Policy Memo – Hans Smedema Affair

MEMORANDUM

TO: European Union Officials for Rule of Law Oversight FROM: Senior Policy Advisor, Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights DATE: 30 September 2025 SUBJECT: Systemic Failures in the Dutch Justice System: Analysis and Recommendations based on the Hans Smedema Case

——————————————————————————–

1.0 Purpose and Scope

This memorandum analyzes systemic deficiencies within the legal and justice systems of the Kingdom of the Netherlands that threaten core EU values as defined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). The analysis uses the decades-long case of Mr. Hans Smedema as a central case study to illustrate profound failures in access to justice, the integrity of investigative and prosecutorial bodies, and the efficacy of national oversight mechanisms. By examining the specific claims and documented institutional responses in this affair, this document aims to highlight vulnerabilities that may not be apparent in high-level statistical assessments. This memorandum concludes by providing concrete policy recommendations for enhanced EU-level monitoring and engagement to address these identified weaknesses and reinforce the rule of law within the Netherlands.

2.0 The Hans Smedema Affair: A Case Study in Systemic Collapse

A detailed examination of an individual case can reveal systemic fractures that broader statistical analyses might miss. The Hans Smedema affair provides a powerful lens through which to assess the resilience and integrity of the Dutch rule of law framework. The case originates with allegations of severe criminal acts, including torture and rape, dating back to 1972, and has since evolved into a documented, multi-decade struggle against what Mr. Smedema alleges is state-orchestrated obstruction of justice, systematic denial of legal representation, and the comprehensive failure of all available avenues for redress. This case study demonstrates how a series of failures across multiple state institutions can coalesce to create a situation of complete legal isolation for a citizen, undermining the foundational principles of justice and accountability.

2.1 The Collapse of Access to an Effective Remedy and Fair Trial

A fundamental tenet of the rule of law is the right of every citizen to access an effective remedy and a fair trial. The Smedema case demonstrates the near-total collapse of these protections. The core of this failure lies in the alleged systematic denial of legal process, as Mr. Smedema claims that lawyers in the Netherlands have been systematically “forbidden from taking the case” since 2000.

This alleged denial of representation had severe consequences in multiple legal proceedings. For example, during a 2009 defamation case before police judge Jeroen van Bruggen, Mr. Smedema was allegedly denied legal counsel, the right to present evidence, and the right to have witnesses heard under oath. This pattern of procedural denial resulted in convictions that carried tangible penalties and which Mr. Smedema contends were reached without any meaningful defense. The situation was compounded when he sought redress at the European level. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) rejected his 2005/2006 complaint for “failure to exhaust domestic remedies,” a decision Mr. Smedema alleges was based on “false information” provided by the Dutch Ministry of Justice. This created a “Kafkaesque trap” where domestic remedies were allegedly inaccessible, yet the failure to access them was used as the basis to deny international review.

2.2 The Compromise of Investigative and Prosecutorial Integrity

The Smedema case includes specific, grave allegations of direct interference in the criminal justice process, undermining the integrity of both police investigations and public prosecutions. Mr. Smedema claims that around 2004, police officers, such as detective Haye Bruinsma, were explicitly ordered by the Ministry of Justice “NOT to investigate” his allegations of rape and torture. This points to a potential top-down obstruction of routine police work in a highly sensitive case.

This pattern of alleged interference extends to the prosecutorial level. The account of managing prosecutor Ruud Rosingh, who allegedly initiated an investigation into a related 1991 rape case, is particularly concerning. According to the source material, Mr. Rosingh was forced to stop his investigation and was subsequently transferred to another city. This alleged action demonstrates a clear mechanism for halting unwanted prosecutions and sends a chilling message to other officials. These instances of obstruction are connected to claims of high-level protection for perpetrators, allegedly rooted in a “Royal Special Decree” from the 1970s designed to block prosecution and the pervasive influence of Joris Demmink during his tenure as Secretary-General of the Ministry of Justice.

