News

Court of Appeal prohibits extradition to Rwanda

Today, the Court of Appeal (civil) in The Hague overturned the judgment of the preliminary injunction court and prohibited the State from extraditing our client to Rwanda. The Court concludes that if our client is extradited to Rwanda, there is a real risk that he will be exposed to a flagrant violation of Article 6 ECHR. The Court rules differently in this case than in previous rulings in extradition cases concerning Rwanda. The Court considers that since then more has become known about Rwanda's violation of human rights: the human rights situation did not improve after 2016. In particular, more evidence is available that political opponents of the regime are regularly denied the right to a fair trial. According to the Court, there is a real risk that if our client is extradited to Rwanda he, as an opponent of President Kagame's regime, will not receive a fair trial. The Court therefore prohibited the State from executing this extradition request.

The Court also attached great importance to an earlier case in which extradition was not allowed by the District Court of The Hague (criminal court) and this decision was upheld by the Supreme Court. This case was also handled by our firm.

Our client was represented in this case by attorneys Frederieke Dölle, Göran Sluiter and Tom de Boer.

Appeal lodged before CJEU in the action for damages against EU agency Frontex for their role in illegal pushback

The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action for damages brought against Frontex for its role in the pushback of a Syrian family (Case T-600/21) on 6 September 2023. An appeal against the General Court’s judgment has now been lodged before the Court of Justice of the European Union.

The Syrian family in question were illegally deported to Turkey in October 2016, shortly after arriving in Greece, in a joint operation conducted by Frontex and the Greek authorities. During the return operation, the family, including the children, were separated from one another and each escorted by border guards, in violation of the rights of the child.

It is the first time that a damages claim has been brought against Frontex before the EU General Court for its role in illegally deporting people in violation of their fundamental rights. The judgment of the General Court leaves open fundamental and important issues which are raised in the appeal to the Court of Justice.

The central question is, how should Frontex's mandate be understood? Regulation 2016/1624 (‘the Frontex Regulation’) clearly confers a monitoring task on Frontex to ensure respect for human rights. Thus, Article 34 of the Frontex Regulation states that Frontex is required to establish "an effective mechanism to monitor the respect for fundamental rights in all the activities of the Agency." The General Court’s ruling leaves entirely unclear what that means in practice. For which activities can Frontex be held accountable, and to whom? In a Union based on the rule of law, power must be accompanied by accountability. That central question cannot be allowed to remain unanswered.

The Syrian family is being represented by Marieke van Eik and Lisa-Marie Komp of Prakken D'Oliveira, together with former Advocate General Eleanor Sharpston who is working pro bono with the legal team. Furthermore, the case is supported by the Dutch Council for Refugees, Stichting Democratie en Media and BKB.

For media about the case, see for example:

 

Previously

Trial hearing in Kerkrade-case (Syrian war crimes) starts in The Hague

Tomorrow 30 November 2023, the trial hearing in an international crimes case against an alleged member of Liwa Al Quds will take place at the District Court of The Hague. The case is considered a landmark case, marking the first time that Syrian regime crimes will be on trial before a Dutch court. The Court has also scheduled a second hearing on 4th December 2023. This case is especially significant because it could set a precedent for possible future cases against Assad's allies in the Netherlands, should the court decide that Liwa al Quds is a criminal organisation.

The defendant is accused of having committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, and complicity in torture in Syria in the years 2012-2013 and membership of the criminal organisation Liwa Al Quds in the years 2011-2017. Prakken d'Oliveira's Barbara van Straaten represents the victim in this case. The first three counts of the indictment relate to war crimes and complicity in torture committed against this victim. On Thursday 30 November 2023, Barbara van Straaten will give the Victim Impact Statement on behalf of the victim. 

Date: Thursday, 30 November 2023 & Monday, 4th December 2023 (Second day of hearing)
Time: 09:00 CET
Address: Prins Clauslaan 60, The Hague 2595 AJ
‍
The Netherlands Public Prosecution Service is facilitating open access to the hearing; it will be accessible to the public in-person and via a livestream, and Arabic translations will be provided to facilitate participation of the Syrian community. The trial heating is open to the public. Prior registration is required in order to access the livestream. If interested, please reach out to the nuhanovic Foundation This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Summary proceedings re: Gaza: Monday 4 December 2023, 10:00 AM [CET] (District Court of The Hague) / livestream

Earlier this month, the organizations Oxfam Novib, PAX and The Rights Forum announced summary proceedings against the State of the Netherlands in light of its contribution to large-scale and grave violations of international humanitarian law by Israel in Gaza.

The case will be heard by the Provisional Relief Judge of the District Court of The Hague (Prins Clauslaan 60, 2595 AJ Den Haag) on Monday 4 December 2023, at 10:00 AM (CET).

The hearing is (of course) public. Additionally, the court will also open a live stream so that interested parties can follow the hearing remotely.  

The link to the live stream can be accessed >> HERE <<

The organizations are represented in these summary proceedings by lawyers Liesbeth Zegveld and Thomas van der Sommen. 

Previously / background case

Summary proceedings against the Netherlands for contribution to large-scale and grave violations of IHL by Israel in Gaza

The organizations Oxfam Novib, Amnesty International, PAX and The Rights Forum are preparing summary proceedings against the State of the Netherlands because of the delivery by the Netherlands of F35 fighter plane parts to Israel. It will be argued that the Netherlands is thereby contributing to large-scale and grave violations of the laws of war by Israel in Gaza. 

For more information about the case, see the press releases published (in Dutch) by: Oxfam Novib (hier), Amnesty International (hier) en The Rights Forum (hier).

The organizations are assisted in this matter by lawyers Liesbeth Zegveld and Thomas van der Sommen. 

Background (in Dutch):

District Court of The Hague: Foundation RBV admissible in case against State on noise pollution around Schiphol airport

Today, the District Court of The Hague held that the The Stichting Recht op Bescherming tegen Vliegtuighinder ("RBV") (Foundation for the Right to Protection against Aircraft Nuisance)  is admissible in its case against the Dutch State regarding noise pollution around Schiphol airport. In this case, RBV claims that the State must take measures to protect the residents living in the vicinity of Schiphol, i.a. by applying the WHO standards, taking the actual nuisance into account instead of calculations, and by offering individual legal protection to the residents concerned.  More information about RBV and its claims can be found (in Dutch) at: https://www.beschermingtegenvliegtuighinder.nl/

In today's verdict, the court held that RBV's case is a collective case concerning a public interest-claim. The court has also clarified the test that applies in order to determine if an interest group/organization is admissible. The question is not so much whether, in quantitative terms, the organization stands up for a sufficiently large part of the group of those affected, but rather whether the organization may be considered an adequate mouthpiece for the stakeholders. 

The interlocutory verdict furthermore addresses the procedural requirements that were introduced with regard to collective claims, as per the Wet afwikkeling massaschade in collectieve actie ('WAMCA')  that entered into force in this respect on 1 January 2020.  As argued by RBV, these procedural requirements do not lend themselves to application in public interest cases such as the one at hand. That too is a very welcome development for future public interest cases. 

As such, RBV's case will continue, the substantive hearing has been on Tuesday 30 January 2024. 

RBV is represented in this case by lawyers Channa Samkalden, Elles ten Vergert and Emiel Jurjens.

The verdict is available (in English) via: Rechtbank Den Haag 15 november 2023, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2023:17145

Previously/related: 

Court in The Hague: the State makes unlawful distinction towards non-binary person

Today, the District Court of The Hague ruled that there is unlawful discrimination in that a non-binary gender identity cannot be registered. 

The court also acknowledged that the introduction of a third gender option, by which a non-binary gender identity is actually legally recognized and implemented, goes beyond putting an 'X' on the birth certificate. However, because this is a complex legislative operation, it is held that the State cannot be condemned at this time to create a legal regulation within a certain time frame. However, the court does explicitly note that the State's argument that it is a complex legislative operation has a limited period of validity. Thus, with this ruling, it is established that the State must recognize and implement a third gender option. The State is given time by the court to actually do so.

Senn van Beek was represented by Elles ten Vergert.

The verdict can be accessed via this link (in Dutch): Rechtbank Den Haag 18 oktober 2023, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2023:15524

Previously

Court hearing in case of victims of the Hawija airstrike: 24 October 2023

On 24 October 2023 at the district court of The Hague, a hearing will take place in case of victims of the Hawija airstrike against the Dutch State.

