Curaçao
This report analyses the implementation of the AEOI Standard in Curaçao with respect to the requirements of the AEOI Terms of Reference. It assesses both the legal frameworks put in place to implement the AEOI Standard and the effectiveness of the implementation of the AEOI Standard in practice.
The methodology used for the peer reviews and that therefore underpins this report is outlined in Chapter 2.
Overall findings
AEOI legal framework
Curaçao’s legal framework implementing the AEOI Standard is not in place in accordance with the requirements of the AEOI Terms of Reference. This is because Curaçao’s domestic legislative framework requiring Reporting Financial Institutions to conduct the due diligence and reporting procedures (CR1) has significant deficiencies in areas that are fundamental to the proper functioning of the AEOI Standard. Most significantly, deficiencies have been identified in Curaçao’s enforcement framework and in other key areas.
Effectiveness of AEOI in practice
Curaçao’s implementation of the AEOI Standard is not compliant with the requirements of the AEOI Terms of Reference to ensure the effectiveness of the AEOI Standard in practice. While Curaçao is partially compliant with respect to exchanging the information in an effective and timely manner (CR2), there are fundamental issues with respect to ensuring that Reporting Financial Institutions correctly conduct the due diligence and reporting procedures (CR1).
Overall rating in relation to the effectiveness in practice: Non-Compliant
General context
Curaçao commenced exchanges under the AEOI Standard in 2018.
In order to provide for Reporting Financial Institutions to collect and report the information to be exchanged, Curaçao:
enacted National Ordinance International Assistance Taxation;
introduced National Decree International Assistance Taxation; and
Under this framework Reporting Financial Institutions were required to commence the due diligence procedures in relation to New Accounts from 1 January 2017. With respect to Preexisting Accounts, Reporting Financial Institutions were required to complete the due diligence procedures on High Value Individual Accounts by 31 December 2017 and on Lower Value Individual Accounts and Entity Accounts by 31 December 2018.
With respect to the exchange of information under the AEOI Standard, Curaçao has the Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters in place1 and activated the associated CRS Multilateral Competent Authority Agreement in time for exchanges in 2018.
Table 1 sets out the number of Financial Institutions in Curaçao that reported information on Financial Accounts in 2021 as defined in the AEOI Standard (essentially because they maintained Financial Accounts for Account Holders, or that were related to Controlling Persons, resident in a Reportable Jurisdiction). It also sets out the number of Financial Accounts that they reported in 2021. In this regard, it should be noted that Curaçao requires the reporting of Financial Accounts held by all non-residents and some accounts may be required to be reported more than once (e.g. jointly held accounts or accounts with multiple related Controlling Persons), which is reflected in the figures below. These figures provide key contextual information to the development and implementation of Curaçao’s administrative compliance strategy, which is analysed in the subsequent sections of this report.
Table 2 sets out the number of exchange partners to which information was successfully sent by Curaçao in the past few years (including where the necessary frameworks were in place containing an obligation on Reporting Financial Institutions to report information, but no relevant Reportable Accounts were identified). These figures provide key contextual information in relation to Curaçao’s exchanges in practice, which is also analysed in subsequent sections of this report.
In order to provide for the effective implementation of the AEOI Standard, in Curaçao:
the Fiscal Affairs team under direction of the Director of Fiscal affairs, as mandated Competent Authority, has the ultimate responsibility to ensure the effective implementation of the due diligence and the reporting obligations. The Tax Inspectorate is responsible for carrying out the collection and exchange of information, in accordance with the legislation and policies;
technical solutions necessary to receive and validate the information reported by Reporting Financial Institutions were put in place through the website of the Tax Administration which allows for CRS XML Schema file upload and which validates the data files through a validation module; and
the Common Transmission System (CTS) is used for the exchange of the information, along with the associated file preparation and encryption requirements.
It should be noted that the review of Curaçao’s legal frameworks implementing the AEOI Standard concluded with the determination that Curaçao’s domestic legal framework is Not In Place and its international legal framework is In Place. This has been taken into account when reviewing the effectiveness of Curaçao’s implementation of the AEOI Standard in practice and where particular gaps in Curaçao’s legal frameworks directly impact its implementation in practice, these are mentioned below.
