** Prime Minister Jacobs and Préfet Gouteyron discuss synchronization of current health protocols and vaccination strategy on St. Martin **
On Wednesday, March 24, 2021, Prime Minister Silveria Jacobs attended a high-level meeting together with Préfet Délégué for Saint Martin and St. Barths Serge Gouteyron and his support staff. Joining Prime Minister Jacobs were Head of the Department of Interior and Kingdom Affairs Angelique Gumbs, Head of the Department of Foreign Affairs Patrice Gumbs, and support staff. During this meeting, the synchronization of Dutch and French St. Martin’s current health protocols and vaccination strategy, travel restrictions, and the Platform for the realization of the proposed St. Martin United Congress were discussed.
Préfet Gouteyron expressed that the Regional Health Agency (ARS) is currently preparing to increase its vaccination rollout plan for French Saint Martin. In the interim, the ARS will be opening a temporary vaccination center in French Quarter on Saturday, March 27, to vaccinate persons who are 75 years and older and persons with underlying conditions. Currently, Louis Constant Fleming Hospital is open daily for vaccination of these persons as well. Collective Prevention Services (CPS) and the ARS have committed to synchronize their communication plan to encourage a wider portion of the population to get vaccinated. Préfet Gouteyron is also working diligently to get the go ahead from the vaccination roll out management of the State to adjust the implementation phases to be on par with St. Maarten’s. Prime Minister Jacobs stated, “Currently we are in phase 4 whereby all persons are eligible to receive the vaccination, however priority will be given to registered person in phases 1-3. All persons are encouraged to register to be vaccinated as soon as possible on both sides of the island.
Prime Minister Jacobs gave an update concerning the changes to Dutch St. Maarten’s travel restrictions, while those on French Saint Martin have remained the same. She also took the opportunity to inform Préfet Gouteyron of the opening of the COVID-19 Testing Center located at the Princess Juliana International Airport.
On the topic of the Platform for the realization of the proposal for the United Congress for St. Maarten, Prime Minister Jacobs highlighted the importance of ensuring that St. Maarten, the Collectivité of Saint Martin as well as the Préfecture, are included in decision making on all matters that affect the people of French Saint Martin due to the differences in authorities. As it relates to the finalization of the platform, “Technical assistance is already at work and as such our local technical teams must now get together to advise on the best way forward for us to make joint decisions that relate to us in order to move St. Martin forward as a collective,” stated Prime Minister Jacobs.
“As St. Martin continues to make strides in maintaining our active COVID-19 cases at a minimum and vaccinating a large amount of our population, it is of paramount importance that these monthly meetings which have proven to be fruitful, continue with the presence of a representative of the Collectivité as well due to the shared authorities,” concluded Prime Minister Jacobs.
Again, two patients in Curaçao died from the consequences of Corona. Friday too. The number of deaths since the start of the corona crisis is now thirty. Today 278 people have tested positive. A total of 1,563 corona tests were administered. A test ratio of 17.8 percent. 63 people healed. Nine people have been hospitalized, one of whom had to be taken straight to the Intensive Care Unit. Three patients have been released from hospital. There are now 58 people, sixteen of whom are in intensive care. That includes one Bonairean, who is in Intensive Care. https://curacao.nu/twee-coronapatienten-overleden-op-curacao/ Opnieuw zijn twee patiënten in Curaçao overleden aan de gevolgen van Corona. Vrijdag ook al. Het aantal doden sinds het begin van de coronacrisis is nu dertig. Er zijn vandaag 278 mensen positief getest. In totaal werden 1563 coronatesten afgenomen. Een testratio derhalve van 17,8 procent. 63 mensen genasen. Negen mensen zijn opgenomen in het ziekenhuis van wie één iemand meteen naar de Intensive Care moest worden gebracht. Drie patiënten zijn ontslagen uit het ziekenhuis. Daar liggen nu 58 mensen, van wie zestien op de intensive care. Dat is inclusief één Bonairiaan, die op de Intensive Care ligt. https://curacao.nu/twee-coronapatienten-overleden-op-curacao/
The Hague – Outgoing State Secretary Raymond Knops expects to be able to offer an amended Coho proposal plus “further report” to the Lower House and the States of Curaçao, Aruba and Sint Maarten before the summer recess.
For example, the Minister of Kingdom Relations writes to the House in response to the advice of the Advisory Division of the Council of State. Knops repeats what he previously told the media, namely that “we have now been working for a number of months to shape the Implementation Agenda on the basis of the National Packages”. ,, Progress is being made step by step. This is done, as the Prime Ministers of Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten have emphasized earlier, in good cooperation with the countries. I hope to continue this good cooperation in drafting the response to the advice of the Advisory Division, the further report. ” The State Secretary indicates that this further report “and a Coho proposal amended on the basis thereof” requires approval from all four countries. “As soon as agreement has been reached on this in the Council of Ministers of the Kingdom, the further report, together with the legislative proposal that accompanies it, will be sent to the States of Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten and the House of Representatives. The aim is to do this before the summer recess. ” Once agreement has been reached on the further report, the parliamentary debate on the proposal will commence. In the run-up to this, Knops would like to point out “that the core of the legislative proposal remains intact” in the advice of the Council of State. “The Council of State of the Kingdom thinks it is logical that the Netherlands attaches conditions to the granting of financial support to Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten”, the State Secretary emphasizes once again. And adds: “It is also felt that a consensus kingdom law provides an appropriate framework for shaping this, in particular for the establishment of a special governing body (Coho).” He further finds it important to note that, “unlike the suggestion that is being aroused in some places”, the bill is “not fundamentally contrary to the Statute”, according to the Advisory Division. ,, The Division has several critical comments, both with regard to the effectiveness of the proposal and its legality. But she does not find any conflict of principle with the Statute. It is regrettable that this image has now been created. https://antilliaansdagblad.com/nieuws-menu/23364-voor-zomer-aangepast-coho-voorstel
There are thousands of PDF documents, and more PROVING THAT MP ROLANDO BRISON AND THE PRO SOUALIGA ARE LYING. Click back and stay tuned, I will be updating. NOTE: Here are the OFFICIAL Court documents. PRO SOUALIGA LOST! Now I also screen captured local press coverage. HOW MUCH ARE THESE SO CALLED REPORTERS BEING PAID TO LIE, BURY THE STORY, OR SIMPLY IGNORE IT?
