No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Netherlands Law on Aliens
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 July 2009
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.
- Type
- Section C: Documentation
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1970
References
1. Identical to Article 3 para. 2 of the Constitution of 1848.
2. Stb. 1849 No. 39. Last revision by Act of November 29, 1935, Stb. 1935 No. 685
3. See infra p. 248 n. 8.
4. In writing this short survey extensive use has been made of the reports by Mr. MULDERMIJE and Professor DUYNSTEE on the law with regard to aliens, submitted to the 1956 annual meeting of the Netherlands International Law Association (Netherlands Branch of the International Law Association), see Mededelingen van de Nederlandse Vereniging voor Internationaal Recht No. 36 (March 1956)Google Scholar. Several legally technical questions, which played a role in the theoretical assessment of the law are, however, not taken into account in this survey.
5. The concept used was that of “publieke rust”. Compare the concept of “openbare rust” used in the new Act. Cf. n. 26.
6. Cf. Circular of the Minister of Justice of April 26, 1863, in Seppen, G. and Walraven, W.A.C., Vreemdelingen en Grensbewaking, vol. 1 (1951) pp. 71–72.Google Scholar
7. Sec Duynstee loc.cit. p. 61.
8. Except perhaps Article 9, dealing with removal of non-admitted aliens, Articles 16–18, dealing with extradition, later repealed by the introduction of a separate Extradition Act in 1875, and Article 20, dealing with the competence of the Supreme Court to determine whether a person possesses Netherlands nationality.
9. Stb. 1918 No. 410, later amended by Stb. 1951 No. 594 and Stb. No. 239.
10. Stb. 1920 No. 11
11. Stb. 1918 No. 521.
12. Trb. 1960 No. 40. Hereafter to be called ‘Benelux Agreement/Convention’ of April 11, 1960.
13. See the Explanatory Memorandum to the Aliens Bill, Bijl. Hand. II 1962/63 - 7163 Nos. 1–3 p. 11. See also infra under “International Law and the Dutch Law on Aliens.”
14. Text in Stb. 1965 No. 40. According to Article 52, the Act would enter into force on a date to be fixed later. By Royal Decree of November 11, 1966 (Stb. 1966 No. 461) this date was fixed at January 1, 1967. On that same date the subsidiary legislative provisions, see infra, also entered into force. According to Art. 47 of the Act, the Acts of 1849, 1918 (control of resident aliens) and 1920 (border control) were repealed. Under Art. 109, Aliens Decree, see infra, and Art. 53 Aliens Regulations, see infra, all existing subsidiary legislation relating to control of aliens, border control and refugees was also repealed. Cf. also Memorandum of Reply to the Second Chamber concerning the Aliens Bill, Bijl. Hand. II 1963/64 - 7163 No. 6 p. 1.
15. “Algemene Maatregel van Bestuur”, abbreviated: a.m.v.b. See e.g. Articles 2(5), 3, 7(3), 8(1) and (2), 16(2), 17(1) and (2), 18, 19(5) and Article 28 of the Act.
16. “Ministeriele Beschikking”. See e.g. Articles 5(1), 10(2), 11(4), 16(1), and Article 20 of the Act.
17. “Algemene en bijzondere aanwijzingen”. See e.g. Articles 3(3), 4(3), 6(2), and Article 22 of the Act.
18. “Vreemdelingenbesluit”, Stb. 1966 No. 387.
19. “Voorschrift Vreemdelingen”, Stc. September 28, 1966, No 188 p. 3.
20. “Vreemdelingencirculaire”. This two volume collection is not available for the public. On a request in Parliament the Minister of Justice stated his objections against publication, since the “Circular” contains expositions providing for information of the officials on the legal provisions, and also contains instructions for them. The Minister admitted, however, that the contents were not meant to be classified, and ended by offering a copy of the “Circular” for use by Members of Parliament. See Proceedings of the Second Chamber, April 22, 1969, Hand. II 1968/69 p.2670.
