ECLI: NL: RBDHA: 2016: 15014

Rechtspraak.nl

Date09-12-2016
Court
09-12-2016
09
criminal
First
Ruling
/ 837304-15
instance
of
Case
law
TheWilders
Hague
date
- multiple
ofcourt
publication
in The Locations
Case
jurisdictions
Special
content
Hague
number
December
Display
9, 2016.
characteristics

Court THE HAGUE

criminal law
multiple room
Parquet Number: 09 / 837304-15
Date of judgment: December 9, 2016
contradiction
(Promis Judgment)
The Court of The Hague on the basis of the indictment and following the research stated at the hearing the
following judgment in the case of the prosecutors against suspect:
Geert Wilders ,
born in the Netherlands on September 6, 1963,
this matter electing domicile at the address Courtyard 1A to (AA 2513) The Hague.
1Introduction
The court finds that constitutes freedom of expression is one of the foundations of our democratic society. A
democratic society is characterized by pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness and therefore requires that
there is also scope for the dissemination of information, ideas and opinions that shock the State or a large
part of the population, hurt or disturb. The exercise of this freedom, however, can be restrictions, including
for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Which is what this criminal order. Because it concerns the question whether the defendant has allowed
exhausts 12 and March 19, 2014 as he did or that he is thus guilty of insulting a group and / or incitement to
discrimination and hatred against Moroccans because of their race.
There is only one criterion for assessing whether there is crime and that is the law, enshrined in law,
international law and jurisprudence. Nothing more, nothing less. Play personal beliefs or preferences
irrelevant.
This is not a political process as a democratically elected representative of the people as suspect is not above
the law. On him is the law. And bounded for him the freedom of expression. When he remarks as a politician
does that go over that limit, in the sense that his conduct constitutes a criminal offense, leading the
establishment of the overrun - and the prosecution before - but not to a restriction of the freedom of
expression. It then indeed no statements that indeed first and later could not be done. It involves statements
which from the outset were not protected by freedom of expression.
The position of the accused that he is in a conviction is limited in its ability to express and problems he
appoint perceives as a politician, so obviously incorrect. A conviction means only that he is regarding the
criminal statements is not protected by freedom of expression. Nothing more, nothing less.

ECLI: NL: RBDHA: 2016: 15014

2The indictment
The charges against defendant listed in the indictment in several qualificative variants, namely that the
accused in the indictment statements or would not have done in association with others (primary or
alternative) or would have provoked so (alternative), or the charges would have to commit (best alternative).
Counts 1 and 2 relate to statements made by the suspect and on March 19, 2014 response from the public
during an election rally in Grand Caf De Tijd in The Hague.
Facts 3 and 4 relate to previous statements of the accused on March 12, 2014 during an interview on the
Loosduinse market in The Hague.
The full indictment is integrally included as Annex A and is part of that judgment.
3The examination hearing
3.1
sessions
On March 18, 2016 has been a pre-trial review on the progress of the criminal case. Since the defense has
made several requests. The court noted between ruling on April 7, 2016 on such applications. 1 On May 26
2016, the defense could raise pleas preliminary. The defense did not appear at the hearing. On September
23, 2016, the defense still held preliminary defenses.
The court rejected all the objections of the defense in its interlocutory judgment of October 14, 2016 and the
prosecution is admissible in the prosecution of the suspect. 2
The trial of the case took place in the Judicial Complex Schiphol Badhoevedorp on:

October 31, 2016: examining the case;

-

November 3, 2016: hearing expert Prof. PB Cliteur, treatment of the claims of the injured parties and the
first term of counsel for the aggrieved parties;..
-

November 14, 2016: continuation initial term of counsel for the aggrieved parties and hear from expert Prof.
T. Black,..
-

16 and November 17, 2016: closing speech of the prosecutors;

-

18 and November 21, 2016: argument of the defense;

and November 23, 2016: Second term of counsel for the aggrieved parties, reply, rejoinder, and the last
word of the accused.
The court investigation hearing formally signed at The Hague on November 25, 2016.
3.2
Litigants

ECLI: NL: RBDHA: 2016: 15014

Accused during the trial of the case appeared only on 23 November 2016. But always, in varying proportions,
appeared counsel of the accused, mrs. GGJ Knoops, M. 't Sas, CJ Knoops-Hamburger and J. King,
Amsterdam Bar. Mrs. Knoops and Knoops-Hamburger had spoken.
Furthermore always appeared prosecutors, mrs. W. Forest and SM van der Kallen, who each have spoken. On
October 31, 2016 was mr. T. Berger, also a prosecutor, instead of mr. Bos present.
On behalf of a number of injured parties mrs. DMP Eijsden lawyer in The Hague, Ed van Elst, lawyer in
Veenendaal, and GK Sluiter and L. Nix, Amsterdam Bar, spoke.
3.3
The process stance of suspicious
Suspect is - unlike the pre-trial and preliminary hearing where defenses were held - did not appear at the
trial of his criminal case. He has made use of the opportunity to perform at the end of it as the last
word. That right has accused and the court has to respect.
The court has given the accused always starts, deposit, even at the start of the trial, as he tweeted. It was
the court namely noticed that suspect had spoken several times about this criminal case and the court in
messages on his Twitter account. Wrote suspicious about a neprechtbank "that the verdict was already
prepared and published photos of the judges by referring to the political party D66. A factual substantiation
or explanation thereof has nowhere to discern the court. In his last word suspect certainly not been idle.
The court considers these reactions an elected member of parliament and co-legislator to respect a place
occupies in the Dutch democratic constitutional state, unworthy.
4The admissibility of the prosecution
4.1
introduction
The court (again) that the front bar is high when it comes to the public prosecutor inadmissible. This is
certainly true when it concerns the decision of the prosecution to present a case to the judge. In Article 167,
first paragraph, of the Code of Criminal Procedure is incumbent upon the prosecution to decide the
jurisdiction conferred independently or following a set investigation prosecution should take place. The
established case law follows that the decision to prosecute is only very limited lend itself to a substantive
judicial review and that only in exceptional cases and for a declaration of inadmissibility of the
prosecution.Criterion is that in the given circumstances can not judge acting reasonably member of the
prosecution that (continuing) the prosecution can be served only protected by criminal law enforcement
interest. 3 In the case of such, obvious disproportion of the prosecution's decision to prosecute incompatible
with the prohibition of arbitrariness. 4 Within this framework, the court will review the admissibility of
defenses defense.
4.2
The political question doctrine
In its interlocutory judgment of October 14, 2016 stated in court that adhere political aspects to this
case. Suspect is indeed the leader of the Freedom Party and on behalf of the party leader in the House. In
this double capacity he made the alleged statements.Furthermore, the court there ruled that these
circumstances do not result in prosecution rights should be denied to the public prosecutor. It is up to the

