Court rules that the coronavirus access pass did not violate fundamental rights

The District Court in The Hague ruled that implementing the coronavirus access passes during the pandemic was “drastic” but not a violation of fundamental rights. This was written as part of the court’s verdict in a case brought by opponents to the entry pass system. The plaintiffs were not awarded compensation.

The coronavirus access pass (CTB) was mandatory in many places from September 2021 until it was halted at the end of February 2022. People were only allowed entry into cafes, bars, or events if they were vaccinated against the coronavirus, had a recent negative test, or could prove that they had built up immunity due to recovering from the virus.

The court acknowledged that the CTB was an “interference” to people's ability to exercise their fundamental rights, but also said the government had a good reason for it. The court described the situation at the time as risky and unpredictable, meaning that the State “made a reasonable decision to implement the CTB.”

The court pointed to the healthcare sector being overrun during the pandemic and the “widely supported scientific and medical view that caution was required.” Therefore, the court found it understandable that the State opted to implement the CTB as a way to avoid the risk of creating a worse situation in terms of infections and hospitalizations. Many other countries did the same in an attempt to limit the coronavirus pandemic within their own borders..

An argument was made by the plaintiffs that the access pass was used to pressure people into getting vaccinated. The government’s lawyers emphasized that the Cabinet had to weigh all interests and saw this as a “necessary and proportional measure.” They claimed the goal was to protect vulnerable people and ease the burden on the care sector.

“The State had to weigh the fundamental rights of all citizens,” the court explained. For one, the CTB was an obstacle, but for the other, it was a protective measure.

“That decision was made with the right motives by the State,” the court said. The judges ruled that the government stayed within the European Convention on Human Rights boundaries.