Dutch court finds gynaecologist guilty of "culpable homicide" after baby dies

BMJ ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 345 (oct02 1) ◽  
pp. e6615-e6615
Author(s):  
T. Sheldon
Keyword(s):  
Dutch Court

Dutch court supports whistle blowing surgeon

BMJ ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 312 (7027) ◽  
pp. 333-334
Author(s):  
T. Sheldon
Keyword(s):  
Whistle Blowing ◽  
Dutch Court

State Liability for Failure to Protect Others. Srebrenica Cases

Südosteuropa ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 66 (2) ◽  
pp. 245-271
Author(s):  
Isabelle Delpla
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Collective Responsibility ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Legal Decisions ◽  
Failure To Protect ◽  
State Liability ◽  
Dutch Court

Abstract Over recent years, a number of legal decisions have been taken that represent real novelties in the field. They address state liability towards foreigners in a realm where immunity has long prevailed. Dutch courts have condemned the Dutch state for failure to protect Bosniacs after the fall of the enclave of Srebrenica in 1995. The novelty of these court decisions is most apparent when they are compared to the previous investigations and reports on the fall of the Srebrenica enclave, which had the intended or de facto effect of leaving aside state liability. This article focuses on this comparison. The decisions of the Dutch court represent a change with regard to a trend in which collective responsibility was reduced to a scarecrow argument, where state liability for genocide was limited to the obligation to address criminal responsibility, and where co-agency was a shield preventing the attribution of state responsibility. Not only do these court decisions sanction state liability, they also address the victims and even grant them reparations.

Ziada v. Gantz  and Eshel

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate Clark
Keyword(s):  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Case Note ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
Domestic Court ◽  
Functional Immunity ◽  
The Subject ◽  
International Laws ◽  
State Of Israel ◽  
Dutch Court

Abstract Civilians who bring claims against powerful states or their officials, for harm resulting from the conduct of war, face challenges that no single legal procedure can possibly overcome. Certain codified international laws outline specific protections for civilians, but this protective infrastructure stands in the shadow of two creatures of uncodified international customary law: state sovereignty and the immunity of states and their officials. The subject of this case note is a civil claim before a Dutch domestic court, against powerful officials of the state of Israel. The claimant, a Palestinian Dutch national, is attempting to sue the officials for the unlawful killing of six members of his family in the intentional bombing of their home in Gaza in 2014. In January 2020, he set out to establish the Dutch court’s jurisdiction based on an exceptional provision of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure. This contribution argues that the Dutch court erred in allowing the asserted ‘functional immunity’ of the foreign officials to counter its own jurisdiction.

scholarly journals Dutch court acquits suicide counsellor of breaking the law

BMJ ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 334 (7587) ◽  
pp. 228.2-229 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tony Sheldon
Keyword(s):  
The Law ◽  
Dutch Court

scholarly journals Apportioning Responsibility between the UN and Member States in UN Peace-Support Operations: An Inquiry into the Application of the ‘Effective Control’ Standard after Behrami

2012 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 151-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cedric Ryngaert
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Effective Control ◽  
Member States ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
European Court ◽  
Current Article ◽  
And Control ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Dutch Court

There is a tendency among the judiciary to apply the standard of ‘effective control’ as the applicable yardstick for apportioning responsibility for wrongful acts between the United Nations and the member states contributing troops to UN peace-support operations. This is evidenced by recent decisions in the cases of Srebrenica (Dutch Court of Appeal, 2011), Al Jedda (European Court of Human Rights, 2011) and Mukeshimana (Belgian First Instance Court, 2010), which appear to repudiate the ‘ultimate authority and control’ standard espoused by the European Court of Human Rights in Behrami (2007). This process may have been set in motion by (the current) Article 7 of the ILC's Draft Articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations, which may in due course reflect customary international law. From a policy perspective, the application of an ‘effective control’ standard is highly desirable, as it locates responsibility with the actor who is in a position to prevent the violation.

scholarly journals Exploring mutual trust through the lens of an executing judicial authority: The practice of the Court of Amsterdam in EAW proceedings

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 282-298
Author(s):  
Adriano Martufi ◽  
Daila Gigengack
Keyword(s):  
National Level ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
District Court ◽  
Mutual Trust ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Real Risk ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
Judicial Reasoning ◽  
The Right ◽  
Dutch Court

In the groundbreaking decision Aranyosi and Căldăraru, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) recognised that in exceptional circumstances, the risk of a possible breach of the right not to suffer inhuman or degrading treatments may qualify as a ground to suspend a European arrest warrant (EAW) and, ultimately, bring the surrender procedure to an end. In this judgment (and in the subsequent decision in LM, dealing with the right to a fair trial), the Court has devised a two-tier test to assess the real risk of a violation of fundamental rights after surrender. Yet the Court has left significant discretion to executing authorities in conducting their assessment of risk, thus raising questions as to how the two-tier test would be implemented at the national level. To address some of these questions, this article examines the practice of the executing authority for the Netherlands (the District Court of Amsterdam) concerning decisions on EAWs that may entail a real risk for fundamental rights. To do so, we analyse the judicial reasoning of decisions issued between June 2016 and June 2020 which implement the tests designed by the CJEU in Aranyosi and LM. The results of this analysis indicate that the Court of Amsterdam has gradually shifted the emphasis from mutual trust to fundamental rights. However, the Dutch court resists automaticity and scrutinises the relevance of any information attentively. This attitude indicates a readiness to engage in a dialogue with the issuing authorities together with resistance to indulge in ‘blind trust’.

Participation of Citizens in Pre-Trial Hearings. Review of an Experiment in the Netherlands

2014 ◽  
Vol 12 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 47-61
Author(s):  
Barbara Brink ◽  
Albert T. Marseille
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Citizen Participation ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Public Agencies ◽  
Management Procedure ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Initial Results ◽  
Dutch Court

In 2011 the Dutch Central Appeals Tribunal, the highest Dutch court of appeal in legal areas pertaining to social security and the civil service, started consulting the parties of a dispute at an early stage in the procedure, in order to include them in the decisions about the procedural steps to be taken in the settlement of the appeal. One of the underlying rationales is that the involvement of the parties will lead to more acceptance of and contentment with the result. Since the acceptance of court decisions is considered as a criterion for the quality of the procedure, this approach should result in a better quality of the case treatment. In this article the initial results of this new case treatment are presented in the light of expectations from the literature on citizen participation in policy processes of public agencies. The data indicate that the New Case Management Procedure at the Central Appeals Tribunal can lead to an improvement of the quality of the case treatment, by inviting citizens to discuss with the judge about the case treatment. However, the procedure itself does not guarantee this increased quality.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document