The Hague Court has ruled that the COVID-19 lockdown which was imposed by the Dutch Govt had no legal basis and that it was illegal. However, the Dutch appeals court oveturned the ruling within hours which ordered the government to lift the “illegitimate” measure immediately. The appeals judges argued that they wanted to avoid what they called a “yo-yo effect,” referring to public confusion around whether the curfew was still in force.
The Dutch Government was supporting the COVID-19 pandemic curfew. However, the Hague court has ruled out any kind of legal basis for this curfew.
Hence, it asked the Dutch government to lift the curfew.
The Dutch government imposed curfew under the provision of the Extraordinary Powers of Civil Authority Act.
This Act is kind of an emergency act that gives the state the right to bypass the legislative process to impose a curfew, but only in case of a “very urgent and exceptional circumstance”.
Subscribe to GreatGameIndia
However, according to the Hague court it was not the case in this scenario.
“The Preliminary Relief Judge ruled that the introduction of the curfew did not involve the special urgency required to be able to make use of the [act],” the Hague continued, noting that the government had had time to discuss such a curfew beforehand, before ruling that “the use of this law to impose curfew is not legitimate.”
Subscribe to GreatGameIndia
The curfew is considered as a violation of the right to freedom of movement and privacy and (indirectly) limits, among other things, the right to freedom of assembly and demonstration.
After the curfew was imposed by the Dutch government, citizens were required to stay at home between the hours of 9 PM to 4:30 AM.
Citizens could step out during this time only in case of emergencies, essential work, to seek medical assistance or if they have a valid excuse. If they did not have a valid reason, they would be fined accordingly.
A group known as the Virus Truth Foundation had filed a lawsuit in the Hague court.
The Virus Truth Foundation argued that this curfew was an infringement on human rights and the Dutch constitution.
As a consequence of this curfew, people faced riots that caused large materialistic damage, loot, police clashes and large numbers of arrests.
However, a Dutch appeals court has revived the country’s Covid-19 curfew just moments before it came into effect, overturning a ruling handed down hours earlier ordering the government to lift the “illegitimate” measure immediately.
A three-judge appellate panel granted an emergency injunction following a request from the Dutch government on Tuesday, agreeing to vacate the earlier order from a lower court to end the nightly curfew, DW reported.
The decision came just moments before the 9pm curfew was set to take effect, with the judges scheduling a full hearing on its legality for Friday.
The appeals judges argued that they wanted to avoid what they called a “yo-yo effect,” referring to public confusion around whether the curfew was still in force, adding that “in this case, the state’s interests weigh more than that of Virus Truth’s,” the activist group that brought the initial complaint against the curfews to court – also known by its Dutch name, Viruswaarheid.
In a similar ruling, a German court declared that COVID19 lockdowns imposed by the government are unconstitutional.
Recently, it was revealed that the German Interior Ministry hired scientists to develop fake coronavirus model in order to justify strict lockdown, according to extensive email exchanges obtained by a group of lawyers in a legal dispute.
A major lawsuit has also been filed against the PM of Denmark for strict COVID-19 restrictions and for killing almost 17 million minks.
Last year, an American federal judge ruled coronavirus restrictions in Pennsylvania as unconstitutional.
As reported by GreatGameIndia earlier, a three judge court in Peru has ruled that the COVID-19 pandemic was started by the billionaires Bill Gates, George Soros and Rockefeller.
In the past in 2010, the WHO was caught faking a pandemic and was forced to admit that its methodology of measuring the virality or the spread of the disease, instead of its severity was incorrect.
For latest updates on the outbreak check out our Coronavirus Coverage.