Ruling — oral hearing ordered, wider claim allowed, experts not heard

DISTRICT COURT OF THE NORTHERN NETHERLANDS

Civil Law

Court location Leeuwarden

Case number: C/17/190788 / HA ZA 23-172

Judgment of 26 November 2025

in the case of

1. [claimant 1], of [place of residence],

2. [claimant 2], of [place of residence],

3. [claimant 3], of [place of residence],

4. [claimant 4], of [place of residence],

5. [claimant 5], of [place of residence],

6. (THE LATE) [claimant 6], residing, during their lifetime, in [place of residence], hereinafter referred to as: [claimant 6],

7. [claimant 7], of [place of residence],

claiming parties, hereinafter jointly referred to as: claimants, lawyer: Mr P.W.H. Stassen,

versus

1. [defendant sub 1],

2. [defendant sub 2],

3. [defendant sub 3],

4. [defendant sub 4],

5. [defendant sub 5],

6. [defendant sub 6],

7. [defendant sub 7],

8. [defendant sub 8],

9. [defendant sub 9],

10. [defendant sub 10],

14. [defendant sub 11],

all electing domicile in [place of residence],

17. THE STATE OF THE NETHERLANDS, hereinafter referred to as the State, having its seat in The Hague,

hereinafter jointly referred to as [defendant sub 1] et al., lawyers: Mr R.W. Veldhuis and Mr M.E.A. Möhring,

11. [defendant sub 12], residing in [place of residence], lawyers: Mr D. Roessingh and Mr Bredenoord-Spoek,

12. [defendant sub 13], residing in [place of residence],

13. [defendant sub 14], residing in [place of residence],

lawyers: Mr L. Broers and Mr R.H.W. Lamme,

15. [defendant sub 15], residing in [place of residence], lawyer: Mr W. Heemskerk.

16. [defendant sub 16], electing domicile in [place of residence], lawyer: Mr A.H. Ekker,

defending parties, hereinafter jointly referred to as: defendants.

1. The further course of the proceedings

1.1. By docket decision of 1 October 2025, the court referred the case to the cause list for judgment on several procedural points.

1.2. Judgment has been set for today.

2. Assessment

Designation of parties “the State et al.”

2.1. In the heading of chapter IV on page 16 of the reply, claimants refer to defendants 1 to 12 inclusive as “the State et al.”. From the content of that chapter, however, the court understands that by “the State et al.” claimants do not mean defendants 1 to 12 inclusive, but the (legal) persons referred to in this judgment as [defendant sub 1] et al. For example, paragraph 46 of the reply states:

The State et al. open their statement of defence with the opening sentence: 'the Covid-19 pandemic was a turbulent period, in which various, sometimes far-reaching, measures were necessary to protect public health and society'.

The statement of defence quoted here by claimants is the statement of defence of [defendant sub 1] et al. The court will therefore read the designation “the State et al.” in the reply as meaning the (legal) persons referred to in this judgment as “[defendant sub 1] et al.”.

Applicable law

2.2. On 1 January 2025 the Act on the Simplification and Modernisation of the Law of Evidence entered into force, which among other things led to amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure (DCCP). Under Article XIIa of the Act on the Simplification and Modernisation of the Law of Evidence, the law as it applied before 1 January 2025 continues to apply to this case, because this case was brought before that date.

Request to produce an unredacted version of page 6 of the Pfizer report

2.3. Under Article 22(1) DCCP (old), the court may, among other things, order a party to produce documents relating to the case. In their reply, claimants requested the court to order [defendant sub 1] et al. to produce an “unredacted” version of page 6 of the Pfizer report submitted by claimants (exhibit 40 to the summons). Claimants explained that the information about the number of “doses or vials” has been redacted (the court understands: made illegible) in their copy of the Pfizer report. According to claimants, [defendant sub 1] et al. without any doubt have a copy that does show the number of doses or vials. The sentence in the report at issue reads as follows:

It is estimated that approximately (b) (4) doses of BNT162b2 were shipped worldwide from the receipt of the first temporary authorisation for emergency supply on 01 December 2020 through 28 February 2021.

In view of the text reproduced above, the court understands that by doses and vials claimants mean the same thing. The court sees no reason to make use of the power referred to above. Claimants themselves have stated that the number of “vials” has no significance for the study described in this Pfizer report (see paragraph 80, second sentence, of the reply). That means that they have no interest in the disclosure of the number of doses. The request is therefore refused.

The deed submitted as exhibit 105 and the increase of claim

2.4. In their reply, claimants introduced as exhibit 105 a deed previously refused by the court and requested the court to regard the content of this deed as “repeated verbatim and incorporated here”. The court permits this because the production of this deed is in line with the content of the docket decision of 11 December 2024 under legal ground 2.4. The content of the deed therefore forms an integral part of the reply. This deed contains, among other things, an increase of claim.

2.5. In their reply, claimants have thus increased their claim. Since defendants have not objected to the increase of claim and the court also sees no reason of its own motion to disregard the increase of claim as being contrary to the due conduct of proceedings, the court will adjudicate on the increased claim. The claim is therefore now:

1. to declare that defendants, as a group and each individually, have continued to act unlawfully towards claimants (which includes an unlawful omission) up to the day of the final decision given by the court in this case, by intentionally and unlawfully misleading them and the Dutch people in order to induce claimants and/or the Dutch people to have Covid-19 injections administered which defendants knew, or at least ought to have known, are not safe and effective, or at least that the false and misleading narrative propagated by defendants in the context of the project Covid-19: The Great Reset and/or the Covid-19 injections introduced in the context of this project are harmful to the health, fertility and mental well-being of defendants and/or the Dutch people;

2. to order defendants, jointly and severally, such that payment by one releases the other, by judgment provisionally enforceable, to compensate claimants for their damage, to be assessed in follow-up proceedings for the assessment of damages and settled in accordance with the law.