ECLI: NL: RBDHA: 2016: 15014

court to end, based on the specific circumstances of this case and following the substantive debate, to make
a judgment whether or not there is a criminal offense.
The defense has set back the position during the trial that the prosecution is inadmissible must be rejected,
since it knowingly violated the separation of powers and its prosecution monopoly with this persecution. In
explanation was put forward - having regard to what the expert Prof. Cliteur this stated at the hearing -. That
the public prosecutor to prosecute accused the foundation of our law, namely tolerance as a basis for
democracy, serious and unacceptable manner in danger has accommodated. The interpretation of the
concept of tolerance is a political concept, where the criminal court to stay out. The prosecution has abused
the criminal proceedings on behalf of its own legal political agenda, according to the defense.
Even today this defense does not succeed. Apart from the fact that only legal political agenda of the
prosecution nothing has been found also apply here that it is for the prosecution to proceed with prosecution
for suspicion of an offense. An obvious disproportion of the decision to prosecute is (still) no.
4.3
The Castells exception
The defense itself - referring to what the expert Professor Black has stated this at the hearing -. The view
that the state should use its power in an appropriate form. Criminal law should only be used if other methods
are hiked to do something undesirable remarks, called Castells exception. This could include a statement by
the government that these statements are undesirable, it distances itself from those statements by
parliamentarians or reprimand under the Rules of Procedure of Parliament. Since not nor has opted by
another way responded to the statements of the accused and the prosecution for a less drastic reaction as a
dismissal, a transaction or criminal mediation, the prosecution acted rigorously without any regard for the
interests of a politician according to the defense.
The court considers that it was in the case of Castells against Spain for an elected representative of the
people who criticized the government. 5 Castells was subsequently convicted of insult and removed from
office. The Defendant is charged statements do not take criticism of the government or government action,
so that reason alone fails the defense.
4.4
Violation of the lex certa principle
On the occasion of the preliminary defenses, the defense noted that the indictment statements of the
accused were made nine months before the Supreme Court delivered the judgment in Felter, which has been
held with regard to Articles 137c and 137d of the Criminal Code that not exclusively, to statements that incite
hatred or violence or discrimination, but also inciting intolerance statements. 6 That is, according to the
defense, introduced a new criterion which suspicious when he made the statements could not be known. This
is contrary to the established lex certa principle in particular in Article 7 of the ECHR.
In its interlocutory judgment of October 14, 2016, the court has already held that the District Court on the
scope of Article 10 of the ECHR in this case will decide after a full substantive debate and the same applies to
the question of the meaning, relevance and impact of the intolerance test of the Supreme Court. It is
considered that Article 7 of the ECHR which does not otherwise. The fact that these issues are under
discussion, does not make it right to prosecute would be to slip to the prosecution.

ECLI: NL: RBDHA: 2016: 15014

The defense has taken the position again at oral argument that the prosecution is inadmissible must be
rejected, because they effectively and in violation of the lex certa principle has appealed to the intolerance
test of the Supreme Court.
The court considers this regard as follows.
The question whether or not there is a breach of that principle has been extensively discussed during the
trial. In addition, the prosecution stated that there is no vision in her struggles and further substantiated why
those who believe in that country. The court can not see why this should lead to the inadmissibility of the
prosecution.
For the sake of the court establishes that the prosecution has primarily taken the position that the term
intolerance just not in the case against the accused should be applied.
This defense is therefore again rejected.
4.5
Opinion of the Court
The above leads to the conclusion that the prosecution is admissible in the prosecution of the accused.
5. Assessment of the indictment 7
5.1
The facts
The following facts and circumstances have not been hearing for discussion and can be used on the basis of
the evidence used as a basis for assessing the evidence question.
5.1.1 12
March 12, 2014
On Wednesday, March 12th, 2014 visited defendant along with several Hague PVV party market in the district
Loosduinen in the Hague. Part of this visit is broadcast in the NOS news on Wednesday, March 12th, 2014.
During this visit did suspect in an interview include the following statement: 8
"Most important is surely the people here the inhabitants of The Hague, Hagenezen and from Scheveningen
on the market as Lon always mentions neatly and correctly. For those people we do it now. That vote is
now a safer and more social and in any case a city with less charges and if possible even less Moroccans. "
[Witness 1], former spokesman integration and Islam PVV, was there that day with. He stated that the
accused and his party all day were approached by people from the neighborhood on criminal
Moroccans. [Witness 1] thinks therefore suspect came to his decision and that he has not figured out in
advance. After the interview early suspect him if he called "so could say." 9
[Witness 2], the then policy of the accused, stated that he was quite surprised when this statement was
made. He thought that the suspect misspoke. 10
[Witness 3], Policy Foundation PVV, the 'less Marokkanen' ruling on March 12, 2014' came out of the blue.
" The overall position of the PVV is after: less criminals, less immigration and voluntary repatriation. 11
Suspect was accosted by several media after March 12, 2014 at his less-Marokkanen' ruling and asked for an
explanation. Suspect brought among other things, that he was referring only to criminal Moroccans and

ECLI: NL: RBDHA: 2016: 15014

Moroccans on benefits. He also said he did not retract his statement and that he afterwards even more stood
behind his statement. 12
5.1.2 19
March 19, 2014
On Wednesday, March 19th, 2014 the Freedom Party held an election rally in the evening in Grand Caf De
Tijd in The Hague. During this meeting held suspect a speech, recorded and include broadcast on the TV
network news. During this speech said accused include the following: 13
"But before I go, I would like everyone here to have an answer to the following three questions. Three
questions, please give a clear answer which define our party, the PVV.And the first question is: do you want
more or less European Union "?
At this the crowd shouted repeatedly "less" and was folded.
"And the second, the second question is perhaps even more important: Do you want more or less the Labour
Party?"
At this the crowd shouted repeatedly "less" and was folded.
"And the third question is, and I can not really say, because it is registered to you, and maybe there are
even D66 officers calling in process, but freedom of expression is a great thing and we have not said
anything what is not, we have not said what is not true, so I ask you: do you want in this city and in the
Netherlands more or less Moroccans? "
At this the crowd shouted several times "less" and was folded. After this suspect ended his speech with the
words:
"Nah, we'll arrange it."
[Witness 3] was at this election meeting a coordinating role. He has stated that he earlier in the evening by
[witness 4] was called. [Witness 3] learned from him that the suspect would ask if they wanted more or less
Moroccans during the speech to the audience. The audience had reacted with "less, less, less. [Witness 4]
asked [witness 3] if he would instruct the public in advance of the question and the answer. That [witness 3]
did. 14
According to [witness 4] found earlier that evening around 20:00 a discussion including defendant and
[witness 5] place. [Witness 4] was asked to think about the speech that accused would give that
evening. The aim was to devise a strongest possible speech in which things would be appointed as sharp as
possible. They wanted to connect with the speech at the grassroots and thereby generate new value, so it
would be absorbed by the press and broadcast. There was no thought about the legal implications of the
speech. Also discussed or suspect would speak in the speech about Moroccans or criminal Moroccans. There
was some concern in the discussion or the public or in the correct manner could respond to the prompt. For
that reason, [witness 4] [witness 3] called. He asked [witness 3] to take care of others help ensure that
would place the appropriate interaction. 15
[Witness 5] policy of the accused, has stated that he heard during the discussion that the accused would put
three questions to the audience. He understood that the political line of a week would be turned back
earlier. 16

