Home
In the proceedings that Trudy Scheele-Gertsen and Bureau Clara Wichmann filed against the Dutch State because of the unlawful separation of unmarried mothers and their children in the period 1956-1984, a new date has been set for the District Court of The Hague to render judgment. The court will render a public judgment on 26 January 2022. The date was previously set for 15 December of this year, but needed to be rescheduled.
More information on the case can be found here.
The European Center for Constitutional Rights (ECCHR) with the support of Prakken d’Oliveira Human Rights Lawyers submitted a criminal complaint against several Dutch and US textile and fashion brands who have their European headquarters in the Netherlands. They argue that Patagonia, Nike, C&A and State of Art may have been directly or indirectly complicit in the forced labor of members of the Uyghur population in China's Xinjiang province. They ask the Dutch Public Prosecutor to investigate the corporations’ alleged complicity in human rights violations that could amount to crimes against humanity.
“The choice to not only focus on national criminal law regarding labour exploitation, but to broaden the complaint to crimes against humanity, underlines the scale of the crimes that are committed in Xinjian and aligns with statements from politicians and NGOs that have qualified the treatment of Uyghurs in Xinjiang as genocide and crimes against humanity,” says Barbara van Straaten, Human Rights Lawyer, Prakken d'Oliveira.
Alarming reports about torture, re-education camps, and forced labor in the Xinjiang region in China have increased in frequency since 2017. According to Amnesty International, the Chinese government systematically persecutes the Muslim Uyghur minority in Xinjiang. Tens of thousands are allegedly forced to harvest cotton and manufacture clothing – which are also sold on the European market. Research reports, as well as publicly available supply chain information disclosed by the investigated brands, explicitly state that the companies have suppliers with production facilities in Xinjiang.
“It is unacceptable that European governments criticize China for human rights violations while these companies possibly profit from the exploitation of the Uyghur population. It is high time that responsible corporate officers are investigated and – if necessary - held to account,” says Corina Ajder, Legal Advisor, ECCHR.
The Amsterdam-based Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO) and the Netherlands Clean Clothes Campaign (SKC) welcome the filing of the criminal complaint and urge the Dutch public prosecutor to take up the complaint and begin its own investigations. “The eminent lack of supply chain and trade flow transparency makes it very difficult for labor rights organizations to investigate possible violations of workers’ rights. Voluntary corporate initiatives have failed to deliver sufficient transparency and better working conditions in the global garment industry,” say SOMO and SKC.
The complaint in the Netherlands is part of a series of criminal complaints in Europe against Western brands regarding their alleged involvement in Xinjiang. In September 2021, ECCHR submitted a similar complaint in Germany and in April 2021, we supported a criminal complaint brought by Sherpa in France.
A Q&A document about the case can be found here.
Contact:
ECCHR - Maria Bause,
The Nuhanovic Foundation (Centre for War Reparations) as announced several events in relation to the case on behalf of the Palestinian Mr. Ismael Ziada. On 7 December 2021, the Appeals Court in The Hague will render its verdict in the case on the immunity defense raised by Gantz and Eshel, and the question of whether civil universal jurisdiction applies. Ziada is represented by lawyers Liesbeth Zegveld and Lisa-Marie Komp.
Click here for the PDF containing the agenda for the events on 2 December 2021, 07 December 2021 and 09 December 2021.
Previously
On 24 November 2021, the District Court of The Hague substantially awarded the claim of the illegally adopted Patrick Noordoven against the State of the Netherlands. The judgment of the court can be found here.
Patrick Noordoven was illegally adopted from Brazil in 1980. His parentage was thereby misrepresented, by giving him up as the biological child of the Dutch couple who adopted him illegally. Shortly after his illegal adoption, the police conducted an investigation and concluded that Patrick Noordoven and 41 other children had been adopted illegally from Brazil to the Netherlands. Nevertheless, after the investigation, the State did not take measures to enable Patrick Noordoven to know his parentage and the circumstances of his illegal adoption. The Court concluded that by doing so, the State acted in violation of Patrick Noordoven's right to identity and knowledge of his parentage.
