Right to protest does not protect every protest action
Amsterdam District Court drew a line between protest against a building and conduct towards passers-by.
Amsterdam District Court has ruled that criminal proceedings against certain actions during a demonstration may constitute an impermissible infringement of fundamental rights. At the same time, conduct towards individuals remained criminal, according to the court.
The case concerned a pro-Palestinian demonstration outside the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam on 4 November 2023. A 34-year-old man and a 28-year-old woman were involved in spraying the museum and passers-by with a red liquid.
The court found that spraying the museum and individuals could legally be classified as violence. However, it was not convincingly proven that the man had intentionally wanted people to be sprayed as well. The court therefore distinguished between his involvement in spraying the museum and his conduct towards individuals.
The man and woman were discharged from prosecution for spraying the museum. The court found that, given the low cleaning costs and the liquid used, this conduct fell within the protection of the freedoms of demonstration and expression.
The court drew a different line over spraying passers-by. That conduct was considered reprehensible and could, according to the court, be dealt with through criminal law. The woman received a conditional fine of €500 for this.
The court stressed that sanctions for actions during demonstrations can have a deterrent effect. That so-called chilling effect was taken into account in the assessment. According to the ruling, protecting the right to demonstrate does not mean that every action during a protest is automatically permitted, but it does mean that restrictions must be imposed carefully and proportionately.
The ruling does not establish a general exemption for demonstrators. The assessment depends on the specific circumstances: the location of the action, the damage, who was affected and what the intentions of those involved were. The distinction between property and individuals also proved decisive.
The case therefore shows why the right to demonstrate is difficult to define in practice. Authorities must protect public order and safety, while the police and courts must prevent criminal law from being used against expressions that in themselves fall within freedom of expression. The ruling may therefore become relevant in future cases involving protests at museums, companies and public buildings.
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- In these specific circumstances, the court protected spraying the museum from criminal punishment.
- Spraying passers-by was considered reprehensible and criminal.
- The woman received a conditional fine for this.
Left
Arguments The right to demonstrate should be interpreted broadly, because forceful or uncomfortable actions may be necessary to draw attention to power imbalances and international abuses.
Values Freedom of expression, civil disobedience and protection from an overly powerful state.
Consequences Broad protection prevents a chilling effect, but requires clear boundaries once others are physically affected or intimidated.
Centre
Arguments The authorities must assess each action on the basis of its damage, intent and impact. Protest deserves protection, but safety and property must not be overlooked.
Values Proportionality, legal certainty and institutional care.
Consequences A tailored approach prevents both overcriminalisation and a licence for escalation, although such rulings may seem complicated to outsiders.
Right
Arguments Demonstrating is a fundamental right, but damage to property and nuisance to others must not be relativised as a political message.
Values Public order, property rights, personal safety and equal application of the law.
Consequences A stricter approach may limit repetition and nuisance, but increases the risk that peaceful protests will likewise be treated as a threat.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The factual description follows the ruling and the official court statement. The broader significance for future protests is clearly presented as an expectation, not as an established legal consequence.
- confirmed The case concerned a demonstration outside the Van Gogh Museum on 4 November 2023. — Confirmed by Amsterdam District Court. source
- confirmed The court distinguished between spraying the museum and spraying individuals. — This distinction appears in the court statement and the ruling. source
- confirmed The 28-year-old woman received a conditional fine of €500. — Confirmed by the court. source
- confirmed The court took a possible chilling effect of criminal sanctions into account. — The court explicitly mentions this in its reasoning. source
Editor's note
The ruling and its consequences were checked directly against Rechtspraak. The case is specific; its possible influence on future protest cases remains a journalistic interpretation.Sources
- Ontslag van rechtsvervolging en voorwaardelijke boete voor demonstranten — Rechtbank Amsterdam
- ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2026:6988 — Rechtspraak
More on this in Dutch media
- de Volkskrant — „demonstratierecht amsterdam”
- RTL Nieuws — „demonstratierecht amsterdam”
- NOS — „demonstratierecht amsterdam”