Ruling — the request to hear experts under oath is refused

DISTRICT COURT OF THE NORTHERN NETHERLANDS

Civil Law

Court location Leeuwarden

Case number / petition number: C/17/199273 / HA RK 25-17

Decision of 20 August 2025

in the case of

1. [petitioner 1], of [place of residence],

2. [petitioner 2], of [place of residence],

3. [petitioner 3], of [place of residence],

petitioners, hereinafter jointly referred to as: petitioners, lawyer: Mr P.W.H. Stassen,

versus

1. [D],

2. [E],

3. [F],

4. [G],

5. [H],

6. [I],

7. [J],

8. [K],

9. [L],

10. [M],

14. [N],

all electing domicile in [place],

17. THE STATE OF THE NETHERLANDS, having its seat in The Hague,

hereinafter jointly referred to as: [D] et al., lawyers: Mr R.W. Veldhuis and Mr M.E.A. Möhring,

11. [P], residing in [place of residence], hereinafter referred to as: [P], lawyers: Mr D.C. Roessing and Mr M. Bredenoord-Spoek,

12. [Q], residing in [place of residence],

13. [R], residing in [place of residence],

hereinafter jointly referred to as: [Q] et al., lawyer: Mr R.H.W. Lamme,

15. [S], residing in [place of residence], hereinafter referred to as: [S], lawyers: Mr W. Heemskerk and Mr P.F.B. Mulder,

16. [T], electing domicile in [place of residence], hereinafter referred to as: [T], lawyer: Mr A.H. Ekker,

respondents to the petition, hereinafter jointly referred to as: the respondents to the petition.

[D] et al., [P], [Q] et al. and [T] will hereinafter jointly be referred to as the opposing parties.

1. The proceedings

1.1. The course of the proceedings is evident from:

the petition

the e-mail of 21 May 2025 on behalf of petitioners, with exhibit

the letter of 17 June 2025 on behalf of petitioners, with exhibits

the statement of defence (to the petition) on behalf of [D] et al.

the e-mail on behalf of [P] of 2 July 2025 with the request to be allowed to participate in the hearing digitally

the court's decision of 3 July 2025 refusing the request of [P]

the statement of defence (to the petition) on behalf of [P]

the e-mail on behalf of [S] of 4 July 2025, stating that [S] defers to the court's judgment

the statement of defence (to the petition) on behalf of [T]

the e-mail on behalf of [Q] et al. of 4 July 2025, stating that a defence would be put forward orally

the e-mail of 6 July 2025 on behalf of petitioners with requests to the court and a link to a video

the court's letter of 6 July 2025, in which those requests were decided

the court's e-mail of 8 July 2025, in which the parties were asked to respond to the request of journalists to be allowed to take photographs and make video and audio recordings at the hearing

the e-mails on behalf of the respondents to the petition of 8 July 2025, in which they object to this insofar as non-accredited journalists are concerned

the court's e-mail of 8 July 2025 in which the parties were informed of the decision that non-accredited journalists are not permitted to take photographs or make video and audio recordings

the e-mail on behalf of petitioners of 8 July 2025, in which objection is made to that decision

the oral hearing, of which the court clerk made notes of the hearing

the oral pleading notes on behalf of petitioners

the oral pleading notes on behalf of [D] et al.

the oral pleading notes on behalf of [Q] et al.

1.2. The decision has been set for today.

2. The request and the defence

2.1. Petitioners request the court:

1. by decision to hold [the court understands: to order] an examination concerning the facts and circumstances set out in the petition, in which the experts named in the petition can be questioned on the questions formulated in the petition,

2. to order that the party experts may, if they so wish, be heard in public by the examining judge by means of a video link with the court,

3. to set the day, hour and place on which these examinations will take place in public, taking into account the different time zones,

4. to appoint the examining judge before whom the examination is to be held, and

5. to set the day by which petitioners must at the latest send a copy of this petition and the decision to be given on it to the seven [the court understands: five] party experts.

