What should have been front page news has been cloaked in almost complete main stream media silence: one man’s civil proceedings against both former Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte and his new employer, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) in Brussels. As Rutte’s appointment as NATO’s new Secretary General signalled the European Union’s push for war with Russia – and the accelerated depletion of pension funds and citizens’ other assets to subsidise it – the outcome of this trial could affect world politics. It is, therefore, high time for an overview of the proceedings, so far.
On 11 September 2024, Dutch legal and financial expert Karim Aachboun, represented by the Belgian law firm ADVOCOM, asked the Dutch Speaking Court of First Instance in Brussels to postpone the appointment of Rutte as NATO’s new Secretary General. Rutte had not yet taken office as the NATO’s new leader and the appellant hoped to prevent the Dutchman from claiming immunity under NATO’s flag.
Aachboun is prosecuting Rutte and the Dutch State in two separate procedures in the Netherlands. These proceedings may be in vain, if Rutte can claim immunity before the two Dutch cases have been concluded, he fears.
As if to confirm the appellant’s worry, NATO (represented by the Belgian law firm Xirius) did call on its immunity and informed the court it would, therefore, be no party in this trial.
Seemingly in its stead, the Belgian State (also represented by Xirius) asked to be added to the defence, stating that Belgium, as NATO’s host, is responsible for providing optimal work conditions for organisations such as NATO. Aachboun objected on the grounds that allowing the Belgian State to join, would endanger the judges’ impartiality, because they are paid by that very same State.
Xirius, for NATO and Mark Rutte (who himself was not present), objected to the postponement of Rutte taking on his new role, by asserting that the Belgian court lacked judicial authority over NATO. Aachboun’s reliance on the right to a fair trial, was irrelevant, as human rights were not deemed ‘absolute’ rights and NATO’s rights were superior to them, according to the defence lawyers.
In an emotional statement before the Belgian court, Aachboun referred to the right to a fair trial, as described in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as well as to the name giver of the court building, baron Charles de Montesquieu, father of the Trias Politica. “This judicial procedure is the only path available to citizens seeking justice. We have no other way,” Aachboun said. “If a court bearing the name ‘Montesquieu’ will not honour a citizen’s right to a fair trial, if people working for organisations such as NATO can simply claim immunity from crimes and misdemeanors, then what value does ‘the rule of law’, or a ‘constitutional state’ still hold?”
In his decision of 24 September, the judge disagreed with NATO on the point of its jurisdiction, but did rule that the grounds for Aachboun’s case were insufficient.
Timely appeal
Upon receiving the court’s decision, Aachboun instantly applied to appeal, as it was crucial to do so, before Rutte would take office. The 14th Secretary General of NATO was, however, installed one week later, on the 1st of October.
Angered by the appeal, Xirius sent an unhappy response to the appellant. Two days later, on October 21st, Aachboun made the surprising (Dutch) announcement on social media, that he would include, in his appeal file, documents relating to pedophilia. For those following the case, the announcement was initially received as ‘random’ and did not generate serious interest. It did, however, seem to have resonated in circles of power, as Aachboun subsequently wrote to be encountering a wave of trolling, of cyberattacks and other obstacles relating to his crowdfunding initiative.
The right to seize Rutte’s apartment
On 4 November, in the run up to the appeal hearing set for late January 2025, Rutte’s representatives offered Aachboun a plea deal. In return for a payment of three million Euros, Aachboun would have to drop the two Dutch cases, forever keep quiet about ‘Demmink’ and move out of the EU. Aachboun declined the offer. Ten days later he announced to have secured the right to seize Rutte’s apartment in The Hague.
Dossier ‘Demmink’
The disclosure of the plea deal conditions – which confirmed Aachboun had inside information on ‘Demmink’ – greatly augmented Dutch interest in the case.
Joris Demmink, Secretary General of the Dutch Ministry of Justice from 2010 until his retirement in 2012, was one of the Netherlands’ most controversial and powerful top civil servants. From the nineteen nineties, Demmink’s name has popped up repeatedly in relation to (alleged) sexual abuse of underaged boys, boy-brothels and abuse of power, both in the Netherlands and abroad. Names of many other highly placed officials have been mentioned in connection to Demmink and his alleged crimes, summed up as the so-called ‘Rolodex Case’. Attempts to prosecute Demmink never came to fruition. Instead, those brave enough to broach the subject were prosecuted themselves, or threatened therewith.
While Dutch alternative media was now actively reporting on the case, main stream media, after their early and unsuccessful attempts to frame Aachboun as a charlatan and the prosecution as fake, resorted to keeping quiet. Not one Dutch main stream media journalist has attended the hearings, so far. The only Belgian journalist who came to report on the initial hearing, did not return.