2.3 The Failure of National Oversight and Redress Mechanisms

Institutions designed to provide checks and balances on state power and offer redress to citizens also appear to have failed in this case. The Dutch National Ombudsman, the primary body for investigating citizen complaints against government bodies, repeatedly refused to handle Mr. Smedema’s complaint in 2005, 2008, and again in August 2025.

This consistent refusal stands in stark contrast to information Mr. Smedema claims to have received from another oversight body. In 2008, a judge from the CTIVD (Review Committee on the Intelligence and Security Services) allegedly verbally confirmed to Mr. Smedema that he was the victim of a “scrupulous conspiracy” and a human rights violation by the Dutch state. Furthermore, this judge had purportedly advised the Cabinet to cease the cover-up. This discrepancy suggests not merely a jurisdictional gap, but a potential paralysis of national oversight mechanisms when confronted with allegations implicating the state’s core security and justice apparatus.

The consistent failures documented across the judicial, executive, and oversight branches in this single case point toward deeper, systemic vulnerabilities within the Dutch rule of law framework.

3.0 Corroborating Evidence of Systemic Vulnerabilities

While the Smedema case is an extreme example, its core elements—institutional capture, inadequate legal aid, and precedents for state maladministration—are reflected in broader, independent analyses of the Dutch system. The specific allegations made by Mr. Smedema do not exist in a vacuum; they align with documented weaknesses and historical failures that lend plausibility to his claims of systemic decay. This section links the case study to this wider context.

3.1 Institutional Capture and a Culture of Impunity

Reports concerning the Joris Demmink affair, which focused on allegations of corruption and abuse during his time as Secretary-General of Justice, provide a plausible mechanism for the type of high-level obstruction detailed in the Smedema case. These independent analyses describe how Demmink allegedly amassed “decisive and compelling” influence over top appointments within the police and judiciary, creating a structure of patronage and loyalty. This fostered what has been described as a “culture of fear” within the Ministry of Justice, where officials were allegedly silent for “real fear of repercussions.” Further, sources such as the “Wabekepapers” allegedly confirmed pedophilia by the Secretary-General. Such high-level complicity would necessitate the kind of comprehensive, multi-decade cover-up that Mr. Smedema describes, lending context to the alleged refusal of police and prosecutors to investigate his claims.

3.2 Documented Deficiencies in Legal Aid and Judicial Safeguards

The European Commission’s “2025 Rule of Law Report” on the Netherlands, while generally positive, highlights areas of concern that resonate with the Smedema case. The report observes that “some safeguards for judicial independence rest on practice and culture alone,” a vulnerability that could be exploited in cases involving high-level state interests. The report also acknowledges ongoing discussions surrounding the “executive’s power to give instructions to prosecutors in individual cases.” This official observation of potential executive influence provides a systemic context for the specific allegation regarding the forced transfer of prosecutor Ruud Rosingh.

Furthermore, the report notes that an independent review has recommended to “increase legal aid lawyers’ fees,” acknowledging systemic financial pressures on the legal aid system. While the government has announced a project to develop a vision on the future of legal aid lawyers, expected in Q3 2025, these documented financial pressures create a systemic vulnerability. Such a climate could create a fertile ground for the more direct, prohibitive obstruction alleged in the Smedema affair, where lawyers are not merely disincentivized but claimed to have been systematically “forbidden from taking the case.”

3.3 Precedent for Systemic State Maladministration

The recent Dutch childcare benefits scandal (Toeslagenaffaire) serves as a powerful and well-documented precedent for systemic institutional failure. This scandal revealed the Dutch government’s capacity to wrongly and systematically label thousands of citizens as fraudsters, ignore clear signals of injustice from within its own ranks, and cause severe and lasting financial and emotional harm to families. The Toeslagenaffaire demonstrated that the kind of deeply entrenched, multi-year institutional failure, bureaucratic indifference, and denial of justice alleged by Mr. Smedema is not without precedent in the modern Dutch state.

