Dutch law addresses racism through two separate legal tracks. The criminal track punishes public insult of a group, incitement to hatred, discrimination or violence, and the dissemination of such statements, under Articles 137c to 137e of the Dutch Criminal Code. The civil and equal treatment track prohibits distinction on grounds of race in employment, education, housing and the supply of goods and services under the General Equal Treatment Act, and is enforced through the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights and the civil courts. The two tracks have different thresholds, different procedures and different outcomes, and choosing the right one is the first practical decision anyone in this position has to make.
This article sets out what each track covers, what has to be proved and by whom, which body decides, and which deadlines apply. It is written as a description of the legal position, not as a commentary on the social debate.
The starting point: Article 1 of the Constitution
Article 1 of the Dutch Constitution provides that all persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal circumstances and prohibits discrimination on grounds including race, religion, belief, political opinion, sex and any other ground. The Constitution binds the legislature and public authorities; it does not, on its own, give an individual a claim against a private party. The enforceable rules are found in the ordinary legislation that gives effect to it, and it is those rules that determine the outcome of a concrete case.
Two further layers apply directly in the Netherlands. Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, read with the substantive rights in that convention, and Protocol No 12, prohibit discrimination by public authorities. European Union law prohibits discrimination on grounds of racial or ethnic origin in employment and beyond, and the Dutch equal treatment legislation implements those directives.
What race means in this context
The term race in Dutch law is not read narrowly. In line with the international convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination, it covers colour, descent and national or ethnic origin as well. That has practical consequences: a case does not fail because a distinction was described as being based on origin, appearance, accent or nationality rather than on race in a biological sense.
The law distinguishes two forms of distinction. Direct distinction occurs where a person is treated less favourably than another is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on a protected ground. Indirect distinction occurs where an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice puts persons of a particular race at a particular disadvantage. The difference matters because direct distinction on grounds of race can only be justified in the narrow cases the statute itself allows, while indirect distinction is permitted where it is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary.
The criminal track: Articles 137c to 137e of the Criminal Code
Dutch criminal law does not punish racist opinions as such. It punishes specific public conduct, and each of the three main provisions has its own elements.
- Article 137c makes it an offence to make an intentionally insulting statement in public, orally or in writing or by image, about a group of people on account of, among other grounds, their race or their religion or belief. The statement must concern a group rather than an individual, and it must be made publicly.
- Article 137d makes it an offence to incite hatred against, discrimination against, or violent conduct towards persons on account of, among other grounds, their race. The elements are different: incitement does not require the statement to be insulting, and its focus is on the effect the speaker seeks to produce.
- Article 137e makes it an offence, otherwise than for the purpose of factual reporting, to publish or disseminate a statement that one knows or has serious reason to suspect is insulting to a group or incites hatred, discrimination or violence, or to hold such material in stock for that purpose. This is the provision that catches distribution rather than authorship.
Two further provisions belong here. Article 137f penalises participation in, or support for, activities directed at discrimination against persons on account of their race, and discrimination in the exercise of an office, profession or business is a separate offence. The Criminal Code contains its own definition of discrimination for these purposes, which is the yardstick the courts apply.
Where an insult is directed at one identifiable individual rather than at a group, the applicable provision is simple insult under Article 266 of the Criminal Code. That distinction matters procedurally: insult is prosecuted only on a formal complaint by the person concerned, and that complaint must be lodged within three months of the moment the person became aware of the offence. The group offences in Articles 137c to 137e are not complaint offences and can be prosecuted on the initiative of the Public Prosecution Service.
The limits of the criminal track
The threshold is high, and it is meant to be. Freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects statements that shock, offend or disturb, and the Dutch courts assess a statement in its context: what was said, to whom, in what setting, and whether the statement contributed to a public debate. A statement that is unnecessarily hurtful outside any such context is treated differently from a sharply worded contribution to a debate on a matter of public interest.
Where a racist motive underlies another offence, such as assault, threat or damage to property, that motive is not an element of the offence but the Public Prosecution Service treats it as an aggravating factor in the sentence it demands, in accordance with its published prosecution policy. Reporting the motive as part of the report of the underlying offence is therefore important.
Reporting: how the criminal route actually runs
A report to the police (aangifte) starts the criminal route. It can be made at any police station, and for some offences online. Report the underlying offence and state expressly that a discriminatory motive played a part, because that is what determines how the file is registered and assessed. Ask for a copy of the report.
Every municipality is required by law to provide access to an anti-discrimination service, and those services give free advice and support, help formulate a complaint and can act as an intermediary. They also register reports, which matters at the collective level even where an individual case goes no further. For statements published online, reports can also be made to the national reporting point for discrimination on the internet.