Pronunciation
COURT IN FIRST INSTANCE OF SINT MAARTEN
Case number: SXM202000774
Judgment dated March 23, 2021 (in case of advance)
regarding
the foundation
PRO SOUALIGA FOUNDATION,
based in Sint Maarten,
plaintiff,
represented by its board members RL Brison and PD Brison,
against
THE STATE OF THE NETHERLANDS (Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations),
residing in The Hague,
defendant,
authorized representative: mr. CR Rutte (Sint Maarten) and mr. JWH van Wijk (The Hague),
The parties will hereinafter be referred to as Pro Soualiga and the State.
1 The course of the proceedings
The course of the proceedings
1.1.
The General Court has taken cognizance of the following procedural documents:
petition with exhibits, received on August 14, 2020,
conclusion of reply with exhibits,
statement of reply with exhibits,
rejoinder.
1.2.
Verdict has been set to date.
2 The facts
2.1.
According to the extract from the commercial register, Pro Soualiga was founded on July 24, 2020 with the aim of:“to promote, in the broadest sense, the educational, social, political, constitutional, cultural, economic and environmental development and progress of the people and the country or Sint Maarten. ”
2.2.
In a letter from Pro Soualiga dated 23 July 2020 to the State Secretary for the Interior and Kingdom Relations, she asked him to consult with her about the possibilities to summarize her position, very briefly: the decolonization process of Sint Maarten has not been completed, judge.Because the State Secretary did not respond within the period of 14 days set by Pro Soualiga, she submitted the claims announced in this letter to this Court.
2.3.
According to draft articles of association, an extraordinary meeting of the board of Pro Soualiga took place on December 21, 2020 in which it was decided to change the foundation’s purpose, as follows:
The objectives of the Foundation are:
The exploitation of a non-profitable and charitable organization assisting in and offering:
To take court and other legal action in order to promote the right to a full measure of self-government and self determination pursuant to the Charter of the United Nations of St. Maarten, Aruba, Curacao, Bonaire, St. Eustatius and Saba.
To file petitions at the United Nations and other international bodies and countries to achieve the objectives set forth above.
To engage with the government of Aruba, Curacao, Bonaire, Saba and St. Eustatius and St. Maarten and the government of the Netherlands to achieve the objectives set forth above sub 1.
To pursue the decolonization of the above islands, by means of court action against the Dutch State and by presenting the matter of the decolonization of the islands mentioned before the United Nations, other international organizations as well as other countries,
To pursue the removal of the function of governor and the removal of articles 44, 50 and 51 from the Kingdom Charter in order to make the Kingdom Charter United Nations compliant.
To obtain a United Nations resolution for all six islands mentioned above, or for any one, as the case may be, declaring that the right of self-determination has been exercised, that the full measure of self-government has been obtained and that Chapter XI of the United Nations Charter no longer applies. ”
2.4.
On November 5, 2020, a majority of the Parliament of Sint Maarten passed a motion, which includes the following passage:
“Endorses the initiative and legal actions of Foundation Pro Soualiga related to the decolonization of the former Netherlands Antilles, as well as the private initiative in Curaçao with a comparable objective.”
3 The dispute
3.1.
Pro Soualiga requests that the General Court, in a judgment declared provisionally enforceable, take the following decisions:
To declare that:
Because the GA refused in resolution 945X to declare that the right of self-determination has been exercised The Statute has been created in violation of the right of self-determination
By analogous application of the State’s position in section 4.8.of his Written Statement The Statute is therefore “ab initio” null and void.
Chapter XI UN Charter still applies to Sint Maarten
The Charter was not drawn up in accordance with “international law”, or at least not “having regard to international law”.
The State is under the obligation to ensure that St. Maarten is included on the UN list of NSGTs.
That the State is under the obligation to complete the decolonization of Sint Maarten in accordance with UN Resolution 65/119 by 31 December 2020 at the latest.
That making use of the Statute is unlawful while the GA has not stated:
a.That the islands have achieved a full measurement of self-government
b.The right of self-determination has been exercised
c.Chapter XI of the UN Charter can no longer be applied to Sint Maarten. ”
3.2.
The State requests the Court of First Instance to declare Pro Soualiga inadmissible or to dismiss its claims by awarding an enforceable judgment, ordering Pro Soualiga to pay the costs of the proceedings.
3.3.
The arguments of the parties are discussed in more detail below, insofar as they are relevant to the assessment.
