Memorial submitted by the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands

Tous droits- réservés par la
Cour internationalede Justice

Au rights reserved by the
International Court of"Justice Le présent volume doit étre cité comme suit :
rC. 1.J. Me'moires,Afaire relative à L'applicatd ieola Convention .
de ~goz pour réglerLatzctelledes mineurs (Pays-Bas r.Suède) 1)

'
This volume should be quoted as:
"I.C.J. Pbadings, Case coaceraing theapplication of the Conve.pttiort

of1902 governingiheguarda'afislzipfinfamfs(Nelhedands v. Sweden) "

No de vente :
Sdes number 210 / AFFAIRE RELATIVE A L'APPLICATION
DE LA CONVENTION DE 1902

POUR REGLER LA TUTELLE DES MINEURS *

1 (PAYS-BAS c.SUEDE)

CASE ÇONCERNING THE APPLICATION

OF THE CONVENTION OF 1902

GOVERNING THE GUARDIANSHIP OF INFANTS "
(NETHERLANDS v.SWEDEN)

*Note duGvefle- Les renvois a un texte ayant fait l'objet d'uneédition
provisoire'usade la Couront&teremplapardes renvoauxpages de
la prkente Bdition définitive.
*Note bythe Aqastry.-Areferences to a twhichwas issued an
provisioeditifor thuseoftheCourt have been replaced by rtoerencw
the pages inpresendefinitive edition. COUR INTERNATIONALEDE JUSTICE

MÉMOIRES, PLAIDOIRIES ES DOCUMENTS

AFFAIRE RELATIVE A L'APPLICATION
DE LA CONVENTION DE 1902

POUR REGLER LA TUTELLE DES MINEURS
(PAYS-BAScSUÈDE) INTERNATIONALCOURT OF JUSTICE

PLEADINGS, ORAL ARGUMENTS,DOCUMENTS

CASE CONCERNING THE APPLICATION

OF THE CONVENTION OF 1902
GOVERNING THE GUARDZANSHIP OF INFANTS
(NETHEXLAND'u. ÇWEDEN) 1PRTNTED 1N THE NETHE~~~ANDS
I SECTION B. - MÉMOIRES

SECTION B.-PLEADINGS

1. MEMORIAL

SUBMITTEB BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE KINGDOM
OF THE METHERLANDS

Part 1

The facts(inorder oftirne)
On May 7& 1945 , arie Elisabeth$301is bornat Norrkoping out
of the marnage of Johannes Boll and Gerd Elisabeth LindvalI.
Both the parents and the childare Netkerlanders, the father and
the daughter by birth, thc mother, Swedish born, by marriage.
On Decernber 5, 1953,Mrs. Bol1 dies. Under Netherlands Iaw,
on the decease of oneof the çpouses, the surviving spouçe becomes
guardian of the infant children, by operation of law, aa deputy
guarclian is appointed by the Courts. AccordingljrJohannes Bol1
becomes guardian autornatically, and on June 2, r954, the'Justice
of the Peace of Amsterdam appoints Jan Albertuç Idema, notq,
of Dordrecht, and a Netherlander, as deputy guardian (exh. A).

On May 5, 1954,the bamat-vArdsnZmnd (Child Welfare Board)
of Norrkoping passes a resolution, pursuant to para. aza of the
barnavArds1a.g (Child Welfare Act) by which Marie Elisabeth is
subrnitted to skyddçuppfostran, i.e. made a ward of the Board
(exb. B). Para. zza reads: "The ChiId Welfare Board takes meas-
ures ..in respectof childrenunder sixteen years o2d that, in the
parental home, are treatcd badly or are exposedto senouç neglect,
or to other danger tuphysjcaI or mental health."
. On June 22, 1954 this resolution, appealed againsby Johanneç
Boll and Jan Albertus Iderna, is confirmed by a resolution of the
Ostergotland County Government (exh. 6).
On August 5, 1954, Johannes Boll,with his own consent, is
rcleased of his bmardianship by the Civil Court of Juvenile Affairs
of Dordrecht, this on account of his not being able, as a ship's
captain, to givc permanent care to the child, and,by an order of
the said Court, the guardianship is conferred upon Catharina
Trijntje Idema, néePosterna, a Netherlander, of Zeist (exlr.D).
On October 5, 1954, the resolution of the Ostergotland County
Government, above rnentioned, appealed against by Johannes
Boll, Jan Albertus Idema and Catharina Trijntje Iderna, iscon-
firrned by adecree ofthe King in Council (exh. E).
On June 3, 1955 ,he ChiId Wclfare Board of Norrkoping decides
to maintain the skyddsuplîfostran (exh. 17).
On October 28, 1955, the Osterg~tland County Government,
acting on tlzepetition of Catharina Trijntje Iderna and Jan Albertus

2Idema, passes a resoiution rescinding the decision of the Child
WeIfare Board and ordering the discontinztatioof the skyddsupp-
fostran (exh. Gj.
On February 21, 1956, the King in Council, acting on the appeal
of the Cbild Welfare Board, pronounces a decree reççinaing the
last-mentioned reçolution of the Osterg6tland County Government
and codrming the decision of the Child Welfare Board of June 3,
1955 (exh. H).

