The claimants' filings · On the timeline
17 Dec 2024
C/17/190788 · District Court of the Northern Netherlands, Leeuwarden
Claimants' lawyers tell the full bench its refusal has no legal effect
Claimants (Stassen / Van Kessel)
Filed for the claimants · every defendant denies the claims; the court has not ruled
In 30 seconds
A letter from the claimants' lawyers to the three judges, challenging the 11 December refusal. They argue that widening a claim is the claimant's legal right, and they press again for a preliminary hearing on their biological-weapon argument.
Cheat sheet
- The lawyers say the refusal of their filing has no legal effect, because amending a claim is a right under Article 130 of the civil procedure code.
- They say the court could only block an amendment by judgment, for abuse of procedure, not by a scheduling order.
- They criticise the court for deciding before the two-week window for defendants' objections had run out.
- They ask why the vaccination certificates were sent back without reasons, and say they belong in the case file.
- They argue there is 'no middle ground' — either the claimants' biological-weapon argument is right or the defendants' account is.
- They remind the judges of Article 162 of the criminal procedure code, the duty of officials to report crimes.
Key passages · underlined
It follows from the above provisions that the amendment of a claim is a right of the claimant.
It is, to say the least, remarkable that the full bench of the court reached its ‘docket decision’ without waiting for the two-week objection period set out in the rules of procedure to expire.
There is no middle ground here. After all, the use of a biological weapon cannot be based on any form of negligence, but is, by definition, deliberate.
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.