1.2. In its decision of 25 April 2019 the Social Security Bank awarded the appellant an old age pension on the basis of the Old Age Pension Act and reduced it by 8 per cent. The Bank took intio account a rounded off number of four years in which the appellant did not get an old age pension on the basis of the Old Age Pension Act, because he did not live from 18 August 1969 (starting age) up to and including 15 January 1974 in the Netherlands, due to which he was not insured on the basis of the Old Age Pension Act. 1.3. The appellant complained about the decision of 25 April 2919, and a decision about this complaint, of 20 Mey 2019 (the disputed decision) stated that this complainted was unfounded., 2. In the case of the disputed decision the District Court stated that the complaint of the appellant against the disputed decision was unfounded. 3. When he appealed, the appellant repeated that he does consider himself insured in the period covered by the reduction of his old age pesnion bacuse the lived in the territory of the Netherlands and had a continuous connection with the Kingdrom of the Netherlands. He stated that he was discriminated on the basis of his place of domicile, which was Surinam at the time, and this is prohibited pursuant to Article 21 of the Charter on the Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter). . . . . 4.1. Precedents by the High Court show that the term Kingdom, as referred to in the Old Age Pension Act until 1990, refers to the Kingdom within Europe. See the High Court’s judgement of 1 April 2016, ECLI:NL:CRVB:2016:1225, consideration 4.1 and the case law referred to there. That judgement considers – referring to the Parliamentary debate about the position of the residents of Surinam preceding the independence of this country – that the constitutional relationship between the Netherlands and Surinam resulted in the fact thet Surinam

was always responsible for its own system of social security. The Dutch government is therefore not respossible for the old age pension during the years thet individuals lived in Surinam. Also the legislator has paid attention to the right to an old age pension of prior residents of Surinam since the legal framework does not provide for this. In 2017 the then State Secretary of Social Affairs and Labour (SZW) stated that he did not see an opportunity for a special arrangement for the fact that Dutch (prior) residents of Surinam descent had no full rights to an old age pension. He wrote this in a letter of 5 October 2017 (re 2017-0000157748), reacting to questions of the Lower House of Parliament. In a letter of 26 June 2019 (re 2019-0000082987) the Minister of Social Affairs and Labour said, when asked, that he did not see a reason to deviate from the position laid down in the letter of 5 October 2017. 4.2.1. As far as the appellant relied on Article 21 of the Charter it is considered that Article 51 of the Charter limits the scope of application of the Charter. The first paragraph of this Article lays down that the provisions of the Charter are addressed to the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity and to the Member States only when they are implementing Union law. In the present case the implementation of any provision laid down in Union law does not apply. The provisions of the Charter – including Article 21 – therefore do not apply in this case. 4.2.2. Moreover, the High Court rejected the line of reasoning that there is prohibited discrimination (on the basis of place of residence) as referred to in various provisions in Conventions (Article 14 of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and the Fundamental Freedoms and Article 26 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights) in the above-mentioned judgement of 1 April 2016, consideration 4.2. and the case law mentioned in that consideration. Judgement of 1 April 2016: 4.1. . .. The administrative relationship between Surinam (until 25 November 1975), the Dutch Antilles and the Netherlands was laid down in the Statute for the Kingdom of the Netherlands (Kingdom Act of 28 October 1954 (Government Gazette 503, PB 121). The Dutch Constitution is inferior to the Statute. The foundation of this Statute are one joint Dutch nationality for all citizens of the Kingdom, one head of state (Queen Juliana and her legal inheritants), one joint foreign policity and one joint defence force. In all other respectcs, the countries of the Kingdom are autonomous and every country has its own government. Therefore the parts of the Kingdom overseas, among which Surinam, do not belong to the Kingdom. This point-of-view was confirmed by the Supreme Court in its judgement of 25 March 1959, BNB 1959/162. In this judgement the Supreme Court held that “the Kingdom” refers to the Kingdom within Europe. This has also always been held by the High Administrative Court (see CRvB, 27 April 1994, PS 1004, no. 660 and 6 March 2002, USZ 2002/116). As of 1 January 1990 the words “the Kingdom” have been replaced by “the Netherlands”. On the basis of the Statute co-operation in various fields was possible, but every country of the Kingdom is responsible for arranging its own internal issues. The form and contents of the social security system is such an internal issue. For example: the Dutch Antilles have their own social security system which deviates from the Dutch social security system.