Part IL. The Law

The rgoz convention

In none of the Swedish deciçions, resolutions and decrees, men-
tioned above, reference iç made to the 11302Convention concerning
the guardianship of infants, a Convention to which both Sweden
and tlie Netherlands are parties.
The object of the Convention is to avoid canflicts between
guardianships and other protective rneasures on behalf of infants,
that might be ordered in more than one country. The said object
is achieved by giving priority to the national legislation botb in
the field of substantive and of adjective law (jurisdiction). In
çonsequence of such priority no measures caribe takcn by local

authorities as soon and as far as the national authorities have
made provision for the protection of the infant.
This principle iç qualified by Article 7 of the Convention, ruling
that (a) pending the organization of thc guardianship and (6)in
al1 cases of urgency, the neceçsasy measures for the protection of
the person and the interests of ,an infant may be taken by the
local autliorities.
Ohviously, in the present case, Article 7 (a) does not apply.
There has been no pend in which the guardianship was pending,
sinçe, as from the death of the mothcr, there has always been a
Netherlands guardian. Consequently, if the Swedish authorities
wish to justifythe course they have taken, they can do so only by
invoking Article 7 (b} and by showing that the skyddsuppfostran,
as ordered and confirrned, has been a necessary measure, taken in
case of urgency, for theprotection of the person or the interestsof
the infant.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands submit that
no such justification cm be adduced and propose to establish:
that the skyddçuppfostran, as ordercd and confirrned, is not a
rneasure permitted byArticle 7 (6);
that the condition of urgency as reqnired by Article 7 (b) has
not been fulfilled.

The NetherIands Government undertake to subçtantiate their
contentions in any manner the Court may desire. r. Arücle 7 (bj perrnits s#eciad measures for the protection of the
infant, such as the appointment of an "amicus" for repraentation

before a local Court or of an adrninistrator of property situate in
the country of the local authorities. But it does not and cannot
permit g~;nerarlneasures, virtudy mountlng to guardianship. By
such rneasures a rival guardiansl~ip would be establislied, and this
is precisely what the Convention tends to avoid.
Itis submitted that the skyddsuppfostran does vlrtually amount
to a guardianship. In perusing the provisions of the Chi!d TVelfare
Act, bearing on the skyddsuppfostran, one necessarily cornes to
the conclusion that of all the powers norrnally belonging to the
guardian 1, pract.icaliy none 1s left. The infant is made a ward of
the Child \&'elfareBoard (para. 22, 1), and itis to the Board that
henceforth belongs the right to educate (para. 32, r), the right to
determine the infailt's residence (para .4,I), the right of discipline
(para. 37, 2). in short the entire custody. The guardianship as
estabiished by the national authosities is çornpletely absorbed,
whittled away, overruled and frustrated.
Consequently, by enabling the local authorities tto establjsh the

skyddsuppfostran, tliat iç: a rival guardianship, the Convention
tvould destroy its very object.
2. Furtheunore, even if it could be argued thxt the skyddsupp-
fostran does not absoxb the entire guardianship, another aspect
must be considexed. A~ticle 7 (b), in granting certain exceptional
powers to the local authorities, sets aside adjeclive law. Rut there
the matter ends. Exceptions shoiild be constructecl in the strictest
manner possible. Conseyuentlg-, there is no reaçon for assurning
that Article 7 (b) should likewii-iseset aside substalztive law. This
leads to the conclusion that the rneasures ordered by the local
autl~orities must be of thc same character as those provided for by
the national legislatioiz of the infant,
It is subnlitted that the skyddsuppfostran is foreign to the
schenle of the national lcgislation OSthe infant, i.e. Netherlands

law. The only rneasure, known tu Netherlands laur, for the protcc-
tion of the infant---apart from guardianship pxoper-is the "onder-
toezichtstelling" (Articles 365-373, Civil Cocle).Rut the differenccs
between the "ondairtoezicbtst~liing" and the skydclsuppfostran are
fas too fundamental to allo~r any identification. The "ondertoe-
zichtsteiling" is a judicial nieasute, pronounced by the Court, the
skyddsuppfostran is an administrative measure, ordered by the
Child Welfare Board. The "onde.rtoezichtstelling" is decreed for
one year at the outside, the skyddsuppfostran for an indefinite
period. The "ondertoezichtstelhng" consists in the appointment of
a "gezinsvoogd, a private person who advises and co-operateç

l The ,term "guardian" shouldLie taken to connote boththe guar~iraand
the parelit vested with parentpower.with the guardian, leaving the latter's powers intact, the skyddç-
upyifostran rnakes the child a ward of the Board. The "ondertoe-
zichtstelling" allows the placing of the chiId outçide of its home
only in exceptional circurnstances and subject to a specjat judicial
decrec, tlie skyddsuppiostran has this placing as a normal feature.
In comparing the tivo sets of provisions one ccln but conclude
that, jnsubstance, the Metherlands institution arriounts to edwca-
Iional assistance to the guardian, whereas the Swedish institution
amounts to his mclwsinn.
3. Finally, it issubmitted that the exceptional potver, conferred
by Article 7 upori the local authotities, is a power to sa$#lement,
but not a power to criticize and correct, çuch as the skyddsupp-

