The Supreme Court in the media

Export of F-35 parts to Israel
On 03 October 2025, the Supreme Court rendered judgment in the case on the export and transit of parts for F-35 fighter aircraft to Israel. Briefly put, the Supreme Court held that the minister should re-do the reassessment of the F-35 export licence in parts. This case saw many enquiries from the national and international media during the cassation proceedings. Due to this interest, a livestream was used at the oral arguments in 2024, which could be followed in Dutch and English. The decision was accompanied by a press release also made available in English.

Increase in corporate income tax interest rate to 8%
Another case that saw a lot of attention were the cassation proceedings related to the level of the corporate income tax interest rate. Under the Overdue and Overpaid Tax Interest Rate Decree (Besluit belasting- en invorderingsrente), the tax interest rate for corporate income tax was increased to 8% with effect from 1 January 2022. Previously, the interest rate was at 4% or lower. The District Court of Noord-Nederland ruled in November 2024 that the 8% interest rate was too high and thus in violation of the proportionality principle. The State Secretary of Finance disagreed with this decision and initiated a leapfrogging appeal to the Supreme Court in December 2024. In a leapfrogging appeal, the parties agree that the dispute will be submitted directly to the Supreme Court (skipping the regular appeal) after the District Court's decision. The State Secretary designated all objections against the increased tax interest rate charged as a "mass objection".

In preparation of its decision, the Supreme Court in May 2025 gave everyone the opportunity to "share their thoughts". To this end, the Supreme Court published a press release requesting input from "amicus curiae". For the Supreme Court's Tax Division, this case was the first in which the amicus procedure was used.

The Advocate General (AG) included the comments of these third parties in his advisory opinion. The opinion was published on 1 October 2025 with a press release. The AG advised the Supreme Court to declare the increase in the tax interest rate not binding because, in his opinion, the Legislature had exceeded the regulatory power delegated to it by increasing the rate. The Supreme Court rendered judgment in January 2026.

Uber
Preliminary ruling proceedings also have the interest of the press and the public. This was particularly true in 2025 for the preliminary ruling proceedings concerning Uber. In a case between Uber and FNV, the Court of Appeal of Amsterdam referred questions about the status of Uber drivers' working relationship to the Supreme Court for a preliminary ruling. Questions included the meaning of entrepreneurship when answering the question of whether a working relationship qualifies as an employment contract.

On 21 February 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that when assessing whether it concerns an employment contract, there is no order of precedence between the circumstances to be considered, including any "entrepreneurship" of the worker. A press release was published with the judgment.

Online gambling
Another case involving preliminary ruling proceedings that were closely followed by society concerned agreements for online gambling without a licence. The District Courts of Amsterdam and Noord-Holland referred questions to the Supreme Court for a preliminary ruling in two cases concerning online gambling involving, in particular, the question of whether games of chance agreements with providers offering games of chance online without a licence are invalid for that reason. This was important to participants who lost money with online gambling.

On 28 November 2025, the Advocate General issued his advisory opinion on the matters. A press release was published with the opinions. Judgment is expected in 2026.

There was also media coverage for some of the special duties of the Procurator General (PG) at the Supreme Court.

Supervision reports on the duties performed by the Public Prosecution Service
The media coverage included the investigations conducted by the PG at the Supreme Court in the context of his duty of supervision of the Public Prosecution Service. The supervision report on the duties performed by the Public Prosecution Service in the context of deciding not to prosecute criminal cases was released in July 2025. Following the presentation of the report to the Minister of Justice and Security, the report and the associated press release were published.

The PG furthermore, in March 2025, announced a follow-up investigation into the penalty order issued by the Public Prosecution Service. The announcement was made through the publication of a press release. The investigation will focus, among other things, on the intensified use of penalty orders announced by the Public Prosecution Service in February 2025. The PG had already released a report on the penalty order back in 2022.

Partly in response to the announcement of the follow-up investigation, an interview with the PG was published in a national daily newspaper in June 2025 about his supervisory duties.

Reports against members of government
The exploratory investigations conducted by the PG at the Supreme Court following reports made against members of government also drew attention.

In January 2025, two reports were made against the then-Minister of Asylum and Migration, Minister Faber, for alleged serious offences committed by a public official. 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. 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. This report also asserted that, by submitting the legislative proposal for the Asylum Emergency Measures Act and the Dual Status System Bill, the Minister acted in violation of Article 73(1) of the Constitution by, as alleged by the person reporting, giving the Council of State only one week to issue an opinion on the legislative proposals. The PG at the Supreme Court informed the Minister of Justice and Security in March 2025 that, following his exploratory investigation, he saw no basis for investigative proceedings. The exploratory investigation was published with a press release.

In October 2025, a report was made against the then-outgoing Minister of Education, Culture and Science, Mr Moes.  The report was made by somebody who at that time worked as a lecturer at Radboud University. The report asserted that Minister Moes was guilty of coercion by abuse of authority within the meaning of Article 365 of the Dutch Criminal Code, in that the Minister allegedly forced Radboud university to report the lecturer in question. The PG informed the Minister of Justice and Security in December 2025 that, following his exploratory investigation, he saw no basis for investigative proceedings. The exploratory investigation was published with a press release.