4 The assessment
Inadmissibility due to insufficient interest
4.1.
The Stateargues that Pro Soualiga should be declared inadmissible in its claims and substantiates this, briefly and succinctly, as follows.By answer: Pro Soualiga has not demonstrated that it stands up for an own interest, that is to say an interest that is independently protected by the norms on which the claims are based (Article 73 UN Charter and the right of self-determination).Pro Soualiga does not represent the entire population;it is represented by Parliament and the government.It has been neither asserted nor proven that Pro Soualiga is representative of a“(even slightly) defined group of residents of Sint Maarten with a certain political or constitutional view.”(paragraph 2.6. answer).Article 3: 305a paragraph 1 of the Dutch Civil Code requires that the objective that the foundation promotes must be described in its articles of association and that actual activities in this area must be completed.Both requirements are not met.Furthermore, it has not been made sufficiently clear which concrete interests it wants to achieve for the population of Sint Maarten with this procedure.By rejoinder: the motion adopted by Parliament does not imply that the Foundation would be democratically legitimized and would represent the population of Sint Maarten.Only Parliament and the Government can determine this jointly.It is up to these bodies to take actions to realize the right to self-determination, as they see it.The General Court cannot assume that the statutes have been amended because only a draft of these statutes has been submitted.In any case, the change took place too late to make up for the defect in the previous articles of association.
4.2.
Briefly and succinctlystated,Pro Soualiga respondsin its reply as follows to this defense of the State.With the“endorsement”of the Statesas shown in the motion, Pro Soualiga can rightly claim that it does indeed represent the population of Sint Maarten.It is now democratically legitimized and for that reason can already be received.Its statutes have also been amended.
4.3.
The Court considers the following.Article 3: 305a of the Dutch Civil Code reads as follows:
Article 305a
1. A foundation or an association may institute legal proceedings aimed at protecting similar interests of other persons, insofar as it represents these interests by virtue of its articles of association.
2. The legal person is not admissible if, in the given circumstances, it has made insufficient efforts to achieve the claims made by consulting with the summoned party.
3.The legal claim cannot serve to pay compensation in cash.
4. An act cannot be the basis for a legal claim as referred to in the first paragraph, insofar as the person affected by this act objects to it.
5.A judicial decision has no effect on a person for the protection of whose interests the legal claim extends, and who opposes the effect of the decision against him, unless the nature of the decision means that the effect is not limited to can be excluded from this person.
For the sake of completeness, it is noted that this article deviates from the regulation in the Dutch Civil Code.It has since been modernized.On Sint Maarten the “old” article applies as it originally stood in the Civil Code of the Netherlands Antilles.
4.4.
Since Pro Soualiga has not challenged its original statutes, the General Court has to make do with the representation of its statutory purpose as it appears from the trade register (see 2.1.).In the view of the Court, it goes without saying that the statutory description as stated in the trade register is insufficient, because it is formulated much too generally, to be able to support the legal claims brought.Pro Soualiga also sees this because it states that it has now rewritten its statutes.However, the State rightly points out in its rejoinder that only draft statutes have been brought into question by Pro Soualiga.The Court must therefore assume that these articles of association have not actually been drawn up by the civil-law notary and therefore do not exist legally.
4.5.
Even if the articles of association were laid down by a notarial law, it would apply that they cannot be based retroactively on the legal claims instituted.Article 3: 305a of the Dutch Civil Code does not provide for this.
4.6.
Furthermore, the aforementioned article implies an obligation to actually develop activities by Pro Soualiga.Such activities are lacking now that Pro Soualiga was founded the day after sending its letter to the Secretary of State.Logically, therefore, there have not been any actual activities before.Nor has any implementation been given to the obligation of paragraph 2 of the aforementioned article of law;the mere writing of a summons letter with a proposal to initiate legal proceedings before the court in a certain way does not meet the concept of“conducting consultations”.
4.7.
These considerations me
an that Pro Soualiga must be declared inadmissible in its claims.
The passed motion in the States
4.8.
Needless to say, the General Court also pays attention to Pro Soualiga’s argument that, thanks to the adopted motion, she represents the population of Sint Maarten.That argument does not hold.This judgment is interpreted by the Court as follows.The motion is not a (constitutional) legal figure from which third parties, such as Pro Soualiga, can derive rights or which may create obligations for third parties.An adopted motion is no more or less than a decision by Parliament in which it expresses an opinion or a wish.This judgment usually focuses on acts or omissions of the Government that are controlled by Parliament, or it is an appeal by Parliament to the Government as co-legislator to bring about desired legislation.Parliament alone cannot determine that Pro Soualiga is entitled for or on behalf of the Country of Sint Maarten to conduct these proceedings or to take other actions;they can only say that they support it(“Endorse”).Only if the Government, together with the Parliament, by means of a National Ordinance, or the Government alone (with the tacit consent of the Parliament) by means of a National Decree, decides that Pro Soualiga may act on behalf of the Country of Sint Maarten can it state that it is democratic. is legitimated.This does not alter the fact that Article 44 of the Constitution stipulates that Parliament represents“the entire people of Sint Maarten”.They represent this in the capacity of controller of the government and co-legislator and this article establishes that the States are given power by the entire people.See in this regard the following quote from the Explanatory Memorandum to the Constitution (page 42):
Article 44: Representation
Sint Maarten is a parliamentary democracy. The will of the people i
s the basis of the authority of the government. This will is expressed in a directly, periodically, freely and secretly elected parliament, the States.Naturally, the provision that Parliament represent the entire Sint Maarten people should not be understood in a private law sense. Parliament does not act on behalf of the Sint Maarten people, as a representative acts on behalf of a representative.From a constitutional point of view, the provision not only expresses that Parliament fulfills a central function in the unified state of Sint Maarten, but also that the members of Parliament may not behave as advocates of local, regional or other interests based on other criteria, but that they stand for the general interest of the entire Sint Maarten people,This provision means that the representation of the Sint Maarten people is not strictly related to the number of electors of the Parliament or to the electoral system on the basis of which the members are elected.In principle, this relationship is regulated in Article 46 of the Constitution. “
Thus, Pro Soualiga cannot claim that it represents the population of Sint Maarten, so that it does not meet the requirements of representativeness of Article 3: 305a BW via this route.