ECLI: NL: RBDHA: 2016: 15014

Following the statements of the accused is at 12 and March 19, 2014 made him return almost 6,500 times
among other insults and incitement to discrimination and hatred. Also, because these statements include the
comrades [witness 1], [witness 3] and [former party member] left the party accused.
The statements of the accused on 12 and March 19, 2014 are still to be found on various websites, including
those of the NOS, RTL Nieuws and Nu.nl. 17
The Defendant acknowledged at the hearing that he did the 'less Marokkanen' statements. He stated that he
still stands behind those statements. 18
5.2
The position of the prosecution
The officers have justice, as reflected in their written closing speech, claimed that legally and convincingly
proven that the Defendant is 12 and March 19, 2014 has been guilty of complicity of group defamation
(count 1 primary and count 3) and 19 March 2014 perpetrator of inciting hatred and discrimination (count 2
primary).
Furthermore, the prosecutors seized the acquittal of inciting hatred and discrimination on March 12, 2014
(count 4), for which the legal and convincing evidence is lacking.
5.3
The position of the defense
The defense has, as shown in its written argument, argued that the accused did not punishable remarks and
that he should be acquitted of all the facts. To this end, they argued first that Moroccans do not breed in the
sense of articles 137c and 137d of the Criminal Code. It is then alleged that the statements of the accused
were merely an expression of the existing party program of the PVV, which is not punishable. In addition,
suspect his statements afterwards qualified by saying that he only crime referred Moroccans and Moroccans
on benefits. Finally, it is submitted that the defendant's statements are protected by the right to freedom of
expression under Article 10, first or second paragraph of the ECHR.
5.4
The court verdict
5.4.1
Is just a question on March 19, 2014?
Suspect has expressed repeatedly his surprise at the prosecution because he had just asked a question. He
said at the hearing on September 23, 2016:
"I have to find nothing here in this court. For what have I done? I asked my constituents if they want more
or less Moroccans. [...]. I only asked you want more or less Moroccans. [...] But ask the audience to your
own constituents, do you want more or less Moroccans? Then you are here and that is very strange. [...] If
you're PVV there and you are a member of the opposition and you ask the audience a question. Then you're
screwed. "
And at the hearing on November 23, 2016:
"And what, I ask myself every day, what did I actually do that justifies this process? I have talked about less
Moroccans on a market and I have asked questions PVV-ers during an election night. [...] I just talked about
Moroccans on a market and questions on election night. [...] And then I asked you want more or less

ECLI: NL: RBDHA: 2016: 15014

Moroccans and I was also not explained in detail why the answer might be less. [...] I have talked and asked
a question about Moroccans. "
It is in that light striking that has not made any substantive defense by or on behalf of defendant nor given a
detailed response to the aforementioned statements of [witness 3], [witness 4] and [witness 5] on the
conclusion of the speech 19 March 2014. it is clear rice the following picture: it was known beforehand that
the suspect would ask during the speech to the audience if they wanted more or less Moroccans. The
audience had to react with "less, less, less. In order to be sure of that is instructed to the public.
The Court sees no reason to doubt the reliability of the statements of [witness 3], [witness 4] and [witness
5] and will therefore assume in the further assessment of the content of their statements. From these
statements it follows that no existence of just asking a question, but a pre-orchestrated interaction with the
audience. In this combination has been the message of the accused into the limelight.
5.4.2
See the statements on "race" within the meaning of Article 137c and 137d of the Criminal Code?
In this review, the court finds the following.
The implementation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination of
1966 (hereinafter the ICERD) has meant that was modified in 1971 to Article 137c of the Penal Code and
Article 137d received a completely new text. Briefly, came down to the fact that only groups which were
characterized by 'race', 'religion' or 'belief' (later "gender," "sexual orientation" and "disabled") fell under the
protection of these penal provisions.
In the explanatory memorandum to the bill on the government argues that the concept of 'race' should be
interpreted according to the apparent meaning of Article 1 of the ICERD. 19 Article 1, first paragraph, of the
ICERD, the term 'racial discrimination' shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based
on 'race', 'ethnicity', 'origin' or 'national or ethnic origin. "
It is to assess how, given these characteristics should be interpreted the concept of 'race' in a particular case
to the court. It is clear also that the legal meaning of the term 'race' is much broader than the meaning that
this term in the Dutch language and science usually has.
Suspect made statements on 12 and March 19, 2014 a group of compatriots. He has the group countrymen
which he was identified in a clear and straightforward way for everyone to view. He has a clear reference to
what precisely distinguishes them from other ethnic groups in the Netherlands in what is typical for them:
their common Moroccan origin.
Then the question is whether this is a group that is characterized by "national or ethnic origin" within the
meaning of Article 1 of the ICERD. According to the defense show these characteristics solely on the past of
people, their source or origin and not the 'present state'. Moroccans, however, it is the "present state"
because they have always beside a Dutch national of Moroccan nationality, still according to the defense.
This restrictive interpretation does not follow the court. With "national or ethnic origin 'is at the discretion of
the court refers to persons who have a bond with a national state or territory because they come from the
same country or region and a common history, common traditions, a common culture and / or have a
common language. Is not in issue that almost all of these aspects in the Moroccan population in the
Netherlands there. That they have not forced the Moroccan nationality alongside the Dutch nationality, is no
different.

ECLI: NL: RBDHA: 2016: 15014

Under these circumstances, the court considers that the term used by the accused 'Moroccans' refers to the
characteristics listed in the ICERD 'origin', 'national origin' and 'ethnic origin'. Thus, there is a "race" in the
sense of articles 137c and 137d of the Criminal Code.
The court, in its finding supported by previous rulings in which it was held that what is meant is a certain
ethnic or national origin of the term 'Moroccan' (as the term 'Turks'). 20 That it would have gone in two of
these cases a 'disguised racial qualification, "as expert prof. Has set Black, the court can not infer from those
statements. As has been rightly observed, the prosecutors are the quotes in the report of prof. Black on this
point is not entirely correct.
The foregoing implies that the court accused does not follow in his position he explicitly talked about persons
of Moroccan nationality within the meaning of the citizenship of Morocco.
This means that the Court does not the question whether the concept of "national or ethnic origin" in Article
1 of the ICERD includes nationality in this sense and how about that thought in international (public) law.
5.4.3
Facts 1 and 2 (the statements on March 19, 2014)
5.4.3.1 Is there a group defamation within the meaning of Article 137c of the Penal Code (count 1)?
The Existence of insulting a group of people must be answered on the basis of three in the jurisprudence
developed test criteria:

i) the content of the statement is insulting, and if so;

-

ii) takes the context insulting nature path, and if so;

iii) the statement unnecessarily offensive?
(I) Is the content of the statement offensive?
The first key to whether a statement to its wording and context for general usage is offensive in nature. A
statement can be considered as offensive when they set the scope, another to the public in an unfavorable
light and edges in his honor and reputation. The judgment that occurs it will in a statement that is not
offensive in general in itself, depend on the context in which the statement was made. 21
Regarding the group insult, the government in the Memorandum of Reply to the draft law in connection with
the above-referenced amendment of article 137c of the Criminal Code in this regard: "Criminalisation is only
affecting the self-esteem or discredit of the group, because it is of a certain race, a certain religion or profess
a particular belief is devoted. Criticized attitudes and behavior - in whatever form - is beyond the scope of
the penal provision designed ". 22
As has been established, the accused asked his audience on March 19, 2014 "do you want in this city and in
the Netherlands more or less Moroccans". In response was by the public, as intended, several times 'less'
chanted. In the opinion of the court has accused separately put a whole population with its demand within
the Dutch society.This group is in the vision of the accused, unlike other compatriots, after less entitled to
stay in the Netherlands and must shrink in size. Any distinction within that group is thereby not made by
suspects. The group is collectively addressed and is therefore collectively affected her self-esteem. The entire