fostran neceçsarily carries !++thit.
What are the situations covered by Article 72
.-Under (a), where no guardjan haç been appoirited, the local
autlloritics are perrnitted to make supplementary arrangemei-its in
a general manner.
, Under (b), trrhere a guardian has been appointecl but is unable
to act in due tirrie-e.g. in case the infant is sumirioneci before a.
local court of criminal justice andneeds irnrnediate assistance--they
are permitted to rnake supplementary arrangeinents for the special
case. In both tbese situations the local authorities supplement
witliout criticizing nor correcting.
The situation, howcver, is entirely different if a guardian is
appointed by the national authorities, fulfils his ofice, both in a
general and in a special manner, to their satisfaction, but has the
rnisfortunc not to find fa-r~our\vit11the local authorities.
This last situation is not covered by any provision of the Con-
vention and, in fact, cannot possibly be so covered, since any
action by the local authorities wouId irnply, on their part, the right
to criticize and correct the national appointee. Such a right is not
compatible with the object of the Convention. In giving priority
to the appointment, as made by the national authorities, it binds
al1 other authorities to recognize, accept and respect that appoint-
gent. But accepting the appointment z'saccepting thc appointee.
Consequently there is no margin for such criticism and correction
as is implied by the skyddsuppfostran.

Condition of argerzcy lzotfzclfilled
r. Even ifthe right to interfere with the guardian were granted
to thc local authorities, this right, under Article 7 (b), would be
dependent on urgency: Tken one is struck by the fact that in the
decree of February 21, 1956 (exh. H), the lut link in the chain of
S~vedislzdecisions, the alleged urgency is not rnotivated at al].This

strikes one the more since, in the preceding decision, the resolution
of the Il)stergotland County Governrnent (exh. G), very sound
reasons are given for the discorttirzaafiipof the skyddsuppfostran. SfEAIORIAL OF THE NETHEHLANDS (~9 XI 57) I7

Surely, such lack of motivation is not in conformity with the
spirit of the Convention. The national authorities, lcarning that
rneasures have been taken against their appointee, should be in a
position to judgc why the appointment haç not been respected.
The absence of motivation, in the Swedish dcciçion, appearç
particularly curious in view uf the keenness shown by the Swedish
authorities, to know the motivation of the Nctherlands order.
After Johannes Bou had been released of his guardianship by the
Dordrecht Court, under an order of August 5, 19j4 (exh. D), in
Sweden the case was brought before the King in Council (exh. E)
and on October 5 of that yeür the skyddsuppfostran was continued,
;.a.on the ground that the Netherlands Court's order had not been

sufficientljr motivated. Appareiltly the Swedish authorities impose
011 the Xetherlands authorities a duty of motivation they are not
ready to comply with themselves.
2.The explanation of the absence of motivation is only tod
obviouç. At the time of the Çmedish Royal decree of February 21,
1956 (exh. H),,there cannot have been any urgent reason for the
continuation of the skyddsuppfostran. One cm conceive that, in a
former period, the Swedish authorities, though misguided as to
their rigkts under the Convention, in good faith assumed urgency
and thought it their duty to interfere. 111that period Johannes
Bol1was guardian of hiç daughter and Iîad been charged, in Sweden,

with an infarnous crime committed rigainst her. Since then, how-
ever, firstly the charge against Mr. Bol1 has been withdrawn, and
it haç becorne clear that there isno stain on his character, and,
çecondly, he has been replaced, as guardian, by hfrs.Iderna whose
reptation has never been qiiestioned. In view of these develop-
ments it is extremely hard to believe that any urgency for con-
tinuing the skyddsuppfostran çan possihly exiçt.
3. There is some reason to suppose that the Swcdish authorities
have been confusing the concept of urgency with the concept of
deçirability. Obviously the range of the latter concept is miich
wider than that of the forn-ler: a measure is urgcnt only as far as
it is desirabla.nd as farxi iit cannot suffcr any delay. Particularly
in the field of guardianship ancl protection of infanasmeasure may

be desirable {vithout being urgent. Tt may be preferable that a
chiId shouldlive in a home different from tlze parents' or guardian's.
Rut here we have desirability, not urgency. And it is only for
urgcncy that the Convention has made provision. Consequently,
even if in the opinion of the Swedish authorities the continuation
of the skyddsuppfostran would be desirable, the power to order
sucli coritinuation would not be conferred by Article 7 (b).
4. Finally, itissubrnitted that, even if there wereno Convention,
the plea of urgency would not be justified. In that hypothesis the

local authorities would have the right to interfere in virtue of
public policy, always under the asçumption that the conduct of18 MEMORrXL OF THE WETHERLANDS (29 XI 57)

