Machine translations by Deepl, 8 February 2016: 'Citizens coalition: 'AIVD has carte blanche from court for data collection'"

The Citizens v Plasterk coalition has explained its registered appeal to the court of appeal in The Hague in the case on data sharing between secret services. The coalition filed a memorandum of appeal for this.

On 23 July 2014, Tweakers reported on a court ruling in The Hague in a case between a coalition of organisations and citizens who had sued the state. The plaintiffs wanted the Dutch state to stop using private data collected in violation of Dutch law. At issue was data passed on to Dutch intelligence services by the US secret service NSA, among others. The court then ruled that the state did not have to stop doing so.

The ruling stated that it is "urgently necessary" for intelligence services to cooperate with foreign services, despite the fact that it may result in the secret services collecting and possibly using information not collected in line with Dutch law. In doing so, the court ruled the Dutch AIVD and MIVD According to Privacy First an 'carte blanche given to collect large amounts of data of Dutch citizens through foreign intelligence services without any legal protection' under the heading 'national security'.

The coalition subsequently appealed, noting, however, that the coalition does not seek to prevent cooperation with foreign services. The coalition believes that when cooperating and receiving data, "strict safeguards must be observed". If this is not done, data collected in ways that violate Dutch law could still come into the possession of Dutch services. The coalition calls this circumvention of the Wiv a U-turn construction.

Before a hearing will take place and a ruling can be made on appeal, the Dutch state must first answer in a memorandum of reply.

The coalition further writes that it has recently been admitted to proceedings brought by the British organisation Big Brother Watch at the European Court of Human Rights against the UK. The case at the ECHR may be relevant to the Dutch case. (...)"

Source:, 8 February 2016.