Filing
23 Jul 2025
23 Jul 2025
C/17/190788 · District Court of the Northern Netherlands, Leeuwarden
The State and officials — the claimants assume a 'fictitious reality'
The State and officials (defence of Rutte, De Jonge, Van Dissel and others)
Defence filing · the court has not ruled on these claims
In 30 seconds
The joint rejoinder of the Dutch State and the 11 named officials and ex-ministers it represents. The State says the reply builds an alternative reality from speculation, that no unlawful act or damage is shown, and that the proposed experts should not be heard.
Cheat sheet
- The State says Covid-19 and the pandemic existed and that broad scientific consensus holds the vaccines were safe and effective.
- It objects that the claimants filed 146 exhibits, over 4,500 pages with the reply alone, without saying which pages matter.
- It says the claimants distort sources, citing fact-checks on the RKI files, Moderna's CEO and General Van Kappen's remark.
- It points to mismatched dates in claimants 4 and 5's vaccination records and a changed surname for claimant 7.
- It argues the proposed experts are not independent, and attaches its defence in the separate expert-hearing case.
- It calls 'highly reprehensible' the claimants' unsupported claim that individuals caused claimant 6's death.
Key passages · underlined
The conclusion of the plaintiffs' reply further exposes what was already apparent earlier in these proceedings: the plaintiffs assume a different, fictitious reality.
The plaintiffs have submitted a large number of productions (the total now stands at 146), several of which are very extensive (the productions accompanying the reply total more than 4,500 pages).
essentially boils down to the fact that these persons are not experts, and in any case not independent and impartial experts, and that in any event there is no basis or interest in hearing these persons.
The State further considers it highly reprehensible that the plaintiffs, without any substantiation, state that individuals are responsible for the death of claimant sub 6.
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.