Hearings & transcripts · On the timeline
Transcript
9 Jul 2025
9 Jul 2025
C/17/199273 · Request for provisional evidence, Leeuwarden
Hearing on the request to hear experts under oath
District Court (Leeuwarden), Judge J.A. Werkema
Part of the public record of the case
In 30 seconds
Transcript of the 9 July 2025 court hearing on the three applicants' evidence request. It records each side's arguments and the dispute over press recording.
Cheat sheet
- The judge limited the hearing to one question — should the experts be heard so the applicants can assess their case.
- Stassen objected to the press rules that only let accredited journalists record; the judge allowed only an audio recording.
- Stassen argued the experts are independent and that only questioning under oath could test their views.
- The State said the request is barred during pending proceedings and pointed to the scientific consensus on Covid-19 vaccines.
- The journalists' lawyer argued editors-in-chief cannot be personally liable and warned of a chilling effect on the press.
- The judge promised a decision in six weeks.
Key passages · underlined
That is also the only thing we will address today. It is solely about the question: should experts or expert-witnesses be heard so that you can make an assessment?
The scientific consensus is that Covid-19 exists, that there was a pandemic, and that the vaccines against Covid are safe and effective.
Moreover, the evidence sought contributes to a chilling effect on press freedom, which is an equitable reason to reject it.
if you, as judge, reject this request, which I do not expect, but if you did, then you must reckon with the fact that the same blood will be on your hands as on respondents’.
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.