Pursuant to Article 3 of the Statute other subjects than the subjects referred to in the first paragraph could have been declared to be issues of the Kingdom. However, when the Statute for the Kingdom of the Netherlands came into force, both Surinam and the Netherlands decided that social security was not an issue of the Kingdom. In accordance with that view, the Old Age Pension Act has been drafted. The Old Age Pension Act is not an Act of the Kingdom and therefore only applies to that part of the Kingdom that is in Europe, i.e. the Netherlands. The administrative relationship between the Netherlands and Surinam (until the independence of Surinam) therefore resulted in Surinam being responsible, all the time, for its own social security system. The Dutch government is therefore not responsible for the old age pension for the years that individuals lived in Surinam (Note Purchase Arrangement of Old Age Pension, enclosure of Parliamentary Documents II 207/08, 29389-11-b1). In view of the above-mentioned, the Administrative High Court cannot change its judgement on the basis of the views held by the appellant. 4.2. The appellant has, moreover, relied on the view that this explanation of the concept of Kingdom results in the discrimination of Dutchmen with a Surinam origin. This view, as explained during the hearing, aims at pointing at unjustified discrimination on the basis of place of residence between Dutchmen who – after the introduction of the Old Age Pension Act in 1957 – lived, for a while, in Surinam and other Dutchmen. The reliance of the appellant on the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of the place of residence fails. The arguments of the appellant come down to the fact that he does not feel that the limitations of the number of the insured on the basis of public insurance are allowed. As to the relationship and the division of tasks among the countries of the Kingdom, see 4.1. In all other respects, see the judgement of the Administrative High Court of 17 July 2008 (ECLI:NL:CRVB:2008:BD8822). In a judgement of 2 March 2012 (ECLI:NL:CRVB:2012:BV7609) the Administrative High Court judged, moreover, that considering a non-citizen not insured does not result in unjustified discrimination on the basis of nationality. The Supreme Court (HR 5 October 2012, ECLI:NL:HR:2012:BX9203) held that the appeal was unfounded. The Supreme Court holds that, for the limitation of the duty to insure in principle only citizens for the public insurances, there is an objective justification.

Netherlands / Administrative High Court / CRVB:2020:1920

Key facts of the case:

The appellant did not receive a full old age pension when he retired in the Netherlands, because he lived from 18 August 1969 up to and including 15 January 1974 in Surinam, and not in the European part of the Netherlands. He claims that Surinam was part of the Netherlands, but the Social Security Bank holds that Surinam was responsible for its own social security system before it became independent, and that it was not regarded as part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in this sense. The appellant claims that he has been discriminated on the basis of his place of residence and that this is prohibited on the basis of Article 21 of the Charter.

Key legal question raised by the Court:

Is Union law, including Article 21 of the Charter, applicable to a resident of Surinam, which is not part of the European Kingdom of the Netherlands?

Outcome of the case:

The Court holds that Article 51 of the Charter states that the provisions of the Charter are addressed to the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity and to the Member States only when they are implementing Union law. In this case, no provision of Union law is applicable, so the provisions of the Charter, including Article 21, do not apply. The applicant is not entitled to a full old age pension.
Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

1.2. In its decision of 25 April 2019 the Social Security Bank awarded the appellant an old age pension on the basis of the Old Age Pension Act and reduced it by 8 per cent. The Bank took intio account a rounded off number of four years in which the appellant did not get an old age pension on the basis of the Old Age Pension Act, because he did not live from 18 August 1969 (starting age) up to and including 15 January 1974 in the Netherlands, due to which he was not insured on the basis of the Old Age Pension Act. 1.3. The appellant complained about the decision of 25 April 2919, and a decision about this complaint, of 20 Mey 2019 (the disputed decision) stated that this complainted was unfounded., 2. In the case of the disputed decision the District Court stated that the complaint of the appellant against the disputed decision was unfounded. 3. When he appealed, the appellant repeated that he does consider himself insured in the period covered by the reduction of his old age pesnion bacuse the lived in the territory of the Netherlands and had a continuous connection with the Kingdrom of the Netherlands. He stated that he was discriminated on the basis of his place of domicile, which was Surinam at the time, and this is prohibited pursuant to Article 21 of the Charter on the Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter). . . . . 4.1. Precedents by the High Court show that the term Kingdom, as referred to in the Old Age Pension Act until 1990, refers to the Kingdom within Europe. See the High Court’s judgement of 1 April 2016, ECLI:NL:CRVB:2016:1225, consideration 4.1 and the case law referred to there. That judgement considers – referring to the Parliamentary debate about the position of the residents of Surinam preceding the independence of this country – that the constitutional relationship between the Netherlands and Surinam resulted in the fact thet Surinam

was always responsible for its own system of social security. The Dutch government is therefore not respossible for the old age pension during the years thet individuals lived in Surinam. Also the legislator has paid attention to the right to an old age pension of prior residents of Surinam since the legal framework does not provide for this. In 2017 the then State Secretary of Social Affairs and Labour (SZW) stated that he did not see an opportunity for a special arrangement for the fact that Dutch (prior) residents of Surinam descent had no full rights to an old age pension. He wrote this in a letter of 5 October 2017 (re 2017-0000157748), reacting to questions of the Lower House of Parliament. In a letter of 26 June 2019 (re 2019-0000082987) the Minister of Social Affairs and Labour said, when asked, that he did not see a reason to deviate from the position laid down in the letter of 5 October 2017. 4.2.1. As far as the appellant relied on Article 21 of the Charter it is considered that Article 51 of the Charter limits the scope of application of the Charter. The first paragraph of this Article lays down that the provisions of the Charter are addressed to the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity and to the Member States only when they are implementing Union law. In the present case the implementation of any provision laid down in Union law does not apply. The provisions of the Charter – including Article 21 – therefore do not apply in this case. 4.2.2. Moreover, the High Court rejected the line of reasoning that there is prohibited discrimination (on the basis of place of residence) as referred to in various provisions in Conventions (Article 14 of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and the Fundamental Freedoms and Article 26 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights) in the above-mentioned judgement of 1 April 2016, consideration 4.2. and the case law mentioned in that consideration. Judgement of 1 April 2016: 4.1. . .. The administrative relationship between Surinam (until 25 November 1975), the Dutch Antilles and the Netherlands was laid down in the Statute for the Kingdom of the Netherlands (Kingdom Act of 28 October 1954 (Government Gazette 503, PB 121). The Dutch Constitution is inferior to the Statute. The foundation of this Statute are one joint Dutch nationality for all citizens of the Kingdom, one head of state (Queen Juliana and her legal inheritants), one joint foreign policity and one joint defence force. In all other respectcs, the countries of the Kingdom are autonomous and every country has its own government. Therefore the parts of the Kingdom overseas, among which Surinam, do not belong to the Kingdom. This point-of-view was confirmed by the Supreme Court in its judgement of 25 March 1959, BNB 1959/162. In this judgement the Supreme Court held that “the Kingdom” refers to the Kingdom within Europe. This has also always been held by the High Administrative Court (see CRvB, 27 April 1994, PS 1004, no. 660 and 6 March 2002, USZ 2002/116). As of 1 January 1990 the words “the Kingdom” have been replaced by “the Netherlands”. On the basis of the Statute co-operation in various fields was possible, but every country of the Kingdom is responsible for arranging its own internal issues. The form and contents of the social security system is such an internal issue. For example: the Dutch Antilles have their own social security system which deviates from the Dutch social security system.

Pursuant to Article 3 of the Statute other subjects than the subjects referred to in the first paragraph could have been declared to be issues of the Kingdom. However, when the Statute for the Kingdom of the Netherlands came into force, both Surinam and the Netherlands decided that social security was not an issue of the Kingdom. In accordance with that view, the Old Age Pension Act has been drafted. The Old Age Pension Act is not an Act of the Kingdom and therefore only applies to that part of the Kingdom that is in Europe, i.e. the Netherlands. The administrative relationship between the Netherlands and Surinam (until the independence of Surinam) therefore resulted in Surinam being responsible, all the time, for its own social security system. The Dutch government is therefore not responsible for the old age pension for the years that individuals lived in Surinam (Note Purchase Arrangement of Old Age Pension, enclosure of Parliamentary Documents II 207/08, 29389-11-b1). In view of the above-mentioned, the Administrative High Court cannot change its judgement on the basis of the views held by the appellant. 4.2. The appellant has, moreover, relied on the view that this explanation of the concept of Kingdom results in the discrimination of Dutchmen with a Surinam origin. This view, as explained during the hearing, aims at pointing at unjustified discrimination on the basis of place of residence between Dutchmen who – after the introduction of the Old Age Pension Act in 1957 – lived, for a while, in Surinam and other Dutchmen. The reliance of the appellant on the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of the place of residence fails. The arguments of the appellant come down to the fact that he does not feel that the limitations of the number of the insured on the basis of public insurance are allowed. As to the relationship and the division of tasks among the countries of the Kingdom, see 4.1. In all other respects, see the judgement of the Administrative High Court of 17 July 2008 (ECLI:NL:CRVB:2008:BD8822). In a judgement of 2 March 2012 (ECLI:NL:CRVB:2012:BV7609) the Administrative High Court judged, moreover, that considering a non-citizen not insured does not result in unjustified discrimination on the basis of nationality. The Supreme Court (HR 5 October 2012, ECLI:NL:HR:2012:BX9203) held that the appeal was unfounded. The Supreme Court holds that, for the limitation of the duty to insure in principle only citizens for the public insurances, there is an objective justification.
Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

1.2. Bij besluit van 25 april 2019 heeft de Svb aan appellant een ouderdomspensioen op grond van de AOW toegekend waarop een korting is toegepast van 8%. Hierbij is rekening gehouden met afgerond vier jaar waarin appellant geen ouderdomspensioen op grond van de AOW heeft opgebouwd, omdat hij in de periode van 18 augustus 1969 (aanvangsleeftijd) tot en met 15 januari 1974 niet in Nederland woonde en niet verzekerd was voor de AOW. 1.3. Het bezwaar van appellant tegen het besluit van 25 april 2019 is bij beslissing op bezwaar van 20 mei 2019 (bestreden besluit) ongegrond verklaard.

2. Bij de aangevallen uitspraak heeft de rechtbank het beroep van appellant tegen het bestreden besluit ongegrond verklaard. 3. In hoger beroep heeft appellant herhaald dat hij zich over de periode waarop zijn ouderdomspensioen is gekort wel verzekerd acht omdat hij op het grondgebied van Nederland woonde en een duurzame binding met het Rijk had. Hij wordt gediscrimineerd op grond van zijn woonplaats, destijds in Suriname, en dat is verboden op grond van artikel 21 van het Handvest van de grondrechten van de Europese Unie (Handvest). . . . 4.1. Vaste rechtspraak van de Raad is dat onder het begrip Rijk, zoals dat was opgenomen in de AOW tot 1990, moet worden verstaan het Rijk in Europa. Zie de uitspraak van de Raad van 1 april 2016, ECLI:NL:CRVB:2016:1225, overweging 4.1 en de daarin opgenomen rechtspraak. In die uitspraak is – onder verwijzing naar parlementaire behandeling van de positie van ingezetenen van Suriname voorafgaand aan de onafhankelijkheid van dit land – overwogen dat de staatkundige relatie tussen Nederland en Suriname tot gevolg heeft gehad dat Suriname steeds verantwoordelijk is geweest voor zijn eigen socialezekerheidsstelsel. De Nederlandse overheid is daarom voor de jaren dat personen in Suriname hebben gewoond niet verantwoordelijk voor het ouderdomspensioen. De AOW-opbouw van voormalig ingezetenen van Suriname is, nu het wettelijk kader de rechter geen ruimte biedt, ook onder de aandacht van de wetgever gebracht. Tot op heden heeft dat niet tot een voorziening geleid. In 2017 heeft de toenmalige staatssecretaris van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid (SZW) in een brief van 5 oktober 2017 (kenmerk 2017-0000157748) in reactie op vragen uit de Tweede Kamer geantwoord geen mogelijkheid te zien voor een speciale regeling voor de niet volledige AOW-opbouw van Nederlandse (voormalig) ingezetenen van Surinaamse herkomst. In een brief van 26 juni 2019 (kenmerk 2019-0000082987) heeft de minister van SZW desgevraagd te kennen gegeven geen aanleiding te zien af te wijken van het in de brief van 5 oktober 2017 weergegeven standpunt. 4.2.1. Wat betreft het beroep van appellant op artikel 21 van het Handvest wordt overwogen dat in artikel 51 van het Handvest het toepassingsgebied van het Handvest is afgebakend. In het eerste lid van dit artikel is neergelegd dat de bepalingen van het Handvest zijn gericht tot de instellingen, organen en instanties van de Unie met inachtneming van het subsidiariteitsbeginsel, alsmede, uitsluitend wanneer zij het recht van de Unie ten uitvoer brengen, tot de lidstaten. In het onderhavige geval is uitvoering van enige bepaling van Unierecht niet aan de orde. De bepalingen van het Handvest – artikel 21 inbegrepen – kunnen derhalve in dit geval geen toepassing vinden. 4.2.2. Overigens heeft de Raad het betoog dat sprake is van een verboden onderscheid (naar woonplaats) als bedoeld in diverse verdragsbepalingen (artikel 14 van het Europees Verdrag tot bescherming van de rechten van de mens en de fundamentele vrijheden en artikel 26 van het Internationaal Verdrag inzake burgerrechten en politieke rechten) verworpen in genoemde uitspraak van 1 april 2016, overweging 4.2 en de in die overweging genoemde rechtspraak.