The other defenses
4.9.
Another defense of admissibility is being brought up by the State, namely that the legal claims instituted are time-barred.However, this is not addressed to the General Court now that the first defense of admissibility is effective.Nor does the General Court assess the substantive arguments of the parties.
Litigation costs order
4.10.
As an unsuccessful party, Pro Soualiga will be ordered to pay the costs, as stated in the decision.
5 The decision
declares Pro Soualiga inadmissible in its claims,
orders Pro Soualiga to pay the costs of the proceedings,
estimated on the part of the State at nil in disbursements and at NAf.2,500.00 to the authorized salary and declares the legal costs order enforceable in stock.
This judgment was rendered by mr. AJJ van Rijen, judge, and pronounced in open court on 23 March 2021 in the presence of the registrar.
BELOW WE HAVE SCREENSHOTS OF SO CALLED ST MAARTEN REPORTERS BPESINIAID TO LIE TO THE ST MAARTEN PEOPLE …NOT ONE OF THEM ARE BORN ST MAARTENERS FOREIGN PAID PARASITES! ….
March 27, 2021 It is unprecedented, but Sylvana Simons of BIJ1 accuses the Netherlands of literally still behaving like a colonial power. Because the Netherlands does not intend to transfer “corona money” to Sint Maarten for the time being. And that is not possible.
Sint Maarten will not receive corona money from the Netherlands for the time being. Mind you, this is called “corona money”, but we always see that countries that receive “corona support” spend it on completely different things. “Corona” is first and foremost an excuse for many countries to quickly collect some free money. You can’t even blame them for that. Because if you see your chance, well, why not? The real culprits are the countries that fall for it. With open eyes too.
Anyway, Sint Maarten will not receive corona support from the Netherlands for the time being. The reason? According to the Parool , this is because Sint Maarten has complained to the United Nations about “alleged racism in the Netherlands.” Well, better put: the Netherlands says that Sint Maarten must meet certain conditions if it wants to receive support. According to Sint Maarten, those conditions amount to a return of “colonial rule.”
Totally insane, of course. But Saint Martin has a very happy ally in Sylvana Simons. Because, the leader of BIJ1 writes, the island is right! The behavior of the Netherlands is “a colonial response to a complaint about colonial behavior. Not coincidentally also in the midst of the social debate on the island about decolonization, ”she adds for the record.
It’s unbelievable. This woman really chooses continuously, invariably, in every situation, on the side of people who insult the Netherlands to the bone. Anyone has to say something about “racism” and “colonialism,” and look! There is Mrs. Simons, Dutch hater par excellence, who is just a little more on top.
Friday, March 26, 2021 Civil society organizations play an important role on Sint Maarten, but many are still recovering from the effects of hurricane Irma. VNG International’s Resources for Community Resilience (R4CR) helps them in their recovery and in strengthening the island’s resilience.
12 local projects are now in full swing. In mid-March, VNG International visited 2 local projects. The first project is the Stichting Seniorenrecreatie Sint Maarten. It offers 84 seniors day recreation and opportunities for social contact. With an R4CR subsidy, windows and shutters will be replaced to make the building hurricane and burglar proof. The first new windows have just been installed, followed by the shutters.
Place to catch your breath
A second visit was to the God Bless Nanny Monique Nurssy Foundation. For decades, Nurse Monique has run an open house for anyone who is needy, homeless, sick, less fortunate, elderly, without a social safety net, and needs a place to catch their breath. Her building was badly damaged by the hurricane, but reconstruction is now in full swing. Monique: ‘This project has been a blessing to me. I’ve been doing this on my own for 30 years. This project is finally helping. ‘
The R4CR program makes the funds of the Sint Maarten Trust Fund, which is managed by the World Bank, available to small social organizations. It supports local initiatives not only with funds, but also with training and capacity building on how to implement projects effectively, and creates a platform for exchange and collaboration with other organizations. The program has the ambition to ultimately have a greater socio-economic impact by strengthening civil society in Sint Maarten and thus contributing to the general resilience of the island.
Sint Maarten disaster preparedness project launched, PAHO reports
The EU-funded project will include two multipurpose community centers that will act as emergency shelters and disaster preparedness assistance for government and communities
Port of Spain, Trinidad, March 26, 2021 (PAHO) – Sint Maarten took a step closer to preparedness for disasters and health emergencies today with the launch of a project that will include two multi-purpose community centers that will also serve as shelters for at least 100 people each. The SMART buildings – which will reflect standards of sustainability, resilience, and green technology – are part of a broader preparedness project funded by the European Union (EU) and implemented by the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO).