This is the first court case worldwide in which the military actions of the anti-ISIS Coalition will be judged by a court. 

On 17 February 2022 twenty-five victims and surviving relatives of the airstrike on Hawija of 2-3 June 2015 sued the State of the Netherlands for its unlawful airstrike. The bombing killed and injured their family members and destroyed their homes. They demand that the Dutch State compensates their damages.

In the night of 2 to 3 June 2015, two Dutch F-16s carried out an airstrike on an ISIS weapons storage and bomb factory, in the city of Hawija in Iraq. The bombing and the massive (secondary) explosions it caused killed at least 85 civilians, injured many civilians and damaged thousands of homes and buildings.

In carrying out this bombardment, the State took an unacceptable risk of disproportionate damage to civilians and civilian objects. The State knew or should have known that the airstrike would (or could) cause an enormous amount of civilian casualties and that this damage was disproportionate to the military advantage that disabling the target at that time would provide.

Both the international anti-ISIS Coalition and the Dutch State present the war against ISIS as the most precise war ever. This frame is false. Independent organizations and media conclude that the Coalition's air war suffers from an extreme lack of accurate intelligence and transparency. Such framing by the State of a precise war fits into a system that is set up to provide minimal accountability. The airstrike on Hawija in June 2015 is a striking example of this.

The hearing is public and will also be accessible remotely via a livestream. This news post will be updated with a link to that livestream.

Date: Tuesday 24 October 2023

Start: 09:30 AM (CET)

Court: District Court The Hague

Address: Prins Clauslaan 60, The Hague 2595 AJ

Link livestream: https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/Organisatie/Rechtbanken/Rechtbank-Den-Haag/Nieuws/Paginas/Livestream-civiele-zaak-bombardement-Hawija-.aspx

The plaintiffs are represented in these proceedings by lawyers Liesbeth Zegveld and Thomas van der Sommen.

For further information see:

Op-Ed Ulli d'Oliveira about third-country nationals from Ukraine: Where has the humanity gone?

'In recent weeks, the municipality of Amsterdam and organizations for the homeless in the city were concerned about what will happen with the so-called third country nationals from Ukraine, whose reception was set to end on 4 September due to abuse of the reception scheme for Ukrainians."

Ulli d'Oliveira wrote an op-ed on this topic in which he argues for a generous, humane policy. 

The piece appeared in Dutch newspaper Het Parool on 9 September 2023 and is available via this link (only in Dutch).

Frontex not accountable because Member States bear sole liabilty

Today's ruling is unsatisfactory, first and foremost for the family. They are disappointed that Frontex is not held accountable for its role in the illegal pushback they are victims of and the way they were deported.

Today, the General Court of the European Union ruled in the case of a Syrian family against Frontex. The family holds Frontex liable for the fact that they were brought from Greece to Turkey with the help of Frontex when no decision had been made on their asylum application. In addition, the children were separated from their parents during the deportation. This was a so-called pushback. The family was represented in the case by Prakken d'Oliveira Human Rights Lawyers and the case was supported by the Dutch Council for Refugee, BKB and Sea Watch Legal Aid Fund. The General Court dismissed the claim today.

However, this ruling clarifies that the responsibility for respecting human rights lies solely with the member states.

The ruling raises two questions:

How should Frontex's mandate be understood? It clearly sets out a monitoring task for Frontex to ensure respect for human rights. For example, Article 34 of the Frontex Regulation 2016/1624 states that Frontex is required to establish "an effective mechanism to monitor the respect for fundamental rights in all the activities of the Agency." The ruling does not make clear what this means in practice. It remains unclear in what way Frontex is required to carry out its monitoring task.

To whom and for which activities can Frontex be held accountable? Frontex has great power over the lives of individuals, as the case of the Syrian family shows. In a Union based on the rule of law, power must be accompanied by accountability. This ruling shows that individuals cannot hold Frontex accountable in court for how the Agency treats them.

It is now up to political institutions, especially the European Commission, to clarify Frontex's mandate. It must clarify how Frontex must monitor compliance with human rights. Prakken d'Oliveira's lawyers will consider follow-up steps and appeal with the family.