21. Of October 28, 1954. Stb. 1954 No. 596.
22. Bijl. Hand. II 1962/63 - 7163 No. 1–3 p. 9. This, it is submitted, would appear to be a farfetched interpretation of the text of the Statute, as well as of the official explanation.
23. “Residence” is used here for the Dutch concept “verblijf” in the Aliens Act. It must be distinguished from the term “ingezetenschap” in the official designation of the Dutch Nationality Act of 1892, which is a constitutional concept, and which is usually translated with “Residentship”. Each of the concepts has its own, very particular, meaning.
24. This Commission has taken the place of the “Standing Aliens Advisory Commission” (“Permanente Vreemdelingen Adviescommissie”) under the old law The provisions of the Act are elaborated and implemented in Ch I (Arts. 2–18) of the Aliens Decree.
25. Implemented in Ch. II (Arts. 19–40) of the Aliens Decree, and Ch. I (Arts. 2–15) of the Aliens Regulation.
26. Among other subjects, border control has not at all been dealt with.
27. “Nederlander”. See also infra n. 32.
28. Wet op het Nederlanderschap en het Ingezetenschap. Cf. also supra n. 23.
29. The formulation is repeated in Article 1 of the Aliens Decree.
30. Concluded by the U.S., the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, Luxemburg, and the Netherlands. Not published.
31. Frontier Correction Decree (“Grenscorrectiebesluit”) of April 22, 1949, Stb. J 181, later replaced by the Frontier Correction Act of September 26, 1951, Stb. 1951 No. 434, particularly Article 36. On April 8, 1960, a Frontier Treaty was concluded between the Netherlands and the German Federal Republic, 508 U.N.T.S. p. 14, including a definitive arrangement of the Netherlands-German frontier. Under Art. 5 of the Act implementing this Treaty (Act of May 22, 1963, Stb. 1963 No. 238) the above Frontier Correction Act was repealed. Under Art. 11 of the Frontier Treaty German nationals of territories which were definitively ceded to the Netherlands were granted a right to opt for Netherlands nationality within two years.
32. Like other Colonial Powers, the Netherlands distinguished between (full) Netherlands citizenship under the Nationality Act (“Wet op het Nederlanderschap”) of 1892, and the quality of Dutch subject (“Nederlands onderdaanschap niet-Nederlanders”) under an Act of February 10, 1910, Stb. 1910 No. 55. With the transfer, in 1962, of West Irian to Indonesia, the need for a separate “colonial” nationality disappeared, and the Act of 1910 was accordingly abolished by Act of September 14, 1962, Stb. 1962 No. 358. As a result a number of persons, who had left West Irian for the Netherlands, lost Dutch nationality without acquiring another nationality. Article 4 of the above Act of 1962 held the provision to the effect that, provided they did not possess any other nationality, such persons were to be treated as if they were Netherlands citizens during three years ending. October 1, 1965. Meanwhile the same Act provided for special facilitations for the acquisition of Dutch citizenship.
33. Article 6 sect. 1 of the Act. As to the exception under sect. 2 with regard to alleged refugees: see infra under “Admittance as refugee”.
34. The term “travel document” is chosen here as a translation of the Dutch “document voor grensoverschrijding”, which has a particular meaning within the law.
35. Or a laissez-passer issued by a recognized international organization. For denial of entry, see infra under: Removal.
36. Art. 41 sect. 1 Aliens Decree. The various kinds of visas are defined in Art. 1 of the Aliens Decree under the following headings:
“machtiging tot voorlopig verblijf” (autorisation de séjour provisoire, permission for temporary residence); “reisvisum” (travel visa), and “transitvisum”(transit visa). A “permission for temporary residence” is issued to those aliens who intend to stay in the Netherlands for more than three months, a travel visa is issued for a stay of at the most three months, while a transit visa entitles its holder to a stay of not longer than three days. The competent authority for the issue of visas is the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Co-ordination with the policy of the Minister of Justice, who is competent for the grant of residence permits and other express grants of titles of residence, is acquired through a joint Visa Office (“Visadienst”). Cf. Explanatory Memorandum to the Aliens Bill, p. 14, and Memorandum of Reply to the Second Chamber, p. 5.
