Challenging arms exports to Egypt: summary proceedings
In July 2020, the Lower House was informed about the issuance of a license for the export of military equipment to Egypt worth 114 million euros. This is about 10% of the total annual Dutch arms export. Several other licenses for Egypt were also issued in 2021.
According to PAX, Stop Arms Trade and the NJCM, arms exports to Egypt violate the Netherlands’ international obligations for arms export control and are therefore unlawful. The oppression of Egypt’s population and violations of human rights and international humanitarian law play an important role. According to the NGOs, this also applies to the Egyptian navy.
PAX, Stop Arms Trade and the NJCM sent a letter to the Minister of Foreign Affairs in June 2021 expressing their concerns about arms exports to Egypt. After consultations at the ministry did not result in adjustment of the policy, the organizations together with PILP and mr. Linda Ravestijn went to the civil court (read our press release here). In this way they hope to stop the arms exports. In the lawsuit they ask the judge, given the current human rights situation in Egypt, to prohibit the State from allowing exports to this country.
Once military goods have crossed Dutch borders, the Netherlands no longer has jurisdiction (control) over them. There is therefore an urgent need for a court ruling on the legality of arms exports to Egypt. PILP, together with NGOs, is therefore conducting summary proceedings (an urgent procedure). The summons for the summary proceedings can be read here. To strengthen these proceedings, Andrew Feinstein has written an “expert statement” on arms exports.
On Nov. 23, 2021, the court ruled that the parties’ claims should be dismissed. The court recognized the seriousness of the human rights situation in Egypt, but that, according to the court, does not lead to the conclusion that the arms export licenses should not have been granted. The ruling can be read here. Read our press release on the ruling here. On December 20, 2021, PILP appealed the court’s ruling on behalf of PAX, Stop Arms Trade and the NJCM. Read the appeal pleading here.
Previously, PILP along with PAX, Stop Arms Trade and the NJCM challenged a permit for arms exports to Egypt once before the Administrative Court. Then the organizations were declared inadmissible (see below). Students from the Amsterdam Law Clinics then conducted research for PILP into the possibilities of challenging arms exports in the civil courts.
Challenging arms exports to Egypt: administrative law judge
In 2015, PILP, together with the NJCM and peace organizations PAX and Stop Arms Trade, began proceedings in the administrative court on arms exports. These proceedings concerned a permit for the export of military equipment for the Egyptian Navy worth more than €34 million.
According to the organizations, the license should not have been granted because the government had not considered human rights or sufficiently considered them and the license did not adequately take into account Egypt’s involvement in the war in Yemen. Therefore, the three organizations filed an objection to the decision to grant the arms export license, and applied to revoke the export license. The case then ended up before the North Holland District Court.
On Aug. 25, 2016, the court decided that the interest groups could not challenge a permit before the administrative court because, according to the EU Customs Act, they were not “directly and individually affected” by the supply. According to the court, when the EU rules were introduced in 2014, the government overruled Dutch law (the General Administrative Law Act). Whereas interest groups previously had access to the law, now only arms companies themselves can challenge a license in the administrative court.
PAX, Stop Arms Trade, NJCM together with PILP have appealed the ruling of the North Holland District Court. Also read our notice of appeal and pleading. The hearing on the appeal was on December 1, 2016. Here we learned that the original decision had expired and that a second decision (the extension decision) on the weapons still to be delivered had been made on September 21, 2016. We objected to this second decision on December 23, 2016.
On January 30, 2017, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled that the NGOs no longer had an interest in the proceedings against the arms export license. The arms export permit was valid for one year and that term had now expired. Read our news release about this.
Therefore, on February 15, 2017, we appealed the decision on appeal in the second case, on the renewal decision of the arms export to Egypt. Unfortunately, the Court of Appeal declared the second appeal by PILP, PAX and Stop Arms Trade unfounded.
According to the Court, the NGOs are not admissible in the administrative court and thus the appeal is unfounded. The NGOs are not satisfied with this ruling, but are pleased that there is now finally clarity: if you want to challenge an arms export license as an interest group, you have to go to the civil court. So that’s what we did in 2021.
Lack of transparency: Wob requests
Public access to government information is of great importance for the proper functioning of our democratic rule of law. In a controversial topic such as arms exports, where human rights are at stake, transparency is all the more important. NGOs, such as PILP and our allies, perform the role of public watchdog in this regard, according to the European Court of Human Rights.
Following the issue of an arms export license to Egypt in July 2020 (see above), PILP submitted a request for information under the Public Access Act (Wob). This request was denied because the requested information would be covered by Customs’ professional secrecy. PILP was not allowed to see any documents. When the minister refuses to provide any access to decision-making on arms exports, NGOs cannot properly fulfill their monitoring role.
PILP filed an objection to the rejection of the Wob request. Because the decision on the objection did not disclose any documents either, PILP appealed to the court. Read our press release about the objection and the press release about the appeal here.
Amsterdam District Court ruling
On October 6, 2022, the Amsterdam District Court issued its ruling after PILP filed an appeal with the court. The court determined that some of the requested documents should be disclosed. The disclosure of these documents was not to be refused on grounds of confidentiality, nor on other grounds.