In the keynote address during the virtual launch of the project, Sint Maarten Prime Minister Silveria Jacobs said, “We are particularly pleased that this project can commence. By raising awareness and building capacities in disaster preparedness, we will empower and prepare the people of Sint Maarten to better respond to emergencies in the future.”
The preparedness project – “Building resilience by improving emergency response and disaster preparedness for the people of Sint Maarten” – is part of PAHO/WHO’s SMART initiative, which is aimed at building and retrofitting facilities in the Caribbean to improve their environmental standards and make them resilient to disasters.
Along with the community centers, the preparedness project will include technical assistance to increase the country’s governmental capacity to respond to disasters and public health emergencies, such as pandemics. The project, including community engagement activities, will also help vulnerable individuals, households, and communities in Sint Maarten prepare, cope, adapt and recover.
PAHO Director Carissa F. Etienne said during the launch, “The activities in this project foster long-term competences in disaster preparedness and management that aim at achieving sustainability rather than project-based support.” Dr. Etienne added, “The SMART standards are now recognized in all the region of the Americas and have been expanded from health facilities to schools, hotels, shelters, and other government buildings.”
The SMART initiative focuses on strengthening structural and operational aspects of facilities and providing green technologies. Energy improvements include solar panels, electric storage batteries, and low-consumption electrical systems, which reduce facilities’ carbon footprints and provide energy autonomy, allowing them to continue running during emergencies and disasters.
The SMART initiative is a response to PAHO’s Plan of Action for Disaster Risk Reduction 2016-2021, which has determined that hospitals will be among facilities most vulnerable to climate change in the Caribbean. The preparedness project, funded by a EUR 6.5 million contribution from the EU, has a duration of 31 months.
Fernando Ponz Canto, Head of Delegation of the European Union for Sint Maarten said, “We have made this particular effort to provide these emergency funds to launch this project and make a difference for the people of Sint Maarten. This project is fully aligned with the priorities of the European Union, in particular building resilience and disaster preparedness, which are focus areas of the relations between the EU and overseas countries and territories.”
The construction of the multipurpose shelters will provide local industry with an opportunity to learn more about incorporating SMART standards into buildings or retrofitting old buildings to reflect them.
The first part of the project will be hazard identification and risk assessment of potential sites for the shelters, which have been identified by Sint Maarten national authorities.
Other officials at the virtual launch included Richard Panneflek, Minister of Public Health, Social Development and Labour of Sint Maarten, and Erica Wheeler, PAHO/WHO Country Representative for Trinidad and Tobago, Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten, Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba.
Washington, D.C. March 26, 2021 (PAHO)—The Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) said 32 countries and territories in the Americas have reported the presence of at least one of the three “variants of concern” of the virus that causes COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, according to a new Epidemiological Update.
These variants may increase transmissibility of the virus, increase its virulence, or decrease the effectiveness of public health and social measures or diagnostics, vaccines, and therapeutics, although much remains to be learned about them.
Current measures to reduce transmission – including frequent hand washing, wearing a mask, physical distancing, good ventilation and avoiding crowded places or closed settings – continue to work against new variants by reducing the amount of viral transmission and therefore also reducing opportunities for the virus to mutate.
The countries and territories that reported one or more of these variants include Argentina, Aruba, Barbados, Belize, Brazil, Bonaire, Canada, Cayman Islands, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Curacao, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Jamaica, Martinique, Mexico, Panama, Peru, Puerto Rico, Saint Barthelemy, Saint Martin, Saint Lucia, Sint Maarten, Trinidad and Tobago, Turks and Caicos, United States of America, Uruguay, and Venezuela.
Since the initial identification of SARS-CoV-2, more than 845,000 complete genomic sequences have been shared globally through publicly accessible databases. “The capacity to monitor the data in near real time has a direct impact on the public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic, allowing to identify changes in epidemiological patterns, in virulence, or in the decrease in therapeutic efficacy, among other changes,” the PAHO update noted.
To date, three variants of SARS-CoV-2, first identified in the United Kingdom, South Africa, and Brazil and known as B.1.1.7, B.1.351, and B.1.1.28.1, have been classified by the World Health Organization (WHO) as variants of concern (VOC), in consultation with the WHO Working Group on the Evolution of SARS-CoV-2. Variants in another category, variants of interest, covering three additional types, have been reported in Brazil, the United States, and six other countries and territories.
PAHO’s update said, “Given the significant resource requirements needed to sequence all samples in the region to identify variants, PAHO continues to work closely with laboratories in the countries of the Americas to help identify samples which should be prioritized for genomic sequencing.”
To date, 21 countries are participating in the COVID-19 Genomic Surveillance Network, with reference sequencing laboratories in Brazil and Chile. PAHO is working together with the countries of the region to expand and strengthen the regional network, as this mechanism will be critical to tracking the spread or appearance of new variants of concern. PAHO is also supporting epidemiological studies in Brazil to understand the patterns of transmission, reinfection, and the severity of cases from the different circulating variants.
