Filing
13 Jan 2026
13 Jan 2026
200.360.223/01 · Court of Appeal (Amsterdam)
Defendants oppose the appeal on admissibility
Defendants (State et al., Bourla, van Cann & Jansen, Kant)
Defence filing · the court has not ruled on these claims
In 30 seconds
Four written defences filed in the Amsterdam appeal against the refusal to hear the claimants' experts. On the court's instruction they argue only one thing — that the law bars this appeal and no exception applies.
Cheat sheet
- All four say Art. 200(2) Rv bars appeal of a provisional-evidence decision unless the first court allows it, and the claimants never asked for leave.
- They say the 'breakthrough' exception (setting aside an appeal ban) needs a fundamental unfairness, and none is shown.
- The State says the Leeuwarden hearing was public, with an overflow room and an audio recording; limits on non-accredited filming followed the press guideline.
- The State argues the claimants' own filing of expert videos shows they can already assess their legal position, removing their interest in the request.
- Bourla and Kant adopt the State's defence in full; van Cann and Jansen file their own brief with the same conclusion.
- All ask that the appeal be declared inadmissible and that the claimants pay costs.
Key passages · underlined
In this case, the court did not determine otherwise. Applicants also did not request leave to lodge an appeal. This means that Applicants must be declared inadmissible in their appeal.
At the oral hearing, the District Court not only opened the courtroom to the public (which was also present in substantial numbers) and the press, but also opened an additional overflow courtroom (where the hearing could be followed by the public via a video link).
This shows that Applicants themselves (by now) apparently consider that they can determine their legal position (which also removes any interest in the preliminary taking of evidence), as the District Court also held (in para. 3.12).
If a matter has very great societal urgency, other remedies are available and a request for a preliminary taking of evidence is not the appropriate course.
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.