UN, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights / No. 2124/2011 / Mohamed Rabbae, A.B.S and N.A. v. The Netherlands

Country

Netherlands

Title

UN, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights / No. 2124/2011 / Mohamed Rabbae, A.B.S and N.A. v. The Netherlands

View full Case

Year

2016

Decision/ruling/judgment date

Thursday, July 14, 2016

Incident(s) concerned/related

Incitement to violence or hatred

Related Bias motivation

Religion
Nationality

Groups affected

Muslims
Migrants

Court/Body type

UN Committee

Court/Body

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Key facts of the case

The claimants, Muslims and Moroccan nationals, joined the criminal proceedings as an aggrieved party and claimed a symbolic compensation of EUR 1 against Geert Wilders, a Member of Parliament and the founder of the extreme right-wing political Party for Freedom. They joined the criminal proceedings as alleged injured parties. Their purpose was to clarify the limits of what can be said in political debates and to establish the practical meaning of their right to be protected from incitement to hatred, discrimination and violence. The claim for symbolic compensation was intended to convince the judge that Mr. Wilders had crossed the boundaries between what is acceptable in a democratic society and what is liable to punishment because of the harm it causes to society as a whole, to ethnic and religious minorities and to the claimants personally.

Main reasoning/argumentation

The Committee notes the claimants’ comments in this respect that their claim is about the lack of an effective prosecution. In this respect, the Committee considers that, for the purpose of admissibility, the claimants have sufficiently substantiated their claims.

Regarding the claimants’ allegations the Committee considers that the claimants have not adduced specific arguments in support of their claims under these provisions, distinct from their claims. Accordingly, the Committee considers this part of the communication as insufficiently substantiated and declares it inadmissible.

Is the case related to the application of the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia, the Racial Equality Directive?

Key issues (concepts, interpretations) clarified by the case

The Committee recalls in this regard that freedom of expression embraces even expression that may be regarded as deeply offensive. Moreover, the free communication of information and ideas about public and political issues between citizens, candidates and elected representatives is essential to the promotion and protection of free expression.

Results (sanctions, outcome) and key consequences or implications of the case

The Committee is of the view that the facts before it do not reveal a breach of any provision of the Covenant.

Key quotation in original language and its unofficial translation into English with reference details

"The Committee notes the authors’ comments in this respect that their claim is about the lack of an effective prosecution. In this respect, the Committee considers that, for the purpose of admissibility, the authors have sufficiently substantiated their claims."

"Regarding the authors’ allegations the Committee considers that the authors have not adduced specific arguments in support of their claims under these provisions, distinct from their claims. Accordingly, the Committee considers this part of the communication as insufficiently substantiated and declares it inadmissible."

DISCLAIMERThe information presented here is collected under contract by the FRA's research network FRANET. The information and views contained do not necessarily reflect the views or the official position of the FRA.