You have a constitutional right to demonstrate, and nuisance or temporary disruption alone does not take that protection away. The police and the mayor may regulate the time, place and manner of a demonstration, but not its message; you lose protection mainly when you yourself commit a separate criminal act, such as causing damage or creating serious danger.
Even then, recent Dutch case law shows that arrest, prosecution and punishment together must remain proportionate. Below we explain the legal framework, how courts assess criminal enforcement and what this means for participants and organisers.
Table of contents
What does the right to demonstrate protect?
Article 9 of the Dutch Constitution (Grondwet) protects the right of assembly and demonstration, and Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) protects the freedom of peaceful assembly. Neither right is absolute, but restrictions must be justified and may never target the content of the message.
The Public Assemblies Act (Wet openbare manifestaties, WOM) gives these rights practical effect. Under Article 2 WOM, the authorities may only restrict a demonstration to protect health, in the interest of traffic or to prevent or combat disorder. The mayor can set conditions or restrictions after a demonstration has been notified, and in serious cases prohibit it.
A municipal by-law without a sufficient basis in a formal statute cannot restrict a demonstration. The Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) confirmed this on 24 March 2026 in a case about a climate protest at a tax office in The Hague. It held that the relevant provision of the local by-law could not be applied to restrict the right to demonstrate under Article 9(1) of the Constitution (ECLI:NL:HR:2026:483).
Does criminal law still apply during a demonstration?
Yes. The right to demonstrate protects your participation, not every act you commit during a demonstration. Ordinary offences remain punishable, such as public violence under Article 141 of the Dutch Criminal Code (Sr), causing danger or obstruction on the road under Article 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1994 (WVW 1994) and failing to comply with an official order under Article 184 Sr.
What matters is whether you personally committed a separate criminal act, apart from taking part in the demonstration. Nuisance, inconvenience and temporary disruption of daily life are, as such, part of demonstrating and do not place you outside the protection of fundamental rights.
Damage to property is a clear example of an individual act that is not protected. On 21 May 2026, the District Court of The Hague convicted an activist for spray-painting the walls of the A12 tunnel and ordered compensation for the municipality, while at the same time holding that a conviction for failing to comply with a police order during a lock-on action would be incompatible with Articles 10 and 11 ECHR (ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2026:12907).
How do courts assess criminal enforcement?
Courts in practice follow three questions. Was the demonstration peaceful, did the individual commit a reprehensible act, and was the total response of the authorities proportionate?
First, a demonstration with violent intentions falls outside the protection of Article 11 ECHR. If the intention is peaceful, protection is the starting point, even if the demonstration causes disruption.
Second, the court looks at the individual participant. Damage to property, violence or a blockade that seriously endangers others can justify a criminal response. Ordinary nuisance does not.
Third, the court assesses the entire government response: removal, arrest, detention, prosecution and punishment together. If less far-reaching measures would have been enough, the further steps are disproportionate.
What did the Supreme Court decide in 2025?
On 30 September 2025, the Supreme Court held in two cases that a criminal response to a peaceful protest was disproportionate. In the first, protesters had occupied the hall of the Ministry of Economic Affairs for several hours; the court found that arrest, transport to a police station, hours of detention and prosecution went further than necessary, as removal would have sufficed (ECLI:NL:HR:2025:1313).
In the second, Extinction Rebellion protesters had disrupted a session of the House of Representatives by singing and chanting (ECLI:NL:HR:2025:1436). The Supreme Court held that the police could remove them, but that the subsequent detention and prosecution required a particular justification that had not been given.
In both cases the Supreme Court quashed the conviction and referred the case back for a new assessment. If the total response is disproportionate, the court may not apply the criminal provision, and the result can be a discharge from all further prosecution (ontslag van alle rechtsvervolging), even though the facts are proven.
Why does the chilling effect matter?
Criminal enforcement must not discourage people from exercising their right to demonstrate. This is known as the chilling effect, and courts take it into account when they decide whether a criminal response is justified.
The concern goes beyond the individual case. A pattern of arrests and prosecutions for peaceful protest could deter others from demonstrating at all. That is why courts look critically at whether a prosecution was necessary, even when the offence itself is proven.
When is a road blockade punishable?
A blockade is punishable when it goes beyond the level of nuisance that must be accepted from a demonstration, particularly if it creates real danger for others. A short, peaceful sit-in without damage is assessed differently from a prolonged blockade that endangers traffic.
On 21 May 2026, the District Court of The Hague convicted an activist who had twice blocked the A12 motorway with parked vehicles. During one blockade, an ambulance with lights and sirens had great difficulty getting through. The court convicted the activist of causing danger and obstruction under Article 5 WVW 1994 (ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2026:12915).
What rules apply to an emergency order from the mayor?
When a mayor uses an emergency order (noodbevel) under Article 175 of the Municipalities Act (Gemeentewet) instead of the ordinary WOM powers, stricter requirements apply. The emergency order needs sound reasoning and, where at all possible, careful preparation.
The Amsterdam Court of Appeal held this on 26 November 2024 and acquitted all 70 defendants in a case about a demonstration (ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2024:3747). Emergency powers are a last resort: if the mayor could have used the ordinary WOM powers, an emergency order will not easily hold up.