OPINION: The constitutional conscience of the Kingdom The advice of the Council of State of the Kingdom on the Kingdom Act on the Caribbean Body for Reform and Development By prof.dr. Gerhard Hoogers I am truly not the only one who observes with some regularity: never a dull moment in constitutional Kingdom law. And the past few days also provide a nice illustration of this. Some time ago, the State Secretary for Kingdom Relations announced in regular consultation with the permanent parliamentary committee on Kingdom Relations of the Senate that the parliamentary debate on the proposal for a Kingdom Act on the settlement of Kingdom disputes could be continued, because the Council of State of the Kingdom had meanwhile advised on the Bill on the Caribbean Body for Reform and Development, the COHO. That advice was of course still secret, because the bill of law has not yet been presented to the Lower House and the States of Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten. But after extensively quoting from it for about three days, the government has taken the unusual step of granting permission for disclosure, which the Council of State has already done. So we can now take full legal notice of it. The COHO Act is a controversial project. It is the intended legal translation of the agreements that the Netherlands has made with Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten about the conditions that those countries must meet in order to (continue to) be eligible for financial support from the Netherlands to prevent the consequences of the corona pandemic for absorb their economies and budgets. Last year there were fierce political clashes between State Secretary Knops, supported by a large majority of the House of Representatives, who put a fairly far-reaching package of demands on the table, linked to far-reaching forms of supervision by the Netherlands, and the Caribbean Countries, who saw this. as violations of their statutory anchored autonomy and also in parts of conflict with their own State regulations. The battle was apparently settled by political agreements at the end of last year and at the beginning of this year between the four governments that resulted in a number of (minor) amendments to the bill. Now there is the advice of the Council of State of the Kingdom. And although that is an advice that has clearly been thought through very carefully and that is doing its very best to save the cabbage and the goat, it is still so high in parts that it can be expected that the conflicts about the bill will be resurrected. certainly now that the elections in Curaçao are expected to lead to a government that is considerably more reserved about ‘The Hague’ than the previous one. In its extensive advice (20 pages), the Board examines many aspects of the scheme and strongly criticizes almost all aspects of the scheme. The operative part is therefore a dictum c: the Council advises the government not to submit the bill to the Lower House “unless it has been amended”. In this contribution I want to focus on that aspect of the scheme that drew the most attention last year: the question of the compatibility of the COHO with the (statutory) autonomy of the Caribbean countries. The Council of State did not discuss this issue until late in its advice. This also has to do with the fact that the analysis of that question is in a certain sense the pièce de résistance: in the earlier parts of the advice, the necessary building blocks are provided for that analysis. For example, the Council concludes that the COHO is given powers that also accrue to the organs of the Countries by virtue of the autonomy conferred on them by the Statute (page 5 ff.): According to the Council, this concurrence of powers is a poorly thought-out choice, because it leads to unclear responsibilities. This is reinforced by the fact that the COHO and the three National Governments are accountable to different bodies. The Council does not specify who they are, but by virtue of the COHO Act, the COHO is accountable to the Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations and of course to the Parliament. The Council does not mention that this potential could lead to a conflict between COHO and Parliament, and thus ultimately between the Dutch Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations and Parliament, but is implicit in its analysis. The Council also concludes that the design of the COHO as an Independent Administrative Body (ZBO) under Dutch law and the great influence that the Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations gains over the COHO means that not only the COHO itself, but also the Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations’ above the government of the country concerned ”is posted (p. 10). If the Council then also establishes that the COHO is given the authority to conclude agreements with international law organizations that de facto bind the Countries, while art. 25 of the Statute emphatically k establishes that the Caribbean Countries cannot be bound by financial and economic agreements that they themselves do not want (p. 12) and that the powers of the Governor as an organ of the Kingdom can just as much be thwarted by the powers of the COHO (p. 13) it is clear that the Council of State has accumulated the necessary explosives. But he – and this is probably politically wise – is not going to blow the matter up. He does not state in so many words that the Statute has been violated on several points, but proposes to ‘further consider’ the bill with regard to the Conformity of the Statute, to adjust the explanatory notes in order to redress the criticism and to adjust the bill if necessary. ‘. In doing so, the Council of State actually saves the cabbage and the goat, it seems: its advice provides enough leads for those who wish to be able to establish incompatibility with the Statute (and the initial reactions from the Caribbean countries in particular have a rather high ‘see-you-it’ content), but also make it possible for the Secretary of State and the majority of the House of Representatives who supported the chosen scheme to breathe a sigh of relief and conclude that the damage has still been somewhat limited. Or not? In footnote 38 of the Advice, the Council of State refers to the Royal Decree of November 24, 2020 on the appeal of the government of Curaçao against an instruction from 2019 under the Financial Supervision Act (Rft.). Such an appeal is based on Article 26 of the Rft. possible and it is settled by Royal Decree, whereby the preparation of that decision is deposited with the Council of State of the Kingdom. Insofar as the judgment of the Council of State only applies to grounds of lawfulness, the Crown is bound by them. Such was the case in this appeal. The Council of State of the Kingdom found in its binding advice to the Crown that the Reich Council of Ministers had not exercised the necessary restraint required in issuing an instruction, and that this is – therefore – unlawful. And that unlawfulness stems – the Council of State makes that clear by referring here to that binding advice – from the violation of the division of powers laid down in the Statute. In other words: by referring in the advisory report accompanying this bill to an advisory report in which the Council of State had the final say, and by doing so in this context, the Council of State makes clear to those who understand well what he thinks about it: In the Council’s opinion, the COHO Act is too far-reaching an intervention in the autonomy of the Caribbean Countries – and such an intervention is in essence also unlawful, because it is contrary to the Statute. Whose deed. It is to be hoped that the Secretary of State will do his homework properly this time when adjusting his bill. Because there is an urgent need for far-reaching reforms of the economies of the Caribbean countries – there is hardly any doubt and the Council of State underlines it several times in this advisory report. But those reforms must take place within the applicable constitutional frameworks of our Kingdom. For this reason it is commendable that the Council of State of the Kingdom has again taken i
ts task as Hüter der Königreichsverfassung very seriously this time. Prof.dr. Gerhard Hoogers is associate professor at the Department of Constitutional Law, Administrative Law and Public Administration at the University of Groningen and honorary professor of comparative constitutional law at Carl von Ossietzky-Universität Oldenburg. https://dossierkoninkrijksrelaties.nl/2021/03/27/het-constitutionele-geweten-van-het-koninkrijk/
OPINIE: Het constitutionele geweten van het Koninkrijk Het advies van de Raad van State van het Koninkrijk over de Rijkswet Caribisch Orgaan voor Hervorming en Ontwikkeling
Door prof.dr. Gerhard Hoogers
Ik ben waarachtig niet de enige die met enige regelmaat constateert: never a dull moment in het constitutionele Koninkrijksrecht. En ook de afgelopen dagen bieden daar weer een fraaie illustratie van.
