Strafrechtelijke vervolging

Exploratory investigations in response to reports against Minister Faber

In 2025, the Procurator General has, among other things, conducted exploratory investigations further to two reports against the now-former Minister of Asylum and Migration, Minister Faber.

In the reports, it was asserted that there were crimes involving abuse of office within the meaning of Articles 355 and 356 Dutch Criminal Code (intentional or grossly negligent acts or omissions by ministers and state secretaries in contravention of the Constitution or other laws). Articles 355 and 356 Dutch Criminal Code date from 1840, a time when the concept of political ministerial responsibility did not yet exist. In a recent legislative proposal, the Abuses of Office by Members of Parliament and Administrators Reform Act, it is proposed to delete these two criminal provisions, among other things because according to today’s standards it is highly doubtful whether it is possible to secure a conviction for these generally worded criminal provisions. In the exploratory investigations, the Procurator General therefore primarily held that the criminal provisions must be interpreted restrictively and must be applied with considerable constraint. In this respect it should be taken into account that criminal prosecution will be to no avail if the criminal provisions are deleted in the meantime.

In the first report it was asserted that Minister Faber intentionally failed to offer protection to asylum seekers and employees at the asylum reception centre in Ter Apel. According to the person making the report, the Minister committed the crime involving abuse of office within the meaning of Article 355 at 4° Dutch Criminal Code (the intentional failure to give effect to the provisions of the Constitution or other Acts of Parliament (…), insofar as such implementation, due to the nature of the subject matter, falls within its remit or has been expressly entrusted to it). According to the Procurator General, the report and the documents involved in the exploratory investigation did not provide sufficient grounds for the assertion that there was a suspicion that the minister intentionally failed to provide protection to asylum seekers and employees at the asylum reception centre in Ter Apel and thereby intentionally failed to give effect to provisions of the Constitution or orders in council. The exploratory investigation yielded no leads for a criminal investigation.

The second report alleged that the Minister was acting in violation of Article 21 of the Convention on Refugees, combined with Article 93 of the Constitution, by failing to provide proper accommodation for refugees. It was also asserted in this report that the Minister had violated Article 73(1) of the Constitution in submitting the Asylum Emergency Measures Legislative Proposal and the Dual Status Legislative Proposal. The person making the report asserted that the Minister was thus guilty of crimes involving abuse of office within the meaning of Articles 355 and 356 Dutch Criminal Code. According to the Procurator General, this report also did not provide sufficient leads for a criminal investigation. Article 73(1) of the Constitution provides that the Council of State - subject to exceptions to be determined by law - shall be heard on legislative proposals. The person making the report asserted that the Minister had violated this provision, as she had given the Council of State insufficient time (a one-week deadline) to provide a full opinion. However, requests for opinions were pending before the Council of State on the said legislative proposals as of 20 December 2024. These opinions had been adopted on 5 February 2025 and were published on 10 February 2025. Therefore, according to the procurator general, the report did not provide sufficient evidence to support the claim that there was a violation of Article 73(1) of the Constitution. With regard to the allegation of acting in violation of Article 21 Convention on Refugees, in combination with Article 93 of the Constitution, by which the Minister would be guilty of crimes involving abuse of office as referred to in Articles 355 and 356 Dutch Criminal Code, the investigation did not reveal any leads for a criminal investigation either.

Here (Reporting of exploratory investigations further to reports against administrators or Members of Parliament - Supreme Court) you can read the reporting on the exploratory investigations.

Exploratory investigation in response to report against Minister Moes

Also, the Procurator General conducted an exploratory investigation in 2025 in response to a report against former (outgoing) Minister of Education, Culture and Science, Minister Moes.

The report was made by somebody who at that time worked as a lecturer at Radboud University. In the report it was asserted that Minister Moes was guilty of coercion by abuse of authority within the meaning of Article 365 of the Dutch Criminal Code. The person making the report based this on the fact that the Minister had made remarks in a television programme through which he allegedly forced Radboud University to file a report against him as a lecturer.

The report was tailored to the completed crime of Article 365 Dutch Criminal Code. However, a completed crime under that provision only exists if the abuse of authority has led to the intended result. As it could be assumed that the university had not filed a report, the situation did not arise that the Minister had forced Radboud University (by abuse of authority) to file a report. For that reason alone, there was no suspicion of the completed crime of Article 365 Dutch Criminal Code. Given the purport of the report, the Procurator General also considered whether there was a reasonable suspicion of guilt of an attempt to coerce by abuse of authority.

The investigation did not provide any leads that the Minister, through his statements, had exerted such pressure on the university’s board that there was an attempt to abuse authority within the meaning of Article 365 of the Dutch Criminal Code. The Minister’s statements should be understood against the background of debates with the Dutch House of Representatives about safety at universities and the Minister’s powers when protests at universities get out of hand or the safety of students and the staff is at stake. The investigation did not provide any leads for a reasonable suspicion that the Minister intended to exceed the limits of their authority.

Here (Reporting of exploratory investigations further to reports against administrators or Members of Parliament - Supreme Court) you can read the reporting on the exploratory investigations.

Ongoing exploratory investigation

The previous annual report already mentioned an intended exploratory investigation following reports made against several (former) Ministers for (among other things) complicity in war crimes committed by Israel by (among other things) supplying Israel with spare parts for F-35 fighter jets. The Procurator General awaited the outcome of the cassation proceedings in a civil case concerning whether the export and transit from the Netherlands to Israel of components of F-35 fighter planes should be halted, and whether the courts can issue an order to the Dutch State to that effect. The Supreme Court rendered its judgment in that case on 3 October 2025 (see https://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2025:1435). After this judgment, the Procurator General started his exploratory investigation. The results are expected in the course of 2026.

Letters

In 2025, the Procurator General received two letters from people wishing to file reports against government administrators because they disagreed with political decisions or policies made. The Procurator General did not consider these letters as reports within the meaning of Article 2(a) of the Protocol because, in his opinion, they did not constitute reports that related to specific conduct constituting a particular criminal offence.