Dutch foundations KOZP and Nederland Wordt Beter have been vindicated
The appeal of Kick Out Zwarte Piet (KOZP) and Stichting Nederland Wordt Beter (NLWB) against the restrictions imposed on their protest by the mayor of the Westland municipality has been upheld. The District Court of The Hague rules that the mayor should not have been allowed to impose the restrictions, since it infringes the right to protest of KOZP and NLWB.
On 18 November 2023, KOZP and NLWB have organised a protest against the discriminatory aspects of the Sinterklaas parade in De Lier. Before the protest, the mayor imposed 15 rules and restrictions onto the protest, and listed 9 situations in which the police would stage interventions. According to KOZP and NLWB, these were in conflict with their right to protest, and unnecessary, as their protests have always been peaceful. That is why they lodged an appeal against a part of the regulations.
In the objection procedure the Advisory Committee agreed with KOZP and NLWB, but the mayor decided to dismiss the advice and judge the complaint as unfounded. Therefore, KOZP and NLWB had to appeal in court. The District Court of The Hague has vindicated them on all counts:
- The mayor cannot prohibit protests in languages other than Dutch. It is in conflict with the right to freedom of speech and the right to protest.
- The mayor cannot prohibit KOZP and NLWB from intimidating people that are near the protest. For this count, the court considers the following: “It does not appear that there was a real fear for disorder caused by intimidation of bystanders by KOZP protestors. The mayor had no reason to assume that the protestors would intimidate bystanders during the protest. The circumstance that Extinction Rebellion Solidariteit had announced its participation at the protest does not change anything.”
- The mayor cannot impose the immediate cessation of the protest in case of a risk of disorder. This is disproportional, according to the court. In that case, the mayor would prohibit or put an end to the protest due to disorder caused by others – and not the protestors – which would only be allowed within the context of an administrative force majeure. This is not the case in this situation. The court also finds it likely that this prohibition has had a chilling effect on the protestors.
- The court rules that, in a Wom-besluit (a Wom-order), the mayor cannot include provisions related to matters that have already been prohibited in the General Municipal By-Law (Algemene Plaatselijke Verordening, APV) or in the Dutch Penal Code. According to the court, similar provisions do not belong in an order, since they cannot be classified under article 5 of the Public Assemblies Act (Wom). The court also assumes that such provisions and the description of the situations in which the police will intervene have a chilling effect. The court also considers that this is in conflict with the principle of legal certainty, because there has been no clarification on who were the subjects of the provisions.
- According to the court, a prohibition on clothing that covers the face would only be justified if it would be considered as necessary and proportional to the specific protest for combatting disorder. This was not the case for the protest staged by KOZP and NLWB.
KOZP: “This court ruling is an important victory for all citizens who want to make use of their right to protest, whether you are fighting against racism and climate change, or you are making a stand for the farmers. This right applies to everyone, regardless of the message. In De Lier, our right to protest has not been respected. The municipality and the mayor have tried to take away our right to protest. We are happy with this verdict, and we hope that others will be encouraged to make use of their right to protest to the fullest extent.”