37. Art. 41 sect. 3 and 4, and Art. 42 of the Aliens Decree; Art. 16 Aliens Regulation. As to the international agreements, see infra under “International Law and the Dutch Law on Aliens.”
38. With regard to shore stay of captain and crew of entering sea-ships, and with regard to the crew of airplanes and to transit sea and air passengers, to which Article 8 is not applicable, see Arts. 44 and 45 Aliens Decree and Arts. 17 and 18 Aliens Regulation, providing for special leniency. These regulations are based on common policy of the three Benelux countries, as an implementation of the Benelux Agreement of April 11, 1960.
39. “Vergunning tot verblijf” abbreviated “verblijfsvergunning”. As to the different character of the “verblijfsvergunning” under the old law: see the Explanatory Memorandum to the Aliens Bill, p. 15.
40. This does not necessarily imply that any sojourn in the Netherlands, which is not based on any of the five mentioned titles, would be illegal. See e.g. the case described in footnote 38, the one dealt with in Art. 24 of the Act, and the case where an alien, who is already in the Netherlands, is allowed to remain there pending the decision on a request for a residence permit.
41. Terminology and contents of this section are taken over from Article 5 of the Benelux Agreement of April 11, 1960.
42. The Minister of Justice explained that this is to be interpreted as a reasonable guarantee that the aliens concerned will be able to support themselves without assistance of the Government. See statement in the Second Chamber on April 22, 1969, Hand. II 1968/69, p. 2670. On September 10, 1969, the Minister replied that in considering the sufficiency of the means at the disposal of the alien, account should thereby be taken of the length of the proposed stay in the Netherlands, its purposes, the personal circumstances of the person concerned, and the means of conveyance used by him. See reply to written questions, Aanh. Hand. II 1968/69, No. 1210 p. 2435. The requirement of sufficient means of living does not apply to Belgian and Luxemburg citizens. As to nationals of other EEC member States who are in search of work the requirement applies in mitigated form. These exceptions, as formulated in Art. 93 Aliens Decree, are based on Article 4 of the Benelux Agreement of September 19, 1960 and on EEC Council Regulation No. 1612/68 of October 15, 1968 and Council Directive 68/360/EEC of October 15, 1968. Cf. infra n. 125.
43. This concept of “openbare rust” is not common in Dutch law. Its insertion finds its cause in the fact that as a result of its use in Belgian and Luxemburg law it was also used in the Benelux Agreement of April 11, 1960. For its application in the Netherlands it may be considered synonymous with “public order” (“openbare orde”) See Memorandum of Reply concerning the Government's Note on the Aliens Law, Bijl. Hand. II 1968/69 - 9666, No. 5 p. 2 under No. 6. See also the Explanatory Memorandum to the Aliens Bill p. 14, on the draft Article 8, according to which by common accord among the three Benelux countries, danger to public morals and to the external relations of the State are to be comprised by the term “danger to public peace and order.”
44. The “public peace, public order and national security” clause is also to be found in Arts. 11 sect. 2 (restrictive prescriptions attached to residence permit), 12(c) (revocation of residence permit), 13 sect. 3(b) (refusal of a permit for establishment), 14 sect. 1(d) (revocation of a permit for establishment), 17 sect. 3 (duty to report regularly), 21 sect. 1(c) (declaration of persona non grata), 24 (procedure of removal), and 26 sect. 1 (custody).
45. Art. 8 sect. 1(a) of the Act.
46. Art. 46 of the Aliens Decree. Cf. also supra n. 36.
47. Art. 46 of the Aliens Decree. Art. 8 of the Act left it to subsidiary iegislation to fix this period, but set a maximum of six months.
