ILM (1977) p. 265; Trb. 1977 No. 33. For the significance of the Convention and recent developments, cf., H.U. Jessurun d'Oliveira, “De Rijnsanering in het slop” [Rhine cleanup at deadlock] NJB (1980) pp. 85–93 and the literature there referred to.

137. Stb. 1945 No. F 321 p. 32. For the text of Art. 38, see infra under Held.

138. For sources, see infra under Held.

139. For sources, see, infra under Held.

140. See 7 NYIL (1976) pp. 344–345.

141. See 9 NYIL (1978) pp. 331–332. See also Bouchez, L.J., “The Netherlands and the Law of International Rivers”, in International Law in the Netherlands, Vol. I (1978) pp. 247–248.Google Scholar

141a. Stb. 1963 No. 272.

142. Summarized in WRvS/G.III.8/79”.

143. Note by G.E. Mulder.

144. Note by J.R. Stellinga. Comments by N.E. Algra in A.A. (1979) p. 485. Summarized in DD (1979) No. 295 and discussed by Alkema, E.A. in “Het Europees Verdrag voor de Rechten van de Mens. Overzicht Rechtspraak 1977–1979”, Bestuurswetenschappen (1979) p. 488Google Scholar. Mentioned by Rousseau, Ch., “Chronique des faits internationaux”, 84 RGDIP (1980) p. 412.Google Scholar

145. For text of Art. 6, see supra n. 21.

146. 9 NYIL (1978) pp. 337–348.

147. 10 NYIL (1979) pp. 514–517.

148. 10 NYIL (1979) pp. 517–520.

149. On 31 May 1979, the District Court of Rotterdam ordered P.N.M.'s arrest, but decided simultaneously to stay the order subject to the condition that P.N.M. satisfied certain conditions. (NJ (1979) Nos. 408 and 409 with note by Th.W. van Veen). On 24 September 1979, the Court stayed the prosecution for an indefinite period after finding that P.N.M. was jnentally unfit to conduct his defence adequately. (NJ 1979 No. 537)

150. Cf., Final report of the Schöfer Commission (established by the Minister of Justice), entitled “De affaire Menten 1945–1976” [The Menten Case 1945–1976]. Bijl. Hand. II 1978/79–14.252 No. 19 pp. 388–408.

151. Discussed by Siekmann, R.C.R., “UNIFIL: op zoek naar een rechtsgrondslag voor de onvrijwillige uitzending van diensplichtige militairen” [UNIFIL: in search for a legal basis for enforced dispatch of conscripts], NJB (1980) pp. 1–9Google Scholar, and id., “UNIFIL en Paralympics: het beleidging tweemaal om” [UNIFIL and Paralympics: policy turned around twice], 16 Intermediar (1980) No. 7 pp. 33, 35, 37Google Scholar. Cf., also, the comments by J.O. de Lange and J. Demmink in MRT (1980) pp. 279–295.

152. Stb. 1922 No. 43. For text, see infra under Held.

153. Stb. 1945 No. F 321. Amended text in Trb. 1979 No. 37. Art. 43: “(1) All members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

(2) Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.

(3) The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.”

154. Art. 24: “(1) In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.

(2) In discharging these duties the Security Council shall act in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations.. The specific powers granted to the Security Council for the discharge of these duties are laid down in Chapters VI, VII, VIII and XII.

(3) The Security Council shall submit annual and, when necessary, special reports to the General Assembly for its consideration.”

Art. 25: “The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.”

155. AB (1979) No. 162; NJ (1979) No. 499; MRT (1979) p. 192 and NJCM Bulletin (1979) No. 15 p. 47 with a note by F.F. Langemeijer. Discussed by P. van Dijk, “Deelneming door Nederland aan UNIFIL: een volkenrechtelijker verplichting?” [Dutch participation in UNIFIL: an obligation under international law], NJB (1979) pp. 337–340, and R.C.R. Siekmann, “Nog enkele volkenrechtelijke kanttekeningen naar aanleiding van het UNIFIL-von-nis” [Additional comments on the UNIFIL Case], NJB (1979) pp. 532–535.

156. Cf., Bijl. Hand. II 1978/79 – 15 441 No. 12; Hand. II 1978/79 pp. 3019, 3023.

157. Cf., questions in Parliament: Aanh. Hand. II 1978/79 No. 718.

158. The Minister of Defence's reaction to the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set out in his letter to the Chairman of the Second Chamber, of 15 August 1979. Bijl. Hand. II 1978/79 – 15 441 No. 16, Stc. 1979 No. 157. It also contains an account of the Royal Decree of 13 August 1979 on the authorization referred to in Art. 33(l)(c) of the MSA. (Stb. 1979 No. 450, AB (1979) No. 497 with a note by R. Stellinga, and MRT (1979) pp. 514–515 (supra p. 239). Cf., also the Report of the oral consultations between the Minister and the Second Chamber Standing Committee on Defence, of 4 September 1979, Bijl. Hand. II 1978/7915441 No. 18.