Enige tijd geleden maakte de staatssecretaris van Koninkrijksrelaties in een regulier overleg met de vaste kamercommissie Koninkrijksrelaties van de Eerste Kamer bekend dat de parlementaire behandeling van het voorstel van Rijkswet inzake de beslechting van Koninkrijksgeschillen kon worden voortgezet, omdat de Raad van State van het Koninkrijk inmiddels had geadviseerd over het voorstel van Rijkswet inzake het Caribisch Orgaan voor Hervorming en Ontwikkeling, het COHO. Dát advies was uiteraard nog geheim, omdat het voorstel van Rijkswet nog niet aan de Tweede Kamer en de Staten van Aruba, Curaçao en Sint Maarten is aangeboden. Maar nadat er sinds een dag of drie uitgebreid uit is geciteerd heeft de regering de ongebruikelijke stap gezet om toestemming tot openbaarmaking te geven, hetgeen de Raad van State dan ook inmiddels gedaan heeft. We kunnen er dus nu volstrekt legaal kennis van nemen.
De Rijkswet-COHO is een omstreden project. Het is de beoogde juridische vertaling van de afspraken die Nederland met Aruba, Curaçao en Sint Maarten heeft gemaakt over de voorwaarden waaraan die Landen moeten voldoen om in aanmerking te (blijven) komen voor financiële steun vanuit Nederland om de gevolgen van de corona-pandemie voor hun economieën en begrotingen op te kunnen vangen.
Vorig jaar zijn er hevige politieke botsingen geweest tussen staatssecretaris Knops, gesteund door een ruime meerderheid van de Tweede Kamer, die een vrij vergaand pakket van eisen op tafel legde, gekoppeld aan vergaande vormen van toezicht door Nederland, en de Caribische Landen, die dit zagen als aantastingen van hun statutair verankerde autonomie en ook op onderdelen voor strijd met de eigen Staatsregelingen vreesden. De strijd werd ogenschijnlijk beslecht door politieke akkoorden eind vorig jaar en begin dit jaar tussen de vier regeringen die resulteerden in een aantal (kleine) aanpassingen in het wetsvoorstel.
Nu ligt er dan het advies van de Raad van State van het Koninkrijk. En hoewel dat een advies is waar overduidelijk erg goed over is nagedacht en dat aldus zeer zijn best doet de kool en de geit te sparen, is het op onderdelen toch zo brisant dat verwacht mag worden dat de conflicten over het wetsvoorstel weer tot leven gewekt zullen worden, zéker nu de verkiezingen op Curaçao naar verwachting zullen leiden tot een regering die aanzienlijk gereserveerder tegenover ‘Den Haag’ staat dan de vorige.
In zijn omvangrijke advies (20 pagina’s) gaat de Raad op een groot aantal aspecten van de regeling in en oefent hij op vrijwel alle aspecten van de regeling forse kritiek uit. Het dictum is dan ook een dictum c: de Raad adviseert de regering het wetsvoorstel niet bij de Tweede Kamer in te dienen “tenzij het is aangepast”. In deze bijdrage wil ik mij concentreren op dat aspect van de regeling dat vorig jaar de meeste aandacht trok: de vraag naar de verenigbaarheid van het COHO met de (statutaire) autonomie van de Caribische Landen.
De Raad van State komt pas laat in zijn advies over deze kwestie te spreken. Dat heeft er ook mee van doen dat de analyse van die vraag in zekere zin de pièce de résistance is: in de eerdere delen van het advies worden voor die analyse de nodige bouwstenen aangeleverd. Zo concludeert de Raad dat het COHO bevoegdheden krijgt die ook aan de organen van de Landen toekomen uit kracht van de hen door het Statuut verleende autonomie (pag. 5 e.v.): deze samenloop van bevoegdheden is volgens de Raad een slecht doordachte keuze, omdat het tot onduidelijke verantwoordelijkheden leidt. Dit wordt nog versterkt door het feit dat het COHO en de drie Landsregeringen aan verschillende organen verantwoording afleggen.
