“You may feel that NATO is exerting pressure on you, but your feeling is wrong.” Something to that effect is what the Court of Cassation in Brussels seem to be telling the High Court judge with its rejection to a case withdrawal request.
Today, May 2nd, the Court of Cassation in Brussels rejected a Dutchman’s request to withdraw a civil case against Mark Rutte and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) from the High Court in Brussels. The withdrawal request was based on a remarkable statement by the High Court judge during the appeal hearing, in which he expressed to feel somewhat pressured by NATO covertly writing to his superior. With today’s rejection of the request, the Cassation Court not only dismiss the appellant’s concern about securing an impartial judgement, but also seem to nullify the High Court judge’s professional assessment. The exact grounds for the Cassation Court’s rejection are said to follow next week.
The request to withdraw the case from the High Court was made by Dutch financial expert, Karim Aachboun, who started the civil proceedings in September last year. He is asking the Belgian courts to (temporarily) suspend Mark Rutte as NATO’s Secretary General, in order to prevent the former Dutch Prime minister from claiming immunity, before two court cases against him and the Dutch State, in The Netherlands, have been concluded. (More background information can be found here).
During the appeal hearing on 20 January, the High Court judge, halfway through the hearing, had addressed the lawyers for the defence and voiced his unhappiness with a letter that NATO had written to several of his colleagues. These included the presidents of the Dutch Speaking Court of First Instance and of the High Court, both in Brussels. Proof of the judge’s statement consists of a video recording, made by an anonymous member of the public gallery, that day. It was sent to Aachboun, sometime after the appeal hearing.
An important detail in all of this, is that NATO, from the start of the proceedings, has stated to be no party in this case, because of its immunity. With that, it is exactly proving Aachboun’s point.
Correspondence during a court procedure is, normally, only addressed to the relevant judge (or judges, if it is a chamber handling the case) and the parties involved. Because NATO’s letter was sent to colleagues who had nothing to do with Aachboun’s case, because NATO had claimed not to partake in the trial, and because the appellant was not sent NATO’s letter, the judge sensed that NATO was trying to manipulate the proceedings.
Alarmed by the High Court judge’s disclosure, Karim Aachboun sent a request to the Court of Cassation to withdraw the case from the Brussels High Court, two days after the hearing. The Dutchman specifically chose not to recuse the High Court judge, out of respect for his honesty and handling of the case, but felt withdrawal was necessary, as NATO’s letter had jeopardized an impartial judgement.
In its reaction to Aachboun’s withdrawal request, NATO had expressed their appreciation for his decision, in light of the High Court judge’s statement. The organisation did dispute, however, that it had meant to interfere with the court. The ground for sending the letter, NATO said, was merely to be civil and explain its position.
Grounds for the rejection will follow next week, the court’s press officer announced at around 2 pm, today. Until that time, assumptions about the Cassation Court’s deliberations remain speculation. The High Court judge, meanwhile, has been put in an awkward position, as he will now have to come to a judgement in the appeal procedure. He will need a very straight back and iron integrity to fend off the many piercing eyes and mounting pressure.