2.2. Petitioners have, in brief, based their request on the fact that they are considering intervening in, or joining, the proceedings on the merits pending before the court under cause-list number 23/172, in which the respondents to the petition are the defendants, or starting proceedings against the respondents to the petition themselves. They wish to claim compensation for all material and non-material damage already suffered and still to be suffered by them as a result of the fact that they were unlawfully misled by the respondents to the petition into having a Covid-19 (mRNA) injection administered. According to the petition and the attached documents, the claimants in the aforementioned proceedings on the merits contend that Covid-19 is not a disease but a project called ‘Covid-19: the Great Reset’. According to them, the Covid-19 (mRNA) injections are a crucial part of this project, of which the respondents to the petition form part, and those injections qualify as bioweapons with which genocide is being committed. Petitioners share these positions of the claimants in the proceedings on the merits. These positions are disputed by the defendants in the proceedings on the merits. By means of the examination of experts they have requested, petitioners seek to secure evidence of the aforementioned positions and to be better able to assess their prospects in litigation. According to petitioners, in view of their training, experience and relevant expertise, the experts are suitable to give an independent and scientifically substantiated expert opinion on the questions included in the petition concerning the project and the Covid-19 (mRNA) injections.

2.3. The opposing parties each put forward a defence individually. [D] et al., [P] and [T] move that petitioners be declared inadmissible in their request or that this request be refused, with an order, to be declared provisionally enforceable, that petitioners pay the costs of these proceedings (including the post-judgment costs), plus statutory interest thereon. [Q] et al. move for the same, with the exception of the declaration of provisional enforceability of the order for costs. [S] defers to the court's judgment.

3. The assessment

Content of the request and assessment framework

3.1. This concerns a request for a provisional taking of evidence. On 1 January 2025 the Act on the Simplification and Modernisation of the Law of Evidence entered into force, which among other things amended the rules on provisional taking of evidence in the Code of Civil Procedure (DCCP). Because the request dates from after that date, these new articles apply to the request.

3.2. Under Article 196(1) DCCP, before a case is pending, the court may, at the request of an interested party, order one or more provisional measures of taking evidence, such as a provisional witness examination, a provisional expert report or a provisional examination of an expert. The last of these concerns the examination, at the oral hearing, of an expert appointed by the court.

Under Article 192(1) DCCP, the court may, at the request of a party, grant permission for the hearing of experts whom the party concerned wishes to have heard. These experts are not appointed by the court and are hereinafter referred to as party experts. It follows from the legislative history of Article 192(1) DCCP that this examination may also be requested as a provisional taking of evidence. If a (party) expert not only possesses a certain expertise but also has knowledge, from his own observation, of facts and circumstances relevant to the case, it may be requested, by way of provisional taking of evidence, that he be heard as a witness-(party) expert. This then concerns a combination of an examination as a witness with an examination as a (party) expert.

3.3. The opposing parties have argued that the petition does not make clear which of the above provisional measures of taking evidence petitioners are requesting. They point out that in the petition petitioners refer alternately to a provisional examination of experts, a provisional expert report, a combination of these, or a witness examination.

3.4. The court notes that the operative part of the petition requests that an examination of experts be ordered and that the operative part further refers to ‘the party experts’. Petitioners have stated that the experts they have nominated are also to be regarded as witnesses and that their relevant knowledge of the facts also consists (in part) of their observation as witnesses, so that, according to them, they must be heard under oath. The court therefore proceeds on the basis of a request to order a provisional examination of witness-party experts put forward by petitioners. In this regard the court takes into account that at the oral hearing petitioners spoke of an examination of witness-experts. Insofar as the respondents to the petition did not understand the request in this way, their interests are not harmed by this, in view of what is considered below about this request.

3.5. It follows from Article 196(2) DCCP that the court grants a request for a provisional taking of evidence unless:

the information sought is not sufficiently specified;

there is insufficient interest in the provisional taking of evidence;

the request is contrary to the due conduct of proceedings;

there is an abuse of power;

there are other weighty reasons that preclude the provisional taking of evidence.

The court notes in this regard that these grounds for refusal are not criteria separate from one another, but more or less merge into one another and may for that reason apply alongside one another.

