Holland: Compensation paid
01 January 1991
Holland: Compensation paid
artdoc May=1993
A recent decision of the European Commission of Human Rights of
the Council of Europe could lead to a review of Dutch
intelligence legislation. The Commission ruled in favour of a
group of ten anti-militarist and peace activists (Vleugels et
al.) who were granted one thousand guilders compensation each.
A burglary by activists on 19 November 1984 at the offices of
Counter Intelligence Detachment of the Landmacht
Inlichtingendienst (Army Intelligence Service) in Utrecht
uncovered documents indicating that the military intelligence
service held extensive dossiers on many members of the anti-
militarist and peace movements and other organizations. The
publication of stolen documents led to the reorganization of the
intelligence services of army, air force and navy into one
central Military Intelligence Service to improve oversight.
Ten people united in their protest against their being
registered and filed for access to their files. All Dutch courts
rejected their demands, but their appeal to the European
Commission for Human Rights proved more successful. The
Commission ruled that the 1972 Royal Decree on which the
intelligence services functioned did not adequately formulate the
conditions under which the military intelligence service was
allowed to spy on people and thus violated article 8 of the 1953
European Convention. Specifically the Commission ruled that the
tasks and competencies of the service, the categories of people
that could become the object of investigation, the circumstances
under which this could take place and the measures that could be
used are insufficiently indicated in the Decree. Also the
safeguards (ie: access to a court, a sufficiently powerful
ombudsman etc) fall short of what the European Convention and
jurisprudence would require. Finally, the control over the
intelligence service is found to be inadequate.
The ten complainants consider their victory to be a
breakthrough but remain dissatisfied because the Commission of
Human Rights did not express itself on their demand to get access
to their files. They will therefore again start a procedure in
a Dutch court. Although the Commission's ruling addressed itself
the 1972 Decree, the wordings of the 1988 Law on the Intelligence
and Security Services are virtually identical and thus the ruling
would seem to bear on the present Law and on the BVD which
operates under the same rules. The case has similarities to the
1987 European Court's Leander ruling against Sweden and the
Commission's 1989 Hewitt and Harman ruling against the United
Kingdom.
Statewatch vol 3 no 2 March-April 1993