Oordeel van 1 april 2016: 4.1. . . . “De staatkundige relatie tussen Suriname (tot 25 november 1975), de Nederlandse Antillen en Nederland is geregeld in het Statuut voor het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden (Rijkswet van 28 oktober 1954 (Stb. 503; PB 121). De Nederlandse grondwet is aan het Statuut ondergeschikt. De uitgangspunten van dit Statuut zijn één gezamenlijke Nederlandse nationaliteit voor alle inwoners van het Koninkrijk, één staatshoofd (Koningin Juliana en haar wettige opvolgers), één gemeenschappelijk buitenlands beleid en één gezamenlijke defensie. Verder zijn de landen van het Koninkrijk autonoom en heeft elk land een eigen regering. De Overzeese Rijksdelen, waaronder Suriname, behoren dus niet tot het rijk. Dit uitgangspunt is bevestigd door de HR in het arrest van 25 maart 1959, BNB 1959/162. In dit arrest oordeelde de Hoge Raad dat met ‘het Rijk’ bedoeld is het Rijk in Europa. Dit is ook vaste jurisprudentie van de Centrale Raad van Beroep (zie CRvB, 27 april 1994, PS 1994, nr. 660 en 6 maart 2002, USZ 2002/116). Met ingang van 1 januari 1990 zijn de woorden ‘het Rijk’ vervangen door ‘Nederland’. Op basis van het Statuut was samenwerking op meer terreinen mogelijk, maar elk land van het Koninkrijk is verantwoordelijk voor het regelen van de eigen interne aangelegenheden. De vormgeving en inhoud van het sociaalzekerheidsstelsel is een dergelijke interne aangelegenheid. Ter illustratie: de Nederlandse Antillen heeft een eigen sociaalzekerheidsstelsel dat afwijkt van het Nederlandse socialezekerheidsstelsel. Volgens artikel 3 tweede lid van het Statuut hadden in gemeen overleg andere onderwerpen dan de in het eerste lid genoemde onderwerpen tot aangelegenheden van het Koninkrijk kunnen worden verklaard. Bij de totstandkoming van het Statuut voor het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden is met instemming van zowel Nederland als Suriname echter besloten de sociale zekerheid niet aan te merken als koninkrijksaangelegenheid. Ook op een later moment is er niet voor gekozen de sociale zekerheid alsnog aan te merken als koninkrijksaangelegenheid. Volgens die lijn is de AOW ook vormgegeven. De AOW is namelijk geen Rijkswet en is daarom slechts van toepassing op het deel van het Koninkrijk dat gelegen is in Europa, te weten Nederland. De staatkundige relatie tussen Nederland en Suriname (tot aan de onafhankelijkheid van Suriname) heeft daarom tot gevolg gehad dat Suriname steeds verantwoordelijk is geweest voor zijn eigen sociaalzekerheidsstelsel. De Nederlandse overheid is daarom voor de jaren dat personen in Suriname hebben gewoond niet verantwoordelijk voor het pensioen” (Notitie Inkoopregeling AOW, bijlage bij Kamerstukken II 2007/08, 29389-11-b1). In het licht van het voorgaande kunnen de door appellant aangedragen argumenten de Raad niet tot een ander oordeel brengen. 4.2. Appellant heeft voorts gesteld dat deze uitleg van het begrip Rijk leidt tot discriminatie van Surinaamse Nederlanders. Met deze stelling - zo is ter zitting toegelicht – is bedoeld te wijzen op een ongerechtvaardigd

