Skip to content
Interest of JusticeThe Leeuwarden Files

The defence · On the timeline

Filing
23 Jul 2025

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

Van Cann and Jansen — sue the outlets, not the editors personally

Giselle van Cann and Paul Jansen (defence)

Defence filing · the court has not ruled on these claims

In 30 seconds

The written rejoinder (final written answer) of the two editors-in-chief at NOS and De Telegraaf. They argue the claimants have no case against them personally, that suing them is an abuse of rights, and that the claims threaten press freedom.

Cheat sheet

  1. They say the reporting was the responsibility of the outlets NOS and De Telegraaf as employers, not of the editors personally.
  2. They say the claimants never point to any specific statement by either of them.
  3. They call the claimants' reasons for suing them personally, which cite De Telegraaf's wartime history, a false analogy and an abuse of rights.
  4. They rely on European human rights case law — the press may report from official sources and choose its own topics.
  5. They deny being part of any criminal structure or following military instructions, and ask for dismissal with costs.

Key passages · underlined

The reporting on the COVID-19 pandemic has at all times been the responsibility of the legal entities NOS and De Telegraaf.
Why it matters Their main defence — on their view the wrong people were sued. If the court agrees, the claims against them fail without any look at the vaccine questions.Page 2 · TheNetherlandsCase.com copy
It goes without saying that this constitutes a disproportionate restriction on freedom of expression and is contrary to one of the cornerstones of our democratic society: freedom of the press.
Why it matters They frame the case as a press-freedom issue and warn of a 'chilling effect' (self-censorship from fear of being sued) on journalists.Page 3 · TheNetherlandsCase.com copy
Van Cann, Jansen and/or their employers are not part of a criminal organisational structure or a PsyOp organisation and have not followed any military instructions.
Why it matters A flat denial of the claimants' allegation that the media acted under NATO or other military direction.Page 5 · 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