Findings and conclusions on the legal frameworks
The detailed findings and conclusions on the AEOI legal frameworks for Curaçao are below, organised per Core Requirement (CR) and sub-requirement (SR), as extracted from the AEOI Terms of Reference (see Annex C).
CR1 Domestic legal framework: Jurisdictions should have a domestic legislative framework in place that requires all Reporting Financial Institutions to conduct the due diligence and reporting procedures in the CRS, and that provides for the effective implementation of the CRS as set out therein.
Curaçao’s domestic legislative framework is not in place as required as it does not contain several key aspects of the CRS and its Commentary. Significant deficiencies have been identified in relation to the framework to enforce the requirements (SR 1.4). Most significantly, Curaçao’s domestic legislative framework does not provide for rules to prevent the circumvention of the reporting and due diligence procedures, does not incorporate sanctions for the provision of false self-certifications and does not contain strong measures to ensure valid self-certifications are always obtained for New Accounts. Moreover, there are deficiencies in relation to the scope of Reporting Financial Institutions required to report information (SR 1.1) and the scope of Financial Accounts required to be reported and the due diligence procedures required to identify them (SR 1.2).
SR 1.1 Jurisdictions should define the scope of Reporting Financial Institutions consistently with the CRS.
Curaçao has defined the scope of Reporting Financial Institutions in its domestic legislative framework in a manner that is largely consistent with the CRS and its Commentary. However, deficiencies have been identified. More specifically, Curaçao’s legislative framework:
classifies certain Entities as Non-Financial Entities, which are not in accordance with the requirements set out in the AEOI Standard;
does not specify the date as of when Qualified Credit Card Issuers need to implement policies for the returning of overpayments, which is required for them to be treated as Non-Reporting Financial Institutions; and
does not specify the date as of when Exempt Collective Investment Vehicles are prevented from issuing bearer shares nor the date prior to which any existing bearer shares are required to be redeemed or immobilised, which is required for them to be treated as Non-Reporting Financial Institutions.
The scope of Reporting Financial Institutions, including the specification of Non-Reporting Financial Institutions, is material to the proper functioning of the AEOI Standard.
Curaçao should amend its domestic legislative framework to remove the classifications of entities held by one single family or a very limited group and Trust Office Foundation (“Stichting administratiekantoor” or STAK) as Non-Financial Entities without regard to the requirements to be classified as such.
Curaçao should amend its domestic legislative framework to require Qualified Credit Card Issuers to implement policies with respect to the returning of overpayments from a specified date in order to be treated as Non-Reporting Financial Institutions.
Curaçao should amend its domestic legislative framework to prevent Exempt Collective Investment Vehicles from issuing bearer shares from a specified date and for any existing bearer shares to be redeemed or immobilised prior to that date in order to be treated as Non-Reporting Financial Institutions.
SR 1.2 Jurisdictions should define the scope of Financial Accounts and Reportable Accounts consistently with the CRS and incorporate the due diligence procedures to identify them.
Curaçao has defined the scope of the Financial Accounts that are required to be reported in its domestic legislative framework and has incorporated the due diligence procedures that must be applied to identify them in a manner that is largely consistent with the CRS and its Commentary. However, deficiencies have been identified. More specifically, Curaçao’s legislative framework:
does not specify the date on which a Preexisting Entity Account is first to be identified;
does not define Controlling Persons in accordance with the requirements;
does not specify the date as of when Qualified Credit Card Issuers need to implement policies for the returning of overpayments, which is required for Depository Accounts due to not-returned overpayments to be treated as Excluded Accounts; and
does not follow the conditions set out in the AEOI Standard for when Reporting Financial Institutions can use existing classifications as Documentary Evidence with respect to Preexisting Entity Accounts.
The scope of Financial Accounts and the due diligence procedures to identify them is material to the proper functioning of the AEOI Standard.
Curaçao should amend its domestic legislative framework to specify the date on which a Preexisting Entity Account is first to be identified using the USD 250 000 balance or value threshold.
Curaçao should amend its domestic legislative framework to require Reporting Financial Institutions to always identify and determine the reportable status of Controlling Persons in accordance with the AEOI Standard.
Curaçao should amend its domestic legislative framework to define Controlling Persons in accordance with the AEOI Standard, by removing the 25% ownership or share of profits threshold for partnerships in order to ensure the identification of all relevant Controlling Persons of partnerships and legal arrangements similar to partnerships.
