Articles for category: Niederlande

The Next Episode On Gender-Based Asylum

One of the CJEU’s most talked-about recent cases asks a simple question: when does someone belong to a “particular social group” under EU refugee law? On 11 June 2024 in K, L v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (K, L), the CJEU found that, women who genuinely came to identify themselves with the fundamental value of equality between women and men during their stay in the host country can be regarded as belonging to a particular social group. However, the implementation of the K, L judgment has led to a divergence between national policy and national courts over the meaning of “identification with the fundamental value of equality between women and men.”

The Nationality Lottery

On 24 March 2025, the Amsterdam District Court issued a consequential judgement on deprivation of nationality after a terrorist conviction. The ruling stated that the Dutch government could not revoke the nationality of a person convicted of terrorism-related crimes, declaring it a violation of the prohibition of discrimination based on ethnic origin. The judgement marks a departure from previous case law established by the Council of State – the highest administrative court in the Netherlands – as it reconceptualizes the issue of deprivation of nationality as one of direct discrimination based on ethnic origin. However, it fails to provide a clear explanation for its reasoning and seems to conflate nationality with ethnicity.

Balancing on the Edge of Loyalty and Legality

At the end of 2024, the current Dutch government proposed new legislation in the shape of the “asylum crisis measures legislation” and a “two-status-system legislation”. Through advisory reports by the Council for the Judiciary, the broader public was properly introduced to the government’s plans. The reports strongly urge the government not to pursue these proposals for their potential consequences on the judiciary and implementation of the new EU Asylum Pact. Although some of these individual measures may be legal, a holistic approach shows that it is the sum of these parts that finds itself at odds with EU law, balancing on the edge of loyalty and legality.

Grüße aus den Niederlanden

Am 29. Januar 2025 stimmte der Bundestag über Anträge der Union zur Verschärfung der Migrationspolitik ab. In einem bislang beispiellosen Tabubruch in der Nachkriegsgeschichte der deutschen Politik nahmen Union und FDP erstmals Stimmen der extrem rechten AfD in Kauf. Ein Blick über die Grenze in die Niederlande zeigt, was passiert, wenn Mitte-rechts-Parteien der radikalen Rechten die Hand reichen. Statt sie zu schwächen, legitimiert und stärkt es sie.

The Habitats Directive as a Tool for Systemic Biodiversity Litigation

On 22 January 2025, the District Court of The Hague found the Netherlands in breach of the Habitats Directive and the Dutch nitrogen targets by failing to stop the deterioration of protected habitats and by failing to prioritise the most vulnerable habitats through its nitrogen targets. This blogpost provides an overview of the judgment and argues that the case enables a link between the location specific approach of EU nature protection and a systemic dimension and highlights the strength of the Habitats Directive. Conversely, it shows some limitations regarding the remedy and a missed opportunity to consider the longer-term and inter-generational impacts

Memory Laws and Colonial Reckoning in France and the Netherlands

While France embraced the formal regulation of historical memory regarding its colonial past nearly two decades ago with the adoption of a law by its parliament, the Netherlands has opted for more symbolic recognition on behalf of the head of state. The essay argues that, despite neither approach being capable of fully satisfying all sides in the debate on how to frame colonialism in the present, the Dutch model is notably less problematic concerning its impact on freedom of expression, adherence to the rule of law, and the fit towards a unique set-up of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

Getting a Grip on Migration but Mind European Law!

On September 13, the new Dutch government led by Dick Schoof outlined its programme for the next years. Unsurprisingly, a major point of this programme regards asylum and migration, for which the greatest ambition is to install the strictest regime ever and to include the Netherlands within the category of Member States of the European Union with the strictest admission rules. This post reviews these proposals through the lens of European Law to challenge their legal feasibility and flag the potential incompatibility with Dutch obligations stemming from EU and international law.

Tackling Israel’s Interference with the International Criminal Court

On 8 October 2024, The Guardian reported that a criminal complaint had been filed in the Netherlands in connection with the shocking (yet unsurprising) revelations published by The Guardian, +972 Magazine, and Local Call on 28 May concerning hostile state activities targeting the International Criminal Court (ICC). The criminal complaint is both timely and viable and should lead to the expeditious opening of an investigation by the Dutch prosecution service. The political response by the Dutch and other governments of ICC States so far is insufficient to address the problem of interference with the ICC investigation in the Situation in the State of Palestine.

The Strictest Asylum Policy Ever?

On 13 September 2024, ahead of the presentation of the State Budget, the new Dutch coalition presented their finalized plan to implement what it has labelled as the strictest admission regime ever in the field of asylum law. To implement its Outline Agreement, titled ‘Hope, Courage and Pride,’ the government plans to rely on an derogation provision in the Dutch Aliens Act 2000. We argue that the provision does not apply to the current situation and that the Dutch government therefore does not have the jurisdiction to render parts of the Dutch Aliens Act 2000 inoperative.

Rethinking EU Law Beyond the Liberal Feminist Paradigm

In K,L v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (‘K,L’), the CJEU decided that a belief in the value of gender equality associated with the lifestyle of the westernized woman be regarded as a reason for persecution. While the decision contributes to a gender-sensitive EU asylum law, I argue that the CJEU’s classification of the young women’s belief in the value of gender equality as ‘identificatory’ (as opposed to ‘religious’ or ‘political’) perpetuates a long-standing criticism of the liberal feminist paradigm.