3. to order defendants to pay the costs of these proceedings pursuant to an order for costs to be made by the court, provisionally enforceable.

Request for a case management hearing and examination during the oral hearing

2.6. In the deed submitted as exhibit 105 (read: the reply), claimants request the court to schedule a case management hearing at which they can consult with the court and the lawyers of all parties on:

a. the course of the proceedings per group of defendants

b. the furnishing of new and additional evidence as a result of the rapidly succeeding developments regarding the factual basis of claimants' claims, this evidence to be furnished by submitting new documents and by having national and international party experts heard under oath

c. the manner in which both sides are to be heard, in the context of the due conduct of proceedings

d. the admission of independent media to all public oral hearings and to all examinations of the national and international party experts

e. how the rest of the proceedings will proceed.

The court will not schedule a case management hearing, for the following reasons.

2.7. The court sees no reason to divide defendants into groups and then to determine the further course of the proceedings per group. The claims against defendants are too closely connected for that. In this regard the court takes into account that the claim makes no distinction between groups of defendants and that claimants accuse all defendants, among other things, of having acted unlawfully towards them as (a) group. A further specific or separate course of proceedings per group of defendants is therefore not necessary.

2.8. Consultation on the furnishing of new and additional evidence is not necessary either. Since no order to furnish evidence has been given to either party, the taking of evidence is not at issue at this time. Insofar as claimants' concern is the submission of further documents prior to the oral hearing to further substantiate their contentions, the court does not see that, or why, prior consultation should take place on that subject.

2.9. Since an order to furnish evidence, and thus the taking of evidence, is not at issue at this stage, and claimants have not made a request for a provisional witness and/or expert examination during these proceedings either, the court understands the request for a case management hearing for consultation on the hearing of party experts under oath as a request under Article 87(3) DCCP. That provision states that, with the prior permission of the court, witnesses and party experts may be heard during the oral hearing.

2.10. The court sees no reason to make use of its power to hear party experts or witnesses during the oral hearing, or to do so during a separate oral hearing. According to the parliamentary history, the possibility offered for this in Article 87(3) DCCP aims to speed up the proceedings and is intended for cases that are relatively simple as regards their factual basis. That is not the case here. In the court's judgment, the course of the oral hearing would also be disrupted too much by it, because the examination would take a great deal of time. In this regard the court also takes into account that defendants would then also have to be given the opportunity to hear party experts and witnesses in a counter-examination. A case management hearing to discuss this subject is therefore not appropriate.

2.11. A case management hearing is also not necessary to discuss the manner in which both sides are to be heard. To a large extent that has already taken place through two written rounds, and further, both sides will be heard during the oral hearing. No case management hearing therefore needs to be held on that subject.

2.12. Nor does the court see any reason to hold a case management hearing for consultation on the admission of independent media to hearings. If the court should consider consultation with the parties on that subject necessary at all, that can take place in writing at some point. No case management hearing is needed for that.

2.13. Finally, no case management hearing is needed for consultation on the rest of the proceedings either. As already announced in the docket decision of 1 October 2025, the court will (now) order an oral hearing, and the parties will be given the opportunity to inform the court by deed of their wishes regarding the substantive part of that oral hearing, such as speaking time etc.

Deed setting out the parties' position

2.14. For the communication of the wishes referred to above, the court will refer the case to the cause list of 14 January 2026 for a deed setting out the position of both parties. The court is allowing this longer period for the deed because of the Christmas period. In that deed the parties must also state their dates of unavailability, and those of their lawyers, in the months of May 2026 to October 2026 inclusive. In their deed, claimants must also address the identity of claimant 7. [defendant sub 1] et al. have rightly pointed out that claimant 7 is named [claimant 7] in the summons, whereas he is named [name redacted] in the reply.

Finally

2.15. During the oral hearing, the parties' lawyers will be given the opportunity to explain the parties' legal positions further. (Concise) speaking notes may be used for this purpose. The court wishes to note that the oral hearing is mainly intended to allow the parties themselves to speak, since written pleadings have already been exchanged in two rounds. After the exchange of deeds, the court will determine how much speaking time the lawyers will be given.

2.16. The court notes that, in addition to the points dealt with above, other formal points are at issue between the parties, such as the admissibility of certain exhibits. The court will decide on these by judgment after the oral hearing.

2.17. Every further decision is reserved.

3. The decision

The court

3.1. orders an oral hearing with the appearance of the parties, assisted by their lawyers, for the purpose of providing information and further substantiating their contentions, before Mr C.M. Telman, Mr T.P. Hoekstra and Mr P. van Eijk, in the courthouse in Leeuwarden, Zaailand 102, on a date and at a time to be set by the court,

3.2. orders that the parties - natural persons in person and the State duly represented -, accompanied by their lawyers, must be present,

3.3. orders that the case will again be placed on the cause list of Wednesday 14 January 2026 for a deed setting out the position of both parties, as referred to in legal ground 2.14, after which the day and hour of the oral hearing will be set,

3.4. orders that, in the absence of the requested statement(s) of dates of unavailability, the court will set the time of the oral hearing on its own,

3.5. orders that, once the time of the oral hearing has been set, it will in principle not be changed,

3.6. reserves every further decision.

This judgment was given by Mr C.M. Telman, Mr T.P. Hoekstra and Mr P. van Eijk and pronounced in public on 26 November 2025.

Footnotes

[fn 1] See Proceedings of the House of Representatives (Handelingen II) 19 May 2015, no. 84-13, p. 12