No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 July 2009
2. Bijl. Hand. II 1997–1998 – 19 637, No. 295. See supra, pp. 501–513.
3. Deposited with the Parliamentary Documentation department, for information.
4. In this Letter, the State Secretary of Justice gives an overview of the cases in which Art. 1F can be applied, how the application relates to Art. 1A and Art. 15 of the Aliens Act, and also which procedural guarantees implemented are involved. A relevant part of the Letter states that neither the Refugee Convention nor the Aliens Act obliges to define the status of the asylum seeker as a refugee prior to appliance of Art. 1F.
5. Bijl. Hand. II 1997–1998 – 19637 No. 343, pp. 6–7.
6. Bijl. Hand. II 1997–1998 – 21 501–02, No. 229, p. 2.
7. Bijl. Hand. II 1997–1988 – 19326 No. 182, pp. 1.2.
8. 28 NYIL (1997) pp. 233–236.Google Scholar
9. Bijl. Hand. II 199-/1998 (R1613) No. 3, pp. 6, 8–9, 53–54, 59.
10. Hand. I 1987/1988 No. 5, p. 116.
11. Bijl. Hand. II 1992–1993 – 23029 (R1461) and Bijl. Hand. II 1993–1994 – 23594 (R 1496).
12. This Bill is the third proposal to amend the Netherlands Nationality Act and partly contains the amendments proposed in the former Bills (see also 25 NYIL (1994) pp. 386–392).Google Scholar
13. By virtue of this principle, derived from Grotius, states are under an obligation to either extradite (aut dedere) or themselves prosecute (aut judicare) perpetrators of international crimes. This obligation arises from international treaties.
14. Penal chamber of the Supreme Court, 11 November 1997, No. 3717 AB. Both the suspect and the Procurator General appealed the confirmation of the administrative decision of the Examing Magistrate by the military chamber of the Court of Appeal in Arnhem on 19 March of this year (AVNR 2300). The military chamber's administrative decision dealt with the question whether the Dutch courts were competent, and if so, which court was competent to examine alleged violations of the Criminal Law in Wartime Act. The Criminal Law in Wartime Act was drawn up to fulfill the obligations arising for the Netherlands from the Geneva Conventions. According to the Memorandum of Reply “the Dutch courts are competent to examine war crimes, irrespective of by whom and where they were committed and thus also in such cases in which the crime was committed by a non-Dutch national outside the Netherlands in a war in which our country is not a party” (Bijl. Hand. II 1950–1951 – 2258 No. 5 p. 27). The Arnhem Court of Appeal concluded that the regular criminal courts in the Netherlands are competent to examine such acts.
15. In Article 1F(b) a “crime committed outside the country of refuge” is referred to, Article 1F(a) and (c) contain no geographical limitations as this would contravene the universal character of the provisions.
16. In the Aliens Policy Brief [Vreemdelingencirculaire] it is explained that Art. 33, para. 2, of the Refugees Treaty allows for the expulsion of refugees, both those having entered the country legally and illegally, who are enemies of state and serious criminals.
17. OJ of the EU, No. L63, 13 March 1996, p. 2.
18. See also the Note on the Exclusion Clauses of the Bureau of the UNHCR, submitted for the benefit of a session of the Standing Committee of the Executive Committee of the UNHCR, of 30 May 1997, EC/47/SC/CRP.29.
19. For this, see ARRvS, 12 July 1978, RV 1978, No. 27.
20. Memorandum of Reply, Bijl. Hand. II 1963–1964 – 7163 No. 6 p. 8.
21. ARRvS, 16 October 1980, RV 1980, No. 1.
22. Hand. II – 1973/74, Chapter VI, No. 13, Annex 1. In this letter the Minister writes: ‘Finally, I would like to clear up a misunderstanding which frequently arises regarding Article 15 of the Aliens Act. This article was not written for asylum seekers who do leave their country for reasons of a political nature, but who can still not be considered refugees in the sense of the Geneva Refugees Treaty. Article 1 of this treaty and Article 15 of the Aliens Act aim at the same category of persons, i.e. those coming from a country in which they have reasonable grounds for fearing persecution because of their religious or political beliefs or any other circumstance mentioned in this article. At the time of entry into force of the Aliens Act it was a different matter. Then the Refugees Treaty – as far as the Netherlands was concerned – was not applicable to refugees who had left their country out of fear of persecution for events which took place after 1 January 1951. Article 15 of the Aliens Act, on the other hand, did not carry a cut-off date, so that this article was also applicable to “new refugees”. Through the Protocol of 31 January 1967, which entered into force for the Netherlands on 29 November 1968, the cut-off date mentioned in Article 1 of the Refugees Treaty was dropped.’ Further on in this letter the then Minister writes: “Herewith, Article 5 (Art. 15 was meant) of the Aliens Act was really also made redundant. The focus then shifted completely to the arrangement for Treaty refugees laid down in Articles 16, 43 and 104 – 106 of the Aliens Order [Vreemdelingenbesluit] In these articles, the treaty obligations incumbent on the Netherlands in the field of residency rights of refugees are fully discharged”.