the guardian, in their country, appears unsatisfaçtory. What then
would be their attitude? They would Say to the guardian : "If you
want to exerciseyour office as guardian urithin our country, you
muçt suffer our supervision, our criticism, our control and the
measures we think fit to take against you." That, however, is not
the attitude the Swedish autharitiescould possibly take in the
present case, even if there were no Convention. Xtshould be borne
in mind that no effort has been spared by the guardians tu take the
infant out ofSweden and to exercisetheir officin the Netherlands.
But in vain-owing to the skyddsuppfostran no permission to that
effect has been granted. Accordingly, what the attitude of the
Swedish autliorities amounts to içthis: "You do mot want toexer-
cise your office within our country, but neverthelesç you must
suffer our supervision, our criticism, our control and the rneaçureç
we think fittu take against you." This, even if there were no
Convention, w-ould not be fair, nor reasonablc, nor justified bv
the pnnciple of public policy.

Fifialconcl~sionsofthe Gover?zmelz tfthe Kingdoazof theNethedands

The Netherlands Government submit that the Court should
adjudge and declare :
That the rneasure taken and maintained by the Swediçh authori-
ties in respect of Marie Elisabeth Boll, namely the "skyddsupp-
foçtran" instituted and maintained by the decreeç of May th, 1.954,
June zznd, 1954, Octaber 5th, 1954, June 3rd, 1955> and February
21st, 1956,is not in conformity with the obligations binding upon
Sweden vzs-&-visthe Metherlands by virtue of the 1902 Convention
governing the guardianship of infants;

That Sweden is under an obligation to end thisrneasure.

The Hague, zg Xovember, 1957.

Agent for the Government of the
Kingdom of the Netherlands,
(Signed) W. RIPBAGEN. ASXEXES TO NETHERLANDS MEMORIAI, rg

List of Annexes

Exh. A. Appointmei~t and swearing in of aCO-guardian;

Exh. B. Extracts from the minutes kept at the meeting of the
Norrkoping Child Weliare Board on May 5, 1954;
Exh. C. Resolution of the Ostergotland County Governrnent,
June 22, 1954;

Exh. D. Order of the Civil Court of Juvenile Affairs of Dordrecht,
Aupst 5, 1954;
Exh. E. Decree O£ the King in Council, October 5, 1954;

Exh. E. Extracts frorn the minutes kept at the meeting oI the
Norrkoping Child Welfare Board on June 3, 1955;
Exh. G. Resolution of the Ostergotland County Government,
October 28, 1955;

Exh. H. necree of the King in Council, Fehruary 21, 1gj6. I
ANNEXES TO NETHERLAWDS MEMORIAL

Exhibit A i

[Tvnmslatio~]
APPOINTMENT AND SWEARING IN OF A CO-GUARDIAN
I
Kantongerecht (Cantonal Court)
at Amsterdam. i

1954
Rep. II.
1409

there appeared before Us, Dr. 1. van ~reveldj Judge in the Cantonal
Court at Amsterdam,
assisted by the acting CIerk M.Hertog:
I
Ir) Johan Arnold Hong, authorized agent of:,
Johannes Boil, gentleman, living at 60, ~slijelaan, Utrecht, grand-
father on the father's side,
and of: I
I
(2) Henderina Eikes, ~vifc of Johannes BOU aforesaid and of the same
addresç, I
grandrnother on the father's sjde,
and of: i

(3) Çieger Johaiines &ou, garage-proprietor, likiriat jq a bis, Balije-
laan, Utrecht, I
uncle on the father's side,
and of: 1
(4) Gerharda Lina Messelink. wife of Sieger Johannes Boll aforfsaid
and of the sarne address,
aunt by mariage on the father's side, i
who, according to their staternents, are riexk-of-kiil or relationsby
marriage of the minor
Marie Elisabeth, born atNorskoping on ai>, 1945 ,fthe rnarriage
of Johannes Boll, livingin Sweden, I
and Gerd Elisabet Lindvall, I
who died at Norrkoping on December 5, 1953,

inûrder to be heard by Us at the request of the father/guardian in
conncction with the appoiritment of a co-guardian of the minor
mentioned above; I
The appearers stated unanimously that, inthkir opinion, the intercsts
of the minor would be best served by appointing in that capacity:
Jan Albertus Idcma, Notary, living at 83, si(@, Dordrecht.
Iheseiipon We, Cantonal Judge, associati,ng OurseIves with the
views of the appearers have appointed as cokguardio afnthe above
mentioned minor : ANNEXES TO NETHERLANDÇ MEhfORIAL 21

Jan Albertus Idema, Notasy, aforeçaid,

who has thereupon taken tlieoath before Us in accordancc with the
procedure laid down by law.
This fact11% been officialltecorded by Us jn this oficial report,
which has been signed by Us and the Clerk.
(Sd.) M. HERTOG.

Starnp of the Cantoilal Court
at Amsterdam.
[Certificatioof the translatio.]