3.6. The court refuses the request and explains why below.

The request is not possible if petitioners wish to intervene in or join the pending proceedings on the merits

3.7. Insofar as petitioners have requested the examination because they are considering intervening in (or joining) the aforementioned proceedings on the merits, the request cannot be granted. As the opposing parties have rightly argued, Article 196 DCCP excludes the possibility of requesting a provisional taking of evidence during proceedings that are already pending. Although petitioners are not at present a party to the proceedings on the merits, so that strictly speaking this is not a request for a provisional taking of evidence in pending proceedings, they would, if a claim for intervention (or joinder) were granted, become a party to those pending proceedings. The request is therefore contrary to the purport of Article 196 DCCP. According to the legislature, once a case is being heard on the merits, the taking of evidence must proceed through the court to which the case has been assigned, and a provisional taking of evidence must not cut across the pending proceedings. In the court's judgment, such an unacceptable cutting across of the pending proceedings also occurs when the request for a provisional taking of evidence is made by someone who intends to become a party to proceedings already pending. The request therefore cannot be reconciled with the legislature's intention.

The request must also be refused if petitioners wish to start their own proceedings on the merits

3.8. Petitioners have stated that they are also considering starting their own proceedings against the respondents to the petition. Those proceedings on the merits, however, will concern the same set of facts as the proceedings on the merits now being conducted and the same defendants (who are now the respondents to the petition). Those proceedings on the merits will therefore be very closely intertwined with the proceedings on the merits already pending. It is apparent from the reply in the proceedings on the merits submitted by petitioners that this petition has been submitted as an exhibit in the proceedings on the merits and that an offer has been made in the proceedings on the merits to hear the party experts in those proceedings. It is for the three-judge chamber in the pending proceedings on the merits to decide whether that is necessary and desirable. If the request were granted, the pending proceedings on the merits could be influenced in an unacceptable manner. If the written record of the examination of the party experts were introduced into the pending proceedings on the merits, this would affect the further course of the proceedings. The case management of the three-judge chamber in the proceedings on the merits would thereby be impaired in a manner comparable to the consequences for the proceedings on the merits of intervention or joinder described above. That conflicts with the intention of the legislature.

The request must also be refused for other reasons

1. An examination of experts is not the appropriate means

3.9. The opposing parties have argued in their defence, among other things, that petitioners have no interest in a provisional examination of experts, because petitioners can also obtain the desired provisional evidence in writing. They point out in this connection that the persons whom petitioners wish to have heard as experts have declared themselves willing to make a statement, which they can also do in writing.

3.10. Petitioners have countered that a unilateral written statement by the experts put forward does not have the weight and evidential value of an expert opinion arrived at in a careful legal process with the opportunity for both sides to be heard. According to petitioners, all parties can put critical questions to the nominated party experts during the examination, and the respondents to the petition can also have their own party experts heard under oath. According to petitioners, the diametrically opposed camps of party experts will each have to give and substantiate their expert opinion under oath. Only an expert opinion arrived at in this way gives petitioners sufficient insight to be able to determine whether, in legal proceedings, they can demonstrate that there has been unlawful conduct in the form of the commission of genocide with a bioweapon, according to petitioners.

3.11. The court does not follow petitioners in this position. After all, the parties agree that the opinions of their party experts on this matter are (and will be) diametrically opposed. In such a case, an expert report by an independent expert appointed by the court in consultation with the parties is a more appropriate way of gaining insight into the subject matter and of obtaining evidence. This applies all the more because this concerns a complex issue that lends itself better to the provision of information in writing by an expert appointed in consultation with the parties, who can then, if necessary, be heard further on specific points by the court at an oral hearing. Petitioners have, it is true, pressed for a debate to take place between the experts of petitioners and of the respondents to the petition, but the possibility offered by law of requesting an examination of party experts is not intended for that. The debate takes place before the court in proceedings on the merits, and that court determines how and in what manner the debate is to take place.

2. Petitioners have no interest in the request

3.12. It is not disputed that petitioners are familiar with the position of their party experts and with the opposing view of the party experts on whom the respondents to the petition will wish to rely. They have therefore not sufficiently substantiated that they need the examination in order to decide whether they wish to start proceedings on the merits. Moreover, they can ask their party experts to answer the questions in writing or in a video. In this way their evidence is sufficiently secured. The court is therefore of the opinion that petitioners have insufficient interest in the hearing of the party experts.