The same court also noted that a failure to comply with an order of the mayor under the WOM is itself an offence under Article 11 WOM. Such an order can therefore only be prosecuted under Article 11 WOM, and not as failure to comply with an official order under Article 184 Sr. Errors about the legal basis of an order can therefore lead to acquittal.
Are organisers liable for what participants do?
Not simply because they organised the demonstration. Criminal liability requires that you commit an offence yourself, or that you are a co-perpetrator, which means close and conscious cooperation with a contribution of sufficient weight to the specific offence.
That threshold can be met. On 27 January 2026, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of an organiser of protests against a wind farm for co-perpetrating coercion, because he had played a substantial role in preparing intimidating letters to companies: he instructed the printer, advised on the content, selected the target companies and collected the addresses (ECLI:NL:HR:2026:115).
The lesson for organisers is that being present, arranging logistics or publicly defending a demonstration does not in itself make you liable for offences committed by others. Actively contributing to a specific offence does.
How can you challenge a decision by the mayor?
You can object (bezwaar) to a decision under the WOM, such as a condition, restriction or ban, within six weeks (Article 6:7 of the General Administrative Law Act, Awb), and then appeal to the administrative court. Because a demonstration usually takes place before that procedure is finished, a request to the preliminary relief judge of the district court for a provisional measure (voorlopige voorziening, Article 8:81 Awb) is often the most effective remedy.
Even after the demonstration has taken place, you can usually still have the lawfulness of the decision reviewed. A ruling that the decision was unlawful can support a claim for damages against the municipality.
If you have been arrested or prosecuted, the questions are different: was the order lawful, was it directed at you, and was the total response proportionate? These points can lead to acquittal or discharge, as the Supreme Court ruling of 30 September 2025 shows.
What should you check as a participant?
As a participant you are protected by Article 9 of the Constitution, but you remain responsible for your own acts. Check these points before and during a demonstration:
- Whether the mayor has set conditions or restrictions for the demonstration, and what they say about time and place.
- Whether an order you receive comes from the mayor under the WOM or from the police, and whether it is directed at you.
- That you do not damage property or create danger for traffic, which falls under Article 5 WVW 1994.
- If you are arrested: that you use your right to consult a lawyer before the police interview.
- If you receive a penalty order (strafbeschikking): that you lodge an objection within 14 days if you dispute it.
What should you check as an organiser?
As an organiser you deal with the mayor before the demonstration and can be held liable for your own contribution to offences. Check these points:
- That you notify the mayor in writing within the period set in the municipal by-law under Article 4 WOM.
- That the notice states the date, time, route or location and the expected number of participants.
- That any conditions imposed are reasoned and based on health, traffic or the prevention of disorder (Article 2 WOM).
- That you lodge an objection and, if needed, request a provisional measure as soon as a ban or condition is announced.
- That your own communications and preparations do not contribute to a specific offence, such as coercion or threats.
What can we do for you with the right to demonstrate?
Our criminal law team assists participants and organisers in criminal and administrative proceedings.
- We assess whether an order or emergency order (noodbevel) had a valid legal basis.
- We object to a condition, restriction or ban by the mayor within the six-week deadline.
- We request a provisional measure from the preliminary relief judge before the demonstration takes place.
- We defend you in criminal proceedings and argue that the total response was disproportionate under Articles 10 and 11 ECHR.
- We object to a penalty order with the Public Prosecution Service within 14 days.
Summary
- Article 9 of the Constitution and Article 11 ECHR protect peaceful demonstrations; nuisance and disruption do not remove that protection.
- Restrictions must have a basis in the WOM or another formal statute and may only serve health, traffic or the prevention of disorder.
- You can be prosecuted for your own criminal acts, such as damage or dangerous blockades, but the total response must be proportionate.
- Emergency orders require sound reasoning and careful preparation; an order under the WOM can only be prosecuted under Article 11 WOM.
- Organisers are not liable for others merely because they organised, but can be co-perpetrators if they contribute substantially to an offence.
Frequently asked questions
Can the police simply remove me from a demonstration?
Not without a reason. Removal must be based on an order or measure with a proper legal basis, usually the mayor’s powers under the WOM, and must serve health, traffic or the prevention of disorder. The measure must also be proportionate. Removal is often a less far-reaching alternative to arrest.
Can I be prosecuted if I do not comply with an order?
Only if the order had a sufficient legal basis, was clear and was directed at you. The criminal court also assesses whether the total response, including arrest, prosecution and punishment, was proportionate. For a peaceful protest without damage, that assessment can lead to a discharge from all further prosecution, even if the non-compliance is proven.
Is a road blockade always punishable?
No. The court assesses whether the blockade goes beyond the normal nuisance of a demonstration and whether it caused real danger or damage. A prolonged blockade with vehicles that obstructed an ambulance was held punishable in 2026; a short, peaceful sit-in is assessed more leniently.
Can a mayor ban a demonstration?
Yes, but only on the grounds listed in Article 2 WOM: health, traffic or the prevention of disorder. A ban is a last resort, and the court checks the reasoning, proportionality and whether less far-reaching measures were available.
Can I object to a decision of the mayor about my demonstration?
Yes. You can lodge an objection with the mayor within six weeks and then appeal to the administrative court. Because the demonstration usually takes place first, a request to the preliminary relief judge for a provisional measure is often the most effective step.