EXTRACTS FKOM THE MINUTES KEYT Kr A MEETING OF
THE NORRKOPING CHILDWELFARE BOARDONMAY5th, rggq

[Trarzslatiola]
The City of Norrkoping
Child MrelfareBoard.

P~esent: Mr. Lofgrcn, clîairman, Mrs. Svensson, Mr. Lindcgkrd, Miss
Ringqvist, Mi-.Norén,Mrs. Tillrnan, Miss Holinbcrg, MisKack,
Miss Willéi~,and D:r Norlkn,
Mr. Franzon and Mrs. Wcsterlund, deputy mcrnhcrs, also
attcnded.
Ofthe officersof theBoard were preserît iDirector, Inspectcir,
and Jnspectress.

The Chairman reportcd that, pcnding thc dccision of the Board, hc
had on 26 April taken chargeof Marie Hlisabet fiall, boon 7May1945.
.........................

The Meeting was informed that Elisahet had oti 28April been placed
iii the care of her teacher, Mrs. Birgit Berg, and that she woulrl remain
there pending an examination in a psychiatsic clinic for children.
ïhc Board approved oftlie steps taken in the rnattcr, and resolved
to make Marie Elisabet Bo11a ward of the Board pursilant to $22 a)
of the Child Welfare Act.
As above.
Approved : IN fidem:

Sven Lofgreii. (sgd) Ossian GRONWALD.
D. Lindcgkrd.
Clara Kack.
[Certification of the translation.]22 ANNEXES TO NETRERLANDS MOR RIAL
Exka'bitC 1
I
[T~a~datio~z]
RESOLUTION I
OF THE ~STFRG~)TLAND COUNTYGOVERNMENT i.ptre THE
WARDSHIP OF A MINOR; GIVEN IN THE COUNTY CHANCERY,

PALACEOF LINKOPING ON JUNE zznd, 1954
1
The Ostergotland
County Government, ,
Linkoping . !

COPY
EIA3 18 54.
No. 216.

The Chairman of the Norrkoping Child Wdfare Board having on
26 April 1954~ pending the decision of the Board, takeri charge of Marie

--içabeth, the daughter-born oii 7 May 194j-of the Dutch citizeii
master mariner Johannes (Hans) Boll of 311Jakob Ekbomsgatan iri
Norrkoping and his dcceased wife Gerd Elisabet Boll, nke Lindwall,
the Child WeIfare Board ayproved the said 'action on May 5th 1954
and resolved that the ckild should be made a ward of theBoard pursuatzt
to $ 22 a) of the Child Welfare Act. I
As Hans 13011did not consent to the execution of the saidResoliitiorî,
this was submitted, with a missiye, for review before the County Govern-
ment, reaching the County Government un ;j May 1954.
Hans Boll stated hiç case,and the Notary J. A.Idema of Dordrecht
in Hoiiand has dso made a statement in his capacity as CO-pardian
of Elisabeth Boll. Both tkese statements pere submitted through
Mr. ,Nils Leander, a sohcitar in Norrkoping. ,
The County Government has had çome inquiries made.
An opinIori on Elisabeth BOU rendered by Dr. Eberhard Nyman,
M.O. of the Lund Hospital Psychiatrie Clinic;Infants Division, was on
r9 Jurw 1934 remitted by the Child Welfafe Roarcl to the County
Governmen t.
The Social Welfare Consultant has given Gis opinioii.

1
In view of the evidence given in the case, and pursuant to the afore-
said Section of the Child Welfare Act, the Cqunty Government ratifies
the Resolution siibtnitted. I
Appeals against this Resolution of the Covnty Govemrnent will lie
to the King in Council if filed in the Miniçtv;of Social Affairs, Labour
and Rousing within thirty days of the date lwhen the plaintiffs were
notified of the said Resolation. I
I
Cari HAMILTON '.
D. H: son FORSBERG. I
1
[Certificationof the translation.] I
I
1 ANNEXES TO NETHERLANDS hlEMORTRL 23

Exhibit B 1

EXTRACT OF THE ORIGINAL INSTRU+NT IN THE CUSTODY
OF l'HE CLERK'S OFFICE OF THE "ARRONDISSEMENTÇ-

RECHTBANK" (DISTRICTCOURT) AT DORDRECHT
[T~ca~siation]

The District Court at Dordrecht,
, Having further regard tothe petition subrnittcdhy the Guardianship
Court at Dordrecht, dated July 29, r954,for the purpose of releasing
Johannes Bol1 of 83, Singel,Dordrecht, from the guardiançhip of his
minor childMaria Elisabeth, born at Norrkoping on May 7,"1945;

Having regard to the provisional decision on the petition of July 30,
1954 ;
Having regard to thc hearing held on August 5, 1954 iil accordance
with this decision;
Having regard to the statemcnt of the Clerk that the fatherlguardian,
the co-guardian of the child and the Guardianship Court at Dordrecht
were sutnmoned in accordairce witli the procedure laid down by law;

