Courts criticize Dutch government's plans for banning, disbanding political parties
The Council for the Judiciary criticized the government’s legislative proposal allowing it to ban or disband a political party. According to the Council, the language in the bill is too vague for a measure this far-reaching. “The part of the law that deals with the prohibition and dissolution of political parties requires a more thorough debate,” the Council said on Monday.
With the Political Parties Act bill, the government wants to make it possible to ban or dissolve a political party if, for example, it poses a serious threat to the democratic constitutional state. According to the bill, a yet-to-be-created authority will monitor political parties to ensure they comply with the rules, and if they don’t, the government can ask the Supreme Court to disband or ban them or pull their funding.
The Ministry of Home Affairs opted for possible bans to be assessed by a single body - the Supreme Court - to get a decision on banning or disbanding a party as quickly as possible. But, according to the Council for the Judiciary, the measure is too serious and socially far-reaching for a single body to be responsible for it. “Review by a single body offers less legal protection than an assessment by several courts,” the Council said. “A possibility of appeal would, therefore, be highly desirable.”
The language used in the bill for when a party can be banned or disbanded is also too general and vague. “This can lead to different interpretations of the law,” the Council said. “For the functioning of a democratic constitutional state, such an important subject as a ban or dissolution of a party requires a more thorough debate.”
The Council of Judiciary is also worried about the bill giving the criminal court the power to deny subsidies to political parties “without it being clear when that is an appropriate punishment.” Denying a subsidy could mean the end for a party. “The Council can imagine circumstances in which this would lead to a great deal of tension between politicians and the judiciary.”
