Public Prosecutor v KVD and LMT

• Jurisdiction: Holanda
• Date: 13 Julio 1976
• Court: Local Court (Netherlands)

The Netherlands, Local Court of Amsterdam.

Public Prosecutor

and

K.V.D. and L.M.T.

Jurisdiction High seas Jurisdiction on the high seas For ensuring of municipal laws Dutch Telegraph and Telephone Act 1904, Article 3 European Agreement for the Prevention of Broadcasts transmitted from Stations outside National Territories, 1965 Whether municipal legislation contrary to European Agreement Sanctions against nationals for offences committed outside national territory Whether such sanctions contrary to international law The law of the Netherlands

Summary:The facts:The two accused were charged with rendering services to the radio ship Mi Amigo, contrary to Article 3 septies of the Dutch Telegraph and Telephone Act, at a time when it was anchored outside any national territory.

Held:The accused were convicted.

The Strasbourg Agreement for the Prevention of Broadcasts transmitted from Stations outside National Territories, 1965, did not require that there should be some connection between the offence and the national territory. Neither did international law prohibit a State from penalizing nationals for offences committed outside the national territory.

The following is the summary of the judgment contained in 8 Netherlands Yearbook of International Law (1977) at p. 287:

The two accused were found guilty by the Local Court of Amsterdam of the offence defined in Article 3 septies of the Telegraph and Telephone Act of 1904[1] in that, on one or more occasions during the period from 1 October 1975 to 1 April 1976, they had rendered services on the radio ship Mi Amigo which, at the time, was anchored off the Thames estuary outside any national territory. The Court dismissed the plea that Article 3 septies was not binding on account of

conflict with Article 1 of the 1965 Strasbourg Agreement.[2] Although in Article 3 septies the Dutch legislature had gone beyond the provisions of the Agreement by omitting the restriction, contained in Article 1, to the effect that the Agreement was concerned with broadcasts intended for reception within the territory of any Contracting Party, this omission did not, in the Court's opinion, result in conflict with the Agreement because the Agreement included no obligation to limit penalization to those cases in which there was some connection between the offence and the national territory. The plea of the accused that Article 3 septies was not binding on account of conflict with international law, which they alleged to limit the...