Curaçao should amend its domestic legislative framework to require Qualified Credit Card Issuers to implement policies with respect to the returning of overpayments from a specified date in order for Depository Accounts due to not-returned overpayments to be treated as Excluded Accounts.
Curaçao should amend its domestic legislative framework to require Reporting Financial Institutions to only use Documentary Evidence in relation to the due diligence procedures for Preexisting Entity Accounts in accordance with the conditions in the AEOI Standard.
SR 1.3 Jurisdictions should incorporate the reporting requirements contained in Section I of the CRS into their domestic legislative framework.
Curaçao has incorporated the reporting requirements in its domestic legislative framework in accordance with the CRS and its Commentary. While a deficiency has been identified with respect to the reporting of the currency denomination, it is considered to be relatively minor as the CRS XML schema will compel the reporting of a currency type.
Curaçao should amend its domestic legislative framework to require Reporting Financial Institutions to identify the currency in which each account is denominated.
SR 1.4 Jurisdictions should have a legislative framework in place that allows for the enforcement of the requirements of the CRS in practice.
Curaçao does not have a legislative framework in place to enforce the requirements in a manner that is consistent with the CRS and its Commentary as significant deficiencies have been identified. More specifically, Curaçao’s legislative framework:
does not include rules to prevent Financial Institutions, persons or intermediaries from adopting practices intended to circumvent the due diligence and reporting procedures as required;
does not include sanctions on Account Holders and Controlling Persons for the provision of a false self-certification; and
allows self-certifications to be obtained after the opening of the account in circumstances beyond those that are permitted.
These are key elements of the required enforcement framework and are therefore material to the proper functioning of the AEOI Standard.
Curaçao should amend its domestic legislative framework to introduce rules to prevent Financial Institutions, persons and intermediaries from adopting practices intended to circumvent the due diligence and reporting procedures.
Curaçao should amend its domestic legislative framework to include sanctions on Account Holders and Controlling Persons for the provision of a false self-certification.
Curaçao should amend its domestic legislative framework to limit the circumstances when it is permissible to obtain a valid self-certification after the opening of a New Account in accordance with the requirements.
CR2 International legal framework: Jurisdictions should have exchange relationships in effect with all Interested Appropriate Partners as committed to and that provide for the exchange of information in accordance with the Model CAA.
Curaçao’s international legal framework to exchange the information is in place, is consistent with the Model CAA and its Commentary and provides for exchange with all of Curaçao’s Interested Appropriate Partners (i.e. all jurisdictions that are interested in receiving information from Curaçao and that meet the required standard in relation to confidentiality and data safeguards) (SRs 2.1 – 2.3).
SR 2.1 Jurisdictions should have exchange agreements in effect with all Interested Appropriate Partners that permit the automatic exchange of CRS information.
Curaçao has exchange agreements that permit the automatic exchange of CRS information in effect with all its Interested Appropriate Partners.
SR 2.2 Such an exchange agreement should be put in place without undue delay, following the receipt of an expression of interest from an Interested Appropriate Partner.
Curaçao put in place its exchange agreements without undue delay.
SR 2.3 Jurisdictions should ensure that the exchange agreements in effect provide for the exchange of information in accordance with the requirements of the Model CAA.
Curaçao’s exchange agreements provide for the exchange of information in accordance with the requirements of the Model CAA.
Findings and conclusions in relation to effectiveness in practice
The detailed findings and conclusions in relation to effectiveness in practice of AEOI for Curaçao are below, organised per Core Requirement (CR) and then per sub-requirement (SR) as extracted from the AEOI Terms of Reference (see Annex C).
CR1 Effectiveness in practice: Jurisdictions should ensure that in practice Reporting Financial Institutions correctly implement the due diligence and reporting procedures, which includes a requirement for jurisdictions to have in place an administrative framework to ensure the effective implementation of the CRS.
Curaçao’s implementation of the AEOI Standard is non-compliant with respect to ensuring that Reporting Financial Institutions are correctly conducting the due diligence and reporting procedures. More specifically, while Curaçao is meeting expectations with respect to collaboration with its exchange partners to ensure effectiveness (SR 1.6), there are fundamental issues with respect to ensuring effectiveness in a domestic context, such as through having an effective administrative compliance framework and related procedures (SR 1.5).