ECLI: NL: RBDHA: 2016: 15014

Moroccan population is dismissed as inferior compared to other Dutch. It is also quite clear that the accused
group appeals precisely because it is of Moroccan origin.
Also show that the defendant has deliberately chosen to use three rhetorical questions to create and
reinforce his message from the statement of [witness 4] mentioned above. He is also aware of this question
ended and has chosen not to limit this question to "criminal Moroccans. He wanted things appoint as sharp as
possible in front of the existing cameras in order to generate as many new value. 23
Under these circumstances, the court considers that the provision contested in conjunction with the rest of
the speech, no more degrading and thus is offensive to the population Moroccans. To prosecute the offense
no returns are needed and the actual impact that had the statements of the accused in the society, is
irrelevant to the question whether there is a group of insult. The court therefore not come to the assessment
of the motives of the nearly 6,500 people who have reported. However, the court in this regard notes that
the fact that people have done in droves declaration in itself justifies the declaration process in more or less
standardized.
Defendant knew that following his statement to the market on March 12, 2014 declaration had been made
against him. 24 He also had at least taken the conditional intent on insulting nature of his statement.
(Ii) Does the wider context the offending character away?
The second key to whether a statement was made in a particular context and if so to what. The
jurisprudence of the Supreme Court that the context in which a statement was made the insulting character
of the statement can take away if the statement provides or useful a contribution to public debate in society,
an expression of a belief or the statement falls under the protection of artistic expression.
As the Court has already considered in the assessment of the preliminary defenses on October 14, 2016, in
the ECHR case law on the statement of freedom of politicians to discern two lines: one line to be a broad free
speech to elected representatives and other politicians awarded and also the line that precisely they should
avoid because of their important social function that they in their public utterances feed intolerance. In which
case also can be concluded that circumstances of the case, or one or the other line is followed. That being
seen not only on the content of a statement, but also the form in which it is transferred.
About the conditions under which suspect on March 19, 2014 made the statements, the court considers as
follows:
- Defendant made his statements at a time when he was sure that audiovisual media they would capture and
were broadcast on national television. The ECHR has referred in several decisions of the impact that may
have statements by the use of audiovisual media, 25 to the electorate that can be achieved through national
television, 26 the circumstance that can penetrate a statement to the intimacy of the home 27 and the fact
that a public, including minors, can hardly escape a statement. 28
- The ECHR sees more room for freedom of speech during a debate (in the sense of a discussion between
two or more participants). 29 However, the statements of the accused are not made during a debate,
because it was suspected to be supporters and anyone he hoped to achieve through the media, spoke.
- The statements are suspect, as already mentioned, well thought out in advance.They have been discussed
previously, there is chosen a seditious manner of question and has ensured that it chanted the correct
answer. It is precisely in the opposite situation that the ECHR greater weight to the right to freedom of
expression. 30

10

ECLI: NL: RBDHA: 2016: 15014

- The statements were suspect, as planned, there is a pre-orchestrated interaction with the audience. The
ECHR has upheld a conviction in a case against a French comedian and also involved the audience after (antiSemitic) statements was invited to applaud. 31
The defense argued that the statements of the accused on March 19, 2014 are consistent with its many
years expressed positions, as enshrined in the party programs and election platforms of the PVV. An opinion
on these statements involves a political judgment on the ideas of the PVV, said the defense.
The court does not share this view. In the party or the election of the PVV, this fact can not be found. If it
there or in previous speeches suspicious about the "Moroccan problem" then includes in particular criminal
Moroccans. This restriction has now accused not made properly aware of his speech. He talks about all
Moroccans, over the population without any nuance. That is not in line with previous positions. That this also
applies to [witness 2] thought suspect misspoke on the market on March 12, 2014, that the statement of
[witness 3] also 'fell from the sky, "that [witness 5] observed on March 19, 2014 political line from a week
earlier turned back and that comrades like [witness 1], [witness 2] and [former party member], after March
19, 2014, partly because of these statements, have left the party.
If the court all together shall review it runs the following overall picture: it is an insulting remark about a
minority (Moroccan) during an election meeting which was chosen by the accused for the greatest impact by
the manner of questioning by the show before instructing the public, and by making use of the available
audio-visual media in order to reach as many people as possible. There was a seditious, inciting questions
and a clear decisive conclusion does not fit within the PVV party program. All this was immediately and also
see later on TV. Thus no contribution was made to the public (integration / immigration) debate.
Under these circumstances, it is irrelevant that the accused then, after he had left the stage and thereafter,
gave a more detailed explanation, while not take back his words.The message was just as suspect it wanted,
from the stage through the media come directly loud and clear and had done its job.
It is therefore concluded that the context can not take away the abusive character.That means that the court
does not belong to the third test: whether the statements unnecessarily offensive (whether or not in the
sense of intolerance) are.
Further assessment under Article 10, second paragraph, of the ECHR
The right to freedom of expression is a criminal conviction for the charged crimes of expression does not
preclude as such conviction under Article 10, second paragraph, of the ECHR as a permitted restriction of
freedom of expression. That is the case if this limitation is provided for by law, serves a legitimate aim and is
necessary in a democratic society. 32
Not in dispute is that the (potential) restriction on the freedom of expression is provided for by
law. Furthermore, a possible conviction of the accused in any case, the protection of the rights of others, as
referred in the second paragraph of Article 10 of the ECHR. This means that the question must be answered
is whether the infringement of freedom of expression in the form of a criminal conviction is necessary in a
democratic society.
The term 'necessary' means that there is an urgent social need to be for such a restriction. The court must
also take this the case here again as a whole against the light and heed the content of the statements and
the context in which they were made. The court must determine whether the intervention of the authorities
was proportional in relation to the legitimate aim of the restriction of freedom of expression.

