In 2014, a coalition of civil society organizations and authors Tommy Wieringa and Maxim Februari, under the coordination of PILP, started a strategic lawsuit on SyRI against the Dutch State. With this lawsuit, they wanted to call a halt to SyRI. The way the government used SyRI to deploy large amounts of data against its citizens was unprecedented, undemocratic and had serious human rights concerns. The Council of State and the Personal Data Authority also advised negatively on the law with regard to the large amounts of personal data that were allowed to be used and SyRI’s major invasion of private life. According to the coalition, SyRI damaged citizens’ trust in the government and the method had an inhibiting effect on citizens’ willingness to communicate openly with the government. As such, SyRI posed a fundamental threat to the functioning of the rule of law. According to the coalition, the system could not be improved by building in additional safeguards or using better algorithms.
On February 5, 2020, the District Court of The Hague ruled on SyRI; SyRI was in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. National and international attention was high for this ruling, which was received as a “landslide victory” for the protection of citizens’ private lives.
According to the court, SyRI disproportionately infringed on the private lives of citizens. This applied not only to people identified by SyRI as high risk, but to everyone whose data was analyzed by SyRI. According to the court, SyRI was not transparent and therefore not verifiable. The invasion of private life was unforeseeable for citizens and they could not defend themselves against it. In addition, the court mentioned the real risk of discrimination and stigmatization of citizens, based on socioeconomic status and possible migration background, in so-called “problem neighborhoods,” where SyRI has already been deployed. According to the court, the deployment of SyRI is accompanied by a risk of prejudice, but this risk cannot be controlled. Based on these considerations, the court declared SyRI non-binding and thus SyRI could no longer be applied.
Shortly after the ruling, the state secretary of Social Affairs and Employment announced that he would no longer use the system. The State Secretary also announced that the State would not appeal the decision. According to the State Secretary it is important that SyRI was insufficiently efficient and effective in fighting fraud and did not add value for the parties who work with it.
With this SyRI has definitively been stopped.
The coalition
The lawsuit against the Dutch State was filed by a coalition of civil society organizations, consisting of the Platform for the Protection of Civil Rights, the Dutch Lawyers Committee for Human Rights (NJCM), trade union FNV, Privacy First, KDVP Foundation, the National Council of Clients, and authors Tommy Wieringa and Maxim February. The PILP-NJCM coordinated the lawsuit. The case was represented by attorneys Anton Ekker of Ekker Advocatuur and Douwe Linders of SOLV.
The goal of the proceedings was twofold: to stop SyRI, and to stir up public debate about systems like SyRI and risk profiling of innocent citizens. Linked to the strategic procedure, therefore, the Platform for the Protection of Civil Rights conducted the campaign Bij Voorbaat Verdacht. This second goal was also successfully achieved.