Unfortunately, the court decided against the PILP-NJCM and the Afghan 1F’er in the 1F case. The decision was based on procedural arguments and not on a substantial review. The PILP-NJCM and the 1F’er do not agree with these procedural arguments and will therefore appeal the decision.

There is a positive note to this unfortunate decision: the PILP-NJCM was found to have standing to represent the interests, or human rights, it represents in its articles of association.

The PILP-NJCM and the 1F’er filed a lawsuit against the Dutch State for a violation of EU law: the Council of State, the highest authority in the Netherlands regarding immigration affairs, violated EU legislation by not conducting an individual investigation into the personal situation of the 1F’er, and by neglecting to submit a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg.

In the Netherlands, a few hundred Afghans are labelled with 1F-status by the government due to the presumption that they committed war crimes: they are barred from obtaining a residence permit and cannot return to their country. Some of them are stuck in the Netherlands for over 15 years. This Dutch policy is severely criticised, as there is no individual investigation into whether the Afghan refugees actually committed war crimes.

The lawyers in this case are Martijn Snoep and Laura di Bella of De Brauw, Marieke van Eik of Prakken D’Oliveira and Jelle Klaas of the PILP.

You can read more about this case in our file on Afghans and the 1F-procedure.