Handle of the group viruswaarheid protest in mid-november in amsterdam against corona restrictions. Image: karen eliot, CC BY-SA 2.0
Limits of fundamental rights in urgent proceedings
While in the netherlands the snow melts again – between the lowest temperatures of the last and the spring-known prospects of the coming weekend are around 30 degrees difference – hailes at present tuesday court judgments of gross scope: so lost the online platform deliveroo in the appeal against the food crisis , supported by the union FNV. The amsterdam court also came to the judgment in the higher instance that the labor restraints are illicitism; the company threatens to pay additional payments.
The high council (hoge raad) in the hague, the last instance in civil and criminal law, pointed the same day the revision of a police officer, who took on a music festival in the hague in the summer of 2015 the aruban mitch henriquez in the sauseward. The man, who is to be threatening, died in the arrest. This was followed by days of protests against police power.
In 2017, the court sentenced two police officers in the first instance of six months of maintenance for maltreatment with death. In 2019, the verdict was in vocation against the policeman who had beaten the aruban in the face and rubbed pepper spray, but maintained against the user of the sausewalk. With the rejection of the revision, this punishment is now legally valid.
Success for "viruswaarheid"
The verdict with the big bauble stroke, however, was in the express procedure in the hague, which the critics of "viruswaarheid" tense. The group rejects many of the maws for the occurrence of coronavirus as an improper interference with fundamental rights. In the end of january, the introduction of the curfew at 9 pm had led to nationwide protests and heavy riots (netherlands: heavy riots in several cities).
The court announced this morning that the curfew has to be removed immediately. Both formals as a content reason played a role.
As a serious formal deficiency, the procedure proved that the loss of the law was enforced on the law of burial command violence – with the grippy undercoat of WBBBG -. But this is only made for urgent emergency trap, so the court. As an example for such a circumstance, a dike break is caught.
But the government had debated in advance in advance. So you wanted to secure the consent of possible wider circles in society. The serious maaking was controversial not least within the government coalition. After a discussion in parliament, the blocking time was moved from 20:30 to 21:00. But if you have days for a discussion time, then you can not call on an urgent emergency, now the court was now.
In addition, the court also underwent the benefits of far-reaching restrictions of a critical, though only prematraining examination. Although the government comes to a rough decision power. But they do not escape from the obligation to consider the far-reaching intervention as inevitable.
The government dealt with the great danger of mutations of the coronavirus, the contagious being. The court replied that on the one hand these mutations currently seem to be less threatening than first thought; on the other hand, the health system is currently less prere than for early times of pandemic, as no curfew was considered.
In addition, the government has brought himself into a more difficult evaporation that they combined the introduction of the curfew with the reduction of home visits to a person per day. The court thus came to the conviction that the effect of the measures did not judge separately. The forecast, when the curb decoration is abolished, take the number of infections by ten percent, therefore not followed.
After the judgment, the reactions in the media on tuesday afternoon. From the opposition came the demand for an urgent debate in parliament. Only last week had fun parties, including geert wilders’ PVV, against the deflection of the curfew to 2. Marz voted.
Willem angel, one of the leading head of "viruswaarheid", shouted pleased about the functioning constitutional state. Whose lawyer, jeroen pols, had previously compared the field of fundamental rights with the period from 1940 to 1945 when the netherlands were occupied by the german reich.
During hundreds of burgers and burger bubgelder for retraction of the curfew, the government defends their maaking. Appeal against the agree decision does not expose its effect. That’s why it’s supposed to come to a express meeting at the hague court of appeals at this afternoon. The government works under high prere at its own law for introducing the curfew to set up at least the formal defect. Minister prosident rutte also calls for the burger and burger to keep himself on the maaking.
The chaos goods have probably been avoidable: as a parliamentary basis, a corona law had been decided before, but without accepting the possibility of a curfew. The state council, who not only acts as the supreme instance in administrative law, but the government also consulted, had previously noted that instead, the path of the emergency order was not sufficiently sufficient. This apparently has the hague court in its current age decision.