48. This question and especially the application of the “danger to public peace” clause, occurred when two Vietnamese, members of the North Vietnam and NLF delegations in Paris, sought entry into the Netherlands on an invitation of the General Amsterdam Students Association to participate in a teach-in on Vietnam. Cf. Replies of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and of Justice to written questions, March 27, 1969, Aanh. Hand. II 1968/69 No. 577 pp. 1159 and 1161.
49. This means, for instance, that possession of a visa does not imply absolute guaranty of entry.
50. See infra under “Termination of the right of residence”.
51. The Memorandum of Reply to the Second Chamber concerning the Aliens Bill said that “general interest” includes foreign policy interests. See Bijl. Hand. II 1963/64 7163 No. 6 p. 5. Article 4 of the 1960 Benelux Agreement also applies. During the deliberations on the Aliens Bill between Parliament and the Government, it was asked what directives apply for the granting of residence permits. The Minister of Justice declared that no generally valid detailed directives exist. As a general directive the application should be tested according to general interest while all aspects of the application should be taken into consideration. The minimum criter on applied in the judgment of an application is the question whether the applicant can indicate any point of attachment with the Netherlands, or with persons living in the Netherlands. This may be the case if a person has relatives living in this country, or if he might be expected to make an important contribution to, for instance, science or the economy. Cf. Report of Oral Consultation, Bijl. Hand. II 1963/64 7163 No. 9 p. 13. Cf. also Memorandum of Reply to the First Chamber concerning the Aliens Bill, Bijl. Hand. I 1964/65 No. 7a p. 2 para. 2. As to persons coming from Indonesia, see Memorandum of Reply of December 30, 1968, to the Second Chamber concerning a Government's Note on the Aliens Act, Bijl. Hand. II 1968/69 - 9666 No. 5 p. 3 para. 31.
52. Art. 11 sect 2 and 3 of the Act. See also the Memorandum of Reply to the First Chamber concerning the Aliens Bill, Bijl. Hand. I 1964/65 No. 7a p. 4 para. 10.
53. Implemented by Arts. 48–51 Aliens Decree.
54. Art. 11 sect 1(a) of the Act. Such delegation of power has taken place for a number of categories of persons who either have certain family bonds with the Netherlands or who are in a more or less favourite position with regard to obtaining a residence permit as a result of international agreements, see Aliens Regulation Art. 19.
55. The Explanatory Memorandum to the Aliens Bill, loc.cit. p. 14, finds an indication in Art. 9 of the Act.
56. Art. 13 sect. 3 and 4 of the Act: After five years' main residence the permit may only be refused either if there were no reasonable guarantee of sufficient means of living for a long term, or when the person concerned has seriously violated public peace and order, or constitutes a serious danger for national security. After ten years' main residence, however, the first mentioned ground for possible refusal is dropped. The law makes no difference between previous residence which was and which was not subject to “limitations” or “prescriptions”. See supra p.
57. Art. 13 sect. 2 of the Act.
58. See e.g. Art. 17 sect. 2 of the Act.
59. Art. 14; see infra under “Termination of the right of residence”.
60. This is a characterization within the terms of the Dutch law on aliens. It does not exclude the possibility of a person falling under the terms of the 1951 Refugee Convention and thus enjoying the protection under the Convention though not being “admitted as refugee” under the municipal law on aliens.
61. Art. 15 sect. 1 of the Act. Art. 43 Aliens Decree prescribes that in a case as envisaged by Art. 6 sect. 2 of the Act, the border control officials must immediately inform the person concerned of the possibility of applying for “admittance as refugee” under Art 15 of the Act. This implies that the permission for entry under Art. 6 sect. 2 is but a provisional permission to stay in the country. Regarding the plea of refugeeship as a bar to removal, see infra under “Removal”.
62. Not necessarily “coming from”.
63. But who in these cases of admittance as refugee and revocation of such admittance shall act in accordance with the Minister for Foreign Affairs; cf. Article 15 sect. 4 of the Act.
64. Art. 15 sect. 2. See supra n. 51 for the concept “general interest”. See infra for an ana ogous regime with regard to removal, and to changes in the relationship between the person concerned and his country of origin.
65. Contrary to the elaborately defined and regulated legal provisions on the admittance and protection of refugees, there have been only two cases of actual admittance as refugee in the period between January 1, 1967 (entry into force of the Act) and December 30, 1968. See the Memorandum of Reply concerning the Government's Note on the Aliens Bill, Bijl. Hand. II 1968/69 - 9666 No. 5 p. 2 under No. 7. In all other cases ordinary residence permits have been issued and regarded sufficient. In his reply to written questions, November 25, 1970, the Minister of Justice provided information as to the actual procedure followed in case of an application for the admittance as a refugee under the Act, and for the recognition as a refugee under the 1951 Convention. See Aanh. Hand. II 1970/71 No. 331 p. 665
66. Section 2 of the same Article of the Aliens Decree in its turn accords to the Minister of Justice the power to determine that the right of unlimited residence be granted to still other categories of aliens.
67. Loss of a certain title of residence need not automatically entail absence of any right of residence. It may happen that the person concerned obtains another title instead. Cf. Hand. II 1963/64 p. 2247.
68. Art. 14 sect. 2. As to what constitutes “main residence”., see the Memorandum of Reply to the Second Chamber concerning the Aliens Bill, loc.cit. p. 8.
69. See the statements of the Minister of Justice in the Second Chamber during the parliamentary debate on the Aliens Bill, June 24, 1964, Hand. II 1963/64 p. 2243.
70. Arts. 12(a), 14 sect. 1(a), and 15 sect. 3 of the Act.
71. Only in the case of residence permits, Art. 12(b) of the Act. It is neither applicable to permits for establishment nor to admittance as refugee.
72. Art. 15 sect. 3 of the Act. Too much uncertainty would result if it were provided that such change would ipso facto terminate the right.
73. Art. 12 para. c. (violation of public peace and order, or constituting a danger to national security) and para. d (as a result of a limitation attached to the permit, or of an infringement of an attached prescription). With regard to this criterion the Memorandum of Reply to the Second Chamber concerning the Aliens Bill stated that the phrase refers to, inter alia, “undesired political activity”, which means political activity “contrary to the limitations of the freedom of expression necessary in a democratic society”; Bijl. Hand. II 1963/64 -7163 No. 6 p. 3. Whereas Art. 12 para. c requires “violation” of public peace etc., Art. 8 sect 1, which determines the requirements for a right of residence during the “free period” uses the term “not presenting a danger to” public peace etc.
74. Art. 14 sect. 1 under b, c and d reads:
“…
b. if he has repeatedly committed acts which are prohibited by the Act under threat of penalty;
c. if he has been convicted for having intentionally committed a crime punishable by imprisonment of three years or more;
d. if he constitutes a serious danger for national security.”
75. In 1967 3645 aliens have been removed from the Netherlands, see the Government's Note of on the Aliens Act, Bijl. Hand. II 1967/68 - 9666 No. 2 p. 2.
76. As is well-known there is no unanimitywith regard to this question. See, among many others, O'Connell, D.P., International Law, vol. 2 (1965) p. 765Google Scholar; Dahm, G., Völkerrecht vol. 1 (1958) p. 526 ff.Google Scholar
77. Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, , International Law vol. 1 (8th ed. 1955) p. 694.Google Scholar
78. Exclusion (Fr.); Abweisung (Germ.).
79. See supra p. 253–254.
80. See supra p. 252–253.
81. The Act aims at an alien who, arriving from abroad, factually finds himself on Dutch soil, such as a border station or an airport.