23. Aliens law uniform application Chamber, 11 September 1997, Awb 97/4707. Here, a case was involved in which it had been established by an earlier decision of the Administrative Law Division of the Council of State ((R)2.93.2274, RV 1995, 2) that Article 1F could not be applied, and also that the person concerned entertained a real fear of persecution in the sense of article 1A in his country of origin. The Aliens law uniform application Chamber considered the refusal of admittance justified because, partly due to the behaviour in the Netherlands of the person concerned, it was “a matter of serious importance for the State of the Netherlands, namely the integrity and credibility of the Netherlands as a sovereign state, especially in relation to its responsibilities to other states”.
24. In full: the Statute of the International tribunal for the prosecution of persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991.
25. In full: the Statute of the International criminal tribunal for the prosecution of persons responsible for genocide and other serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of Rwanda and Rwandan citizens responsible for genocide and other such violations committed in the territory of neighbouring states between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1994.
26. Annex to Resolution 51/210 of the General Assembly of the United Nations, 17 December 1997.
27. See, for example, Article 5 of the Agreement adopted pursuant to Article K.3 of the EU Treaty concerning extradition between the Member States of the European Union (Trb. 1997 No. 71).
28. The Common Position of 4 March 1996 on Article 1F (c) is inspired by French case law on this ground for exclusion. The application of Article 1F (c) in the Netherlands is adjusted to the Common Position, albeit that 1F (c) is not in itself employed as a separate ground. This ground will mostly be used in combination with Article 1F (a).
29. Note how this differs from what is stated in Art. 33(2) of the Refugees Treaty.
30. Federal Court of Appeal, Toronto, No. A-686–90.
31. See parliamentary history regarding the conditional residence permit, Bijl. Hand. II 1992–1993 – 22735 No. 5.
32. Bijl. Hand. II 1991–1992 — 22735 No. 3, p. 22–23 and Bijl. Hand. II 1992–1993 – 22735 No. 5).
33. Aliens law uniform application Chamber, 11 September 1997, Awb 97/4704, 97/4705 and 97/4707.
34. Bijl. Hand. II 1997–1998 – 19637 No. 295, pp. 1–10.
35. vvtv: provisional permission to a residence permit [voorwaardelijke vergunning tot verblijf].
36. Bijl. Hand. II 1997–1998 – 19637 No. 308, pp. 1–2; 3.
37. Trb. 1996 No. 297.
38. Bijl. Hand. II 1996–1997 – 25 203, No.2
39. Bijl. Hand. II 199–1998 – 25932 (R1615) Nos. 290 and 1, pp. 2–3.
40. Bijl. Hand. II 1997–1998 – 25203, p. 4.
41. Bijl. Hand. II 1997–1998 – 25992 No. 1, pp. 13–14.
42. Trb. 1998, 11
43. Aanh. Hand. II 1997–1998 No. 39, p. 79.
44. Bijl. Hand. II 1997–1998 – 26127 No. 1, pp. 1.2.
45. Trb. 1997 Nos. 14 and 25.
46. Bijl. Hand. II 1997–1998 – 25684 (R1600) No. 3, pp. 1–2.
47. Bijl. Hand. II 1997–1998 – 26086 No. 3, pp. 5–7.
48. See also: 25 NYIL (1994) pp. 442–445.Google Scholar
49. Bijl. Hand. II 1997–1998 – 21664 No. 94.
50. Bijl. Hand. II 1997–1998 – 21664 No. 95.
51. Bijl. Hand. II 1997–1998 – 21664 No. 98, pp. 10–12.
52. About UNSAS, see 26 NYIL (1995) pp. 269–272Google Scholar; 27 NYIL (1996) pp. 246–248.Google Scholar
53. Bijl. Hand. II 1997–1998 – 25696 No. 2, pp. 3–5.
54. Bijl. Hand. II 1997–1998 – 25954 and 25957 No. 3, pp. 6–7; 8.
55. See also: 26 NYIL (1995) pp. 275–276Google Scholar and 27 NYIL (1996) pp. 260–262.Google Scholar
56. Trb. 1996 No. 260.
57. See p. 208
58. Bijl. Hand. II 1997–1998 – 25925 (R1614) No. 3, pp. 19, 20.
59. Bijl. Hand. II 1997–1998 26137 (R1620) No. 3, pp. 3–4.
60. Bijl. Hand. II 1997–1998 – 26085 No. 3, pp. 8–12.
61. Bijl. Hand. II 1997–1998 – 26051 No. 1, pp. 13–14.
62. The Netherlands adopts all OECD Model Tax Adjustments.
63. Bijl.Hand.II 1997–1998 - 25087 No. 4, p. 20.
64. Idem.
65. Vogel, K., Double Taxation Conventions (London, Kluwer Law International, 1997).Google Scholar
66. Bijl. Hand. II 1997–1998 -25087 No. 4, p. 20
67. Idem.
68. Bijl.Hand.II 1997–1998 - 25087 No. 4, p. 21.
69. Idem.
70. Idem.
71. Idem.
72. Idem.
73. Bijl.Hand.II 1997–1998 - 25087 No. 4, p. 31.
74. Bijl. Hand. II 1997–1998 – 25987 No. 4, pp. 19–22; 30–32.