These systemic weaknesses within a Member State have direct and serious implications for the European Union’s legal order.

4.0 Implications for the European Union’s Legal Order

Rule of law deficiencies within a Member State are not merely a domestic issue but directly impact the functioning and integrity of the entire European Union legal framework. The allegations stemming from the Netherlands, as illustrated by the Smedema case and corroborated by wider analyses, pose a direct challenge to the Union’s foundational principles and operational cohesion.

A justice system allegedly compromised by high-level corruption and the systemic obstruction of investigations fundamentally erodes the principle of mutual trust. This principle is the cornerstone of judicial cooperation in the EU’s Area of Freedom, Security, and Justice (AFSJ). Member States must be able to trust the integrity of each other’s legal systems for instruments like the European Arrest Warrant and the European Investigation Order to function effectively. If a Member State’s Ministry of Justice is perceived as capable of manipulating investigations, concealing evidence, and ensuring impunity for state actors, the confidence required for such cross-border cooperation is severely undermined.

The combination of alleged violations—the denial of a fair trial (Article 47, Charter of Fundamental Rights), state-sanctioned psychological torture (Article 4, CFR), and a multi-decade failure to provide an effective remedy (Article 13, ECHR)—constitutes a profound and persistent breach of the rule of law as enshrined in Article 2 TEU. These are not isolated administrative errors but a direct assault on the values of human dignity, equality, and respect for human rights upon which the Union is founded. A failure of this magnitude challenges the very foundation of the Union and raises serious questions about the Member State’s commitment to its treaty obligations.

These implications necessitate a proactive response from EU institutions to safeguard the Union’s shared values and the integrity of its legal order.

5.0 Policy Recommendations for EU Action

In light of the preceding analysis, the following concrete and actionable recommendations are proposed for consideration by EU institutions responsible for rule of law oversight. These recommendations are designed to address the specific vulnerabilities identified in the Dutch system and to strengthen the EU’s monitoring capacity.

1. Enhance Monitoring of Legal Aid Accessibility in the Netherlands.
   • Justification: The systemic denial of legal aid is a central feature of the Smedema case, and the 2025 Rule of Law Report independently identifies the need to address legal aid lawyers’ fees. It is recommended that the Commission’s annual Rule of Law Report moves beyond analyzing stated government policies to actively assessing the practical ability of citizens to secure effective legal representation, particularly in sensitive cases involving allegations against the state. This should include engagement with bar associations and civil society to identify and address practical barriers to justice.
2. Initiate an EU-level Dialogue on the Effectiveness of National Oversight Bodies.
   • Justification: The documented failure of the Dutch National Ombudsman to investigate the Smedema case, despite alleged contrary advice from the CTIVD, highlights a potential systemic flaw. The Commission should engage with Dutch authorities to review the jurisdictional limits and practical effectiveness of its national oversight bodies, particularly when confronted with complex allegations of systemic, high-level misconduct that may span multiple government agencies. The goal should be to ensure that no case can fall between institutional cracks, leaving citizens without any avenue for redress.
3. Scrutinize Prosecutorial Independence from Executive Influence.
   • Justification: The alleged forced relocation of prosecutor Ruud Rosingh and the 2025 Rule of Law Report’s reference to ongoing discussions about the executive’s power to instruct prosecutors highlight a critical vulnerability. It is recommended that the Commission make prosecutorial independence from executive influence a specific point of inquiry in future monitoring activities. The focus should be on ensuring that safeguards against political interference are robust, codified in law, and not reliant on “practice and culture alone.”

Google NotebookLM Plus Insights,

based on the legal-written-statements on this Blog by victim Author:

Hans Smedema, B. Sc., in forced exile since 2008 surviving in beautiful El Albir, Costa Blanca, Spain