Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T21:43:47.060Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Netherlands municipal legislation involving questions of public international law, 1994

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2009

P.C. Tange
Get access

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Documentation
Information
Netherlands Yearbook of International Law , Volume 26 , December 1995 , pp. 311 - 323
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Stb. 1965 No. 40.

2. Stb. 1993 No. 708. As a result of these amendments the Aliens Decree was accordingly adapted, Decree of 30 December 1993, Stb. 1994 No. 8.

3. Bijl. Hand. II 1991/92 – 22735 No. 3 p. 1.

4. The request for an opinion on the (lack of) appeal was made under Art. 22 of the Judicial Organization Act. The opinion was delivered on 14 March 1995, see 20 NJCM-Bulletin (1995) pp. 606–613.

5. For an in-depth study see Strijards, G.A.M., Het nieuwe Nederlandse vreemdelingenrecht (1994)Google Scholar; for a brief consideration see, inter alia, van Vondelen, E. A., ‘Herziening vreemdelingwet’, 43 AA (1994) pp. 224–230.Google Scholar

6. See hereover, inter alia, Holterman, Th., ‘De voorwaardelijke verblijfsvergunning’, Migrantenrecht (1994) nos. 3–4, pp. 49–52.Google Scholar

7. Temporary, because the permit may be revoked when the obstacles to expulsion have been rectified, i.e., when the situation as a whole in the country of origin is no longer of such a nature that it may be considered that expulsion to that country would result in undue hardship.

8. Bijl. Hand. II 1991/92 – 22735 No. 3 p. 18.

9. See hereover, inter alia, Steendijk, L., ‘De versnelde asielprocedure’, Migrantenrecht (1994) nos. 3–4, pp. 53–55.Google Scholar

10. In the old Aliens Act, which was in accordance with the Implementation Act for the Schengen Agreement (24 February 1993), it was already stated in Art. 15 that a ground for nonadmissability was the case where another (Schengen) country was responsible for handling the request for asylum. See 25 NYIL (1994) p. 500.

11. Sub-para. f. was appended to Art. 15c by the Act of 1 December 1994, Stb. 1995 No. 849. See also the State Practice section at pp. 234–236.

12. In Art. 7 Awb with regard to all Government orders, there is an obligation on the Government, if any order should be disputed, to undertake a review procedure.

13. Strijards, op. cit. n. 5, at p. 152.

14. For a comprehensive description of the new formal aliens law see among others, Strijards, op. cit. n. 5, at pp. 139–261; Baudoin, P., ‘Vrijheidsbenemingen en vrijheidsbeperking van vreemdelingen’, 9 Migrantenrecht (1994) pp. 56–61.Google Scholar

15. See hereon, inter alia, Strijards, op. cit. n. 5, at pp. 156–168; Fernhout, R., ‘Hoger beroep in vreemdelingenzaken’, 70 NJB (1995) pp. 47–51Google Scholar. In the opinion delivered on 14 March 1995 (supra, n. 4) the Supreme Court reached the conclusion that also in cases regarding aliens the possibility of reviewing the case by means of appeal is of great importance. Access to appeal, however, may be limited to cases where important questions of a factual or legal nature play a role.

16. For a consideration of the new act see Brouwer, J.G., ‘De Rijkswet goedkeuring en bekendmaking van verdragen’, 78 NJB (1995) pp. 1072–1081.Google Scholar

17. For a general consideration of the Dutch treaty practice see Sondaal, H.H.M., De Nederlandse Verdragspraktijk (1986)Google Scholar; and by the same author ‘Some Features of Dutch Treaty Practice’, 19 NYIL (1988) pp. 179–257.Google Scholar

18. Klabbers, J., ‘The New Dutch Law an the Approval of Treaties’, 44 ICLQ (1995) pp. 629–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19. For the Explanatory Memorandum to the bill see 21 NYIL (1990) pp. 276–279. For the Government's position on the opinion of the Advisory Committee on International Law Issues regarding the bill, see 23 NYIL (1992) pp. 352–358.

20. For an extensive explanation of this act see the State Practice section at pp. 254–261. See also de Keuning, C.W.J.L., ‘No Trespassing!’, 69 NJB (1994) pp. 915–916.Google Scholar

21. Stb. 1993 No. 64, see 25 NYIL (1994) p. 504.

22. On 1 May 1993, on the basis of Art. 7 of the Sanctions Act, the implementation of the Resolution was already provided for. The decree of 17 January replaces this order.

23. Stb. 1993 No. 57, see 25 NYIL (1994) p. 504.

24. It entered into force on 6 November 1993.

25. Stb. 1963 No. 128. See for the most recent amendments 25 NYIL (1994) p. 505.

26. For the final amendment to this decree see 25 NYIL (1994) pp. 504–505.