11

ECLI: NL: RBDHA: 2016: 15014

In cases where statements are aimed at politicians or authorities and are intended to criticize (the behavior
or policies) in power, the ECtHR has a great importance to the right to freedom of expression. 33 In this
case, however, accused with his statements explicitly directed to a minority group in the Netherlands which
he dismissed as inferior.The ECHR has conveyed in several rulings that right can be limited in this situation
the freedom of speech of politicians. 34 The criminalization of such statements in the opinion of the court,
therefore, necessary in a democratic society.
All in all, the Court considers that the statements of the accused are not protected on March 19, 2014 by the
right to freedom of expression enshrined in Article 10 of the ECHR.
Conclusion
Given all the above considerations, the Court considers legally and convincingly proven that the accused on
March 19, 2014 together with others (his audience) has been guilty of insulting a group (count 1 primary).
5.4.3.2 Is there incitement to hatred and / or discrimination within the meaning of Article 137d of the
Criminal Code (count 2)?
In answering this question, the court must not only consider themselves the statements, but again also
taking into account the circumstances of the case and in the light of the associations that generate them. 35
encourage
The following must be understood: others seek to move in an unauthorized direction, encouraging them to
return something right thing (in this case discrimination and / or hatred). The scope of the expression is
decisive in this. It is also not necessary that the conduct which is turned on has actually taken place, or that
it considered it reasonably likely that this will take place.
Hate speech
Hatred is an extreme emotion of deep disgust and hostility. For incitement to hatred should be in principle a
force enhancer element, others are incited or urged to do something. 36 Such an element in the statements
of accused no. The use of powerful rhetoric, the court other than the prosecutors, inadequate in this
regard. That means that the accused will be acquitted of inciting hatred.
Inciting discrimination
The component "inciting discrimination" does not require that actual discrimination has occurred. Nor is it
required a strength reinforcing element. The court must assess whether the statement contains an
exhortation to the exclusion of the designated group of people. Where Article 137c of the Penal Code
effective infringe the rights of a certain group of people (in the form of insult) criminalises does Article 137d
of the Penal Code also as regards the threatened violation of the rights of persons .
Discrimination according to Article 90quater of the Criminal Code to mean: "any distinction, exclusion,
restriction or preference which has the object or may have adverse effects on the recognition, enjoyment or
exercise on an equal footing of the human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social
or cultural fields or in other areas of social life, is being nullified or impaired. "
In the opinion of the court, the statements of the accused by March 19, 2014 a discriminatory character. The
thrust of the remarks is in fact clearly to distinguish between Moroccans and other groups in the
Netherlands. This helps those statements, in view of the already repeatedly discussed circumstances under

12

ECLI: NL: RBDHA: 2016: 15014

which they were made and, in particular, given the incendiary nature, be regarded as statements that incite
others to discriminate against persons of Moroccan origin.
Conclusion
Given all the above considerations, the Court considers legally and convincingly proven that the accused has
committed together with others (his audience) to incitement to discrimination (count 2 primary).
5.4.4
Facts 3 and 4 (the statements on March 12, 2014)
Is there a group insult and / or incite hatred and / or discrimination within the meaning of Articles 137c and
137d of the Criminal Code?
The 'less Marokkanen' ruling has accused made on March 12, 2014 during an interview at a market in The
Hague, not that there was any interaction with bystanders. It would further appear that suspect this
statement does not have well thought out.[witness 1] has stated that he thought that suspect this statement
came because most of the people they spoke that day, complained about Moroccans. He also stated that the
suspect after the interview, he asked if it "could say so." [Witness 2] thought suspect misspoke and [witness
3] came the term "falling from the sky" . This is acceptable for the court. It further noted that the interview
was conducted just after suspect was accosted by a Dutch woman who said she has a half tons of
credit,"widow's money, but they have given to the Turks and Moroccans" and that the accused makes this
statement shortly after his party [party member] in the interview"a stop to the further Islamization of the
city's" nominee.
Conclusion
Based on the above, the court failed to prove that defendant on the market in Loosduinen the (conditional)
intent was to offend people of Moroccan descent or to incite discrimination or hate. Suspect will therefore be
acquitted of these facts.
5.5
The proven statement
The court declared legally and convincingly proven that the accused:
1.
on March 19, 2014 in The Hague, himself together and in association with others, in public, orally, has
expressed deliberately insulting a group of people, namely Moroccans because of their race, after all, at a
party meeting in a public place within the framework of the
municipal elections, he has accused, asked the audience present in the catering facility:
"I ask you, do you want in this city and in the Netherlands more or less Moroccans?"
in which a portion of the audience, repeatedly said:
"less"
after which he accused, said:
"Nah, we will arrange"
which was recorded by the Dutch Broadcasting Foundation and was broadcast on Dutch television and was
posted on the website www.nos.nl and other websites;

13

ECLI: NL: RBDHA: 2016: 15014

2.
on March 19, 2014 in The Hague, together and in association with others, in public, orally, has incited
discrimination against people, namely Moroccans because of their race,
Indeed, during a party meeting in a public place within the framework of the municipal elections, he has
accused, asked the audience present in the catering facility:
"I ask you, do you want in this city and in the Netherlands more or less Moroccans?"
in which a portion of the audience, repeatedly answered
"less"
after which he accused, said:
"Nah, we will arrange"
which is set by the Dutch Broadcasting Foundation and was broadcast on Dutch television and was posted on
the website www.nos.nl and other websites.
6The criminality of the proven facts
The proven facts are punishable under the law, because no facts or circumstances have arisen which exclude
the criminality of the acts.
7The criminality of the accused
7.1
The position of the defense
The defense pointed out that the accused was sworn in as a member of the States-General and that he has
taken an oath. This oath implies include a special duty to act on behalf of those who can not
themselves. Suspect made the remarks in respect of his duties as a member of parliament and his duty to
problems he identifies to appoint the Netherlands. The statements according to opinion surveys are widely
accepted by the Dutch people. In addition, the views are based on objective data from the Central Bureau of
Statistics. Finally plays the command has accused to speak a role in assessing the exculpatory function of
Article 10 of the ECHR. Therefore, there is a statutory defense, namely the lack of substantive illegality, said
the defense.
7.2
The position of the prosecution
The prosecutors have to dismiss the defense.
7.3
The court verdict
The court notes that the appeal to the lack of material unlawfulness already at odds with the principle of
subsidiarity, there were suspected other avenues open to raise social problems identified by him.
Defendant is punishable, because there are otherwise no other facts or circumstances have arisen which
exclude his criminal liability.
8The punishment
8.1
The position of the prosecution

14

ECLI: NL: RBDHA: 2016: 15014

The prosecutors have demanded that the accused be sentenced to a fine of 5000, -.
8.2
The position of the defense
The defense has given her earlier pleas, taken no position on sentencing.
8.3
The court verdict
should follow in its consideration of a sentence, the court has considered the following into consideration.
With his statements on March 19, 2014 during an election rally Defendant contributed to further polarization
in Dutch society. This while precisely in our pluralistic society of equality and respect (rights) are others of
great importance. That the accused say they feel supported by potentially millions of people, does not mean
he can not be blamed. Insult group and incitement to discrimination are punishable.
However, the primary objective of this trial to answer the question whether defendant is guilty of these
offenses. This judgment has answered that question and thus is confirmed in our legal system for all current
standard: you can not rely on freedom of expression groups insult or incitement to discrimination. This also
applies to a politician.
It continues to be a special, really exceptional case, given the position of the suspect: a democratically
elected member of parliament, founder of the Freedom Party and leader of the PVV faction in parliament.
All overlooking the court will not seek affiliation with sentences imposed in other cases, as did
prosecutors. The Court sees in the circumstances sufficient reason to state that the accused himself as a
politician guilty of insulting a group and inciting discrimination. Thus, the court punished him enough.
Suspect will be declared guilty without imposing punishment.
9The claims of the injured parties
9.1
introduction
In an interim ruling of October 14, 2016, the court three claims of injured parties disregarded and 18 injured
parties manifestly inadmissible. There are now 40 claims at issue.Of these, 35 were submitted by individuals
and 5 by legal persons.
An overview of the injured parties (numbered 22 t / m 61) and the amount of their claims listed in Annex B
and is part of that judgment.
9.2
The admissibility of the injured parties
The court sees itself, unlike the defense, first put the question whether the injured parties can receive their
claims.
Leading stated that the person who has suffered direct damage from an offense under Article 51f, first
paragraph, of the Code of Criminal Procedure may intervene in an action for damages as an injured party in
criminal proceedings. Also from Article 361, second paragraph, of the Code of Criminal follows among other
things that the injured party is only admissible in its claim if there is damage directly caused to her.