3. The party experts cannot be heard as witnesses

3.13. With regard to the hearing of witnesses, the following also applies. Under Article 163 DCCP, a witness's statement can serve as evidence only insofar as it relates to facts known to the witness from his own observation. According to settled case law, the concept of ‘observation’ must be interpreted broadly. It also includes impressions the witness has gained and what the witness has heard from third parties. A request for a provisional witness examination must state sufficiently clearly, and therefore also concretely, to which factual events the examination will relate. Furthermore, it must, if necessary, also be made clear why the witnesses to be heard can (possibly) give evidence about this.

3.14. According to the opposing parties, the request must be refused insofar as it is requested that the party experts also be heard as witnesses. To that end they argue that petitioners have not explained of which relevant events the persons nominated by petitioners would have been witnesses, and that none of the proposed questions relates to these persons' own observations. In response, petitioners explained at the hearing that the persons they named can give evidence from their own observation about the existence of the project ‘Covid-19:Great Reset’ alleged by petitioners, genocide and the use of bioweapons, because they live in a time in which all this is happening. In the court's judgment, in the light of what the opposing parties have argued, petitioners have thereby not sufficiently specified which of the proposed questions the nominated persons can answer on the basis of their own observation. As the opposing parties have argued without contradiction, the questions, given their wording, are designed to be answered by an expert on the basis of knowledge and experience in his/her field. In brief, the questions to the party experts concern what they know on the basis of their expertise, but not what they have seen or heard or observed.

4. The request is contrary to the due conduct of proceedings

3.15. Furthermore, in the light of the opposing parties' denial, petitioners have not sufficiently explained that all the questions formulated by petitioners are relevant and can contribute to the decision of the dispute in any proceedings on the merits. For example, petitioners propose to put various questions to the American party experts [V] (hereinafter: [V]) and [W] about American regulations in the field of viruses, vaccines and biological and bacteriological weapons, without it having been made clear why American law would be relevant in this matter. As a further example, the court notes that petitioners propose to ask [V]: “What is the relationship between the regulatory functions and decisions of the US Food and Drug Administration (US-FDA) with respect to the international trade in viruses, gene therapies and other biological products and other regulatory bodies outside the United States, in particular in Europe?”. Here too, it has not been stated why the answer to this question is needed in order to be able to take a decision. This applies to more of the questions. Viewed partly in this light, it has also not been sufficiently explained that five experts must be heard and that fewer cannot suffice. The court is therefore of the opinion that granting the request would be time-consuming and costly, while it would lead to inefficient gathering of information. Taken together with the preceding considerations, this means that the request is contrary to the due conduct of proceedings.

Conclusion

3.16. The court concludes that the aforementioned circumstances must lead to the judgment that the request must be refused.

3.17. Since the request is already refused on the aforementioned grounds, all other defences of the opposing parties no longer need to be discussed.

Costs of the proceedings

3.18. Petitioners, as the unsuccessful party, will be ordered jointly and severally to pay the costs of the proceedings (including the post-judgment costs). The costs on the part of [D] et al. are assessed at:

court registry fee: € 714.00

lawyer's fees: € 1,228.00 (2 points x tariff € 614.00)

post-judgment costs: € 178.00 (plus the increase as stated in the decision)

Total: € 2,120.00

The costs on the part of [P] are assessed at:

court registry fee: € 331.00

lawyer's fees: € 1,228.00 (2 points x tariff € 614.00)

post-judgment costs: € 178.00 (plus the increase as stated in the decision)

Total: € 1,737.00

The costs on the part of [Q] et al. are assessed at:

lawyer's fees: € 614.00 (1 point x tariff € 614.00)

post-judgment costs: € 178.00 (plus the increase as stated in the decision)

Total: € 792.00

The costs on the part of [S] are assessed at:

lawyer's fees: € 614.00 (1 point x tariff € 614.00)

post-judgment costs: € 178.00 (plus the increase as stated in the decision)

Total: € 792.00

The costs on the part of [T] are assessed at:

court registry fee: € 331.00

lawyer's fees: € 1,228.00 (2 points x tariff € 614.00)

post-judgment costs: € 178.00 (plus the increase as stated in the decision)

Total: € 1,737.00

3.19. The statutory interest on the costs of the proceedings claimed by the opposing parties will also be awarded, as being founded in law and not contested, in the manner set out in the operative part.