De Raad specificeert niet wie dat zijn, maar uit kracht van de Rijkswet-COHO legt het COHO verantwoording af aan de Minister van BZK en de Landsregering uiteraard aan de Staten. Dat dit potentieel kan leiden tot een conflict tussen het COHO en de Staten, en aldus uiteindelijk tussen de Nederlandse Minister van BZK en de Staten laat de Raad ongenoemd, maar ligt besloten in zijn analyse. De Raad concludeert ook dat de vormgeving van het COHO als een Zelfstandig Bestuursorgaan (ZBO) naar Nederlands recht en de grote invloed die de Minister van BZK over het COHO krijgt ertoe leidt dat niet alleen het COHO zelf, maar ook de Minister van BZK ‘boven het landsbestuur van het desbetreffende land’ wordt geplaatst (pag. 10).
Als de Raad dan ook nog constateert dat het COHO de bevoegdheid krijgt om overeenkomsten met volkenrechtelijke organisaties af te sluiten die de facto de Landen binden, terwijl art. 25 van het Statuut nadrukkelijk vastlegt dat de Caribische Landen niet gebonden kunnen worden aan financiële en economische overeenkomsten die ze zelf niet wensen (pag. 12) en dat de bevoegdheden van de Gouverneur als orgaan van het Koninkrijk al evenzeer doorkruist kunnen worden door de bevoegdheden van het COHO (pag. 13) is het duidelijk dat de Raad van State de nodige springstof opgetast heeft.
Maar hij brengt – en dat is politiek vermoedelijk wijs – de zaak niet tot ontploffing. Hij constateert niet met zoveel woorden dat het Statuut op meerdere punten is geschonden, maar stelt voor het wetsvoorstel ten aanzien van de Statuutsconformiteit ‘nader te overwegen’, de toelichting aan te passen teneinde de kritiek te redresseren en het wetsvoorstel ‘zo nodig aan te passen’. Daarmee spaart de Raad van State metterdaad de kool en de geit, zo lijkt het: zijn advies levert voor wie dat wil genoeg aanknopingspunten op om te kunnen constateren tot onverenigbaarheid met het Statuut (en vooral de eerste reacties vanuit de Caribische Landen hebben een nogal hoog ‘zie-je-wel’-gehalte), maar maken het ook mogelijk voor de Staatssecretaris en de meerderheid van de Tweede Kamer die achter de gekozen opzet stonden om opgelucht adem te kunnen halen en te concluderen dat de schade nog enigszins beperkt is gebleven.
Of toch niet?
In voetnoot 38 van het Advies verwijst de Raad van State naar het Koninklijk Besluit van 24 november 2020 op het beroep van de regering van Curaçao tegen een aanwijzing uit 2019 in het kader van de Rijkswet financieel toezicht (Rft.). Een dergelijk beroep is op grond van artikel 26 van de Rft. mogelijk en het wordt bij KB beslecht, waarbij de voorbereiding van dat besluit bij de Raad van State van het Koninkrijk is neergelegd. Voor zover het oordeel van de Raad van State alleen op rechtmatigheidsgronden ziet, is de Kroon daaraan gebonden. Zulks was in dit beroep het geval.
De Raad van State van het Koninkrijk constateerde in zijn bindende adv
ies aan de Kroon dat de Rijksministerraad niet de benodigde terughoudendheid had betracht die vereist is bij het geven van een aanwijzing, en dat zulks – dus – onrechtmatig is. En die onrechtmatigheid vloeit voort – de Raad van State maakt dát duidelijk door op deze plek naar dat bindende advies te verwijzen – uit het schenden van de in het Statuut vastgelegde bevoegdheidsverdeling.
Met andere woorden: door in het advies bij dit wetsvoorstel te verwijzen naar een advies waarin de Raad van State het laatste woord had, en door dat in deze context te doen, maakt de Raad van State voor de goede verstaander duidelijk hoe hij erover denkt: naar het oordeel van de Raad is de Rijkswet COHO een te vergaande ingreep in de autonomie van de Caribische Landen – en een dergelijk ingrijpen is in wezen ook onrechtmatig, want in strijd met het Statuut. Waarvan akte.
Het is te hopen dat de Staatssecretaris bij het aanpassen van zijn wetsvoorstel zijn huiswerk deze keer goed gaat doen. Want dat er dringende nood is aan ingrijpende hervormingen van de economieën van de Caribische Landen – daar valt nauwelijks aan te twijfelen en de Raad van State onderstreept het ook meermalen in dit advies. Maar die hervormingen moeten wel plaatsvinden binnen de geldende constitutionele kaders van ons Koninkrijk. Het valt om die reden te prijzen dat de Raad van State van het Koninkrijk zijn taak als Hüter der Königreichsverfassung ook deze keer weer zeer serieus genomen heeft.
Prof.dr. Gerhard Hoogers is universitair hoofddocent bij de vakgroep Staatsrecht, Bestuursrecht en Bestuurskunde van de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen en honorair hoogleraar vergelijkend staatsrecht aan de Carl von Ossietzky-Universität Oldenburg. https://dossierkoninkrijksrelaties.nl/2021/03/27/het-constitutionele-geweten-van-het-koninkrijk/
BELOW WE HAVE SCREENSHOTS OF SO CALLED ST MAARTEN REPORTERS BPESINIAID TO LIE TO THE ST MAARTEN PEOPLE …NOT ONE OF THEM ARE BORN ST MAARTENERS FOREIGN PAID PARASITES! ….