15

ECLI: NL: RBDHA: 2016: 15014

Both the prosecutors and the defense disputed the existence of direct damage. The statements of the
accused were namely general and not specific to one of the injured parties.
Counsel for the aggrieved parties have at that point resistance.
The court finds that articles 137c and 137d of the Penal Code are classified under crimes against public
order. The legislative history, these offenses "primarily intended [...] to protect public order" and only "in
addition to protecting the honor and the good name of the case of the [...] groups, and, first, third,
and
i
ndirectly (bold by the court) , also bestow protection to the individual person, which at a given time, more
or less by accident that form [...] groups " . 37
Furthermore, articles 137c and 137d of the Criminal Code a special character when it comes to the circle of
potential victims, as put forward by the prosecutors. A statement under one of those articles is, by its very
nature, quickly cover a large number of people, namely those who fall within the offended or discriminated
group. That all those people no longer could be received in their claims, does not fit the accessory site that
the claim of the injured party occupies in the criminal proceedings.
Unlike counsel for the aggrieved parties the Court is of opinion that is inferred from the judgment of the
Supreme Court on April 16, 1996 which caused no direct damage in the event of a group of insult to the
injured party if the offense statement sufficiently specific is targeted to the injured party. 38 That applies to
the opinion of the Court even in the case of incitement to discrimination within the meaning of Article 137d of
the Criminal Code. It did not cover both offenses in which a certain group and not an individual is addressed
in principle.
Neither argued nor shown that statements of the accused more or less specific to one of the injured parties
or their members or supporters were targeted, so that there is no direct damage within the meaning of
Article 361, second paragraph, of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That implies that the Court will declare
inadmissible the injured parties. The court therefore does not come to a further substantive assessment of
progress.
9.3
the costs
The defense has asked to pay the aggrieved parties the costs to the defendant to defend against their
claims. Vice versa, the counsel for injured parties 26, 27, 30, 31, 36, 45, 46, 48, 50, 51 and 57 t / m 61
asked to convict the accused in the costs incurred by them.
According to Article 237 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a party who has been unsuccessful in its judgment
ordered to pay the costs. In this case, the victims can not be received in their claims, because it is not shown
within the limited framework of this trial of direct damage.Nor can it be said that the injured parties have in
any way abuse of the opportunity to intervene in criminal proceedings. Their claims are in fact not made
without reasonable cause or ground, nor can be stated that these were obvious nonsense.
All things considered, the court will be the costs incurred in connection with the claims and forth offset and
determine that the defendant and the injured party, as listed in Annex B to bear their own costs.
10The decision
The court:

16

ECLI: NL: RBDHA: 2016: 15014

declares not legally and convincingly proven that the accused under three and four alleged offenses
committed and acquits the defendant thereof;
declared legally and convincingly proven that the accused committed the under one primary and two primary
charges against him and that the proven stated:
eendaadse the confluence of:
with two or more persons being in the public verbally insulting comment on a group of people
because of their race ;
and
with two or more persons acting in public verbal incitement to discrimination against people
because of their race ;
explains the proven facts and defendant punishable;
declares not proven what the suspect is accused of more or different than stated above has been proven and
acquits the defendant thereof;
provides that no penalty or measure imposed;
explains the injured parties, as listed in Annex B, inadmissible in their claims for compensation;
provides that the aggrieved parties accused each bear their own costs.
This judgment was rendered by:
mr. H. Stone House, president,
mr. EAGM Rens, judge,
mr. SM wreath, judge,
in the presence of mr. Mentrop SN-Huliselan, Registrar,
and pronounced in public hearing of this court on December 9, 2016.
Appendix A: The charges
1.
he on March 19, 2014 in The Hague, himself together and in conjunction with (a) another person (s), in
public, orally, has expressed deliberately insulting a group of people, namely Moroccans because of their
race,
Indeed, during a (party) meeting in a catering facility in the context of the
municipal elections, he has accused told and / or the public present in those catering facility and / or
requested:
"I ask you, do you want in this city and in the Netherlands more or less Moroccans?"
to / from which a portion of the audience, at least one or more person (o) n (and) sixteen times, at least
once or several times replied / answered, at least called / calling:
"less!"
after which he accused, said:
"Nah, we will arrange"

17

ECLI: NL: RBDHA: 2016: 15014

which by the Dutch Broadcasting Foundation and / or various other national and / or regional broadcasters
was recorded / recorded and / or (then) was broadcast on Dutch television and / or on the website
www.nos.nl and / or other website ( s) was placed;
Article 137c paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code
Article 137c paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code
alternatively, if the foregoing should not or could lead to a judicial finding and / or a conviction:
he in The Hague on March 19, 2014, in public, orally, has expressed deliberately insulting a group of people,
namely Moroccans because of their race,
Indeed, during a (party) meeting in a catering facility in the context of the
municipal elections, he has accused told and / or the public present in those catering facility and / or
requested:
"I ask you, do you want in this city and in the Netherlands more or less Moroccans?" and / or
after part of the audience, at least one or more existing perso (o) n (and) sixteen times, at least once or
several times "less" was the answer (s), or at least had called (s), "Nah, you go we arrange "
which by the Dutch Broadcasting Foundation and / or various other national and / or regional broadcasters
was recorded / recorded and / or (then) was broadcast on Dutch television and / or on the website
www.nos.nl and / or other website ( s) was placed;
Article 137c paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code
alternatively, if the foregoing should not or could lead to a judicial finding and / or a conviction:
one or more person (o) n (and) in The Hague, himself together and in conjunction with (an) other (s), or at
least only in public, orally, deliberately insulting / have expressed on March 19, 2014 a group of people,
namely Moroccans because of their race,
Indeed, during a (party) meeting in a catering facility in the context of the
municipal, has / have one or more person (o) n (s) (i.e., a portion of the catering facility in which audience)
in reaction and / or response on its own,
suspects, statement and / or question:
"I ask you, do you want in this city and in the Netherlands more or less Moroccans?"
sixteen times, at least once or more times, the answer, at least called:
"less!"
which by the Dutch Broadcasting Foundation and / or various other national and / or regional broadcasters
was recorded / recorded and / or (then) was broadcast on Dutch television and / or on the website
www.nos.nl and / or other website ( s) was placed
which fact accused on March 19, 2014 in The Hague has provoked intentionally by providing the opportunity,
which deliberate incitement existed in the fact that he, the accused, against and / or one or more person (o)
n (and) has the above statement made and / or the above question is asked;
Article 47 section 1 subsection 2 of the Penal Code
Article 137c paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code

