Court rulings & orders · On the timeline
Letter
6 Feb 2026
6 Feb 2026
200.360.223/01 · Court of Appeal (Amsterdam)
Amsterdam court sets the hearing rules — one hour each, livestream
Amsterdam Court of Appeal (registry)
Court decision · binding on the parties
In 30 seconds
The court's answer to the claimants' 22 January requests, with the timetable for 9 March. Paired with the foundation's press invitation for a press conference after the hearing.
Cheat sheet
- Grants extra speaking time — one hour in the first round for the appellants and one hour shared by all respondents.
- The court will run its own livestream, but will not give the parties a recording of it.
- Refuses to let non-accredited press film or record, saying the livestream lets anyone follow the whole hearing.
- Experts may attend or watch, but will not be heard; the hearing is only about whether the appeal is admissible.
- Largest courtroom — 85 public seats, plus 40 in an overflow room by livestream; Teams link possible for parties.
- Stichting Recht Oprecht invited press to a 5:15 PM event in Amsterdam with Stassen and the five experts as speakers.
Key passages · underlined
The court grants the request for additional speaking time. This means that a total of 1 hour of speaking time (in the first round) is allowed for both the appellants and the respondents.
Due to the potentially high interest in this case, the court will provide a livestream. It is not possible to provide this livestream as a recording to the parties.
The witnesses / experts presented may be present. They are also free to follow the livestream. At this stage, the court sees no reason to decide that they will be heard during this session.
Notwithstanding the legal fact that in this type of proceedings, a statutory prohibition on legal remedies applies under Dutch law, the applicants' lawyer argues that this is a matter of principle
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.