Appeal of demonstration law Hague won

Bekijk alles
May 8, 2017
News items
Previous
Next

In an important case on the right to demonstrate, the State Council upheld the appeal.

The case involved a 2017 announced demonstration in The Hague by citizens who wanted to organize a short symbolic hunger strike in front of the Moroccan embassy. This in solidarity with Moroccan human rights activists.

The organizers of the action received an email message from the police informing them that the mayor could not allow the form, place and time of the demonstration. Among other things, it was indicated that a hunger strike could be perceived as shocking by bystanders. Therefore, the demonstration was not allowed to proceed as planned.

The organizers decided to cancel the demonstration and appealed the demonstration ban. They invoked their right to demonstrate in front of the embassy, choosing the form of the demonstration. The mayor of The Hague refused to consider the objection to the demonstration ban because the mayor felt that the police email would not be a decision. About that, one of the organizers litigated first in court and then in the Council of State.

The court and the State Council weighed in on whether the police email was sent on behalf of the mayor and whether the email was a prohibition against demonstrating or, as the municipality argued, an invitation to consult.

The court rejected the appeal.

The court’s ruling was appealed. Because allowing mayors to ban demonstrations (through the police) by e-mail without the possibility of objection is not only a curtailment of the right to demonstrate but also a restriction of access to justice.

The State Council, in its ruling of Oct. 9, 2019, fortunately overturned the court’s ruling and thus the views of the municipality (read the ruling here).

According to the Council of State, the e-mail from the police showed: “concretely and unambiguously that the mayor has decided that the demonstration could not take place in the manner desired by the organization. The e-mail is thus aimed at legal effect, namely prohibiting the reported demonstration.”

This means that mayors cannot simply prohibit demonstrations (via the police) by e-mail, without the possibility of objection by demonstrators.

All parties involved are very pleased with this beautiful and clear ruling by the Council of State.

Now that the Council of State has deemed the e-mail to be a decision, the demonstration organizers can move on to the substance of the objection: on whether the mayor was allowed to ban the demonstration. PILP views this procedure with confidence.

The organizers of the demonstration were supported and assisted in this lawsuit by PILP and by attorney Alexander IJkelenstam of law firm CMS (through Pro Bono Connect).

Tags: , , ,
Previous
Next
Actueel

Gerelateerde berichten

hearing
January 29, 2026

Today there was an important court case in Rotterdam concerning the termination of the LVV (shelter and guidance for undocumented people). The Minister has stopped (the funding for) this shelter as of 1 January 2025. According to the Minister, all undocumented people can go to the Freedom-Restricting Location (VBL) in Ter Apel, where they can receive shelter and medical care, on the condition that they cooperate with their own deportation.

Today there was an important court case in Rotterdam concerning the termination of the LVV (shelter and guidance for undocumented people). The Minister has stopped (the funding for) this shelter as of 1 January 2025. According to the Minister, all undocumented people can go to the Freedom-Restricting Location (VBL) in Ter Apel, where they can […]

September 2, 2025

‘Public interest litigation is in the public interest’, PILP Foundation campaigns for public interest litigation

“Interest groups are said to be pursuing their ‘minority views’ in an ‘undemocratic’ way through the courts, using the law to impose their own ideas via the judiciary. Judges are accused of taking the place of politicians and of being activist.” Remarks such as these are increasingly heard in connection with public interest litigation. PILP […]

article 8 echr Foundation Taubah Islamophobia

Government violated funadamental rights with secret investigation into Muslims

Government violated fundamental rights with secret investigation into Muslims Today, a Dutch Court ruled against a secret investigation method conducted by the Dutch government. Financed by the National Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism (NCTV), Muslim communities were investigated by a private company, while the investigators did not identify themselves as such. The Court ruled today […]

1 2 3 34 35 36
Gerelateerde berichten

Our Dossiers

Our Dossiers

Support our work

PILP is the legal ally of civil society organizations, movements, communities, and activists dedicated to human rights. Your donation enables us to continue providing this service.