As a result, Patrick Noordoven had to devote 20 years of his life to finding his biological parents. In addition, he has conducted years of research to clarify how his illegal adoption took place and what role the Dutch state had played in it. The court therefore ruled that the State is liable for the damage that Patrick Noordoven has suffered as a result.
The court rejected the claim that the State is (also) liable for the fact that the illegal adoption of Patrick Noordoven was effected with the help of a Dutch diplomat or was facilitated by the Dutch Diplomatic representations in Brazil.
Patrick Noordoven was assisted in these proceedings by Lisa-Marie Komp.
Further information on the case of Patrick Noordoven can be found (in Dutch) here:
On December 7, 2021, the Appeals Court in The Hague will rule on the immunity defense and the question of whether there is civil universal jurisdiction in the case of the Palestinian Ismael Ziada. In 2017, Ziada initiated civil proceedings against Benny Gantz and Amir Eshel, formerly the Commander of the Armed Forces and Air Force Commander of the Israeli Defense Force (IDF). Ziada filed suit following the death of his family members during the Israeli air strikes on Gaza as part of operation Protective Edge. Ziada is assisted by lawyers Liesbeth Zegveld and Lisa-Marie Komp.
Website The Real News Network interviewed lawyer Liesbeth Zegveld about the case and the upcoming judgment:
(There will be a livestream for the court ruling on 7 December 2021. Once the link to the online court hearing is available, it will be published on our website.)
[Photo: Ismael Ziada on the ruins of his family's home in Gaza]
Previously
Mohamedou Ould Slahi, the Mauritanian writer who was imprisoned at Guantánamo Bay for fourteen years without charge or trial, has finally received a residence permit from the IND (the Dutch Immigration and Naturalization Service).
Previously, the decision on his residence application was repeatedly postponed by the IND because there was a SIS alert in his name, imposed by Germany. Nevertheless, the IND has now decided to issue a combined work and residence permit (gvva), despite the existence of this SIS alert.
In his residence procedure, Slahi was legally supported by Eva Bezem. She argued to the IND that the German alert was based on outdated, incorrect information about his alleged involvement in terrorist attacks. It was because of exactly this information that he was wrongfully imprisoned at Guantánamo Bay for fourteen years at the time.
Slahi took the position that this SIS alert could not prevent him from obtaining an entry visa and a residence permit for the Netherlands. The IND has now followed this position.
The purpose of his stay will primarily be to work for one year as a writer-in-residence at ‘Noord Nederlands Toneel’ (a theater company) and ‘Club Guy & Roni’. He will also visit MBO courses with i.e. De Balie, to talk to students about the concept of freedom, in order to make young people aware of what freedom exactly means.
A recent article by ‘de Volkskrant’ about this case can be found here.
Today, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State (the Division) ruled that the State Secretary of Justice and Security must pay compensation to a woman (hereafter: client) who was deported by the Netherlands to Russia in 2014. Immediately after her deportation, the client was taken into custody by the Russian authorities and mistreated and raped in detention. The Division ruled that there had been a violation of the refoulement prohibition laid down in, among others, section 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The Division hereby confirms the judgment of the Court of Amsterdam, which ruled on 2 October 2019 that the State Secretary had acted unlawfully towards the client. This court will now determine the amount of the compensation in an administrative-law damage assessment procedure.
The press release of the Division can be found here, the judgment here.
Further explanation of the judgment
After two rejected asylum applications, the client applied for asylum for a third time in 2014, during which she submitted a large number of new and original documents. These showed, among other things, that she would have to fear criminal prosecution in Russia. These documents were examined by the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee, which ruled that there was insufficient reference material to establish the authenticity of the documents. The client then called in a Russia expert who ruled that there was no reason to assume that the documents were not authentic. Nevertheless, her application for protection was rejected without a new substantive assessment. The Aliens Court approved this. Pending her appeal, the client was deported and handed over directly to the Russian authorities by the Royal Royal Netherlands Marechaussee from the plane. This led on the same day to the very serious consequences mentioned above, from which the client suffers to this day.
