24 January 2013
In October 2012, the SHARES Blog carried a post that discussed a September Dutch Court decision concerning the on-going asylum situation at the ICC. Since then there are have been two important developments: the matter has been taken to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the original Dutch decision has been overturned on appeal. (more…)
19 October 2012
After two years of difficult proceedings, a German Court in Hamburg held 10 Somali nationals responsible for extortionate kidnapping and attacking sea transportation under German criminal law. The Somalis had hijacked the German freighter Taipan in 2010, which was freed by Dutch special forces. The process raises questions as to the appropriate legal framework to address issues of modern piracy.
Source: Sky News | Germany convicts seven Somali pirates
Source: Der Spiegel | Urteil im Hamburger Piratenprozess
3 July 2012
Belgium has for many years been struggling with significant prison overcrowding. The Netherlands, on the other hand, has in recent years seen its prisons gradually emptying due to a decline in crime, forcing the Dutch government to close eight of its prisons. The two countries came up with the obvious solution, although one never adopted before in Europe: Belgium would rent an already staffed and equipped prison in the Netherlands. The location chosen was Tilburg prison, which is quite close to the border with Belgium. (more…)
3 May 2012
On 16 April 2012, a Dutch Court in Rotterdam found that the Netherlands was jointly responsible with Turkey for the infiltration of Turkish nationals in an investigation in Turkey (LJN: BW3203). The case concerned a heroin transport from Turkey to the Netherlands in 2005. (more…)
Source: LJN: BW3203, Rechtbank Rotterdam, 10/602018-05 (in Dutch)
13 April 2012
Today, the Dutch Supreme Court affirmed the Hague Court of Appeal’s decision that it does not have jurisdiction to deal with the claim of the Mothers of Srebrenica against the United Nations. The Mothers of Srebrenica instigated proceedings before Dutch courts against both the Netherlands and the United Nations, claiming they had failed to prevent the genocide in Srebrenica.
The plaintiff’s submission that UN immunity should be set aside in order to ensure the right to a fair trial in Article 6 ECHR was rejected. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal erred in relying on the criteria in the ECtHR cases Beer and Regan and Waite and Kennedy in order to evaluate whether UN immunity should be set aside for the right to a fair trial. The Supreme Court held that the immunity of the United Nations is absolute, and that obligations under the UN Charter should prevail over obligations arising from other international agreements according to Article 103 UN Charter. In this context, the Supreme Court followed the ECtHR’s decision in Behrami and Saramati.
The plaintiff’s submission that in case of breaches of peremptory norms the UN is not entitled to immunity was also rejected. In order to support its decision that rules of ius cogens do not set aside rules on immunity, the Supreme Court referred to the ICJ’s recent judgment in the case Germany v. Italy.
The Mothers’ claim against the Netherlands is yet to be considered in first instance.
Source: Washington Post | Dutch court rules United Nations has immunity in Srebrenica massacre case