Haviiig regard to the fact tliat Mrs. Catharina Trijntje Postema,
widow of Gerrit Kornelius Idema, of 129, Vericngde Slotlnan,Zcist,
has expresscd her willingneçç in this respect by a statement dated
JUIY1954 ;
Considering that the documeilts submitted have satisfied the Court
that the fatkerlguardiaii is unfit aunable to fulfil hiç dutofslookiiig
after and bringing up the child on account of his beinga sailor;
Considering that the interestof the child do not oppose this reIease
on any other account;

Considerhg that the fatherlguardian does not abject to thisreleae;
Having regard to the yertirieiIegal provisions;
Releases Johannes Bol1 aforcsaid frorn the guardiariship ohisminor
child Maria Elisabeth aforesaid ;
Appoints gusdian of the abovementiorlecl child Mrs. Catharina
Trijntje Postema, widow of Gerrit Kornelius Idema, of129, Verlengde
Slotlaan, Zeist ;
Orders the abovementioned child to be handed over tothe guczrdian
aforesaid ;
Done by Dr. H. E. van Opstall, Deputy Single Judge, aIso Magistrate
in the Juvcnile Court, and publicly pronounced by the aforemetitioned
judge at thc sessian of August 5, 1954 ~n thc preçence of E. Sulman,
deput y Clerk.

(Sd.) E. SULMAH. (Sd.)H. E. v.4~ OPSTALL.
(Stamp of the Cantonal Court
aiDordrecht.)

[Certificatioof the translation.] I
DECREE !
OF THE KING IN COUNCIL i~ re THE HUMBLE APPEAL

SURMI'I'TD BY 'THE DUTCH NATIONAjLS JOHANNES BOLL,
JAN AT,RERTUSIDBRiIAA , ND CATHAKINA -lTRIJNTJE POSTEMA
AGAIN~T THE RESOCUTION OF THE OSTERGOTLA~ NODNTY GOVERNMENT
RBGARDING THE WKRDSHIP OF A MINOR; THlS +PPEAL WAS REMITTED TO

THE COUNTY GOVERNYENT FOR ITS OPINION,YHICH AFTER HEARING THE
PARTIES CONCERNED W.45KELIDERED ON 24 SEPTEMBEK Igj4; GIVEN IN
THE S~PRE&%,IECOURT OP ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE ON j OCTOBER 1954

The Chairmail of the Norrkoping Child welfare Board having on
26 April 1954 ,ending the decision of the Board, taken charge of the
child Marie Elisabeth, bcirn on 7 May ~945as the daughter of Boll
and his deceased wife Gerd Elisabeth Boll, 1146Lindvall,thesaid Child
Welfare Board approved the action of its Chairman at rtmseting on
5 May 1954 and reçolved that pursuant to 3 22 a) ofthe Child Welfare
Act the said diild should be put u~~clerthe &ardship uf the Board.
As Roll did not consent to the executioni of this Resolution, the
Child Welfare Board submitted its decisian td tlie consideration of the
County Guvernmcnt.
According to the Kesolutiorinow appealid against, the County
Govcrnment has in consideration of tlze evidcnce prvduced in the case
and by virtueof thc afaresaid Scction of the Child WelfaAct confirmeci
the submitted resolution.
An Appeal forthe revieiv of this Resolution of the County Government
bas been submitted by Boll aiid Idcma, theilatter ofwhom had on
2 June 1954 been appointed CO-gulitdian of, Marie Elisabetli by ail
Amsterdam Coust of Justice. The Dordrecht Arrondissement Court
having subsequently by an Order of j Aupst 1954 discharged Boll
from his guardianship of theaforesaid child and appointed Catharina

Tnjntje Postema itsguardian ,atharina PoStema has also appealcd
against the Kesolution of the County Government.

i
Thc King in Council has graciously had the1case of thc aforesaid
Appellants statcd to Him.
Frorn the cvidence it appears that the mental hcalth of the child
would be cndailgered under the care of her fjther.The Kesolution of
the County Government was accordingly lawful.
A Dutch Court of Justice has suhsequently discharged the father
from the girardianshi1-iof his child and appointcq Catharina Postcmin
his stead. Accoraing to .iilfoimation received[the'Orderof tliisCourt
also applies to tlie custody of the child, and Catharina Postema clairns
the discont~nuation of the wardship with a piew tu giving her the
custody oftlie child.
The evidence in thc case cannot, howevir, be deerned to have
establishedthat the wardship ofthe child mightl be discontinucwithout
endangering her mental health.
, 1
26 ANNEXES TO NETHERLANUÇ ?JEMURIAL

EXTRACL'SFROM THE MINUTES KEPT AT AMEETINGOF THE
NORRKOPING CHILD WELFARE BOARD ON JUNE 3rd, 1955
[TY~%s~~~oH]

The City of Norrkoping
Child Welfare Board.