The Division ruled that the formal legal force of the State Secretary's decision did not preclude a finding of unlawfulness and liability for damages. After all, the facts show that the risk assessment was incorrect. In doing so, the Division followed the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), from which it follows that the events after the expulsion may be relevant for the assessment of a violation of the prohibition of refoulement (see among others X v. Switzerland; N.A. v. Finland; M.A. v. Belgium). The Division held that now that it had been established that the expulsion had resulted in a violation of section 3 of the ECHR, the risks were for the account of the State Secretary, also because the client had explicitly pointed out these risks prior to her expulsion. It follows from the case that the State Secretary always remains ultimately responsible for a deportation and its consequences, not the judiciary.
It is also relevant that this complex damage claim was brought before the administrative court and not the civil court. The State Secretary had argued that the case could not be brought before this administrative law judge, but the Division rejects this argument. According to several legislative amendments, the legislator intended that the administrative courts should have exclusive jurisdiction in aliens cases. This applies not only to unlawful decision-making but also to other unlawful acts committed against an alien. The administrative courts therefore had jurisdiction to rule on the unlawfulness and (the amount of) compensation.
The client was assisted in this case by Tom de Boer.
In a preliminary relief procedure, the District Court of The Hague prohibited the extradition of an individual to Russia. According to the preliminary relief judge, the plaintiff runs a real risk of being subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment if extradited. As such, the plaintiff’s fundament right as laid down in Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) is insufficiently guaranteed. The preliminary relief judge mainly had to the detention conditions in Russian prisons in mind. The preliminary relief judge found that ill-treatment in detention is systematic, that torture and other forms of ill-treatment are widespread and that physical and sexual abuse are systematic. The preliminary relief judge based her verdict inter alia on reports from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the United Nations.
The case is published here (in Dutch).
The plaintiff in this case was represented by Tamara Buruma and Bram Horenblas
Frontex, the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, is being held accountable for illegally pushing back a Syrian family. The family was illegally deported to Turkey by Frontex in October 2016, shortly after arriving in Greece. It is the first time that Frontex through an action for damages is held responsible before the EU General Court for illegally deporting people and violating fundamental rights. Reports of similar pushbacks by Frontex have been piling up over the past years. The Syrian family is being represented by Flip Schüller, Marieke van Eik and Lisa-Marie Komp. Prakken D'Oliveira is supported by the Dutch Council for Refugees, BKB, Sea-Watch Legal Aid Fund and Jungle Minds.
The Syrian family, with four young children between the ages of 1 and 7, applied for asylum in Greece in October 2016. Their request was registered by the local authorities. Eleven days later, the family was nonetheless deported by Frontex and Greek authorities and taken onto a plane to Turkey without any access to an asylum procedure. Nor was an official expulsion order presented. During the flight arranged by Frontex and with their staff present, the four young children were separated from their parents. More so, they were ordered not to speak to each other. In Turkey, the family was immediately imprisoned. After release, they had no access to basic services and were unable to sustain themselves. Fleeing onwards, the family are now living in northern Iraq.
Violations of fundamental rights
With the deportation, the family became victims of a so-called pushback, in which people are deported to a non-EU country without prior procedure. As a result, the family have been denied the fundamental right to apply for asylum by Frontex. Moreover, Frontex have violated the principle on non-refoulement, a basic principle of international law that prohibits returning asylum seekers or refugees to a country in which they fear persecution or risk inhumane treatment. Both are fundamental rights that apply in the European Union, as also stated in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. By separating children from their parents during the flight in addition, Frontex violated the rights of the child as it placed the children in a traumatic situation.
Undermining the values on which the EU is built
Despite a complaint procedure about these events, there has been no substantive response from Frontex on its responsibility for the pushback since the deportation, now five years ago. Meanwhile, reports of illegal pushbacks by Frontex are piling up. Prakken D'Oliveira Human Rights Lawyers now holds Frontex responsible for the violations of fundamental rights on behalf of the Syrian family: “Breach of fundamental rights of the European Union by an EU agency is seriously undermining the values on which the Union is founded. We are therefore holding Frontex and the EU accountable and are urging them to restore the rule of law.” It is the first time that Frontex is held responsible before the EU General Court for illegally deporting people and violating fundamental rights in this way.
“Every week, men, women and children fleeing war and violence are illegally deported from Europe's borders. People have been killed, others were attacked or mistreated. Frontex plays a major role in these human rights violations. With this lawsuit and campaign, we as European citizens hold the EU accountable and demand an immediate end to human rights violations and oppression at our external borders.”
