Verbieden van organisaties: een onderzoek naar het verbieden van rechtspersonen en andere organisaties in het Nederlandse, Duitse en Franse recht in het licht van de verenigingsvrijheid

Throughout centuries, the Dutch legal framework allows the State to prohibit organizations perceived as threats to society to safeguard public safety. Initially, the regulation concerned primarily targeted revolutionary groups presumably endangering the established order. Nowadays, the focus has shifted mainly towards criminal, terrorist, and antidemocratic organizations. Currently, Dutch law provides for two methods for prohibiting organizations. Firstly, the civil court is empowered, at the request of the Public Prosecution Service, to prohibit organizations whose activities or objectives are in violation of public order. Secondly, organizations can be automatically prohibited if they are listed on EU/UN sanction lists. However, banning organizations interferes with the right to freedom of association, a fundamental right protected by the Dutch constitution and international treaties. This right is considered vital to any democratic state, allowing like-minded individuals to organize and unite collectively in, for example, political parties. This research examines whether the Dutch legal framework governing the prohibition of organizations complies with constitutional and international legal standards for restricting this right. The analysis reveals that this is not always the case. Major conclusions, for example, are that the ground for banning organizations and the articulation of the (criminal) legal consequences of banning organizations, suffer from too much ambiguity. This significantly compromises legal certainty, a key principle in a democratic state under the rule of law. Drawing on a comparative analysis of German and French law, this research proposes recommendations for improving the Dutch legal framework governing the prohibition of organizations across these and other crucial aspects.