Skip to content
Interest of JusticeThe Leeuwarden Files

The claimants' filings · On the timeline

Filing
14 Jan 2026

C/17/190788 · District Court of the Northern Netherlands, Leeuwarden

Parties state their wishes for the oral hearing

All parties (Claimants (Stassen), State et al., Van Cann & Jansen, Gates, Kant)

Filed for the claimants · every defendant denies the claims; the court has not ruled

In 30 seconds

After the 26 November 2025 interim ruling, every party filed a short statement (a 'deed') on speaking time, available dates and, for the claimants, the identity of claimant 7. These filings set up the fight over how long each side could speak and what role the claimants' experts could play.

Cheat sheet

  1. The claimants asked for 120 minutes of speaking time, citing the case's public importance and the volume of evidence.
  2. The claimants said they would bring five experts (Yeadon, Fitts, Latypova, Watt, Sansone) and asked for an online link and an interpreter.
  3. The claimants say no court permission is needed to bring experts; a timely notice to the judge is enough.
  4. The State et al. made no requests but asked for equal time if the claimants got extra time.
  5. Van Cann and Jansen called 120 minutes excessive and asked that the experts play no role at the hearing; Gates and Kant each asked for about 10 minutes.
  6. The claimants also clarified that claimant 7 uses both his birth surname and his wife's surname, so he is the same person named in the summons.

Key passages · underlined

For the record, it is hereby noted that your court’s decision to refuse to hear party-appointed experts under oath does not prejudice the claimants’ right to bring witnesses and experts to the hearing.
Why it matters The claimants' position that they may still bring their experts to the hearing despite the court's refusal; this set up later rulings on the experts' role.Page 4 · TheNetherlandsCase.com copy
The State et al. currently have no specific requests regarding the substantive part of the oral hearing. Should the claimants request extended speaking time in their statement, however , the State et al. request an equal amount of speaking time.
Why it matters The government side's only request — equal time. The court later gave every party the same 30 minutes.Page 2 · TheNetherlandsCase.com copy
Furthermore, the experts may not speak during the speaking time allocated to the claimants, as they cannot represent the claimants in court.
Why it matters The two journalists' lawyers asked the court to keep the experts silent at the hearing, a point the court later largely followed.Page 2 · TheNetherlandsCase.com copy

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.

Keep this library open

Free to read, for good. Not free for IoJ to host.

Every document here was gathered, translated and checked by hand, and the whole record stays online for history, whatever happens to other sites. Interest of Justice is reader-funded, with no corporate or pharmaceutical money. If this library helped you, help keep it open.

Keep it openFollow to the judgment