The Netherlands: The Batavian Staatsregeling as the First Fundamental Rights Document

Author(s):  
Louis Berkvens
2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 188-207 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jorg Sladič

Legal privilege and professional secrecy of attorneys relate to the right to a fair trial (Article 6 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)) as well as to the right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 ECHR). The reason for protecting the lawyer via fundamental rights is the protection of fundamental rights of the lawyer’s clients. All legal orders apply legal privileges and professional secrecy; however, the contents of such are not identical. Traditionally there is an important difference between common and civil law. The professional secrecy of an attorney in civil law jurisdictions is his right and at the same time his obligation based on his membership of the Bar (that is his legal profession). In common law legal privilege comprises the contents of documents issued by an attorney to the client. Professional secrecy of attorneys in civil law jurisdictions applies solely to independent lawyers; in-house lawyers are usually not allowed to benefit from rules on professional secrecy (exceptions in the Netherlands and Belgium). On the other hand, common law jurisdictions apply legal professional privilege, recognized also to in-house lawyers. Slovenian law follows the traditional civil law concept of professional secrecy and sets a limited privilege to in-house lawyers. The article then discusses Slovenian law of civil procedure and compares the position of professional secrecy in lawsuits before State’s courts and in arbitration.


Author(s):  
E. P. Ermakova ◽  

Introduction: the article analyzes claims for climate protection under the Paris Agreement 2015 considered by state courts of the UK, the Netherlands, Germany and France. It is proved that the number of legal cases, both against governments and private companies, related to protection of climate from changes is steadily increasing. Applicants rely on constitutional and human rights laws in their efforts to hold governments accountable for tackling climate change issues. Climate litigation is also influenced by new scientific discoveries and developments in the field of climate change, which allow plaintiffs to more accurately determine the environmental impact of projects, policies and laws. In this regard, a comparative analysis of the above issues appears to be of key importance. Purpose: based on the analysis of judicial precedents, scientific sources and normative acts, to form an idea of the new category of court cases in European countries – lawsuits against governments and private companies aimed at protecting the climate from changes under the Paris Agreement 2015. Methods: empirical methods of comparison, description, interpretation; theoretical methods of formal and dialectical logic; special scientific methods (legal-dogmatic and the method of interpretation of legal norms). Results: the conducted study showed that in Europe, over the past few years, the concept ‘protecting the climate from changes’ has shifted from the political to the legal sphere – active citizens and environmental organizations began to sue their governments and private companies based on the provisions of the Paris Agreement 2015, international documents and national legislation. In general, state courts of European countries (Germany, the Netherlands) have arrived at a conclusion that the governmental climate policy is subject to judicial review and must comply with the government’s responsibilities to protect fundamental rights in accordance with the Constitution. Conclusions: all lawsuits filed to protect the climate from changes under the Paris Agreement 2015 can be divided into two categories: a) lawsuits filed against governments; b) claims filed against private companies. Among the lawsuits filed against individual governments, the most successful has been the ‘Urgenda’, case, with the decision in this case confirmed by the Supreme Court of the Netherlands in December 2019. Claims aimed at ensuring that private companies also comply with the terms of the Paris Agreement (although not being parties to it) can be called a new type of lawsuit: most of these cases are not completed and are pending before state courts. Such lawsuits are directed against private companies that pollute atmosphere the most – Shell, Total, etc.


2006 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 152-166
Author(s):  
Gareth Davies

The court in this case decided that state subsidy to political parties that discriminate against women is prohibited by international treaties, notably the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.This raises a number of issues. Where the discrimination is for religious reasons, does sex equality need to be balanced against religious freedom? Both are usually seen as fundamental rights. What about discrimination against men, in favour of women; is that also against the law? Finally, is the obligation not to discriminate only binding on the state, or also on the party itself? Could such a party be banned from politics? Some of these issues were touched on by the court, although not convincingly, and some of them, such as religious freedom, were scandalously ignored.


Author(s):  
Gerhard Van der Schyff

This contribution considers the protection of fundamental rights in the Netherlands and South Africa. Both countries strive to be constitutional democracies that respect basic rights. But both countries go about this aim in very different ways. These different paths to constitutionalism are compared, as well as the reasons for these differences and whether it can be said that these differences are justifiable. This is done by comparing the character of the rights guaranteed in the Dutch and South African legal orders, the sources of these rights and the locus or centre of protection in both systems. The conclusion is reached that no single or perfect route to attaining the desired protection of fundamental rights exists, but that one should always enquire as to the state of individual freedom and the right to make free political choices in measuring the worth of a system's protection of rights.


2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 508-529 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonie M Huijbers ◽  
Claire M S Loven

Abstract On 12 July 2018, the central government of the Netherlands changed its approach relating to traveller camps in the Netherlands. This change constitutes a huge political shift, as the government had previously adopted a ‘hands-off’ and ‘repressive-inclusion’ strategy, which was especially known for its infamous ‘phase-out policy’ or ‘extinction policy’ of traveller camps. This has now been replaced by a fundamental rights-proof approach that facilitates the travellers’ way of life. This article aims to uncover the various actions undertaken by international and national actors that seem to have contributed to the Dutch government’s changed stance. It looks particularly at the role played by four national actors: the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights, the National Ombudsman, the Public Interest Litigation Project, and activist Roma, Sinti and travellers and their various interest groups. The article concludes that these actors’ efforts to establish political and legal change were successful as they addressed the same issue from different vantage points and through different means. That is, they all focused on the issue of the incompatibility of the phase-out policy with fundamental rights standards and relied on a variety of means available to them (such as litigation, lobbying, reporting, raising international awareness, and ensuring media coverage). By drawing some general lessons from this case study, this article aims to contribute to the existing literature on mobilizing human rights. In particular, it focuses on the (legal) activities national actors can undertake to bring about political and legal change in order to enforce the compliance of national authorities with fundamental rights standards in both law and policy.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document