Previously

Judgment in court case against EU agency Frontex about illegal pushbacks

On Wednesday 6 September 2023, the General Court of the European Union will render its judgment in the lawsuit against Frontex brought by a Syrian family. This is a unique case: it is the first time that the European border- and coastal agency is held accountable for its involvement in the illegal deportation of people and the violation of fundamental rights. This action for damages will be land mark case, given the current events on the Mediterranean. The lawsuit is being handled by the lawyers of Prakken d'Oliveira and is supported by the Dutch Council for Refugees. BKB, Sea-Watch Legal Aid Fund and Jungle Minds also support the case.

 

Pushback of a Syrian family
The EU agency was taken to court by the Syrian family at the end of 2021. The family, that now lives in northern Iraq, holds Frontex responsible for human rights violations and the illegal pushback they were subjected to, and is demanding compensation. The family arrived in Greece in October 2016, where their application for asylum was registered. However, 11 days later the family was put on a plane to Turkey by Frontex and the Greek authorities, without having being able to apply for asylum and without an expulsion decision. During the flight, the parents of the four young children were separated in the presence of Frontex staff. They were also not allowed to talk to anyone during the flight. Once in Turkey, the family was immediately imprisoned. After their release, they had no access to basic services, such as a roof over their heads, water and sanitation. They were unable to keep their heads above water, whereupon they fled to northern Iraq.

No one is above the law, not even Frontex
Lisa-Marie Komp, Marieke van Eik and Flip Schüller from Prakken d'Oliveira Human Rights Lawyers represent the Syrian family. Lisa-Maire Komp: “We hold Frontex accountable because, as the implementing body, they are obliged to monitor compliance with human rights during missions with which they support member states. In this case, they failed to do so, violating the fundamental rights of the Syrian family. You can't just deport people to another country. Before someone can be deported, it must be assessed whether he or she needs asylum protection and that has not happened here. Frontex, and the EU, must take their responsibility. With this case, we want to make it clear that no one, including Frontex, is above the law.”

Fundamental rights violated
By way of this deportation, the family fell victim to a so-called pushback, which entails deporting people to another country without prior procedure. As a result, they were denied the right to apply for asylum. In doing so, Frontex also violated the prohibition on non-refoulement, which prohibits the return of asylum seekers or refugees to a country where they fear persecution or risk inhumane treatment. Both are fundamental rights of the European Union and are therefore binding, as laid down in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. By separating children from their parents during the flight, Frontex also violated the rights of the child.

Undermining of values on which the EU is built
The Dutch Council for Refugees (in Dutch: Vluchtelingenwerk Nederland) contributed to the argumentation from the start and hopes for a historic judgement that will force Frontex to comply with human rights. Frank Candel, CEO: “This case is about more than just this Syrian family. This action for damages is the first of its kind and thus will be a landmark case given the current events on the Mediterranean. Many people have fallen victim to illegal deportations in recent years. With this case, we want to put an end to human rights violations and oppression at our external borders. The violation of fundamental rights of the European Union by an EU agency is a serious undermining of the values upon which the Union is founded.”

 

Previously

Greenpeace sues the Netherlands for inadequate approach to nitrogen

Protected nature in the Netherlands continues to deteriorate due to excessive nitrogen deposition. The most recent ecological reports show that the nitrogen deposition in the Netherlands must be reduced drastically in order to prevent irreparable damage to natural habitats and the habitats of species. The experts say that this must be done before 2025 for the most vulnerable nature, and in 2030 for other vulnerable nature. The Netherlands is failing to protect its nature adequately, thereby violating its obligation under European law and regulations to avoid deterioration. As such, Greenpeace is demanding that the Netherlands fulfills its obligation, and that its policy includes the drastic and timely reduction of nitrogen deposition. 

The case is being handled by lawyers Bondine Kloostra and Brechtje Vossenberg.

In the media (in Dutch)

The press release issued by Greenpeace about this case can be accessed here (in Dutch).