4. The decision

The court

4.1. refuses the request;

4.2. orders petitioners jointly and severally, in the sense that if one pays, the others will be released up to the amount of that payment, to pay the costs of the proceedings on the part of [D] et al., assessed to date at € 2,120.00, to be paid within fourteen days of being requested to do so, to be increased by € 92.00 plus the costs of service if petitioners do not comply with the orders in time and [the decision] is subsequently served;

4.3. orders petitioners jointly and severally, in the sense that if one pays, the others will be released up to the amount of that payment, to pay the statutory interest referred to in Article 6:119 DCC on the costs of the proceedings of [D] et al. if these have not been paid within fourteen days of the date of [this decision];

4.4. orders petitioners jointly and severally, in the sense that if one pays, the others will be released up to the amount of that payment, to pay the costs of the proceedings on the part of [P], assessed to date at € 1,737.00, to be paid within fourteen days of being requested to do so, to be increased by € 92.00 plus the costs of service if petitioners do not comply with the orders in time and [the decision] is subsequently served;

4.5. orders petitioners jointly and severally, in the sense that if one pays, the others will be released up to the amount of that payment, to pay the statutory interest referred to in Article 6:119 DCC on the costs of the proceedings of [P] if these have not been paid within fourteen days of the date of [this decision];

4.6. orders petitioners jointly and severally, in the sense that if one pays, the others will be released up to the amount of that payment, to pay the costs of the proceedings on the part of [Q] et al., assessed to date at € 792.00, to be paid within fourteen days of being requested to do so, to be increased by € 92.00 plus the costs of service if petitioners do not comply with the orders in time and [the decision] is subsequently served;

4.7. orders petitioners jointly and severally, in the sense that if one pays, the others will be released up to the amount of that payment, to pay the statutory interest referred to in Article 6:119 DCC on the costs of the proceedings of [Q] et al. if these have not been paid within fourteen days of the date of [this decision];

4.8. orders petitioners jointly and severally, in the sense that if one pays, the others will be released up to the amount of that payment, to pay the costs of the proceedings on the part of [S], assessed to date at € 792.00, to be paid within fourteen days of being requested to do so, to be increased by € 92.00 plus the costs of service if petitioners do not comply with the order in time and [the decision] is subsequently served;

4.9. orders petitioners jointly and severally, in the sense that if one pays, the others will be released up to the amount of that payment, to pay the costs of the proceedings on the part of [T], assessed to date at € 1,737.00, to be paid within fourteen days of being requested to do so, to be increased by € 92.00 plus the costs of service if petitioners do not comply with the orders in time and [the decision] is subsequently served;

4.10. orders petitioners jointly and severally, in the sense that if one pays, the others will be released up to the amount of that payment, to pay the statutory interest referred to in Article 6:119 DCC on the costs of the proceedings of [T] if these have not been paid within fourteen days of the date of [this decision];

4.11. declares [this decision] provisionally enforceable as regards the orders under 4.2., 4.3., 4.4., 4.5., 4.9. and 4.10.

This decision was given by Mr J.A. Werkema and pronounced in public on 20 August 2025 in the presence of the court clerk.

Footnotes

[fn 1] See Parliamentary Papers II 1999/2000, 26855, no. 3, pp. 120 and 125.

[fn 2] See Parliamentary Papers II 2019/20, 35 498, no. 3, p. 19 (Explanatory Memorandum)

[fn 3] See the Explanatory Memorandum to the Act on the Simplification and Modernisation of the Law of Evidence, House of Representatives, parliamentary year 2019–2020, 35 498, no. 3, page 58.

[fn 4] See Supreme Court 11 July 2025, ECLI:NL:HR:2025:1141

[fn 5] See Supreme Court 7 September 2018, ECLI:NL:HR:2018:1433