Radical changes to laws on the right to demonstrate are unnecessary and ineffective

The right to demonstrate as regulated by law in the Netherlands does not require any radical changes. There is room for improvement mainly in the practical implementation, particularly in relation to a number of specific types of demonstrations where bottlenecks may arise. These include, for example, demonstrations in which demonstrators deliberately break the law.

These are the main conclusions of the research report ‘The right to demonstrate in a democratic constitutional state’, which was sent to the House of Representatives today, Thursday, December 11, 2025, by the Minister of Justice and Security and the Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations. The main findings of the report can be found at demonstratierecht.nu. The entire report can also be downloaded from that website.

The researchers analyzed the national and international legal framework and investigated how the right to demonstrate functions in practice on the basis of a survey, knowledge tables, and interviews with mayors, police officers, public prosecutors, demonstrators, lawyers, employees of independent (human rights) organizations, and scientists, among others. They also studied the right to demonstrate in Germany, England, and France and reflected on the significance of this right within a democratic constitutional state.

Main conclusion 1: no radical changes to the law

The first main conclusion of the study is that no radical changes to the legislation are required.

Firstly, because of the fundamental importance of the right to demonstrate. During the 42 interviews that were conducted, all interviewees pointed out the importance of this right to freedom. This right enables demonstrators to exert political influence, gives minorities the opportunity to make their voices heard, and allows dissatisfaction with, for example, injustice in society to be expressed.

Secondly, it is not necessary to make radical changes to the law. The law already offers sufficient protection for both the exercise of freedom of demonstration and the restriction of that freedom when necessary.

Moreover, most of the people the researchers spoke to indicated that they did not see a need for a change in the law, and the figures do not necessitate this. For example, a research report by the Inspectorate of Justice and Security from May 2025 shows that 97% of all demonstrations in 2015-2022 took place without incident. The argument that freedom of demonstration should be more restricted because demonstrations often get out of hand is therefore not valid. In this context, interviewees emphatically pointed to the need to place incidents at demonstrations in a historical perspective; (discussions about) incidents at demonstrations are timeless.

Thirdly, further legal restrictions on freedom of demonstration are not very effective and may even be counterproductive. In countries such as England and France, for example, you can see that a restrictive and repressive tendency towards demonstrations leads to a negative climate surrounding the exercise of the right to demonstrate. This can result in demonstrators refraining from peaceful demonstrations. It can also lead to hardening of attitudes and discontent.

Main conclusion 2: gains to be made in implementation practice

The second main conclusion of the study is that there are particular gains to be made in implementation practice, especially in relation to certain specific types of demonstrations where bottlenecks can arise. These are mainly demonstrations in which demonstrators deliberately cross the boundaries of the law and demonstrations in which other fundamental rights may be compromised.

In the first type, interviewees indicated, among other things, that standards should not be ‘empty shells’. Freedom of demonstration is not a license to commit criminal offenses. The basic principle is that action can be taken against those who break the law. The Public Prosecution Service and the courts in the Netherlands are sometimes more cautious in this regard than international human rights treaties prescribe. At the same time, such action (such as the punishment imposed) must always be proportionate.

In the second type—where there is a conflict of fundamental rights—tension is felt in practice, particularly during demonstrations at abortion clinics. In such cases, freedom of demonstration conflicts with the right to privacy of clinic visitors. On December 3, 2025 (after the investigation was completed), the Administrative Law Division of the Council of State issued a landmark ruling on the extent to which the specific location and vulnerability of clinic visitors can be taken into account when restricting demonstrations at abortion clinics. If that ruling does not provide sufficient relief for protests around abortion clinics, inspiration can be drawn from German law. In 2024, a specific buffer zone regulation was introduced for protests in the vicinity of abortion clinics.

Other observations from empirical research

During the empirical research, interviewees pointed out a number of other bottlenecks in the practical implementation of demonstrations. These mainly concern the failure to register demonstrations, difficult or non-existent contact with organizers and demonstrators, limited police capacity, unnecessary (standard) regulations imposed by the mayor, and a lack of knowledge about the right to demonstrate among government officials and citizens. During the research, concerns were also expressed about police action surrounding demonstrations. In particular, visits to demonstrators at home, increased surveillance, and the use of police force were mentioned.

In the comprehensive report, the researchers discuss the above findings in detail and formulate various recommendations and points for attention.

The research was conducted by a research team of nine researchers from the University of Groningen, Pro Facto, the University of Amsterdam, and Tilburg University, including Berend Roorda, Noor Swart, Joachim Bekkering, and Heinrich Winter. The client is the Scientific Research and Data Center (WODC), the independent knowledge institute for the rule of law of the Ministry of Justice and Security.