The Public Prosecution Service decides whether to prosecute. If it decides not to, an interested party can lodge a complaint with the court of appeal under Article 12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the court can order that a prosecution be brought. That procedure is written, takes time, and is the only route by which a decision not to prosecute can be challenged.
A victim of a criminal offence can join the criminal proceedings as an injured party and claim compensation there, provided the claim does not place a disproportionate burden on the criminal case. Where the claim is complex, the criminal court will refer it to the civil court, which is one of several reasons the civil track is often the more productive one.
The General Equal Treatment Act
The General Equal Treatment Act (Algemene wet gelijke behandeling, AWGB) prohibits distinction on grounds including race and nationality, and it is the instrument that applies to most everyday situations. Its scope is defined by area rather than by conduct.
- Employment in the broad sense: recruitment and selection, the terms of employment, promotion, training, working conditions and termination, and it applies to employees, civil servants and, in defined respects, to the self-employed engaged to perform work.
- Education, membership of professional associations and trade unions, and the practice of a liberal profession.
- The offering of goods and services and the conclusion of contracts about them, where this is done in the exercise of a business or profession or by the public sector. Housing falls within this category, which is why refusing a tenant on grounds of origin is covered.
The Act works with a limited set of exceptions and they are narrow. A distinction that is directly based on race can only be justified where the Act itself allows it; the general escape of objective justification is available for indirect distinction alone. Terms in a contract that conflict with the Act are void, and the Act protects a person who has complained or given evidence against being disadvantaged for doing so, which in an employment relationship means that a dismissal in response to a complaint is itself unlawful.
Alongside the AWGB, the Civil Code contains equal treatment provisions for particular grounds and situations, and separate statutes cover distinction on grounds of age, disability or chronic illness and the distinction between fixed-term and permanent or full-time and part-time work. A single set of facts frequently engages more than one of them, and the choice of instrument affects both the forum and the remedy.
The Netherlands Institute for Human Rights
The Netherlands Institute for Human Rights (College voor de Rechten van de Mens) assesses individual complaints of unequal treatment under the equal treatment legislation. The procedure is free, it does not require a lawyer, and the complaint can be submitted in writing by the person concerned, by a person who wants to know whether their own conduct complies, by a works council or by an interest group. The Institute can also open an investigation on its own initiative into systematic distinction.
The Institute holds a hearing and issues a reasoned opinion (oordeel). That opinion is not binding and cannot be enforced, and the Institute cannot award damages or annul a decision. Its practical value lies elsewhere. Opinions are published, they are followed in a substantial proportion of cases, and an opinion finding prohibited distinction is a significant piece of evidence if the matter afterwards goes to the civil court, which is free to reach its own conclusion but rarely does so without engaging with the Institute’s reasoning.
The Institute is therefore best understood as a low-threshold route to an authoritative finding, not as an alternative to litigation where compensation or an enforceable order is the aim. Where speed and enforceability matter, for example where a dismissal has to be challenged within a statutory period, proceedings must be started in the courts regardless of what the Institute may later decide.
The civil track and the burden of proof
The civil court can do what the Institute cannot: award damages, declare a decision void, order a party to stop conduct on pain of a penalty payment, and annul a dismissal. The claim is normally framed as unlawful conduct under Article 6:162 of the Dutch Civil Code, as a breach of the equal treatment legislation, or in an employment context as a breach of the employer’s duty to act as a good employer.
The decisive feature of this track is the shifted burden of proof. Under Article 10 paragraph 1 of the General Equal Treatment Act, a person who claims to have been the subject of prohibited distinction must first adduce facts capable of giving rise to a presumption that such distinction has been made. If they succeed, the burden moves to the other party, which must then prove that it did not act in breach of the Act. The same rule applies before the Institute and in the equal treatment provisions of the Civil Code.
What this means in practice is often misunderstood on both sides. The claimant does not have to prove discrimination; they have to make it plausible enough to require an explanation. Rejection immediately after the origin of the applicant became apparent, a statement recorded in an email, a pattern in the treatment of comparable cases, or an unexplained departure from the employer’s own procedure can each be enough to raise the presumption. Once it is raised, the respondent has to demonstrate a non-discriminatory reason, and vague assertions about fit or about a better candidate rarely discharge that burden. Contemporaneous documentation of the actual reason is what decides these cases.