18

ECLI: NL: RBDHA: 2016: 15014

Article 137c paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code
Most alternative, if the above should not or could lead to a judicial finding and / or a conviction:
one or more person (o) n (and) in The Hague, himself together and in conjunction with (an) other (s), or at
least only in public, orally, deliberately insulting / have expressed on March 19, 2014 a group of people,
namely Moroccans because of their race,
Indeed, during a (party) meeting in a catering facility in the context of the
municipal, has / have one or more person (o) n (s) (i.e., a portion of the catering facility in which audience)
in reaction and / or response on its own,
suspects, statement and / or question:
"I ask you, do you want in this city and in the Netherlands more or less Moroccans?"
sixteen times, at least once or several times answered, or at least called:
"less!"
which by the Dutch Broadcasting Foundation and / or various other national and / or regional broadcasters
was recorded / recorded and / or (then) was broadcast on Dutch television and / or on the website
www.nos.nl and / or other website ( s) was placed
which fact suspect to The Hague do commit deliberately on March 19, 2014, which do commit existed in the
fact that he, the accused, did against and / or one or more person (o) n (and) the above statement and / or
the above stated question;
Article 47 section 1 subsection 1 of the Criminal Code
Article 137c paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code
Article 137c paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code
2.
he on March 19, 2014 in The Hague, together and in conjunction with (an) other (s), in public, orally, has
incited hatred and / or discrimination against people, namely Moroccans because of their race,
Indeed, during a (party) meeting in a public place within the framework of the municipal elections, he has
accused told and / or the public present in those catering facility and / or requested:
"I ask you, do you want in this city and in the Netherlands more or less Moroccans?"
to / from which a portion of the audience, at least one or more person (o) n (and) sixteen times, at least
once or several times replied / answered, at least called / calling:
"less!"
after which he accused, said:
"Nah, we will arrange"
which by the Dutch Broadcasting Foundation and / or various other national and / or regional broadcasters
was recorded / recorded and / or (then) was broadcast on Dutch television and / or on the website
www.nos.nl and / or other website ( s) was placed;
Article 137d paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code

19

ECLI: NL: RBDHA: 2016: 15014

Article 137d paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code
alternatively, if the foregoing should not or could lead to a judicial finding and / or a conviction:
he on March 19, 2014 in The Hague, in public, orally, has incited hatred and / or discrimination against
people, namely Moroccans because of their race,
Indeed, during a (party) meeting in a public place within the framework of the municipal elections, he has
accused told and / or the public present in those catering facility and / or requested:
"I ask you, do you want in this city and in the Netherlands more or less Moroccans?" and / or
after part of the audience, at least one or more existing perso (o) n (and) sixteen times, at least once or
several times "less" was the answer (s), or at least had called (s), "Nah, you go we arrange "
which by the Dutch Broadcasting Foundation and / or various other national and / or regional broadcasters
was recorded / recorded and / or (then) was broadcast on Dutch television and / or on the website
www.nos.nl and / or other website ( s) was placed;
Article 137d paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code
alternatively, if the foregoing should not or could lead to a judicial finding and / or a conviction:
one or more person (o) n (s) on March 19, 2014 in The Hague, himself together and in
association with (an) other (s), or at least only in public, orally,
has / have incited hatred and / or discrimination against people, namely
Moroccans because of their race,
after all,
during a (party) meeting in a catering facility in the context of the
municipal,
has / have one or more person (o) n (s) (i.e., a portion of the in
the catering facility audience) in response and / or reply to his,
suspects, statement and / or question:
"I ask you, do you want in this city and in the Netherlands more
less Moroccans? "
sixteen times, at least once or more times, the answer, at least called:
"less!"
which by the Dutch Broadcasting Foundation and / or various other national and / or regional broadcasters
was recorded / recorded and / or (then) was broadcast on Dutch television and / or on the website
www.nos.nl and / or other website ( s) was placed
which fact accused on March 19, 2014 in The Hague has provoked intentionally by providing the opportunity,
which deliberate incitement existed in the fact that he, the accused, against and / or one or more person (o)
n (and) has the above statement made and / or the above question is asked;
Article 47 section 1 subsection 2 of the Penal Code
Article 137d paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code

20

ECLI: NL: RBDHA: 2016: 15014

Article 137d paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code
Most alternative, if the above should not or could lead to a judicial finding and / or a conviction:
one or more person (o) n (s) in The Hague on March 19, 2014, are together and in conjunction with (an)
other (s), or at least only in public, orally, has / have incited hatred and / or discrimination against people,
namely Moroccans because of their race,
Indeed, during a (party) meeting in a catering facility in the context of the
municipal, has / have one or more person (o) n (s) (i.e., a portion of the audience present in those catering
facility) in reaction and / or its response to, suspects, statement and / or question:
"I ask you, do you want in this city and in the Netherlands more or less Moroccans?"
sixteen times, at least once or several times answered, or at least called:
"less!"
which by the Dutch Broadcasting Foundation and / or various other national and / or regional broadcasters
was recorded / recorded and / or (then) was broadcast on Dutch television and / or on the website
www.nos.nl and / or other website ( s) was placed
which fact suspect to The Hague do commit deliberately on March 19, 2014, which do commit existed in the
fact that he, the accused, did against and / or one or more person (o) n (and) the above statement and / or
the above stated question;
Article 47 section 1 subsection 1 of the Criminal Code
Article 137d paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code
Article 137d paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code
3.
He Hague, in public, orally, has expressed deliberately offensive on March 12, 2014 a group of people,
namely Moroccans because of their race,
After all, he, the accused, in / during an interview with a journalist from the Dutch Broadcasting Foundation,
which was broadcast on Dutch television and / or which are posted on the website www.nos.nl, said at least
made the following statement:
"Most important is surely the people here the inhabitants of The Hague, Hagenezen and from Scheveningen
on the market as Lon always mentions neatly and correctly. For those people we do it now. That vote is now
a safer and more social and in any case a city with less charges and if possible even less Moroccans'
Article 137c paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code
4.
he on March 12, 2014 in The Hague, in public, orally, has incited hatred and / or discrimination against
people, namely Moroccans because of their race,
After all, he, the accused, in / during an interview with a journalist from the Dutch Broadcasting Foundation,
which was broadcast on Dutch television and / or which are posted on the website www.nos.nl, said at least
made the following statement:

