Dutch society “at risk of collapse”, senior legal
officials warn
February
25, 2025
The Dutch Supreme Court in The Hague. Photo: DutchNews.nl
Amsterdam’s most senior legal officials have warned that
Dutch society is at risk of collapse if individuals do not take responsibility
for safeguarding the legal system.
“The rule of law ultimately protects us from the law of the
strongest—or the richest,” say chief public prosecutor René de Beukelaer, Amsterdam bar association head Jacqueline
Schaap, and court president Bart van Meegen in an opinion piece in Tuesday’s
Telegraaf.
“The rule of law is under pressure. We do not usually seek
publicity, but we now feel it is our duty to speak out together… Legal
professionals are facing threats, and court rulings are being dismissed as
‘just another opinion’.”
The rule of law, they say, is nothing less than the backbone
of society. “In a society governed by the rule of law, no one can be
arbitrarily arrested, property is protected, privacy is valued, and people are
free to think and speak as they wish—within the boundaries of the law and with
respect for others. Rules apply to everyone, including the government.”
They also stressed the need to safeguard the balance between
politicians, officials, and judges in a democracy, which, they said, is
becoming increasingly disrupted. “Political criticism of court rulings erodes
public trust in independent and impartial judges,” they said. “Cuts to legal
aid and high court fees make it more difficult for many people, including small
and medium-sized businesses, to access the courts.”
Far-right politicians in the Netherlands have frequently
dismissed legal rulings as “biased” or the work of “D66 elites.”
Ordinary citizens, too, have a responsibility, the three
officials said, referring to recent online attacks on a judge who overturned a
government entry ban on three Islamic preachers. “Threatening a judge on social
media for simply doing their job harms not only the individual and their family
but also public trust in institutions,” they said.
“This affects everyone. When people stop feeling bound by
the law, when laws apply to some but not others, it becomes impossible to
maintain social order. In neighbouring countries, we see where this can lead:
corruption, discrimination, and intimidation. The rule of law ultimately
protects us from the law of the strongest—or the richest.”
Silencing
the media
The article coincided with an editorial in the NRC warning
that journalists, activists, human rights defenders, and whistleblowers who
publicly expose wrongdoing are increasingly being hit with massive legal claims
aimed at silencing them.
These lawsuits are known as SLAPPs—Strategic Lawsuits
Against Public Participation—a phenomenon that originated in the United States
but has now firmly taken root in Europe.
Although there have only been 12 such cases in the
Netherlands so far, 1,049 have been filed in Europe since 2010. The European
Union last year adopted a directive aimed at better protecting SLAPP targets,
particularly because of the high costs involved.
EU
protections
The key question now is whether these crucial protections
will be effectively incorporated into Dutch law, the paper says. Campaign group
Free Press Unlimited has noted that the Netherlands is hesitant on these
measures, under the assumption that SLAPPs are not a significant issue in the
country.
“However, just because the problem is not yet widespread
does not mean it won’t escalate—especially given the increasing number of SLAPP
cases across Europe,” the NRC said.
“It is therefore essential that the Dutch government heeds
the warnings about the dangers of SLAPPs, particularly their chilling effect on
free speech and independent journalism. Nothing less than press freedom and
freedom of expression are at stake.”
In the
Netherlands, too, there is a threat of (self-)censorship due to juridification
This is the
daily commentary of NRC. It contains opinions, interpretations and choices.
They are written by a group of editors, selected by the editor-in-chief. In the
comments, NRC shows what it stands for. Comments offer the reader a handle, an
angle, it is 'first aid' for the news of the day.
https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2025/02/25/ook-in-nederland-dreigt-zelfcensuur-door-juridisering-a4884269
25 februari
2025
It is a
worrying trend: journalists, (climate) activists, human rights defenders and
whistleblowers who publicly address abuses and receive gigantic legal claims
for this, aimed at silencing the person or organization.
They are
called 'SLAPPs': strategic lawsuit against public participation, a phenomenon
that has blown over from the United States, but has now also gained a firm
foothold in Europe. According to recent research by the European Coalition
against SLAPPs (CASE), a group of more than a hundred civil society interest
groups, 166 SLAPP cases were filed in Europe in 2023. It brings the total
number of SLAPPs counted in Europe since 2010 to 1,049, twelve of which are in
the Netherlands.
Now each
party is free to win its case in court – an important fundamental right. At the
same time, a practice is unfolding here that is not necessarily intended to be
right, but mainly to intimidate the opposing party in such a way that the
accused refrains from his or her further activities under this legal pressure.
(Freelance) journalists are the most often targeted, followed by activists and
scientists. The result can be (self) censorship, research shows.
At the
moment, there is a big case going on in the United States. In the state of
North Dakota, a lawsuit by the American energy company Energy Transfer against
Greenpeace began on Monday, February 24. The plaintiff accuses Greenpeace of
defamation and orchestrating criminal behavior at the "Standing Rock
protests" in 2016 and 2017. Those protests revolved around the
construction of an oil pipeline through territory claimed by the indigenous
Sioux tribe.
Tens of
thousands of people took part in the protest, Greenpeace was one of the dozens
of NGOs that signed an open letter – Energy Transfer blames the environmental
organization for that. Greenpeace is now being sued with a high claim for
damages of at least 300 million dollars. A Greenpeace lawyer told NRC that he
is very concerned because of the enormously high costs for the defense.