Discrimination in the workplace
The employment context has its own layer of obligations, and they run further than the prohibition itself. Under the Working Conditions Act the employer must pursue a policy aimed at preventing psychosocial workload, and discrimination is expressly part of that concept alongside harassment, aggression, bullying and work pressure. The risk assessment and evaluation must address it, and where the risk is present the employer must take measures and record them in a plan of action.
In practical terms that means a complaints procedure that is accessible and confidential, a confidential counsellor or an equivalent point of contact, and a demonstrable response when a complaint is made. An employer who receives a complaint and does nothing is exposed on two fronts: for the underlying distinction, and separately for failing in its duty as an employer to provide a safe working environment. Our article on workplace harassment sets out how those complaint procedures should work.
An employee who is dismissed after raising a complaint is in a stronger position than they often realise, because the equal treatment legislation protects against detriment for having complained, and because a dismissal in reaction to a complaint is difficult for an employer to justify on any other basis. The statutory deadline is unforgiving: a petition contesting the termination must reach the subdistrict court within two months of the day the employment contract ended. Our overviews of employment discrimination law in the Netherlands and of employee rights deal with the surrounding rules.
Recruitment deserves a separate note because the law here is often misstated. A bill that would have imposed a supervised duty on employers and intermediaries to operate a documented, non-discriminatory recruitment procedure was rejected by the Senate on 26 March 2024, and a further initiative bill on the subject has since been introduced. Until such a statute is passed and enters into force, there is no general statutory supervisory regime for recruitment procedures. What does apply is the prohibition itself: a rejection on grounds of race is unlawful whether or not the procedure was documented, and the Labour Inspectorate has enforcement powers in relation to working conditions policy.
Deadlines and evidence
Three periods matter and they are easy to miss.
- A complaint for the offence of insult against an individual must be lodged within three months of becoming aware of it. The group offences are not subject to a complaint period, but the ordinary limitation periods for prosecution apply.
- A claim contesting a dismissal must be filed with the subdistrict court within two months of the end of the employment contract. This period cannot be extended.
- A civil claim for damages is subject to a limitation period of five years from the day after the injured party became aware of both the damage and the person liable, and twenty years in any event.
Evidence is normally the weak point, and it degrades quickly. Record what was said, by whom, when, where and in whose presence, in writing and on the day if possible. Keep the original emails, messages and letters rather than summaries. Note the names of witnesses. Where a decision was taken, ask for the reason in writing and keep the answer, because the answer given at the time is what the other party will later have to stand behind. Do not attempt to record conversations covertly without taking advice first; the position on such recordings is more complicated than it appears and the choice can affect the whole case.
Choosing a route
The tracks can be combined, but they answer different questions. The criminal route addresses public statements and offences with a discriminatory motive, and it is the appropriate route where there is a threat, violence or a statement aimed at a group. It does not compensate the individual, and the decision to prosecute is not the complainant’s to make.
The Institute route is appropriate where the question is whether a decision by an employer, an educational institution, a landlord or a service provider amounted to prohibited distinction, and where an authoritative finding is what is needed. It is free and relatively quick, and it does not close off the civil route.
The civil route is the one to choose where compensation, annulment of a decision or an enforceable order is the objective, and it is the only route with a real deadline that must be met in employment cases. Where a dismissal is involved, that deadline decides the sequence: start the court proceedings first and consider the Institute in parallel, not the other way round. Our overview of civil litigation in the Netherlands explains the procedure, and claims for damages covers what can be recovered.
What organisations should have in place
For an employer, an educational institution or a service provider, the legal exposure is reduced by three things, and none of them is complicated.
The first is a written policy that states the prohibition, names the grounds, describes what is expected and explains how a complaint is made and handled. The second is a decision-making record: the reason for a rejection, a promotion, a refusal of service or a termination should be documented at the moment it is taken, in terms that can be shown to a third party later. That record is what answers the shifted burden of proof, and an organisation that has it usually never has to litigate. The third is a response mechanism that actually functions, with a named point of contact, a defined timeline and a written outcome.
Where a complaint arrives, the sequence matters. Acknowledge it, establish the facts before forming a view, hear both sides, keep the process confidential, and record the conclusion with reasons. Retaliation, even in the mild form of a changed rota or a withdrawn opportunity, is a separate breach and it is the point at which many files become unmanageable.
What to do next
If something has happened, the first step is to write down what occurred while it is fresh, and to secure the documents. The second is to identify what outcome you want: an acknowledgement, a change of decision, compensation, or a public finding. The third is to check whether a deadline is already running, because in employment matters it usually is.
Take advice before responding to the other party in writing where a dismissal or a formal decision is involved, because early correspondence tends to define the case. Where the facts are contested, the value of a file is decided by what was recorded in the first fortnight, and by whether the person who has to explain the decision can point to a reason that was written down before the dispute began.
Common questions about Racism in the Netherlands
Is Racism really a big problem in the Netherlands?
Yes, it is. While the Netherlands has a reputation for being tolerant, this image often obscures the reality of systemic and personal racism that many people face every day. It's not always about overt, aggressive acts; it's just as often about the subtle biases that create barriers in housing, employment, and education. For instance, multiple studies have shown that applicants with foreign-sounding names are far less likely to get a callback for a job interview than those with typically Dutch names, even when their qualifications are identical. This isn't just a one-off occurrence but a pattern that points to much deeper institutional problems. The heated public debate around traditions like Zwarte Piet also brings the issue into sharp focus. While some defend it as a harmless part of a children's festival, for many others it’s a painful caricature with roots in a colonial past. This ongoing national conversation shows just how deeply racism is woven into Dutch culture and identity.
What is the difference between racism and discrimination?
This is a really important distinction to make. It's best to think of racism as the underlying belief system or ideology. It’s the prejudiced idea that one race is superior to another, backed by the societal power to embed that belief into systems and institutions. In short, it’s the "why" behind unfair treatment. Discrimination , on the other hand, is the action that springs from that belief. It's the concrete act of treating someone unfairly because of their race. Racism is the biased framework. Discrimination is the unfair act. Let's say a company has a policy that, without explicitly stating it, puts employees from a specific ethnic background at a disadvantage. That's a form of institutional racism. When a manager then uses that policy as a reason to pass over one of those employees for a promotion, that is an act of discrimination. The two are linked—racism is the root cause, while discrimination is the harmful result.
Are microaggressions a form of Racism?
Absolutely. Microaggressions are the subtle, often unintentional, comments or actions that send hostile or negative messages to someone based on their race. To the person saying them, they might seem like harmless, isolated remarks. But for the person on the receiving end, they're part of a constant, draining pattern of behaviour. Think of it like being pricked by a needle. A single prick might not seem like much, but hundreds of them over time would cause real pain and injury. That’s what the cumulative effect of microaggressions feels like. Here are a few common examples in the Netherlands: Asking a person of colour, "No, where are you really from?" right after they've told you they're from Rotterdam. Complimenting a non-white colleague on how well they speak Dutch, with an undertone of surprise. Instinctively clutching a handbag tighter when a person from a minority group sits down nearby on the train. Actions like these reinforce the idea that some people are perpetual "foreigners," even in the country they call home. They are a very real and significant part of the everyday experience of racism.
Can I be racist without realising it?
Yes, and this is where the concept of unconscious bias (or implicit bias) comes in. We all hold stereotypes and attitudes about different groups of people without even being consciously aware of them. Our brains develop these mental shortcuts to process information faster, but they're often built on societal prejudices we've picked up throughout our lives. Having an unconscious bias doesn't make you a "bad person." It simply means recognising that we all have blind spots shaped by our upbringing, the media we see, and the society we live in. A classic example is a hiring manager who is convinced they are being totally objective. Yet, their unconscious bias might make them feel a stronger "cultural fit" with a candidate who happens to share their own background. This isn't intentional racism, but the result is the same: a less qualified person might land the job over someone more deserving from a different ethnic group. The first step in fighting this is to simply acknowledge these biases exist in all of us, and then to take active steps to challenge them.
What should I do if I see someone else experiencing Racism?
Being an active bystander is one of the most effective ways to push back against racism. When you do nothing, it sends a message that the behaviour is okay. That said, your safety and the safety of the person being targeted must always come first. If you feel it's safe to step in, here are a few things you can do: Directly address the behaviour. Calmly and firmly say something like, "That's not an acceptable thing to say," or "Please stop." Create a distraction. You can interrupt the situation by asking the person being targeted for the time or for directions. This can break the tension and give them a chance to move away. Offer support afterwards. If intervening in the moment doesn't feel safe, make a point to check in with the person who was targeted once it's over. Ask if they're okay and if there's anything you can do to help. Report the incident. If it's appropriate, report what happened to an authority figure, whether that's a manager, a security guard, or the police. Whatever you choose to do, your action—no matter how small—can make a world of difference to the person on the receiving end, letting them know they aren't alone.
Law & More advises individuals and organisations in the Netherlands on discrimination on grounds of race, in employment and in the supply of goods and services. We assess which track fits the case, prepare complaints to the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights, conduct proceedings before the civil and subdistrict courts, and advise employers on policy, complaint procedures and decision-making records. Contact our employment law team to discuss your situation.