21

ECLI: NL: RBDHA: 2016: 15014

"Most important is surely the people here the inhabitants of The Hague, Hagenezen and from Scheveningen
on the market as Lon always mentions neatly and correctly. For those people we do it now. That vote is now
a safer and more social and in any case a city with less charges and if possible even less Moroccans'
Article 137d paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code
Appendix B: The injured parties
The natural persons:
22. [[injured party 22], an amount of 250, -;
22. [[injured party 23], an amount of 250, -;
22. [[injured party 24], an amount of 250, -;
22. [[injured party 25], an amount of 250, -;
22. [[injured party 26], an amount of 500, -;
22. [[injured party 27], an amount of 500, -;
22. [[injured party 28], an amount of 200, -;
22. [[injured party 29], an amount of 250, -;
22. [[injured party 30], an amount of 500, -;
22. [[injured party 31], an amount of 500, -;
22. [[injured party 32], an amount of 250, -;
22. [[injured party 33], an amount of 0.01;
22. [[injured party 34], an amount of 250, -;
22. [[injured party 35], an amount of 350, -;
22. [[injured party 36], an amount of 500, -;
22. [[injured party 37], an amount of 250, -;
22. [[injured party 38], an amount of 250, -;
22. [[injured party 39], an amount of 500, -;
22. [[injured party 40], an amount of 500, -;
22. [[injured party 41], an amount of 250, -;
22. [[injured party 42], an amount of 250, -;
22. [[injured party 43], an amount of 500, -;
22. [[injured party 44], an amount of 250, -;
22. [[injured party 45], an amount of 500, -;
22. [[injured party 46], an amount of 500, -;
22. [[injured party 47], an amount of 250, -;
22. [[injured party 48], an amount of 500, -;
22. [[injured party 49], an amount of 250, -;

22

ECLI: NL: RBDHA: 2016: 15014

22. [[injured party 50], an amount of 250, -;
22. [[injured party 51], an amount of 500, -;
22. [[injured party 52], an amount of 250, -;
22. [[injured party 53], an amount of 250, -;
22. [[injured party 54], an amount of 250, -;
22. [[injured party 55], an amount of 250, -;
22. [[injured party 56], an amount of 250, -;
The legal entities:
57. Euro-Mediterranean Centre Migration & Development, no amount, publication;
58. Foundation The National Council of Moroccans, no amount of money, publication;
59. Foundation Everybody Draw, an amount of 1, -;
60. Foundation Dutch Moroccan Alliance, an amount of 1, -;
61. Council of Moroccan Mosques in the Netherlands, no amount retract statement and apologize.
1

Court of The Hague April 7, 2016, ECLI: NL: RBDHA: 2016: 3630.

Court of The Hague October 14, 2016, ECLI: NL: RBDHA: 2016: 12362.

Eq. HR November 6, 2012, ECLI: NL: HR: 2012: BX4280 and HR July 2, 2013, ECLI: NL: HR: 2013: 7.

Eq. Also HR January 19, 2016, ECLI: NL: HR: 2016: 23.

ECHR April 23, 1992, NJ 1994, 102.

HR December 16, 2014, ECLI: NL: HR: 2014: 3583.

When hereinafter reference is made to an official report is - unless otherwise stated - intended ambtsedig a
police report, drawn up in the legal form by (a) authorized opsporingsambtena (a) r (s). Where reference is
made to specification pages, this concerns the pages of the report with the number PL2014 059 080, of the
Police Unit in The Hague, Department of Regional Crime Squad, with annexes (numbered p. 1 t / m 464).
7

Personal observation of the court at the hearing on October 31, 2016; official report of findings, p. 14 and
15.
8

Statement of witness examination [witness 1], p. 279 and 281.

Statement of witness examination [witness 2], p. 335.

10

Statement of witness examination [witness 3], p. 421.

11

Minutes of findings, p. 22-26.

12

Personal observation of the court at the hearing on October 31, 2016; official report of findings, p. 30 and
31.
13

Statement of witness examination [witness 2], p. 422 and 423.

14

Statement of witness examination [witness 4], p. 429-432.

15

Statement of witness examination [witness 5], p. 438.

16

23

ECLI: NL: RBDHA: 2016: 15014

http://nos.nl/video/625574-pvv-aanhang-scandeert-minder-marokkanen.html;http://nos.nl/video/622346wilders-kiezer-zal-pvv-niet-afstraffen.html;http://www.rtlnieuws.nl/nieuws/special/wilders-willen-jullie-meerminder-marokkanen;http://www.nu.nl/politiek/3730669/geert-wilders-belooft-minder-marokkanen-inhaag.html;http://www.nu.nl/politiek/3898876/wilders-verdacht-van-aanzetten-discriminatie.html.
17

's own statement of the accused at the hearing on November 23, 2016.

18

Minutes II 1967-1968, 9724, no. 3, p. 4.

19

HR March 14, 1989, NJ 1990, 29; HR May 1, 1990, NJ 1991, 75; HR March 29, 2016, ECLI: HR: 2016: 511.

20

Eq. HR December 22, 2009, ECLI: NL: HR 2009: BJ9796.

21

Minutes II 1969-1970, 9724, no. 6, p. 4.

22

See Section 5.1.

23

Minutes of story, p. 12.

24

ECHR September 23, 1994, appl. no. 15890/89 (Jersild against Denmark).

25

ECtHR June 19, 2003, appl. no. 49017/99 (Pedersen and Baadsgaard against Denmark).

26

ECHR April 22 2013, appl. no. 48876/08 (Animal Defenders International against the United Kingdom).

27

ECHR February 9, 2012, appl. No. 1813/07 (Vejdeland against Sweden).

28

ECHR December 4, 2003, appl. no. 35071/97 (Mslm Gndz v Turkey).

29

ECHR November 25, 1999, appl. no. 23118/93 (Nilsen and Johnsen against Norway), ECHR February 29,
2000, appl. no. 39293/98 (Fuentes Bobo against Spain), ECHR March 21, 2000, appl. no. 24773/94 (Andreas
Wa against Austria) and ECHR January 11, 2011, appl. No. 4035/08 (Barata Monteiro Da Costa Nogueira and
Patrcio Pereira from Portugal).
30

ECHR October 20, 2015, appl. no. 25239/13 (M'bala M'bala against France).

31

HR December 16, 2014, ECLI: NL: HR: 2014: 3583.

32

ECHR April 23, 1992, NJ 1994, 102 (Castells against Spain), ECHR April 11, 2006, appl. no. 71343/01
(Brasilier against France), ECHR November 7, 2006, appl. no. 12697/03 (Mamre against France), ECHR
February 1, 2011, appl. no. 16853/05 (Faruk Temel against Turkey) and ECHR March 15, 2011, appl. No.
2034/07 (Otegi Mondragon against Spain).
33

ECHR September 23, 1994, appl. no. 15890/89 (Jersild against Denmark) ECHR November 16, 2004,
appl. no. 23131/03 (Norwood v United Kingdom), ECHR July 6, 2006, appl. no. 59405/00 (Erbakan against
Turkey), ECHR July 10, 2008, appl. no. 15948/03 (Soulas and others against France), ECHR July 16, 2009,
appl. no. 15615/07 (Fret vs. Belgium), ECHR April 20, 2010, appl. no. 18788/09 (Le Pen against France),
ECHR February 9, 2012, appl. No. 1813/07 (Vejdeland against Sweden) and Court of Human Rights October
15, 2015, appl. no. 27510/08 (Perinek against Switzerland). In the judgment of the ECtHR has Perinek
against Switzerland while still considered a conviction on statements made by a tense political and social
background can be more readily accepted.
34

HR November 23, 2010, ECLI: NL: HR 2010: BM9135.

35

In this connection see also Court of Amsterdam June 23, 2011, ECLI: NL: RBAMS: 2011: BQ9001.

36

Minutes II from 1933 to 1934, 237, no. 5, p. 16.

37

24

ECLI: NL: RBDHA: 2016: 15014

HR April 16, 1996, NJ 1996, 527.

38

25