82. Art. 44 sect. 1 of the Act. See for this penal sanction the Memorandum of Reply to the Second Chamber concerning the Aliens Bill, loc. cit. p. 7. See for a case in which an alien, having been denied entry, refused to leave the country: reply of the Minister of Justice to written questions, June 17, 1968, Aanh. Hand. II 1967/68 No. 733 p. 1473.
83. In contradistinction to “uitwijzing”, meaning expulsion. According to the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill the term “uitzetting” refers to the same term used in the Constitutional Article 4 sect. 2, and covers all cases of factual removal (“verwijdering”, see infra n. 86) from the country “with the strong arm”. See loc.cit. p. 12.
84. In which case the law usually expressly indicates its meaning by speaking of “last tot uitzetting”, meaning order to remove.
85. E.g. Art. 23 sect. 5 of the Act.
86. This is the general word for “to remove” whereas “uitzetten” specifically aims at removing a person out of the country. In the second edition of his treatise dating from 1949, François uses again an other term which under the former legal regime was equally generally used, viz. “uitleiden”. See Handboek van het Volkenrecht vol. I (2nd ed. 1949) p. 518Google Scholar. The word “verwijderen” is used in Arts. 7 sect. 2 and 4, 25, and 27 sect. 1 and 3 of the Act.
87. The Act does not know of mandatory removal. Where the conditions for removal are fulfilled, the Government is entitled to order removal.
88. See supra on the requirements for entry.
89. However, aliens who are allowed to remain in the Netherlands pending a decision on their request for a title of residence, are ipso facto excluded from liability to removal. See Arts. 79 and 104 Aliens Decree.
90. Memorandum of Reply to the Second Chamber, loc.cit. p. 3: Such duty exists under the Benelux Convention of April 11, 1960, and under the Netherlands-West German Exchange of Notes of September 19/October 10, 1958, concerning the facilitation of rendition of persons at the border, Trb. 1959 No. 17.
91. The problem has been subject of a judicial decision in Wallace v. State of the Netherlands, NJ 1963 No. 509.
92. In conjunction with Art. 80 Aliens Decree and Arts. 47–48 Aliens Regulation.
93. Art. 23 sect. 5 of the Act. In this case the (factual) removal amounts to reconduction. The Minister of Justice has, however, listed a number of categories of illegally entered aliens, for whose removal a ministerial order is nevertheless necessary. These categories include, inter alia, certain categories of citizens of EEC member States, alleged refugees, and persons who benefit in this respect from international agreements; see Art. 80 Aliens Decree; Art. 48 Aliens Regulation.
94. Of the person concerned or of one of the members of his family: Art. 25 of the Act.
95. Art. 22 sect. 2 of the Act. The formulation used here is the same as that in the case of the prohibition to refuse entry to alleged refugees; see supra. This bar to removal, which yields to a specific order of the Minister of Justice, may be seen as an implementation of Art. 33 of the Refugee Convention.
96. Arts. 32 and 38 of the Act, and Art. 79, 103 and 104 Aliens Decree. As to Art. 32 sect. 2 of the Act, see Explanatory Memorandum to the Aliens Bill, loc. cit. p. 17. See further infra under “Legal Remedies”.
97. By Act of June 23, 1960, Stb. 1960 No. 239, a provision to that effect was inserted as Art. 3a into the Act of June 17, 1968 (cf. n. 9). A corresponding Article was inserted in the Penal Code (Art. 197 as modified by the above Act of June 23, 1960) threatening with a maximum penalty of six months imprisonment any alien who resides in the Netherlands while knowing or seriously suspecting that he is declared an undesired alien.
98. Art. 10: “een vreemdeling, die ongewenst is”, “un étranger indésirable”; Art. 5: “vreemdelingen, … als ongewenst … gesignaleerd”, “Les étrangers … signalées comme indésirables”.
99. Cf. Memorandum of Reply to the Second Chamber concerning the Aliens Bill, loc.cit p. 9. It should be noted that illegal entry does not as such constitute a criminal offence.
100. This may refer to e.g. Art. 10 of the Benelux Agreement of April 11, 1960, which reads: “An Alien who is undesired in one of the Benelux countries, may be considered as undesired in the whole Benelux territory on a request by the Minister of Justice of the first country to the Ministers of Justice of the two other countries, provided the measure has initially been taken on one of the following grounds:
a)…
b)…
The above request shall be granted unless there are special reasons for its refusal.”
101. See n. 17.
102. Cf. the case of the German student leader R. Dutschke, reply of the Minister of Justice to written questions, September 9, 1968, Aanh. Hand. II 1967/68 No. 939 p. 1887. It is remarkable that Art. 5 of the Benelux Agreement, see supra n. 98, speaks of description (les étrangers … signalées).
103. For the penal sanctions, see Art. 44 of the Act.
104. Art. 29 of the Act. Generally revision of a removal order is not necessary. If there is a valid title of residence, removal is avoided. The exceptional cases mentioned in Art. 29 are in accordance with the system. They refer to loss of an accessory right of residence under Art. 10 sect. 2 (see supra p. 257) and to the case of an alien, who has openly resided in the country without having a legal title of residence. See the Explanatory Memorandum to the Aliens Bill, loc.cit. pp. 16–17. See also Art. 81 Aliens Decree. For special rules applicable to nationals of States party to the European Convention of Establishment, and to refugees under the 1951 Refugees Convention, see Articles 103 and 104 Aliens Decree.
105. Arts. 34–39 of the Act. See particularly Art. 34 sect. 5, in which case no appeal is possible. For similarity to and differences with the general rules relating to appeal against administrative decisions, see Explanatory Memorandum, loc.cit. p. 17 and Memorandum of Reply to the Second Chamber, loc.cit. p. 4.
106. Art. 26 of the Act.
107. Art. 18 of the Act.
108. Art. 40 of the Act.
109. These need not be measures under the Aliens Act, e.g. the cautio judicatum solvi of Art. 152 Code of Civil Procedure, extradition, etc.
110. Art. 43 of the Act. A similar provision could be found in Art. 20 of the 1849 Act and in Art. 4 of the 1918 Act.
111. Erades, L., “De verhouding tussen volkenrecht en internationaal recht in Nederland”, N.J.B. (1950) p. 217 ffGoogle Scholar; (1951) p. 382 ff. Cf. also: Meuwissen, D.H.M., “Enige opmerkingen over de plaats van het internationale recht in de nationale rechtsorde”, N.J.B. (1965) pp. 57–66 at p. 59.Google Scholar
112. With regard to customary international law, before 1956, see Meuwissen, op. cit. p. 59. With regard to treaty law, before 1956, see Meuwissen op.cit. p. 62, inter alia citing Erades, N.J.B. (1962) p. 358. From the parliamentary history of Art. 66 of the Constitution it may be concluded that the legislature did not accept such precedence. See also van Panhuys, H.F., “The Netherlands Constitution and International Law”, 58 A.J.I.L. (1964) pp. 88–108, at p. 100 ff.Google Scholar
113. In some cases the provisions are not directly inspired by the Convention itself, but are based on common accords, elaborated by a tripartite Ministerial Working Committee by way of implementation of the Convention, (see e.g. Arts. 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 14 of the Convention). These common accords are classified. The 1960 Convention does not cover co-ordination of policy with regard to establishment, residence for a period of longer than three months, and removal of aliens. See the Government's Note of August 6, 1970, Bijl. Hand. II 1969/70 - 10600 No. 5.
