Associating or Disrupting: The Dutch Supreme Court’s Struggle in Prohibiting a Controversial Association
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.64780/rolsj.v2i2.215Keywords:
Freedom of Association, Public Order, Child Protection, Democratic Pluralism, Preventive Intervention, European Convention on Human RightsAbstract
Background: The prohibition of controversial associations presents a persistent challenge for democratic societies seeking to balance freedom of association with the protection of vulnerable individuals. This challenge is illustrated by the Dutch Association Martijn litigation, which raised fundamental questions concerning the legal justification for restricting associational freedom under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Aim: This article aims to examine the reasoning adopted by the Dutch courts, particularly the Dutch Supreme Court, in prohibiting Association Martijn and to evaluate whether the legal justification for the restriction is consistent with democratic principles, freedom of association, and the requirements of the ECHR.
Method: The study employs a normative legal research design using doctrinal, human rights, and legal-philosophical approaches. The analysis is based on judicial decisions from the Association Martijn litigation, relevant provisions of the Dutch Civil Code, ECHR jurisprudence, and scholarly literature concerning freedom of association, public order, legal moralism, and child protection.
Results: The analysis reveals that the central disagreement among the Dutch courts concerned not the importance of protecting children but the legal threshold required to justify restrictions on associational freedom. While the Court of Appeal required evidence of societal disruption, the Dutch Supreme Court treated child protection and harm prevention as sufficient grounds for intervention. The findings further demonstrate that harm and societal disruption represent analytically distinct justificatory frameworks and should not be treated as interchangeable bases for restricting freedom of association.
Conclusion: The article concludes that restrictions on controversial associations require courts to identify clearly the specific justification relied upon and to satisfy the evidentiary threshold associated with that justification. By distinguishing more carefully between harm, public order, majority morality, and child protection, courts can strengthen both the protection of fundamental freedoms and the legitimacy of preventive state intervention in democratic societies.
References
Association of Victims of Romanian Judges v. Romania, App. No. 47732/06 (European Court of Human Rights, 14 January 2014).
Breakey, H. (2020). "That's unhelpful, harmful and offensive!" epistemic and ethical concerns with meta-argument allegations. Argumentation. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-020-09538-8
Brettschneider, C. (2021). The oath and the office: A guide to the Constitution for future presidents. W. W. Norton & Company.
Brems, E. (2021). Human rights limitations and democratic pluralism in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Human Rights Law Review, 21(3), 1–22.
Bulman-Pozen, J., & Seifter, M. (2023). State constitutional rights and democratic proportionality. Columbia Law Review, 123(7), 1855–1928.
Court of Appeal Arnhem-Leeuwarden. (2013, April 2). Public Prosecution Service v. Association Martijn.
Daly, A. (2025). Child protection and preventive intervention in contemporary human rights law. International Journal of Human Rights, 29(1), 45–67.
Devlin, P. (1965). The enforcement of morals. Oxford University Press.
District Court Assen. (2012, June 27). Public Prosecution Service v. Association Martijn.
Dutch Supreme Court. (2014, April 18). Association Martijn Case.
Feinberg, J. (1984). Harm to others. Oxford University Press.
Gerards, J. (2021). General principles of the European Convention on Human Rights. Cambridge University Press.
Govers, J., Feldman, P., Dant, A., & Patros, P. (2023). Down the rabbit hole: Detecting online extremism, radicalisation, and politicised hate speech. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(14s), 1-35.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3583067
Greitens, S. C. (2020). Surveillance, security, and liberal democracy in the post-COVID world. International Organization, 74(S1), E169–E190. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818320000417
Gunatilleke, G. (2021). Justifying limitations on the freedom of expression. Human Rights Review, 22(1), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-020-00608-8
Hart, H. L. A. (1963). Law, liberty and morality. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503620612
Hilal-Harvald, M. (2020). Islam as a civilizational threat: Constitutional identity, militant democracy, and judicial review in Western Europe. German Law Journal, 21(6), 1228–1256. https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2020.70
Kuehn, K. M., & Salter, L. A. (2020). Assessing digital threats to democracy, and workable solutions: A review of the recent literature. International Journal of Communication, 14, 22.
Laborde, C. (2022). Liberalism, harm, and the limits of state intervention. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 50(2), 187–212.
Letsas, G. (2023). A theory of interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Lowe, D. (2022). Far-right extremism: is it legitimate freedom of expression, hate crime, or terrorism?. Terrorism and Political Violence, 34(7), 1433-1453.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2020.1789111
Mill, J. S. (1978). On liberty. Hackett Publishing. (Original work published 1859)
Popp-Madsen, B. A., & Flohr, M. (2026). Three concepts of freedom of assembly: Liberal, associative, radical. Politics & Society, 54(1), 3–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/00323292251359556
Refah Partisi (The Welfare Party) and Others v. Turkey, App. Nos. 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98, & 41344/98 (European Court of Human Rights, 13 February 2003).
Schupmann, B. A. (2025). Book review: Reviving militant democracy: A reply to Niesen. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 51(6), 1016–1025. https://doi.org/10.1177/01914537251340425
Tenove, C. (2020). Protecting democracy from disinformation: Normative threats and policy responses. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 25(3), 517–537. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161220918740
Tobin, J. (2021). The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: A commentary (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Vona v. Hungary, App. No. 35943/10 (European Court of Human Rights, 9 July 2013).
Waldron, J. (2012). The harm in hate speech. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674065086
Webber, G. (2024). Public morality and constitutional freedom in democratic societies. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 44(1), 75–96.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Jasper Doomen, Gelijn Molier
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.