1. With notes by E.A. Alkemaand W.L.E. Harnmerstein-Schoonderwoerd.

2. Summarised in NJB-katern (1993) p. 443 (No. 174) and Advocatenblad (1993) p. 705.

3. 213 UNTS, p. 221; ETS No. 5; Trb. 1951 No. 154. Art. 8(1) reads: ‘Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence …’

4. Art. 1: 198(3) reads: ‘The declaration and the acknowledgement have effect only if the mother and the man who acknowledges the child marry each other within a year of the birth of the child or if the child is legitimated in accordance with Article 215, paragraph 1, of this Book following an application to this effect made within a year of its birth.’ For the declaration and acknowledgement, see infra, n. 6.

5. Marckx case, 13 June 1979, ECHR Series A, Vol. 31 (1979), NJ (1980), with note by E.A. Alkema.

6. Art. 1: 198(1) reads: ‘The mother may, by means of a declaration made in the presence of a Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages, deny that a child born to her within 306 days of the dissolution of the marriage is the child of her former spouse, provided that another man acknowledges the child by the instrument that is drawn up for such declaration. If the marriage has been dissolved by death, the mother may make the declaration only if she was judicially separated or she and her deceased husband had lived apart since the 306th day before the birth of the child.’

7. Art. 8(2) reads: ‘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.’

8. With a note by F.W.M. Keunen in RSV (1994) No. 127.

9. With a note by L.J.M. de Leede in AB (1994) No. 274.

10. With a note by M. Adema. Summarised in AB Kort (1994) No. 1250.

11. 999 UNTS p. 171; ILM (1967) p. 368; Trb. 1969 No. 100. Art. 26 reads: ‘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.’

12. EC Directive 79/7, 19 December 1978, OJ (1979) No. L 6/24. Art. 4 (1) reads: ‘The principle of equal treatment means that there shall be no discrimination whatsoever on the ground of sex either directly, or indirectly by reference in particular to marital or family status, in particular as concerns:

— the scope of the schemes and the conditions of access thereto;

— the obligation to contribute and the calculation of contributions; …’

13. RSV (1991) No. 227 with a note by S. Feenstra.

14. Art. 1 reads: ‘All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal circumstances. Discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race or sex or any other grounds whatsoever shall not be permitted.’

15. Art. 2, opening words and (g), reads: ‘Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the General Old Age Pensions Act, the following shall not be deemed to be an insured person within the meaning of the law: […] (g) a married woman resident in the Kingdom whose husband is not insured pursuant to Article 6, paragraph 2, of the General Old Age Pensions Act or pursuant to the provisions of this Article under (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) or (f).’

16. RSV (1992) No. 193.

17. RSV (1992) No. 194.

18. 298 UNTS p. 11; Trb. 1957 No. 74; Guide, vol. 3 p. 2267. Art. 5 reads: ‘Member States shall take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of this Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the Community. They shall facilitate the achievement of the Community's tasks. They shall abstain from all measures which could jeopardise the attainment of the objects of this Treaty.’

19. Art. 2 reads: ‘This Directive shall apply to the working population – including selfemployed persons, workers and self-employed persons whose activity is interrupted by illness, accident or involuntary unemployment and persons seeking employment – and to retired or invalided workers and self-employed persons.’

20. Summarised and discussed by P.J. Boon in AA (1994) pp. 605–610.

21. Treaty of 8 April 1960, 509 UNTS p. 1; Trb. 1960 No. 69.

22. Art. 48 reads: ‘The two High Contracting Parties shall also cooperate in a spirit of neighbourliness on matters that are not expressly regulated in this Treaty and that concern the Ems estuary and affect common interests.’

23. Art. 93 reads: ‘Provisions of treaties and of resolutions by international institutions which may be binding on all persons by virtue of their contents shall become binding after they have been published.’

24. Treaty of 30 March 1976, Trb. 1976 No. 75. Art. 1 reads: ‘The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands shall consult together regarding problems of town and country planning in order to coordinate their respective plans and measures that are of importance in a town and country planning respect, especially in the border areas. Each of the Parties declares that it is prepared, at the request of the other Party, to enter into consultation within a period of 60 days of receipt of such a request.’

Art. 8 reads: ‘More detailed and separate agreements concerning plans and measures of importance in a town and country planning respect may be concluded between the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, on the one hand, and the Government of the Land of Lower Saxony or the Government of the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia with the consent of Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, on the other, insofar as these Länder, in the field of the relevant legistattion, are competent. The Commission can make recommendations in this respect.’

25. For an outline map of the Ems-Dollart area, see 23 NYIL (1992) pp. 474–475. See also Bouchez, L.J., ‘The Netherlands and the Law of the Rivers’, in: International Law in the Netherlands, Vol. I (1978) pp. 280–286.Google Scholar

26. Stb. 1945 No. F214. Art. 2(1) reads: ‘This Order is not applicable to the employment of (a) persons in the service of a public body …’

27. Art. 6 of the Extraordinary Labour Relations Order imposes a prohibition (subject to a few exceptions) on the termination of an employment relationship without the consent of the director of the Regional Employment Office.

28. 25 October 1990, see 23 NYIL (1992) pp. 447–449; summarised in NIPR (1991) No. 150.

29. 3 October 1991, see 24 NYIL (1993) pp. 341–346.