114. E.g. Art. 6 sect. 2 of the Act.
115. Entitled: “Derogations from the Act in favour of aliens, under international obligations”.
116. Subchapter A, Arts. 91–102.
117. Subchapter B, Art. 103.
118. Subchapter C, Arts. 104–106. The 1954 Convention is the Convention relating to the status of Stateless Persons, New York, September 28, 1954, 360 U.N.T.S. p. 130.
119. With regard to border control: Art. 3 of the Act, implemented by Arts. 19–40 Aliens Decree. With regard to the requirements concerning travel documents: Art. 6 sect. 1 of the Act, implemented by Art. 41 Aliens Decree. With regard to several aspects of the control of aliens: Art. 17 sect. 1(a) and sect. 2, and Art. 20 of the Act, implemented by Arts. 54 sect. 3, 66 sect. 4, and 75–76 Aliens Decree.
120. Cf. Explanatory Memorandum to the Aliens Bill, loc.cit. p. 18
121. Mention has already been made of the law concerning the status of diplomats, of which a major part is, of course, codified since 1961. Another instance is the right of innocent passage through territorial waters (which, again, was codified in 1958): Art. 31 Aliens Decree contains an exemption from a number of obligations incumbent upon captains of ships entering Netherlands territory, if such entry takes place only for the purpose of passage through the Netherlands territorial sea.
122. Besides bilateral agreements, also e.g. the European Agreement on the Abolition of visas for refugees, Strassbourg, April 20, 1959 376 U.N.T.S. p. 85.
123. Such as the European Convention of 1950.
124. Such as the 1951 Refugees Convention, the 1954 Convention on Stateless Persons, and the Agreement relating to Refugee Seamen, The Hague, November 23, 1957, 506 U.N.T.S. p. 125.
125. Such as: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, March 25, 1957, 298 U.N.T.S. p. 11; (EEC) Council Regulation No. 15 of August 16, 1961, relating to first measures for the realization of free movement of employees within the Community, 4 O.J. (1961) p. 1073 ff.: (EEC) Council Regulation No. 1612/68 of October 15, 1968, relating to the free movement of employees within the Community, 11 O.J. (1968) No. L 257/2 ff.; Council Directive 68/360/EEC of October 15, 1968, relating to the abolition of limitations to movement and residence of employees from Member States, and of their families, within the Community, 11 O.J. (1968) No. L 257/13 ff; Council Regulation. No. 1251/70 of June 29, 1970, relating to the right of employees to reside in the territory of a Member State after being employed there, 13 O.J. (1970) No. L 142/24–26: Council Directive 64/220/EEC of February 25, 1964, relating to the abolition of limitations to movement and residence of nationals of Member States within the Community for the purpose of establishment and the provision of services, 7 O.J. (1964) p. 845 ff; Council Directive 64/221/EEC of February 25, 1964, relating to the co-ordination of the prevailing special measures with regard to movement and residence of aliens for reasons of public order and security and public health, 7 O.J. (1964) p. 850 ff.
With regard to Benelux there are:
Treaty instituting the Benelux Economic Union, February 3, 1958, 381 U.N.T.S. p. 165; the often quoted Convention of April 11, 1960; Benelux Convention relating to the implementation of Arts. 55 and 56 of the Treaty instituting the Benelux Economic Union, September 19, 1960, Trb. 1960 No. 135 and 1963 No. 164.
126. Such as: European Convention on Social and Medical Assistance, December 11, 1953, 218 U.N.T.S. p. 255; European Convention on Establishment, December 13, 1955, 529 U.N.T.S. p. 141; European Convention on regulations governing the movement of persons between Member States of the Council of Europe, December 13, 1957, 315 U.N.T.S. p. 139; Agreement with the German Federal Republic concerning, inter alia, merger of frontier control, May 30, 1958, Trb. 1958 No. 81; “Frontier Treaty” with the German Federal Republic, April 8, 1960, 508 U.N.T.S. p. 14; Agreement with the German Federal Republic concerning Minor Frontier Traffic, June 3, 1960, 487 U.N.T.S. p. 37.