P~esent: ML. Lofgren, chairman, Mrs. Simon,'v. chairman, Miss Heydl,
Mr. Lindegazd, Miss Ringqvist, 81s. Lars H%kan Svensson,
Miss WUn, Mr. Degerman, and DI:r Norlén.
Mrs. Svensson and Mrs. Westerlund, dep- - members, also
attended.
Ofthe officersof theBoard were present its Director, Inçpector,

In the matter of Eliçabeth BOU,1st dealt with on 13 May 1955,
$ 277, the following letter haon 17 May been receivedfrom the girl's
father:

After discussing this, the Board resolvedthat ELisabeth Boll should
stillcontinue to be a ward of the Board, and to obtain further expert
medical advice before deciding whether the girlshould be rnoved from
her prcsent foster home. ,
1
I As above.
Approved : Irt fidem:
Sven T-tifgren.
Ida Heydl.
M. Lindegard.

{Certification of thetrans1ation.j
! ANNEXES TO NETHERLANDS IIE3IORIAL 27

Exhibit C
[T~fimslaiiotz]
COPY.

The Ostergotland
County Government,
Linkoping.
1 11-43 14 55.
I
RESOLUTION
OF THE OSTERGOTLAND COUNTY GOVEXEMENT In Ye THE
APPEAL OF THE DUTCH CITIZENS LATHARINA TRI JNTJE
IDEMA-POÇTEMA AND JAN ALBEKTLTSIDEMA, THE. FORMER

GUARDIAN AND THE LATTER CO-GUAKDIAN OF MARIE
ELISABETH BOLL OF NORRKOPING, AGAINSI THE DECISION
SAID BELOW; GIVEN IN THE COUNTY CHANCERY, PALACE
OF LINKOPING O,N 28 OC'~OBER 1955

No. 266.
On 26 April 1954 thc Chairman of the Norrkoping Child Welfxe
Board had, pcnding the deciçion of the Board, taken charge of the
daughter Elisabeth, born on 7 Maj? 1945, ofthe Dutch citizenmaster
marincr Johannes (Hans) Ho11and his deceased wife Gerd Elisabet Boll,

née Lindwall. At a meeting on 5 May 1954the Çhild Welfare Board
approved the action takeri byitsChairman and resolved that the said
girl shotifd be madea ward ofthe Board pursuant to 3 zz a) of the
Çhild Wclfare Act.
This Resolution of thChiId Welfare Board was submitted forreview
before the County Government, and wns ratifiedby a Resolution of
thBy aidDecreenof 24 Septemberne19544thc King in Council disrnissed
ttic Appeal of Han5 Boll, LathainaIdcma-Postema, and Jan Albertus
Postema agaiilst the afoysaidRcsolution of the County Government.
The guardians have now applied to the Child Welfare Boardto put
an end to the wardship of thechild,pleading that its decisiwas the
result ofa suspicion thaHans Bol1 had comrnitted a certaincriminal
offence which the Public Prosecutor concerned had decided not to
chargc him wjth.On 3 Junc 1955the Board detnided, however, that
Elisabeth should remain its ward.In a letterof 2r June 1955 to the
County Government, Mr. Dick Bergman, the solicitor representithe
guarci~anç, haç appcaled against this Resolution of the Child Welfare
Board.
The Child Welfare Board has stated Its case,the Social Welfare
Consultant has subrnitted hisopinion, and hlr. Bergman has filedhis
replications.

The evidence adduced j11thiscase and the documents ofthat settled
by the King in Council on 24 Septembet 1954 indicatc:tx aDutch
Court haç ordered the discharge of Hans Eoll frum his ~ixdianship
and appointed Catharina Idema-Postema a guardian inhis stead;-hatthis Order alçoapplïes to the custody of Elisabeth;that her giiardian
and her CO-guardian Jan Albertus Idema int:end toexust the actual
care ofElisabetll to Mr.Sven Tornquist, M. Lic., and his wife in Norr-
kiiging; and that these have declared themselves willing ta reccive
Elisabeth in their home. I
Mr. & Mrs. Tornquist, who thcrnselveshie two children of whom
one is agrl of approximately the same age as Elisabeth, appcar to be
suitable forhaving the actual careof Elisabcth.
The Courity Government is ofthe opinion that credit shoulbe given
to the pardians' statement regarding the disposition of Elisabeth.
In vieur of the evidence now available iIthe case, and of what is
said above, a continuation of the wardship is apparentlynot required,
Rescincling the decision of the Child ~elfd~e Board of 3 Junergyj;
the County Goverr~ment accorditigly referç the case back to the said
Board with instructions to declare itswardship at an end as soon as
this Resolution of the County Government tas become lcgally valid.
Appeals against this Rcsoliltion will lie the King in Council, but
may be non-suited unlessfilein the Ministry for SociaAffairsLabour
and Housing within tltree weeks of the date when the Appellant \.as
notified of this Rcsolittioi~.