30. Summarised in NJB-katern (1993) p. 32 (No. 128).

31. Decision of the Working Party on the Movement of Persons regarding the expulsion and transfer of persons, 28 June 1967, Luxembourg (Benelux) (M/P (67) 1) Trb. 1978 No. 171 p. 6. Art.15 reads: ‘Aliens who are classified as undesirable in one of the Benelux countries may be expelled across an external frontier, unless another Benelux country has an obligation to take over the alien or another Benelux country has given express consent to admit such aliens to its territory.’ Art. 16 reads: ‘Each of the Benelux countries shall grant consent for transit through its territory of aliens who are the subject of an expulsion order in another Benelux country and who may be expelled to third countries, if this is the quickest and simplest method of expulsion. The expenses incurred in connection with the transit shall be borne by the country which made the expulsion order. If the takeover by the foreign frontier control authorities does not take place for any reason, the alien shall be taken back by the last-mentioned Benelux country. If under agreements concluded with neighbouring third countries, aliens are handed over by the foreign authorities to the authorities of one of the Benelux countries and the said aliens are in fact intended for another of the Benelux countries, the former Benelux country shall likewise grant consent for the transit of the alien through its territory at the expense of the country of destination.’

32. RvdW (1986) No. 12; Gids Vreemdelingenrecht No. F-133; Rechtspraak Vreemdelingenrecht (1985) No. 51; NJ (1987) No. 171; see also 18 NYIL (1987) pp. 377–381.

33. 924 UNTS p. 2; BT Vol. IV-I; 12 European Yearbook (1964) p. 259; Art. 6 reads: ‘(1) In the cases specified hereunder, the Benelux Court shall consider questions of interpretation of the rules of law designated in Article 1 which arise in connection with litigation pending either before the jurisdictions of one of the three countries, sitting in their territory in Europe, or before the College of Arbitrators provided for under the Treaty instituting the Benelux Economic Union. (2) When it appears that the solution of a difficulty relating to the interpretation of a rule of law designated under Article 1 is required for a judgment in a case pending before a national jurisdiction, that jurisdiction, if it believes that it needs a decision in the matter in order to render its judgment, may even as a matter of routine stay any final judgment in order to obtain a decision of the Benelux Court on the question of interpretation. (3) Under the conditions specified in the preceding paragraph, a national jurisdiction whose decisions are not subject to a jurisdictional appeal under national law must bring the question of interpretation before the Benelux Court…’

34. RvdW (1990) No. 97; Gids Vreemdelingenrecht No. F-142; Rechtspraak Vreemdelingenrecht(1990) No. 44 with note by Steenbergen, J.D.M.; In raadkamer (1990) No. 44;Google Scholar discussed in NJB (1990) p. 795 (No. 97).

35. RvdW (1992) No. 114, see 24 NYIL (1993) pp. 375–381.

36. Art. 3 reads: ‘No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.’

37. Stc. 20 December 1982, 15 NYIL (1984) p. 321. In the note from the Netherlands Government, the suspension was justified on the ground of the rebus sic stantibus clause, with a reference in this connection to the ‘December murders’.

38. Stb. 1977 No. 10.

39. Stb. 1987 No. 126.

40. Judgment of 1 March 1993, Institute's Collection No. 3705. See 25 NYIL (1994) pp. 534–544.

41. Trb. 1977 No. 156.

42. Trb. 1951 No. 57.

43. Art. 3(1) reads: ‘Persons who are resident in the territory of one of the two Contracting States or are staying there are entitled to the benefits and allowances under the social insurance schemes which should be granted on the ground of the rules of each of the two States subject to the provisions of this Treaty, including (and without any restriction) the allowances paid from public funds, in so far as no provisions to the contrary have been or are made in this Treaty or in a supplementary agreement.’

44. 2 April 1980, Cooperation Agreement, Belgrade (EC Member States-EC-Yugoslavia) Trb. 1980 No. 132; OJ (1983) No. L 40/2 (approved by Regulation of 24 January 1983 (OJ (1983) No. L 41/1).

45. Decision of the Council of the EC and the representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the EC, meeting in the Council, entailing a suspension of the application of the agreements between the EC, its Member States and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Brussels, 11 November 1991 (91/586/ECSC, EEC) OJ (1991) No. L 315/47.

46. RSV (1993) No. 3.

47. Art. 17(4) reads: ‘Rules may be laid down by or pursuant to order-in-council under which persons who are not insured and who have become disabled or, in cases as referred to in Article 37(1) have become more disabled as a result of the occupational illnesses designated in that measure shall be deemed to be insured for the purpose of the right to the grant or revision of an employment disablement benefit.’

48. OJ 18 May 1976, L 129/23–29.

49. Art. 15 reads: ‘This Directive is addressed to the Member States.’

50. Milieu en Recht (1992) No. 140.

51. Stc. 2 June 1992, No. 104, p. 22; see also 24 NYIL (1993) pp. 411–413. The Sanctions Order was made pursuant to Resolutions 724 and 745 of the UN Security Council.

52. S/AC.27/1992/OC. 1763. The relevant part reads: ‘The Committee considered the matter at its 44th meeting, on 2 December 1992, and decided that, although the sanctions prohibit the provision of port services to such vessels, as well as the continued operation of such vessels and any payments related thereto, the Committee would authorise the unloading of die ship's cargo in this particular case, subject to the following. It should be clearly understood that the Committee's decision in this instance is founded solely upon an appreciation of the assessment by the Netherlands authorities that the continued confinement of the cargo in question represents a serious safety hazard, and that it in no way constitutes a precedent for any comparable situation which may arise in future. Moreover, neither the nationality of the owner, nor the origin, not the proposed destination of the cargo has had any bearing on the decision taken by the Committee, which continues to hold that the sanctions established under Resolution 757 (1992) must be applied to any vessel owned wholly or partially by persons residing in or by companies registered in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro). Finally, the Committee grants its approval for unloading the vessel on the condition that the cargo in question remains under impoundment by the Netherlands authorities for the duration of the sanctions.’

53. District Court of Rotterdam, Institute's Collection No. 3634; see also 24 NYIL (1993) pp. 411–413.