Hearings & transcripts · On the timeline
Transcript
9 Mar 2026
9 Mar 2026
200.360.223/01 · Court of Appeal (Amsterdam)
Amsterdam Court of Appeal hears whether the appeal may proceed
Amsterdam Court of Appeal (hearing); Claimants (Stassen) plea note
Part of the public record of the case
In 30 seconds
The only hearing in the appeal — a livestreamed session on whether the legal bar on appealing the refusal to hear experts can be set aside. Includes Stassen's written plea note and an English transcript.
Cheat sheet
- Stassen spent his hour on 'context' — the claimants' Great Reset theory, the Epstein files as a claimed new fact, and the experts' statements.
- He argued the defendants broke the Art. 21 Rv duty to tell the truth, and that this alone justifies setting aside the appeal ban.
- For the State, Möhring said the only question was admissibility, the threshold for an exception is high, and it is not met; all other defendants added nothing.
- The judges asked why no leave to appeal was sought; Judge Hofmeijer noted such a request could have been made even after the decision.
- Asked why his clients neither join the main case nor sue themselves, Stassen said they first need sworn expert evidence from a court.
- No defendant attended in person; Kant joined by video and Pfizer counsel dialled in for Bourla. Ruling set for 9 April 2026.
Key passages · underlined
The disease COVID-19 exists. There has been a pandemic, and the vaccines against COVID-19 are safe and effective.
This requires that the proceedings before the court have violated such fundamental legal principles that a fair and impartial hearing of the case can no longer be said to have been conducted. A high threshold, therefore, which is completely unmet in this case.
A request to a judge to open a case to appeal where legal remedies are prohibited is, of course, a huge declaration of weakness.
In this pleading, I will convince you that this alone constituted a violation of fundamental norms for a fair trial. This is so serious that breaking through the prohibition on legal remedies is a necessity.
Every defendant denies the claims, and the court has not ruled on them. Allegations are the claimants' pleaded positions, quoted as theirs. This is analysis and commentary, not legal advice. Interest of Justice is not a party to the case.