SR 1.5 Jurisdictions should ensure that in practice Reporting Financial Institutions identify the Financial Accounts they maintain, identify the Reportable Accounts among those Financial Accounts, as well as their Account Holders, and where relevant Controlling Persons, by correctly conducting the due diligence procedures and collect and report the required information with respect to each Reportable Account. This includes having in place:
an effective administrative compliance framework to ensure the effective implementation of, and compliance with, the CRS. This framework should:
be based on a strategy that facilitates compliance by Reporting Financial Institutions and which is informed by a risk assessment in respect of the effective implementation of the CRS that takes into account relevant information sources (including third party sources);
include procedures to ensure that Financial Institutions correctly apply the definitions of Reporting Financial Institutions and Non-Reporting Financial Institutions;
include procedures to periodically verify Reporting Financial Institutions’ compliance, conducted by authorities that have adequate powers with respect to the reviewed Reporting Financial Institutions, with procedures to access the records they maintain; and
effective procedures to ensure that Financial Institutions, persons or intermediaries do not circumvent the due diligence and reporting procedures;
effective enforcement mechanisms to address non-compliance by Reporting Financial Institutions;
strong measures to ensure that valid self-certifications are always obtained for New Accounts;
effective procedures to ensure that each, or each type of, jurisdiction-specific Non-Reporting Financial Institution and Excluded Account continue to present a low risk of being used to evade tax; and
effective procedures to follow up with a Reporting Financial Institution when undocumented accounts are reported in order to establish the reasons why such information is being reported.
In order to ensure that Reporting Financial Institutions correctly conduct the due diligence and reporting procedures, Curaçao implemented some of the requirements in accordance with expectations. However, fundamental issues were identified. The key findings were as follows:
Curaçao developed a strategy to ensure compliance with the AEOI Standard, developed after conducting a risk assessment that took into account a range of relevant information sources, such as the input received from peers and the interaction the tax authority has with the Reporting Financial Institutions. It has also carried out some communications activities.
Curaçao has worked effectively to understand its population of Financial Institutions, utilising various relevant information sources, such as the list of regulated entities and the Foreign Financial Institution list for FATCA purposes. Curaçao also uses the list of licensees from the Chamber of Commerce and the national register of companies as information sources to identify its population of unregulated entities that are Financial Institutions for the purposes of the AEOI Standard. Curaçao is taking action to ensure that Reporting Financial Institutions are classifying themselves correctly under its domestic rules and reporting information as required. Curaçao intends to keep its understanding of its Financial Institution population up to date on a routine basis.
The institutions responsible for implementing Curaçao’s compliance strategy appear to have the necessary powers and resources to discharge their functions. With respect to resourcing, Curaçao has assigned the equivalent of two full time staff to monitor and ensure compliance by Reporting Financial Institutions, which have access to IT systems and tools to conduct risk assessments from the tax inspectorate. There are also other staff who are involved in other aspects of the implementation, such as drafting the necessary regulations and developing the IT system. However, no compliance activities have yet been conducted to ensure the information being reported is complete and accurate.
In additional to having not carried out desk-based checks in relation to the completeness and accuracy of the information, it appears that Curaçao has not yet finalised the administrative procedures to conduct audits and to access records held by Reporting Financial Institutions. It is also noted that, due to not having the required legal basis in place, Curaçao does not have procedures to address circumvention of the due diligence and reporting obligations if detected.
While Curaçao intends to include the checking of self-certifications in its future verification activities, it has also started to develop, but not yet finalised, the procedures under which this will occur. It is also noted that Curacao’s legal framework permits the collection of self-certifications in circumstances that are broader than permitted under the AEOI Standard, which will limit its ability to enforce the collection of self-certifications in some cases. Curaçao has plans to follow up with Reporting Financial Institutions that report undocumented accounts, but has not yet carried out these activities.
Curaçao has not yet imposed any sanctions or penalties for non-compliance nor does it seem to have administrative procedures in place to apply penalties in case non-compliance is detected.
It is noted that Curaçao does not have jurisdiction-specific lists of Non-Reporting Financial Institutions or Excluded Accounts for ongoing monitoring.
Table 3 provides a summary of the specific activities undertaken, or that are planned to be undertaken, in relation to each of the key parts of the framework described above.