High Court judge accuses NATO of interference
Halfway during the appeal hearing on 20 January 2025, a remarkable thing happened. The High Court judge suggested that NATO was trying to influence the court, by having sent a letter not only to him and his colleague at the lower court, but also to the presidents of both courts, who were not officially involved in the case.
The defence denied the suggestion and stated that the letter had been intended as a polite explanation as to why NATO, due to its immunity, could not be party to the defence. The judge remained unconvinced. NATO’s written explanation should have been limited to the parties involved (i.e., the appellant, parties of the defence and the appointed judge), as is custom. By sending it to his superior and not to the appellant, did indicate interference, the High Court judge said.
If the judge felt his impartiality had been compromised, then so did Aachboun. Two days after the hearing, he asked the Court of Cassation in Brussels to retract the case from the High Court. Out of respect for the High Court judge and seeking an impartial judgement, the case could no longer be fairly judged in Brussels, Aachboun explained.
The request was accepted by five Cassation Court judges, on March 11th, after which Mark Rutte, NATO and the Hight Court judge were asked to submit their statements, within a month.
In their reaction, the defence lawyers were lenient towards the appellant, expressing their appreciation of his grounds for retraction. They did, however, seem less sympathetic towards the High Court judge, by declaring that the latter was mistaken in his perception of NATO trying to manipulate the High Court.
Asked for his reaction, Aachboun pointed out that ‘interference’ classifies as a criminal act. If the Court of Cassation conclude that NATO (and Mark Rutte, as its Secretary General) indeed tried to influence the High Court, he intends to report Rutte to the police, he added.
Meanwhile, NATO is said to have invited the appellant to discuss a second plea deal, but no further details have been communicated. The Court of Cassation will decide on the retraction request, on May 2nd.
The Dutch trials
In both trials in the Netherlands, Aachboun is prosecuting Mark Rutte and the Dutch State in relation to two scandals, for which they are ultimately responsible:
Gaza victim – illegal supply of military replacement parts to Israel
In one trial Aachboun represents the interests of the family of a 37-year-old woman, who died in an Israeli attack in Gaza. Aachboun’s claim is that, due to the government’s illegal deliveries of military replacement parts to Israel (such as for F-35s), the Dutch State and Rutte (as the former prime minister) are co-responsible for her death. The lower court judge dismissed the case in January 2025, without scheduling a hearing. Aachboun has appealed the dismissal; a date for the appeal hearing has not yet been set.
Childcare benefits scandal
In the second case Aachboun represents forty victims (the number has increased significantly, since) of the infamous Dutch childcare benefits scandal (‘Toeslagenaffaire’), which took place, approximately in 2003-2019. Mistakes, malpractice, cruel policies and solutions centering around the Dutch Tax Office, resulted in tens of thousands of ruined lives. Many parents lost their homes, jobs and/or children as a result – personal catastrophes few relationships were able to withstand. Even now, not all of the children removed by the Dutch authorities are said to have been reunited with their parents; some seem to have been ‘lost’. Repayments, too, have still not been completed.
On Monday, April 14th, a recuse hearing in the childcare benefits scandal case took place at the court in The Hague. Aachboun’s lawyer argued that loss of trust in the judge stemmed from the case no longer showing up in his online overview (rolling journal), which had resulted in his client, unknowingly, exceeding a deadline for submitting documents. Having signalled the error on 22 January, it still had not been corrected. It wasn’t the only irregularity he had experienced, either, Aachboun’s lawyer said, and he wondered, rhetorically, if there might be forces at play that would like to see the case fail.
Who is Karim Aachboun?
After graduating from the University of Amsterdam, Karim Aachboun was offered a position at the Dutch prestigious consultancy firm KPMG Meijburg & Co. Merely 20 years of age, he set himself targets as ambitious as those of the firm’s partners. He helped to successfully negotiate deals with multinationals on behalf of the Dutch Government. One of these successes was Israeli giant ICL choosing the Netherlands over Switzerland for its new head office, a deal in which Aachboun cooperated with Mark Rutte. By hitting targets that most could not meet, Aachboun embarrassed some seniors at KPMG, who forced him to leave in 2016. The court, however ordered the consultancy firm to pay the junior nearly one million Euros in damages. Together with his former mentor at KPMG (who had also been forced to leave and was awarded several million Euros in damages), he subsequently founded TaXeCo. The consultancy firm offers legal and tax services to large, international clients, such as Louis Vuitton, PNB Paribas and FC Barcelona’s football players.
How to support this case
https://www.gofundme.com/f/doneer-tegen-Rutte