JI.H: son FORSRERG. 1 Cal HAMILTOK.
Offi&ally certified trucopy:

1(sgd) G. WINDOM.
[Certificatioof the translation,]
1 ANNEXES TO NETHEREANDS MEBIORIAL 29

Exhibit H
[T~afislatiom]
DECREE
OFq THE KING IN COUNCIL Zrz re THE HUMBLE APPEAL
SUEIMITTEU BY THE NORRKOPING CHILD WELFARE BOARD
AGAINçT THE RESOLUTION OF THE OSTERG~TLAN COUNTY

, GOVERNMENT OF 28 OCTOBER Igj5 REGARDING THE
DISCHARGE OF A hlINOK FROM THE WARDSHlP OF THE
BOAKD; THIS APPEAL WAS REMITTEB TO THE COUNTY
GOVERNMENT FOR ITS OPINION, WHICH AFTER HEARING

THE PARTIES ÇONCERNED WAS RENDERED ON
17 JANUARY 1956
GIVEN IN THE SUYREME COURT OF ADMINISTRATIVE
JUS1'ECE ON 21FEBKUARY 1956 -

Copy deliveredby
The Ministry for SociAffairs,
Labour & Howing
to Catharina TrijntjeIderna-
Postema and J. A. Idema, c/o
Attorney at Law 13. Bergman,
Çtrandvagen 7 A, Stockholm.

The Chairman of the Child Welfare Board kaving o26-~~ri119j4,
pending the Resoltitioti of the Board, taken charge of the chlld Marie
Elisabeth, born on7 May 1945 as thedaughter ofthe Dutch national
Johannes Bol1and his deceasedwifeGcrd Elisabeth Boll, néeLitldwall,
the snid Child WeIfare Board approved the action of its Chairman at
a meeting on 5 May 1954 and resolved that pursuant 5o22 a}of the
Child Welfare Act the said girl should put under the wardship of
the Board.
The County Government, to whom the matter wa referredcnnfirmed
the action of thBoard by a Kesolutioof 22June rg54.
Htirnble Appcalsagainstthis Resolution having been lodnot only
by 33011andJan Albertus Idema, who hy an Amsterdam Court had
on z June 1954been appointed CO-guardianof hhieElisabeth, but also
by Catharina Postema, who had by an Ordcr of the Dordrecht Arron-
dissement Court of 5 August 1954 been apyointed guardian of the
child in place of Boll, theAppeds were dismissed by the King in
Council for the reasons given in iDecree of5 Octobcr 1954.
In May 1955 ldema xnd Catharina Postcma applied to the Child
Welfarc Eoard for the discontinuatioofthe wardship.
At ameeting on 3 June 1955the ChildWelfare Board resolved that
the child should remainunder itwardship.,
Idema and Catharina Postema appealed totheCounty Government
against this decisionurgingthe County Governmerit to declarethe
wardship of thechild ai an end.
In the Rcsolution nuwappealedagainst theCouiity Government ha

stated:The evidence given iii this cand the documents of thc case
settleby the King in Council on "24 September"1954 indicatehat
3Y3 ANNEXES TO NETHERLANDS MI~IORIAL

a Dutch Court has ordered the dismissal of Bill frorn hisguardianship
and appointed Catharina Sostema to bc guardian in his stead; tllat this
Order also applies to the custody of Eliçabeth; =t the guaran and
the co-guardian Idema jntend to entmst the lactual care of Elisabeth
to Mt. Çven Tornquist, M.Lic., and his wife hn NorrkOping; and that
thsse have declared thernselveç wiîling to (ceive EIisabeth in thejr
home. Mr. & Mrs. Tornquist, who tllemselves have two children of
whom one is a girl of approximately the sameiage as Elisabeth, appear
to be suitable for having the actual cm of\ Elisabeth. The County
Government considers that thc stated intentibns of the gua~dians as
ta the arrangements for ELisabeth çhould be ~redited. In view of the
frcsll eviderice produced in thc case, and of ryhat is said abovc, there
secrns to 6c no reason for a further continuation of the wardship.
Rescinding the Decision of the Child Welfare Board of 3 Jiine I95$?
the Courity Government accardingly returned t$e case tu the said 'Bou&
mith instructions to declare itç wardship at lail end as won as the
Resolution of the County Government has acquired legal force.
The Çhild Welfare Board haç appealed ag-aihisithis Resolutiorz.

1
I
The ICing in Council has gracioixsly hrtd t$e Appeai of the Child
Welfare Board stated to Him; and as according to the evidencc in the
case the child is still in neeofwardship ,
the King in Cotincil, rcscinding the County Govcrnment Resolution
now appealed against, collfirms thc Decisionof khe Child Welfare Board
of 3 June 1955. For the due observance and( necessary action of al1
concerncd. I
Underi the Royal Seal :
! (L.S.)

je LANGTON.
Officiallycertified trueCopy :
(sgd)E. FAGERBERC. l
!
No. 1321.
'Thisis to certify thaMIS. E. Fxeger-
berg, who hassigned the above certi-
fication, isa clerk in the Chancery
of the Bfinistry for Social Affairs,
in whicli capacity she is competent
to issue Certificates of this nature.
Stockholm, in the Rfinistry for
Foreign Affnirs, 27 Aiigust, 1957.

(sgd) K. F. ALMQVIST,
Ass. Director of the
Lcgal Department.
L.S.

F~eeof chmge. I
l
[Certificationof the translation.] II
I