Curaçao was not able to confirm that it collects and monitors information on the proportion of Financial Accounts that are reported that include information on the Tax Identification Numbers and/or dates of birth with respect to the individuals associated with them. These data points are key to exchange partners to effectively utilise the information and are important to developing an effective compliance strategy to ensure the AEOI Standard is being effectively implemented. Curaçao was not able to confirm that it collects and monitors information on the number of undocumented accounts reported by its Reporting Financial Institutions. This information is crucial to implementing the requirement to follow up on undocumented accounts.
More generally, many of the exchange partners that received a significant number of records from Curaçao indicated that they achieved a success rate when matching the information received from Curaçao with their taxpayer database that was broadly equivalent to, or better than, what they usually achieve.
Based on these findings it was concluded that Curaçao is not meeting expectations in ensuring that Reporting Financial Institutions correctly conduct the due diligence and reporting procedures, including by having in place the required administrative compliance framework and related procedures. More specifically, fundamental issues have been identified, including with respect to Curaçao’s compliance and enforcement strategy, and the activities to verify that the information reported is complete and accurate, including with respect to self-certifications and following up with Reporting Financial Institutions that report undocumented accounts. Curaçao should therefore continue its implementation process accordingly, including by addressing the recommendations made.
Curaçao should develop and implement an appropriate framework, including in-depth reviews, to verify whether Reporting Financial Institutions are effectively implementing the AEOI Standard.
Curaçao should develop and implement procedures to access and review the records held by Reporting Financial Institutions to verify their compliance with the AEOI Standard.
Curaçao should develop and implement effective procedures to monitor and verify whether Reporting Financial Institutions are obtaining valid self-certifications as required, including dedicated communication activities, with a particular focus on self-certifications obtained after the opening of a Financial Account.
Curaçao should put in place and implement effective enforcement mechanisms to address non-compliance by Reporting Financial Institutions and take enforcement activities where non-compliance is identified. Reference is made to the recommendation made when assessing Curaçao’s legal frameworks implementing the AEOI Standard in relation to the sanctions with respect to failure to carry out the due diligence procedures.
Curaçao should put in place a clearly defined policy that, where circumvention is identified, action is taken to address it. Reference is made to the recommendation made when assessing Curaçao’s legal basis.
Curaçao should implement systems to collect and monitor information on the reporting of Tax Identification Numbers, dates of birth and undocumented accounts to inform its compliance strategy.
Curaçao should follow up with Reporting Financial Institutions that report undocumented accounts.
SR 1.6 Jurisdictions should collaborate on compliance and enforcement. This requires jurisdictions to:
use all appropriate measures available under the jurisdiction’s domestic law to address errors or non-compliance notified to the jurisdiction by an exchange partner; and
have in place effective procedures to notify an exchange partner of errors that may have led to incomplete or incorrect information reporting or non-compliance with the due diligence or reporting procedures by a Reporting Financial Institution in the jurisdiction of the exchange partner.
In order to collaborate on compliance and enforcement, it appears that Curaçao implemented all of the requirements in relation to issues notified to them (i.e. under Section 4 of the MCAA or equivalent) in accordance with expectations. While no such notifications have yet been received, Curaçao has the necessary systems and procedures to process them as required. It also appears that Curaçao will notify its partners effectively of errors or suspected non-compliance it identifies when utilising the information received.
Based on these findings it was concluded that Curaçao is fully meeting expectations in relation to collaborating with its exchange partners to ensure that Reporting Financial Institutions correctly conduct the due diligence and reporting procedures. Curaçao is encouraged to continue its implementation process accordingly, to ensure its ongoing effectiveness.
CR2 Effectiveness in practice: Jurisdictions should exchange the information effectively in practice, in a timely manner, including by sorting, preparing, validating and transmitting it in accordance with the AEOI Standard.
Curaçao’s implementation of the AEOI Standard is partially compliant with respect to exchanging the information effectively in practice and in a timely manner. More specifically, while Curaçao is meeting expectations with respect to sorting, preparing and validating the information (SR 2.4), and providing corrections, amendments or additions to the information (SR 2.9) there are significant issues with respect to correctly transmitting the information and in a timely manner (SRs 2.5 – 2.8). Curaçao should continue its implementation process to ensure its effectiveness, including by addressing the recommendations made.
