The Netherlands is not the best boy in the class when it comes to human rights compliance. In the recent past, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has reprimanded the Netherlands several times. In 2016, in the Murray ruling hearing that the manner of the life sentence violated the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment enshrined in Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as there was de facto no prospect of freedom for the life-sentenced person. In 2017, the ECtHR ruled in the Salduz ruling that the refusal of legal assistance during police interrogation violated the right to a fair trial enshrined in Article 6 ECHR. In 2021 (Hasselbaink case), the Netherlands was convicted in no fewer than three cases for violating the right to liberty and security under Art. 5 ECHR, because decisions on pre-trial detention were insufficiently motivated by judges.
A ruling was added in late 2023. In the case Laurijsen et al. the European Court ruled that the Netherlands had violated the right to freedom of - peaceful - assembly enshrined in Art 11 ECHR. The case concerned a protest against a pre-announced eviction of a squatted building. It had been announced in advance that the protest would go ahead 'until the mobile unit would come to its senses'. A call for protest appeared on another website in the form of "poetry, singing, dancing, shouting, jumping (or) sending an angry letter". Most participants were recognisable and wore civilian clothes. Some participants were dressed in suits or wedding dresses. There were also people present unrecognisable. Eventually, the Mobile Unit (ME) intervened and arrested 138 people. This did not distinguish between people who came for a peaceful protest and the rioters. The Court of Appeal sentenced all these people to pay fines for unauthorised assembly. The Supreme Court upheld the convictions.
Some of those convicted are taking their case to the European Court in Strasbourg. The applicants argued that the meeting was in principle a "peaceful gathering" was within the meaning of Article 11 ECHR. The pre-dispersed calls by sympathisers and the behaviour of the participants showed that their intentions and actions were aimed at the collective expression of political and social views and the use of public space. Not the exercise of violence. The violent behaviour occurred only after the police had provoked and dispersed them, when they had not been given any real opportunity to protest elsewhere.
According to the Dutch government, the intentions of the organisers and the collective and coordinated actions of the participants were not peaceful and therefore did not fall within the scope of Article 11 ECHR.
The European Court eventually ruled that obstructive and disruptive behaviour by activists is still protected by Art 11 ECHR. After all, such behaviour is almost inevitable in the case of a demonstration. The article also offers protection to apparently peaceful demonstrators who have participated in demonstrations that have been affected by violence by other demonstrators. In other words, peaceful demonstrators may not ultimately be lumped together with rioters by the courts.
Ultimately, the European Court corrected the Netherlands, because the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court in this case had not examined whether the role of the applicants in question at the gathering was actually peaceful. Since this had not been investigated, it could not be established that the interference with the rights of this particular group of applicants at a peaceful assembly (demonstration) could be classified as "necessary in a democratic society". The protesters won the case.
This ruling will make the Dutch authorities think twice before intervening forcefully at a protest again. At the protests this month at the Peace Palace, the ME seems to have deliberately chosen not to sweep away the protesters. Perhaps there was no immediate reason to do so, but it could also well be that the Netherlands did not want to be reprimanded for human rights violations.
Mr. D.M. Penn