Use of force by the police in the Netherlands is not evaluated according to European Court standards

According to the ECtHR, police violence resulting in (potentially) fatal consequences is only permissible if it is absolutely necessary due to the behaviour of the person involved. Force may only be used if there is truly no other option — for instance, to avert immediate danger to life or to prevent serious bodily harm. This standard follows from Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The same article also set the standard that incidents involving police violence be investigated independently. In cases involving a fatal outcome, the investigation must be conducted by individuals with no ties to the persons or institutions involved. Physical force without fatal outcomes may only be applied when strictly necessary—a principle derived from Article 3 ECHR, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. These cases also require independent investigation. 

A new perspective on acquittal in a COVID protest violence case 

During a demonstration against COVID-19 measures on The Hague’s Malieveld in March 2021, a protester was forcefully handled by the police. He was punched, kicked, and bitten by a police dog — while lying on his back, Schalkwijk says. Footage of the incident circulated globally, with a UN rapporteur calling it one of the most shocking cases of police violence since George Floyd. Nevertheless, the Dutch court acquitted the officers involved at the end of 2024. 

The case raises questions. Schalkwijk notes that the investigation was conducted by the police themselves and therefore lacks independence. He adds, "The court did not rule on the initial use of force, when the demonstrator was already on the ground. In light of the human rights standard of Article 3 ECHR, the judge could have considered that the force applied at that moment was not strictly necessary." 

Criminal proceedings are rare, investigations not always independent  

Criminal proceedings against police officers, like in the COVID protest case, are uncommon. In 2021, five officers were prosecuted, in 2022 only two, and in 2023 just one. Even in cases that do go to court, judges tend to exercise restraint. Schalkwijk explains: "Judges explicitly state they do not assess whether officers could or should have acted differently, whereas under ECtHR standards, this is precisely what they are required to do.” 

In 2023, the police recorded 35,542 uses of force by officers. In cases of lethal police violence, investigations are conducted by the National Criminal Investigation Department (Rijksrecherche) under the authority of the Public Prosecution Service (Openbaar Ministerie). In non-lethal cases, the police typically conduct the investigation themselves. It remains unclear whether the Public Prosecution Service, which subsequently decides whether to prosecute officers, explicitly evaluates against the requirements of absolute or strict necessity. Additionally, internal investigations into reported uses of force do not meet ECHR standards of independence, as the officers conducting the assessment fall under the same authority as the officers being investigated. Schalkwijk: "In 2023, the Rijksrecherche investigated 26 cases. This means that police investigated all other uses of force themselves." 

Parliamentary questions 

Schalkwijk argues that the assessment of police violence in the Netherlands should explicitly include a review of whether the use of force was absolutely (Article 2 ECHR) or strictly (Article 3 ECHR) necessary. This assessment should consider whether the use of force could have been avoided at the moment it was applied, weighed against the behaviour of the citizen at that time. 

On 13 March, Songül Mutluer, Member of Parliament for GroenLinks/PvdA, submitted parliamentary questions to David van Weel, Minister of Justice and Security, in response to Schalkwijk’s article. She requests a substantive response to the research findings.