The claimants' filings · On the timeline
Filing
15 Sep 2025
15 Sep 2025
200.360.223/01 · Court of Appeal (Amsterdam)
Applicants appeal the refusal to hear their experts
Three applicants (Stassen)
Filed for the claimants · every defendant denies the claims; the court has not ruled
In 30 seconds
The three applicants' appeal against the 20 August 2025 refusal, filed even though Dutch law normally bars an appeal here, plus a request for interim relief (a temporary order) to have the experts heard at once in public.
Cheat sheet
- The applicants argue the first-instance hearing was not fair or public under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
- They invoke the 'breaking the ban on appeal' doctrine, saying essential procedural rules were breached.
- They object to the court calling their experts 'party experts' and say this shows bias.
- They ask for interim relief letting the experts present their opinions, with no limits on press recording.
- New exhibits include written expert opinions by Sasha Latypova and Katherine Watt and a video by Masayasu Inoue.
- Filing coincided with the start of the Dutch autumn 2025 Covid-19 vaccination round, which the applicants cite as urgency.
Key passages · underlined
the applicants also argue that their application to this court should be deemed admissible, despite the prohibition on legal remedies under Article 200 of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure, due to a breach of essential procedural rules
To grant, by way of interim relief, the immediate permission for the experts nominated by the applicants to present their expert opinions on this case before your court, either in person or via video link
On Monday, September 15, 2025, the day the "Coronavaccine Autumn 2025" program was launched in the Netherlands, an appeal was filed against the decision of the District Court of Northern Netherlands (Leeuwarden) of August 20, 2025.
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.