Summary Proceedings (Civil) against the State of Netherlands

In this civil case, the claimants’ were granted legal standing and the case was assessed on its merits. Despite this progressive development, however, the District Court did not rule in the claimants’ favour.

Although it did recognise the severity of the human rights situation in Egypt, the court maintained that this does not necessarily bar arms exports to the country’s armed forces. In particular, the court held that the claimants had failed to demonstrate a clear risk that the arms in question would be used in these human rights violations, namely that they have or would be used by the units involved in serious violations. The claimants had therefore not been able to demonstrate that the Minister’s decision to issue an export licence was ‘manifestly unreasonable’.

Despite significant evidence pointing to imminent human rights violations at the hands of the Egyptian armed forces, in particular the Navy, as well as the involvement of Navy ships and officers in the conflict in North Sinai, the court considered this as insufficiently concrete to demonstrate the existence of a clear risk that these specific military goods would be involved in human rights violations.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal of the Hague upheld the District Court’s ruling, finding that the Dutch State may continue to export arms to Egypt.

In particular, it concluded that the minister’s assessment that there is no clear risk, as understood under the Common Position, is not unreasonable or incomprehensible. While acknowledging the severity of the human rights situation in Egypt, the court similarly found that there is insufficient evidence that the specific goods in question will be used in violation of human rights, IHL and in the commission of internal repression.