Second Administrative Challenge against the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation
Armed Conflict in Yemen, Internal Repression
The second administrative challenge brought by the same claimants in December 2016 also sought to challenge the Minister of Foreign Affairs’ decision to grant a licence to export arms to the Egyptian Navy. In this case, the claimants challenged the decision to renew the licence that was at issue in the previous case. The claimants first filed a ‘notice of objection to the permit’, which the Minister declared as inadmissible due to a lack of standing. This was the subject of the challenge before the District Court.
The District Court dismissed the claim under the same reasoning as the previous case, namely a lack of standing. This decision was upheld on appeal.
Case dismissed on appeal
The Court of Appeal upholds the lower court decision and declares the claim inadmissible due to lack of standing concluding that the claimants are not individually concerned by the contested licence,...
Case Development: Judgement on Appeal against the Decision of the District Court of Noord Holland
The Amsterdam Court of Appeal declares the claim inadmissible due to lack of standing. The Court maintains that the correct threshold for standing in these administrative proceedings requires the...
Violation of the EU Common Position
The basis of the claim was the same as the previous case, namely that in dismissing their initial ‘notice of objection to the permit‘, the Minister had failed to correctly apply the EU Common Position in light of the compelling evidence that the Egyptian Navy was directly involved in the commission of IHL and IHRL violations in the armed conflict in Yemen.
Discussion in this case continued to centre on questions of legal standing. The claimants maintained that as an organisation defending collective interests, they were entitled, under Dutch law, to take legal action against the administrative decisions of public authorities.
Decision of the District Court
The Claim was dismissed by the District Court under the same reasoning as the previous case.
Notably, the court maintained that the applicable law was the Union Customs Code Regulation, which requires the claimants to be ‘directly and individually affected’ by the decision and that this had not been established in the case.
The claimant’s argument based on EU law was also dismissed as it was held that the claimants did not have a ‘direct interest’ in the case as defined by EU law.
Decision on Appeal
This decision was upheld on appeal. The Court of Appeal held that ‘the appellants are therefore not individually concerned by the permit they challenge and are therefore not entitled to a right of objection and appeal.’
19 Oct 2017
Appeal Judgement Issued. Decision of the District Court upheld and case dismissed.Read the judgement here
15 May 2017
Claimants submit appeal to Court of Appeal.
20 Apr 2017
Judgement Issued by District Court - Claim Dismissed.
15 Feb 2017
Challenge 2 enters the courts. Claim submitted to the District Court to recognise claimants’ legal standing and provisionally suspend licence.Read the claimants' submission here
10 Feb 2017
Minister dismisses notice of objection filed by the claimants.
23 Dec 2017
Notice of objection is filed by the claimants against the extension decision.
21 Sep 2016
Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs extends the licence for arms export to the Egyptian Navy, which was the subject of proceedings in Challenge 1, until 31 October 2017.