The case in 90 seconds
Seven people sued the most powerful names of the pandemic, personally
Seven Dutch citizens say they were misled into an injection and harmed by it. They sued Bill Gates, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, former Prime Minister Mark Rutte, the Dutch State and thirteen others in a civil court. Every defendant denies it.
Who is suing whom
Seven against seventeen
IoJ doesn't name the living claimants in its own summaries. The seventeen defendants are named, and sued as individuals, with their own fortunes on the line. Tap one to see every document that names them.
Ite HofstraDoctor · OMT01
Jaap van DisselChair, OMT02
Marion KoopmansVirologist, Erasmus MC03
Mark RuttePrime Minister, now NATO04
Sigrid KaagDeputy Prime Minister05
Hugo de JongeHealth Minister06
Ernst KuipersHealth Minister07
Diederik GommersIntensive-care chief08
Wopke HoekstraFinance Minister09
Cora van NieuwenhuizenMinister10
Albert BourlaCEO, Pfizer11
Giselle van CannNOS News12
Paul JansenDe Telegraaf13
Feike SijbesmaSpecial COVID envoy14
Bill GatesMicrosoft co-founder15
Agnes KantDirector, Lareb16
The State of the NetherlandsDefendant 1717The core claim
What the summons says
The case starts with the summons of 14 July 2023: the claimants allege the defendants acted unlawfully as a group, deliberately, and owe them for it. These are their words, not findings of the court.
declare that the defendants, as a group and individually, have acted unlawfully towards the claimants by deliberately and unlawfully misleading them and thereby inducing them to receive Covid-19 injections which the defendants knew, or at least ought to have known, were not safe and effective.
Round one
Bill Gates must answer in a Dutch court
Gates argued a Dutch court had no power over him. In October 2024 the court disagreed and ordered him to pay the costs. It is the claimants' first clear win, and it is about jurisdiction, not about whether they are right.
In view of the foregoing, this court has international jurisdiction under Article 7(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure to hear the claims against Gates.
The defence, in their own words
Every defendant denies it
The State says it was reasonable to call on citizens to get vaccinated. Gates calls the claimants' global plan fictional. Bourla says the vaccine helped curb a real pandemic. Read them directly.
There is no question of a conspiracy or a ‘Covid-19 project’. The Covid-19 coronavirus does indeed exist, and the vaccines have been found to be safe and effective.
The Coronavirus exists and can cause various health problems, the severity of which must not be downplayed. There is no global conspiracy, and the vaccines that protect against the Coronavirus are safe and have been approved and authorised by the competent authorities.
The SARS-CoV-2 virus (the “Coronavirus”) is very real. Equally real is COVID-19, the highly contagious and potentially life-threatening respiratory disease caused by the Coronavirus.
The fight over the experts
Refused. Appealed. Thrown out. Then let in.
The claimants asked to have their experts heard under oath. The court refused. The appeal was ruled inadmissible, never decided on the merits. The video testimony was rejected, then, a week before the hearing, admitted.
22 October 2026
The hearing: five moments
Five hours, three judges, thirty minutes per side. Tap a moment to hear it, or read the whole hearing in English.
What happens next
What the judges must decide
The burden is on the seven. To win they must prove an unlawful act, that the defendants acted as a group, that they knew and intended it, that it caused each person's harm, and real damage. The judgment is expected between 9 December 2026 and the end of February 2027.
The unlawful act
Violate a right, break a law, or breach the unwritten duty of care, and you owe for the harm.
The group
Act as a group and every member can be made to pay, even if no one can say whose act did it.
The suffering
Damages for fear, grief and suffering, where the law allows them.
The anchor
Power over one defendant at home lets the court join the others, if the claims are tied closely enough.
The burden
Whoever claims it, proves it. Here, the burden is on the seven.
Follow the case
Get the judgment in English the day it lands
New filings, the ruling and our analysis, by email. Free.
Opens Substack to confirm. Unsubscribe in one click.
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.
The IoJ Legal Fund
It's our pleasure to bring you this case in English
People need to see lawsuits like this, and understand how serious these issues are. If you'd like to see more lawsuits like this, IoJ has its own legal fund for some of the most important cases for humanity, our federal mandamus first, then the Nuremberg case in Costa Rica and Sue the WHO. Your support would mean a great deal, and we'll keep bringing you news and records like this, as well organized as we can.
Gifts fund IoJ's own cases. IoJ is not a party to the Leeuwarden case, and gifts don't go to its plaintiffs.