On 20 September 1979, the President of the District Court of The Hague delivered judgment, again in summary proceedings, instituted by five conscripts assigned for dispatch to Lebanon (M.E.H. Melissen et al. v. the State of the Netherlands, MRT (1980) p. 49). Again, the President dismissed their request for an injunction on prohibiting the State from enforcing their dispatch, although he recognized, in agreement with the Court of Appeal, that the Netherlands was under no obligation to make armed forces available for Lebanon on the basis of Art. 43 of the Charter. However, such an obligation did arise from the following acts of the Government: its offers, in 1963 and 1965, to hold contingents available to the UN and its positive response to the UN Secretary-General's informal request in 1978 to make an infantry battalion available, this being followed by a formal request from the Secretary-General and a formal reply, after plenary debates in the Second Chamber, confirming Dutch willingness to dispatch troops. Unlike the Court of Appeal, the President found that the enforced dispatch of conscripts could be based on Art. 33(1 )(d) of the Military Service Act.

159. The owner of the ferro-chrome, the accused in the criminal action, is as yet unidentified.

160. Stb. 1966 No. 289.

161. The District Court based its conclusion on the statements of two expert witnesses who deduced the Rhodesian origin from the composition of the ferro-chrome, and from the absence of a South African certificate stating full chemicial particulars, weights and sizes.

162. Art. 2(l)(a): “Various kinds of restrictive measures with regard to the import and export of goods may be taken by Royal Decree, if in the opinion of the Government such measures are considered necessary in the interest of […] the international legal order or an international agreement relating to that order. Such measures may be taken in respect of the import or export of goods”. Cf., 8 NYIL (1977) pp. 331–332.

163. Art. 6(1): “The present rules on import of goods shall equally be applicable to measures in respect of incoming customs goods which are aimed at: (a) keeping the goods as customs goods within Netherlands territory for purposes other than direct transit by the same means of transport by which they entered the territory, or (b) bringing the goods temporarily into municipal circulation by means other than import, and not as customs goods.”

Art. 2: “The import of goods coming from or originating in Southern Rhodesia, without permission from the Minister [of Agriculture and Fisheries, or, of Economic Affairs, as the case may be], is prohibited.” Cf., 10 NYIL (1979) pp. 437–439.

164. Summarized in ELD (1979) pp. 288–289.

165. Art. 740a of the Commercial Code provides, inter alia, that the owner of a sea-going ship may limit his liability in respect of claims arising from damage to property caused by the act of a person for whom the owner is responsible. Para, (e) of the Art. mentions, in particular, damage to harbour works and navigable waterways.

166. Art. 740d reads: “(1) The aggregate amounts to which the liability referred to in Art. 740a in respect of one or more of the persons named therein can be limited, shall be, for each occurence giving rise to liability: (a) Where the occurence has only given rise to property claims, an aggregate amount of 1000 francs for each ton of the ship's tonnage;…

(3) In calculating the tonnage of a ship for the purposes of para. 1, in the case of mechanically propelled ships there shall be taken the net tonnage with the addition of the amount deducted from the gross tonnage on account of the engine room space…

(4) The franc mentioned in para. 1 is the franc fixed at 65.5 milligrams of gold of millesimal fineness 900. This franc shall be converted into Netherlands currency in accordance with the daily price,…”

167. Stb. 1978 No. 404.

168. Trb. 1977 No. 40.

169. Trb. 1958 No. 46.

170. Cf., Bijl. Hand. II 1978/79 – 15 459 Nos. 1–6, 1979/80 – 15 459 Nos. 7–8.

171. Trb. 1978 No. 184 p. 200, No. 185 and No. 186.

172. Mentioned in Trb. 1978 No. 30 p. 4.

173. Protocol to the 1969 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, of 19 November 1976, ILM (1977) p. 617.

174. The District Court of The Hague, in its judgment of 9 March 1979, arrived at a different rate of conversion: 1/15 SDR (S&S (1979) No. 90), whereas the District Court of Rotterdam, in its judgment of 23 November 1979, (S&S (1980) No. 18) proceeded on the basis of the free market price of gold. Similarly, de Liagre Böhl, E.W.J.H., “De omrekeningskoers van goud-franken in guldens: het einde van net monetaire goud” [The rate of conversion of gold francs into guilders: the end of monetary gold], NJB (1978) pp. 572–577Google Scholar. The par value of the guilder was used by the Supreme Court in its judgment of 14 April 1972, 4 NYIL (1973) pp. 408–412 (Hornland).

175. Note by J.R. Stellinga.

176. Art. 358 bis, Penal Code makes strikes by railway personnel punishable by imprisonment not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding Df1. 600.

177. 359 UNTS p. 89, Trb. 1962 No. 3. For the text of Art. 6, see infra under Held.

178. Stb. 1978 No. 639.

179. Bill No. 11 001.

180. Cf., 10 NYIL (1979) pp. 344–345.

181. This is probably a reference to the Act of Approval, though the history of the Act amending Art. 358 bis provides more support, cf., Bijl. Hand. II 1970/71 – 11 001 No. 5 p. 2 and Bijl. Hand. I 1978/79 – 11 001 No. 15 p. 2.