International campaign
With the submission of the case, the Dutch Council for Refugees, BKB, Sea-Watch Legal Aid Fund, Jungle Minds, and Prakken D'Oliveira Human Rights Lawyers are launching the international campaign #notonourborderwatch. At notonourborderwatch.com concerned citizens are offered the opportunity to send a message to the European Commission urging European Commissioner Johansson, responsible for migration policy, to immediately end the violations of fundamental human rights at the EU's external borders. This campaign is supported by NGOs across Europe.
In the media:
More about the illegal pushbacks by Frontex:
Recently, Syria regained access to the databases of Interpol. This means that Syria can again share police data and information, on the basis of equality. The podcast Wereldmachten looked into the organization and system of Interpol. There are examples of autocratic countries that abuse the system of the so-called red notices, a sort of 'blacklist' with wanted criminals. These regimes abuse the list in search for fugitive dissidents, activists, journalists or human rights defenders.
Lawyer Frederieke Dölle was interviewed for the podcast and spoke about what people can do if they are confronted with the far reaching influence of authoritarian regimes and the issuing of a red notice. You can listen to the episode at Spotify (in Dutch).
On 13 October 2021, the district court of Haarlem rendered a verdict in the case against the Good Shepherd. In its verdict, the court ruled on an action to produce evidence ('exhibition-request') that was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs this summer. The court granted a large part of the exhibition-request.
The court case against the Good Shepherd was initiated last year by 19 women who were placed in residential institutions run by the Good Shepherd in their youth and had to perform forced labor there. The Clara Wichmann Foundation is also plaintiff in the proceedings on behalf of other women who were victims of forced labor during their stay with the Good Shepherd. Two parties have been engaged for the Good Shepherd: the Euphrasia Convent (Klooster Euphrasia) in Bloemendaal and the European Province of the Good Shepherd in Angers (France). In response to the writ of summons, they i.a. contested that they are the legal successors of the institutions where the plaintiffs stayed and had to perform forced labor. The defendants also contest that the Good Shepherd had any say over those institutions. This summer, and in response to those defenses, the plaintiffs requested documents that are supposed to offer clarity about the defendants’ legal position and the control over the institutions.
The oral arguments with regard to the exhibition-request were presented before the district court of Haarlem on 2 September 2021. Last Wednesday, the court rendered its verdict. It held that the defendants must hand over a relatively large number of the documents that the plaintiffs had requested within 8 weeks.
As in the main case, the defendants have also argued that the exhibition-request was out of time. In its verdict however, the court held that it cannot rule on the question of whether that limitation-defense can be upheld. In order to do so, it is important to know whether the (legal predecessors) of the defendants had control over the institutions where the plaintiffs stayed, as well as what the nature and scope of this was. The plaintiffs had also filed their request for documents in order to obtain more clarity about this. The statute of limitations is a defense that will be assessed when the main case is dealt with substantively, which is set to happen over the course of 2022.
The plaintiffs in these proceedings are represented by lawyers Liesbeth Zegveld and Brechtje Vossenberg, and since this summer, Thomas van der Sommen.
Read the press release issued by the court about this verdict here and the verdict itself here (both in Dutch).
Previously
On 28 September 2021, the documentary 'Gij zult niet doden' ('Thou Shalt Not Kill') premiers on the Dutch television channel NPO2. The documentary revolves around lawyer Liesbeth Zegveld and the court case concerning the ending of the Moluccan Train Hijacking near De Punt (Drenthe, the Netherlands) on 11 June 1977. For this, director Koert Davidse spent five years following Zegveld, who together with lawyer Brechtje Vossenberg represented the surviving relatives of Max Papilaja and Hansina Uktolseja, two of the hostage-takers who were shot dead, in their search for truth about and justice for what happened that day in 1977.
See a trailer for the documentary here; the documentary itself can (also) be seen fully on the NPO2-website.
