Press release, 5 Nov 2010. Trial hearing Nov 29.

Trial against passport law enters decisive phase

Government cornered

On 29 November 2010, the first public hearing of the civil lawsuit filed by Privacy First Foundation and its 22 co-plaintiffs against the State of the Netherlands over the new 2009 passport law will take place.

Address : Palace of Justice, Prins Clauslaan 60, 2595 AJ The Hague

Time : 10 a.m.

Roll no : 2010/1807  

Further explanation of news event

On 6 May 2010, Stichting Privacy First and 22 co-plaintiffs sued the Dutch state in civil proceedings, demanding that the new passport law be repealed or declared illegal or improved in such a way that it no longer poses a danger to Dutch citizens. In particular, they demanded that the forthcoming centralised and current decentralised storage of biometric features be abolished.

To this, the State submitted a written defence (Statement of Reply).

On 29 November 2010, a court hearing will be held at the District Court of The Hague at which the judge will determine the progress. At this, lawyers Christiaan Alberdingk Thijm for Stichting Privacy First and Cécile Bitter for the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations will present their arguments. This will also include expert witnesses demonstrating that there are indeed better alternatives to the current passport and the (de)centralised storage method.

The recent report by the Scientific Council for Government Policy, WRR Web publication No 46, fully supports Privacy First's position.

Why civil law?

This procedure must be followed because in the Netherlands, review of legislation against the Constitution is not possible (!) unlike all other countries in the EU. It may therefore be necessary to have to appeal to the (European) Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg in due course.

Where to find out more?

Information on the process and official documents can be found at HERE download.

Question to journalism

Fingerprints are unsuitable to serve as an international identity mark. What role did the Netherlands play in the creation of European Regulation 2252 dated 13 Dec 2004 where fingerprints were made mandatory?

Why did they draft the passport law this way despite the negative opinions of the CBP and other organisations and academics?

Why does the Dutch government treat a citizen's identity as a standalone package of perfectly registered personal data so that the person always has to demonstrate who he is and what his (new) situation is instead of the government having to demonstrate the situation with the person?

Amsterdam, 5 November 2010; 06:00.