onderscheid naar woonplaats tussen Nederlanders die - na invoering van de AOW in 1957 - een periode in Suriname hebben gewoond en andere Nederlanders. Dit beroep van appellant op het verbod van discriminatie naar woonplaats slaagt niet. Het betoog van appellant komt er op neer dat hij de afbakening van de kring van verzekerden van de volksverzekeringen ontoelaatbaar acht. Voor wat betreft de verhouding en taakverdeling tussen de landen van het Koninkrijk wordt verwezen naar 4.1. Voor het overige wordt verwezen naar de uitspraak van de CRvB van 17 juli 2008 (ECLI:NL:CRVB:2008:BD8822). In een uitspraak van 2 maart 2012 (ECLI:NL:CRVB:2012:BV7609) heeft de Raad voorts geoordeeld dat het niet verzekerd achten van een niet-ingezetene geen ongerechtvaardigd onderscheid naar nationaliteit vormt. De Hoge Raad (HR 5 oktober 2012 (ECLI:NL:HR:2012:BX9203) heeft het cassatieberoep ongegrond verklaard. Voor de beperking van de verzekeringsplicht voor de volksverzekeringen tot in beginsel ingezetenen, bestaat volgens de Hoge Raad een toereikende objectieve rechtvaardiging.
Relevance of Charter

1.2. In its decision of 25 April 2019 the Social Security Bank awarded the appellant an old age pension on the basis of the Old Age Pension Act and reduced it by 8 per cent. The Bank took intio account a rounded off number of four years in which the appellant did not get an old age pension on the basis of the Old Age Pension Act, because he did not live from 18 August 1969 (starting age) up to and including 15 January 1974 in the Netherlands, due to which he was not insured on the basis of the Old Age Pension Act. 1.3. The appellant complained about the decision of 25 April 2919, and a decision about this complaint, of 20 Mey 2019 (the disputed decision) stated that this complainted was unfounded., 2. In the case of the disputed decision the District Court stated that the complaint of the appellant against the disputed decision was unfounded. 3. When he appealed, the appellant repeated that he does consider himself insured in the period covered by the reduction of his old age pesnion bacuse the lived in the territory of the Netherlands and had a continuous connection with the Kingdrom of the Netherlands. He stated that he was discriminated on the basis of his place of domicile, which was Surinam at the time, and this is prohibited pursuant to Article 21 of the Charter on the Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter). . . . . 4.1. Precedents by the High Court show that the term Kingdom, as referred to in the Old Age Pension Act until 1990, refers to the Kingdom within Europe. See the High Court’s judgement of 1 April 2016, ECLI:NL:CRVB:2016:1225, consideration 4.1 and the case law referred to there. That judgement considers – referring to the Parliamentary debate about the position of the residents of Surinam preceding the independence of this country – that the constitutional relationship between the Netherlands and Surinam resulted in the fact thet Surinam