It is
therefore very good that the European Commission adopted a directive last year
to better protect targets of SLAPPs. It states, among other things, that
defendants can ask the court to dismiss a case early, so that they are
protected against incurring high costs unnecessarily. Defending against a SLAPP
alone often costs so much money that the target may immediately comply with the
plaintiff – a form of intimidation. According to the directive, a defendant
must also be able to recover the full legal costs from the plaintiff, if it has
been established that it is a SLAPP.
The question
is whether these important elements will also be properly incorporated into
Dutch law. Advocate Free Press Unlimited, which is committed to press freedom
worldwide, notes that the Netherlands is reluctant on these points. Based on
the idea that things will not go that far in the Netherlands. But what is not
there may still come – the omens are not favorable, see the increase in the
number of SLAPPs.
It is
therefore important that the Dutch government also listens carefully to the
warning about the dangers that SLAPPs entail, such as (self) censorship.
Nothing less than freedom of the press and freedom of expression are at stake
here.
A version of
this article also appeared in the newspaper of February 25, 2025.
Ook in
Nederland dreigt (zelf)censuur door juridisering
Dit is het
dagelijkse commentaar van NRC. Het bevat meningen, interpretaties en keuzes. Ze
worden geschreven door een groep redacteuren, geselecteerd door de
hoofdredacteur. In de commentaren laat NRC zien waar het voor staat.
Commentaren bieden de lezer een handvat, een invalshoek, het is ‘eerste hulp’
bij het nieuws van de dag.
https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2025/02/25/ook-in-nederland-dreigt-zelfcensuur-door-juridisering-a4884269
25 februari
2025
Het is een
zorgelijke trend: journalisten, (klimaat)activisten, mensenrechtenverdedigers
en klokkenluiders die publiekelijk misstanden aankaarten en daarvoor
gigantische juridische claims aan hun broek krijgen, erop gericht om de persoon
of organisatie monddood te maken.
Het worden
‘SLAPPs’ genoemd: strategic lawsuit against public participation, een fenomeen
dat uit de Verenigde Staten is komen overwaaien, maar inmiddels ook in Europa
stevig voet aan de grond heeft. Volgens recent onderzoek van de Europese
coalitie tegen SLAPPs (CASE), een groep van ruim honderd maatschappelijke
belangenorganisaties, werden in 2023 166 SLAPP-zaken aangespannen in Europa.
Het brengt het totaal getelde aantal SLAPPs in Europa sinds 2010 op 1.049,
waarvan twaalf in Nederland.
Nu staat het
elke partij vrij haar gelijk te halen in de rechtszaal – een belangrijk
grondrecht. Tegelijk ontvouwt zich hier een praktijk die niet per se tot doel
heeft om gelijk te krijgen, maar vooral om de tegenpartij dusdanig te
intimideren, dat de aangeklaagde onder deze juridische druk afziet van zijn of
haar verdere activiteiten. (Freelance) journalisten zijn het vaakst doelwit,
gevolgd door activisten en wetenschappers. Het gevolg kan (zelf)censuur zijn,
blijkt uit onderzoek.
Op dit
moment speelt er een grote zaak in de Verenigde Staten. In de staat North
Dakota begon op maandag 24 februari een rechtszaak van het Amerikaanse
energiebedrijf Energy Transfer tegen Greenpeace. De eiser beschuldigt
Greenpeace van smaad en het orkestreren van crimineel gedrag bij de ‘Standing
Rock-protesten’ in 2016 en 2017. Die protesten draaiden om de aanleg van een
oliepijpleiding door gebied dat wordt geclaimd door de inheemse Sioux-stam.
Tienduizenden
mensen namen deel aan het protest, Greenpeace was een van de tientallen ngo’s
die een open brief ondertekenden – dat neemt Energy Transfer de
milieuorganisatie kwalijk. Greenpeace wordt nu aangeklaagd met een hoge
schadeclaim van zeker 300 miljoen dollar. Tegen NRC zei een Greenpeace-jurist
dat hij zich grote zorgen maakt, vanwege de enorm hoge kosten voor de
verdediging.
Het is
daarom heel goed dat de Europese Commissie vorig jaar een richtlijn aannam om
doelwitten van SLAPPs beter te beschermen. Daarin staat onder meer dat
gedaagden de rechter kunnen vragen om een zaak vroegtijdig af te wijzen, zodat
ze worden beschermd tegen het onnodig maken van hoge kosten. Alleen al de
verdediging tegen een SLAPP kost vaak zo veel geld, dat het doelwit zich
mogelijk direct schikt naar de eiser – een vorm van intimidatie. Ook moet een
gedaagde volgens de richtlijn de volledige proceskosten kunnen terugkrijgen van
de eisende partij, als is vastgesteld dat het om een SLAPP gaat.
De vraag is
of deze belangrijke elementen ook goed in de Nederlandse wet komen.
Belangenbehartiger Free Press Unlimited, die zich inzet voor persvrijheid
wereldwijd, signaleert dat Nederland terughoudend is op deze punten. Vanuit het
idee dat het in Nederland zo’n vaart niet zal lopen. Maar wat niet is, kan nog
komen – de voortekenen zijn niet gunstig, zie de toename van het aantal SLAPPs.
Het is
daarom van belang dat ook het Nederlandse kabinet goed luistert naar de
waarschuwing voor de gevaren die SLAPPs met zich meebrengen, zoals
(zelf)censuur. Niets minder dan de persvrijheid en de vrijheid van
meningsuiting staan hier op het spel.
Een versie
van dit artikel verscheen ook in de krant van 25 februari 2025.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário