Van den Bergh / State of the Netherlands (HR January 27, 1961, NJ 1963/248) is a judgment of the Dutch Supreme Court, which is important in connection with the inviolability of laws, or the prohibition of constitutional review. Reason
Claimant to cassation was Professor George van den Bergh (1890-1966), a former member of the House of Representatives for the SDAP. As such, he is entitled to a pension. Following the introduction of the Old Age Act, a statutory regulation of 31 January 1957 was provided which stipulated that the benefit of the Old Age Act could be deducted from the pension received as a member of Parliament. Van den Bergh protested against this reduction of his pension. As a cassation agent, Van den Bergh claimed that this law had not been established in accordance with the conditions laid down in the Additional Articles of the Constitution to provisions on remuneration and pensions for Members of the Chamber, namely that only two thirds majority of the States-General could do so for this purpose decided. Pronunciation
The Supreme Court rejected Van den Bergh's appeal. She considered that under the provision "laws are inviolable" in the then Article 131 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court not only prohibits laws to substantiate the Constitution in substance but also prohibits the testing of formal laws in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Constitution have come true. Operation
The judgment of Van den Bergh / Dutch State served to confirm and strengthen the inviolability of formal laws and thus the prohibition of constitutional review. However, since the constitutional amendment of 1983, this prohibition has been formulated differently, but the scope has remained the same (now Article 120).
wiki