was always responsible for its own system of social security. The Dutch government is therefore not respossible for the old age pension during the years thet individuals lived in Surinam. Also the legislator has paid attention to the right to an old age pension of prior residents of Surinam since the legal framework does not provide for this. In 2017 the then State Secretary of Social Affairs and Labour (SZW) stated that he did not see an opportunity for a special arrangement for the fact that Dutch (prior) residents of Surinam descent had no full rights to an old age pension. He wrote this in a letter of 5 October 2017 (re 2017-0000157748), reacting to questions of the Lower House of Parliament. In a letter of 26 June 2019 (re 2019-0000082987) the Minister of Social Affairs and Labour said, when asked, that he did not see a reason to deviate from the position laid down in the letter of 5 October 2017. 4.2.1. As far as the appellant relied on Article 21 of the Charter it is considered that Article 51 of the Charter limits the scope of application of the Charter. The first paragraph of this Article lays down that the provisions of the Charter are addressed to the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity and to the Member States only when they are implementing Union law. In the present case the implementation of any provision laid down in Union law does not apply. The provisions of the Charter – including Article 21 – therefore do not apply in this case. 4.2.2. Moreover, the High Court rejected the line of reasoning that there is prohibited discrimination (on the basis of place of residence) as referred to in various provisions in Conventions (Article 14 of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and the Fundamental Freedoms and Article 26 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights) in the above-mentioned judgement of 1 April 2016, consideration 4.2. and the case law mentioned in that consideration. Judgement of 1 April 2016: 4.1. . .. The administrative relationship between Surinam (until 25 November 1975), the Dutch Antilles and the Netherlands was laid down in the Statute for the Kingdom of the Netherlands (Kingdom Act of 28 October 1954 (Government Gazette 503, PB 121). The Dutch Constitution is inferior to the Statute. The foundation of this Statute are one joint Dutch nationality for all citizens of the Kingdom, one head of state (Queen Juliana and her legal inheritants), one joint foreign policity and one joint defence force. In all other respectcs, the countries of the Kingdom are autonomous and every country has its own government. Therefore the parts of the Kingdom overseas, among which Surinam, do not belong to the Kingdom. This point-of-view was confirmed by the Supreme Court in its judgement of 25 March 1959, BNB 1959/162. In this judgement the Supreme Court held that “the Kingdom” refers to the Kingdom within Europe. This has also always been held by the High Administrative Court (see CRvB, 27 April 1994, PS 1004, no. 660 and 6 March 2002, USZ 2002/116). As of 1 January 1990 the words “the Kingdom” have been replaced by “the Netherlands”. On the basis of the Statute co-operation in various fields was possible, but every country of the Kingdom is responsible for arranging its own internal issues. The form and contents of the social security system is such an internal issue. For example: the Dutch Antilles have their own social security system which deviates from the Dutch social security system.

Pursuant to Article 3 of the Statute other subjects than the subjects referred to in the first paragraph could have been declared to be issues of the Kingdom. However, when the Statute for the Kingdom of the Netherlands came into force, both Surinam and the Netherlands decided that social security was not an issue of the Kingdom. In accordance with that view, the Old Age Pension Act has been drafted. The Old Age Pension Act is not an Act of the Kingdom and therefore only applies to that part of the Kingdom that is in Europe, i.e. the Netherlands. The administrative relationship between the Netherlands and Surinam (until the independence of Surinam) therefore resulted in Surinam being responsible, all the time, for its own social security system. The Dutch government is therefore not responsible for the old age pension for the years that individuals lived in Surinam (Note Purchase Arrangement of Old Age Pension, enclosure of Parliamentary Documents II 207/08, 29389-11-b1). In view of the above-mentioned, the Administrative High Court cannot change its judgement on the basis of the views held by the appellant. 4.2. The appellant has, moreover, relied on the view that this explanation of the concept of Kingdom results in the discrimination of Dutchmen with a Surinam origin. This view, as explained during the hearing, aims at pointing at unjustified discrimination on the basis of place of residence between Dutchmen who – after the introduction of the Old Age Pension Act in 1957 – lived, for a while, in Surinam and other Dutchmen. The reliance of the appellant on the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of the place of residence fails. The arguments of the appellant come down to the fact that he does not feel that the limitations of the number of the insured on the basis of public insurance are allowed. As to the relationship and the division of tasks among the countries of the Kingdom, see 4.1. In all other respects, see the judgement of the Administrative High Court of 17 July 2008 (ECLI:NL:CRVB:2008:BD8822). In a judgement of 2 March 2012 (ECLI:NL:CRVB:2012:BV7609) the Administrative High Court judged, moreover, that considering a non-citizen not insured does not result in unjustified discrimination on the basis of nationality. The Supreme Court (HR 5 October 2012, ECLI:NL:HR:2012:BX9203) held that the appeal was unfounded. The Supreme Court holds that, for the limitation of the duty to insure in principle only citizens for the public insurances, there is an objective justification.