SR 2.4 Jurisdictions should sort, prepare and validate the information in accordance with the CRS XML Schema and the associated requirements in the CRS XML Schema User Guide and the File Error and Correction-related validations in the Status Message User Guide (i.e. the 50000 and 80000 range).
Ten exchange partners highlighted particular issues with respect to preparation and format of the information sent by Curaçao (representing 14% of its partners). These generally related to using the wrong version of the XML schema. More generally, 11 (or 16%) of Curaçao’s exchange partners reported rejecting more than 50% of the files received, due to the technical requirements not being met, of which 2 exchange partners reported rejecting more than 50% of the files. This is a very high amount when compared to other jurisdictions and it has increased over time. It was noted that Curaçao has addressed all the issues.
Based on these findings it was concluded that Curaçao is fully meeting expectations in relation to sorting, preparing and validating the information. Curaçao is encouraged to continue its implementation process accordingly, to ensure its ongoing effectiveness.
SR 2.5 Jurisdictions should agree and use, with each exchange partner, transmission methods that meet appropriate minimum standards to ensure the confidentiality and integrity of the data throughout the transmission, including its encryption to a minimum secure standard.
In order to put in place an agreed transmission method that meets appropriate minimum standards in confidentiality, integrity of the data and encryption for use with each of its exchange partners, Curaçao linked to the CTS.
Based on these findings it was concluded that Curaçao is fully meeting expectations in relation to agreeing and using appropriate transmission methods with each of its partners. Curaçao is encouraged to continue to ensure the ongoing effectiveness of its implementation.
SR 2.6 Jurisdictions should carry out all exchanges annually within nine months of the end of the calendar year to which the information relates.
Five exchange partners highlighted delays in the sending of information by Curaçao (representing 7% of its partners). This represents a very high proportion of exchange partners. Furthermore, two partners stated that the information has still not been received.
Based on these findings it was concluded that Curaçao is partially meeting expectations in relation to exchanging the information in a timely manner. However, significant issues have been identified, including with respect to timeliness of exchanges with a significant number of exchange partners. Curaçao should continue its implementation process to ensure its effectiveness, including by addressing the recommendation made.
Curaçao should ensure it sends information to all of its exchange partners in a timely manner.
SR 2.7 Jurisdictions should send the information in accordance with the agreed transmission methods and encryption standards.
Feedback from Curaçao’s did not raise any concerns with respect to Curaçao’s use of the agreed transmission methods and therefore with Curaçao’s implementation of this requirement.
Based on these findings it was concluded that Curaçao is fully meeting expectations in relation to sending the information in accordance with the agreed transmission methods and encryption standards. Curaçao is encouraged to continue to ensure the ongoing effectiveness of its implementation.
SR 2.8 Jurisdictions should have the systems in place to receive information and, once it has been received, should send a status message to the sending jurisdictions in accordance with the CRS Status Message XML Schema and the related User Guide.
24 exchange partners highlighted delays in the sending of status messages by Curaçao, representing 28% of its partners. This represents a very high proportion of exchange partners. Curaçao has still not yet sent some of the status messages due to be sent in 2021.
Based on these findings it was concluded that Curaçao is partially meeting expectations in relation to the receipt of the information. More specifically, significant issues have been identified, including with respect to the timeliness of the sending of status messaged and the responsiveness to address the issues. Curaçao should continue its implementation process to ensure its effectiveness, including by addressing the recommendation made.
Curaçao should ensure it sends status messages to all of its exchange partners in a timely manner.
SR 2.9 Jurisdictions should respond to a notification from an exchange partner as referred to in Section 4 of the Model CAA (which may include Status Messages) in accordance with the timelines set out in the Commentary to Section 4 of the Model CAA. In all other cases, jurisdictions should send corrected, amended or additional information received from a Reporting Financial Institution as soon as possible after it has been received.
Curaçao appears ready to respond to notifications and to provide corrected, amended or additional information in a timely manner and no such concerns were raised by Curaçao’s exchange partners and therefore with respect to Curaçao’s implementation of these requirements.
Based on these findings it was concluded that Curaçao appears to be meeting expectations in relation to responding to notifications from exchange partners and the sending of corrected, amended or additional information. Curaçao is encouraged to continue to ensure the ongoing effectiveness of its implementation.
Note
← 1. Through a territorial extension by the Netherlands.