Previous items about the trial
On Friday 24 September 2021, 09:30 AM, the district court of The Hague will hold a hearing in the case filed by Ms. Scheele-Gertsen and Bureau Clara Wichmann against the Dutch State on account of the unlawful separation of unmarried mothers from their children in the period 1956-1984. This is the first time that a Dutch court will rule on a complaint by a mother who was forced to give up her baby to the State.
In 2020, Trouw and Omroep Gelderland documented how in the period 1956-1984, a system evolved in which unmarried mothers were separated from their children against their will. Additionally, Sarah Tekath produced a podcast (in English) about the history of forced separation in the Netherlands. The women were given incomplete and incorrect information about their rights. It was instilled in them that it would be better for their child if they gave it up for adoption. Opportunities that existed to help them raise their child on their own were kept from them. And they were also unjustly portrayed as women who neither wanted nor could raise their own child. This was also the case with Ms. Scheele-Gertsen. On behalf of the State, the Child Protection Board played an important role in this system by using its powers unlawfully and in a way that contributed to the separation of mothers and their children. Ms. Scheele-Gertsen and Bureau Clara Wichmann are represented in the proceedings by Lisa-Marie Komp.
Unfortunately, due to the corona measures, public access to the hearing is limited. The press is allowed to attend, but must register with the Information Department of the District Court of The Hague. For those who are not allowed to attend the hearing, the hearing can be followed via this livestream.
See also (in Dutch):
Previously
On 15 September 2021, the criminal trial against the accused Salih Mustafa commenced before the Kosovo Specialist Chambers in The Hague. He is being prosecuted for his part in arbitrary detention, cruel treatment, torture and murder, committed by certain KLA-members against persons detained at the Zllash detention compound.
Lawyer Liesbeth Zegveld is representing the victims in this case as co-counsel to lawyer Anni Pues.
On this first day of the criminal trial, both the Specialist Prosecutor and the victims' counsel made their opening statements. A redacted version of these documents can be found on the website of the Kosovo Specialist Chambers (here). During the next few weeks, witnesses called by the Specialist Prosecutor will be heard.
See also:
Previously
The Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State ('the Division') has ruled that the State Secretary of Justice and Security is liable for the unlawful deportation of a man - at the time an asylum-seeker - to Pakistan (the judgment can be found here). The Division ruled that he was entitled to compensation totaling €15,7240, plus statutory interest.
The claimant in this case is a man of Pakistani origin who belongs to the Ahmadi minority. On 18 February 2015 he was forcibly deported, even though he had submitted a new application on 16 February 2015 and no final decision had been rendered yet. Upon arrival in Pakistan, he was immediately detained and interrogated by the authorities. A few days after his release, he was severely beaten on the street by a group of Muslim fundamentalists. After he was released from the hospital, he went into hiding. Eventually and eventually managed to leave Pakistan with the help of his family. In September 2015, after a months-long and life-threatening journey via Iran, Turkey and Greece, he finally managed to reach Europe again. On 8 December 2015, the State Secretary decided to grant the claimant a residence permit after all.
The Division agrees with the claimant and the court of first instance (see here and here) that the deportation was unlawful because on 8 December 2015, it was retroactively determined that the claimant was a refugee at the time of deportation. This means that the deportation was unlawful and that the State Secretary is liable for damages. With regard to the compensation, the Division considers that although the claimant could not provide evidence of the mistreatment in Pakistan, the violation of Article 3 of the ECHR and Article 33 of the Refugee Convention (the prohibition of refoulement) justify compensation for immaterial damages on the basis of Article 6:106 of the Dutch Civil Code. This is related to the fact that such a violation by definition brings about feelings of fear, insecurity and uncertainty.
The Division awarded a mere €500 to compensate the claimant for the journey that he had to make to flee Pakistan a second time after his deportation. This is the price of a plane ticket from Islamabad to Amsterdam. This amount in awarded damages is problematic because refugees rely on clandestine travel routes to reach Europe. The prices that have to be paid for these clandestine trips are - as is widely known - many times higher than the prices of a regular plane ticket. Obviously, it is impossbile to provide concrete evidence of this. The Division could have come to an estimate based on the generally available information about the costs of such trips, as the claimant had requested. Nonetheless, the claimant is pleased with the judgment and the confirmation that his deportation was unlawful.
The claimant was represented in this case by lawyer Tom de Boer.