Today, September 8, 2026, a court hearing was held at the Amsterdam District Court regarding Kolna Falasteen’s right to demonstrate. The hearing concerned restrictions that the mayor of Amsterdam had imposed on Kolna Falasteen’s demonstrations. For example, the demonstrators were required to demonstrate on Beursplein, and a noise limit of a maximum number of decibels was imposed. Kolna Falasteen is represented by attorneys from the PILP Foundation.
What led up to this?
Kolna Falasteen is a grassroots movement led by Dutch Palestinians from Gaza. This movement advocates for and draws attention to the Palestinian cause. To this end, its members organize, among other things, evening demonstrations and protest marches.
On August 1, 2024, the mayor of Amsterdam issued a decision prohibiting the group from demonstrating on Dam Square. Instead, demonstrations were only permitted as static gatherings on Beursplein. Kolna Falasteen did not want to gather on Beursplein for various reasons, and they found the restriction that they were not allowed to demonstrate anywhere else in the city to be highly limiting. Protesters were also limited to playing music for a maximum of 10 minutes per hour, and artificial sound sources, such as megaphones, were not allowed to produce sound louder than 100 decibels.
After PILP filed an objection to this decision on behalf of its client, the mayor rescinded the music regulation. This was because the clients played exclusively Palestinian music during the demonstrations. Restricting this constitutes an interference with the content of the demonstration, which is prohibited under (inter)national law. However, the mayor upheld the location requirement and the noise level restriction. During the hearing, the legality of these restrictions was debated.
The restrictions violate the freedom of assembly
Mayors may impose restrictions on a protest, but only if those restrictions are based on the law and consistent with human rights. The restrictions must be necessary and proportionate.
According to clients, the restrictions imposed do not meet these criteria. Furthermore, a fundamental principle of the right to protest is that a certain degree of disruption and inconvenience caused by a protest must be tolerated. Another principle is that the wishes of the protesters must take precedence. According to Kolna Falasteen, this is inconsistent with imposing a mandatory location for demonstrations.
The ruling is expected in twelve weeks


