The NJCM, together with PILP, has prepared an Amicus Curiae/opinion letter to support proceedings on area bans at and after demonstrations. The NJCM argues that the (too frivolous) application of area bans puts pressure on the fundamental rights of demonstration and freedom of expression.
An order of conduct in the form of a restraining order (see article 509hh Sv) means that a person is not allowed to be in a certain place for a certain period of time. In such a case, a citizen is thus (also) denied the opportunity to peacefully express his or her opinion alone or with others in that place.
As a result of a peaceful demonstration (against the Corona measures policy) on March 28, 2021, as many as 305 participants were issued such an area ban by the prosecutor. The same applies to a group of peaceful demonstrators who demonstrated in The Hague on October 12, 2020 (against climate change).
According to the NJCM, the deployment of this repressive remedy should not take place in response to conduct that, in the context of a (predominantly) peaceful protest, is not punishable or involves only minor offenses. Moreover, the law requires that when deploying this remedy, a thorough individual test is conducted to assess whether the requirements set forth in Article 509hh Sv are met.
Moreover, from a human rights perspective, the NJCM has serious concerns about the so-called “chilling effect” of such area bans. That is, the fact that the public prosecutor imposes a conduct order on a demonstrator exercising his or her fundamental right to demonstrate may result in other citizens feeling restricted from exercising their fundamental right to demonstrate in the future.
PILP hopes that the courts will review imposed area bans very critically and also fully consider the right to demonstrate and freedom of expression in their judgment.
Read the opinion letter of the NJCM and PILP here and read more about the right to demonstrate here.