Wildlife protection foundation 'De Faunabescherming' presses charges for fatal shooting of wolf 

On behalf of the foundation for wildlife protection -- in Dutch: De Faunabescherming -- a criminal complaint has been filed with the Public Prosecutor's Office for Financial, Economic and Environmental Offences (in Dutch: Functioneel Parket) for the deliberate disturbance and the killing of a strictly protected wolf. The facts as revealed in media reports indicate that several criminal offenses have been committed. In the opinion of De Faunabescherming, attacking and killing the wolf was not only disproportionate, but not warranted by the situation at hand whilst all protocols and rules that should have been observed were not followed.

De Faunabescherming is taking the matter very seriously and has asked the Public Prosecutor's Office to consider the complaint and investigate the circumstances of the case. The wolf is not an outlaw, the wolf is a native species that is strictly protected by law.

The case is being handled by lawyer Bondine Kloostra.

The press release issued by De Faunabescherming is available here (in Dutch):
https://www.faunabescherming.nl/wolf-in-wapse-faunabescherming-doet-aangifte/

Global Witness and Bureau Clara Wichmann file discrimination complaint against Meta with the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights

Today, Global Witness and Bureau Clara Wichmann filed a joint petition with the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights against Meta (formerly known as Facebook). They request the Institute for Human Rights to investigate whether Meta's advertising algorithm makes a prohibited distinction on grounds of gender and age.

Meta uses an advertising algorithm to determine which users are shown certain ads, but how this algorithm works is not public. This decision-making process is therefore described as a so-called 'black-box'. Investigation by Global Witness has shown that there are strong indications that Meta's advertising algorithm discriminates on grounds of gender when showing job ads to Facebook users. There were ads containing job offers for certain professions that were shown almost exclusively to men or women. As an example: job offers for receptionists were shown to women 97% of the time and job offers for mechanics were show to men 96% of the time. Global Witness and Bureau Clara Wichmann argue that this perpetuates and possibly even increases gender inequality in the labor market.

Global Witness' press release can be found here and Bureau Clara Wichmann's press release here. CNN also covered the discrimination complaint.

Global Witness and Bureau Clara Wichmann are represented by lawyers Brechtje Vossenberg and Thomas van der Sommen.

Appeal in case concerning forced separation of mothers and children

Bureau Clara Wichmann and Trudy Scheele-Gertsen are appealing against the disappointing ruling by the District Court of The Hague in the case concerning forced separation of mothers and children. With this appeal, both parties want the State to be held liable for the injustice done to Trudy Scheele-Gertsen and thousands of other mothers when they were forced to give up their children.

From 1956 to 1984, between 13,000 and 20,000 mothers were pressured to give up their children. Often because they were unmarried. On January 26, 2022, the District Court of The Hague ruled that the Child Protection Council, and thus the State, had not acted in a structurally legally culpable manner, because the actions of the Child Protection Council were said to be related to the spirit of the times. Bureau Clara Wichmann and Trudy Scheele-Gertsen oppose this judgment with the appeal. They argue that under the law, the Child Protection Council should have assisted these mothers and educated them about their rights. In many cases, however, the Child Protection Council did the opposite. This has caused great distress to the mothers, children and others involved.

In addition, the statute of limitations is relevant in this case because the events occurred between 1956 and 1984. The Court did not rule on possible statutes of limitations, but indicated that there are grounds to believe that a statute of limitations defense could succeed. Bureau Clara Wichmann and Trudy Scheele-Gertsen believe that because the suffering of these women, their children and family members still continues, the State must take responsibility itself and therefore should not invoke the statute of limitations. Because for a long time there was collective silence among the women involved about what happened to them, there are also legally good grounds to make an exception to the statute of limitations.

Trudy Scheele-Gertsen and Bureau Clara Wichmann want an acknowledgement that wrongful action was taken against these mothers and that the Council has failed these mothers. In line with Ireland and Australia, they argued for a national apology and compensation scheme.

Lisa-Marie Komp, of law firm Prakken d'Oliveira, represents Trudy Scheele-Gertsen and Bureau Clara Wichmann in these proceedings. On behalf of law firm Stibbe, Branda Katan, Ivar Koudstaal, Laurence van 't Hoff and Jeltje Straatman are assisting Bureau Clara Wichmann Pro Bono.

Previously

Do you have a question?

Read in our privacy statement how we handle your personal data.