RICO ACT DUTCH CARIBBEAN STYLE: Administrative Prohibition of Undermining Organisations Act:
May 20, 2025
The Senate debated a House of Representatives initiative bill on Tuesday 20 May to administratively ban undermining organisations. The law is mainly aimed at motorcycle gangs. Derk Boswijk (CDA), Wendy van Eijk (VVD) and Diederik van Dijk (SGP) defended the law on behalf of the House of Representatives, while Minister Van Weel of Justice and Security acted as an advisor to the House. The Senate will vote on the proposal on Tuesday 27 May.
In short
Many spokespeople discussed the changes in society since the bill was submitted in 2018. In the seven years that followed, seven motorcycle gangs were banned and a tightening of legislation came into effect in 2022. The court also decided to ban more quickly than at the time of submission. They therefore asked whether there is still any use and necessity for the law. According to the initiators, the bill is still necessary. At the end of last year, it became apparent that members of banned motorcycle clubs were setting up new clubs or switching. And there too, they are continuing their undermining activities.
A number of senators were concerned about the infringement that the bill constitutes on the fundamental right of freedom of expression as laid down in the Constitution. They asked whether this infringement of fundamental rights does not constitute a sliding scale. The same applies to the decision to impose a ban with the minister and not with the judge. Some members of the House are concerned that the law could possibly be politically abused to ban other organisations than motorcycle gangs. According to the submitters, there are no comparable organisations in the Netherlands that have the same activities and structure as motorcycle gangs. However, according to them, it is not inconceivable that a certain organisation could develop in this way. That is why motorcycle gangs are not explicitly mentioned in the bill.
Proponents of the bill, like the initiators, see that the bill is necessary to tackle undermining organisations. They see it as an addition to the existing means to ban such organisations through the courts and thus protect society against undermining and disruption. The minister also shares this analysis. He said that the administrative procedure proposed in the law and the authority it creates offer a further possibility to tackle undermining organisations.
About the bill
The law was submitted in 2018 by members of the House of Representatives from the PvdA, CDA, VVD, ChristenUnie and SGP and gives the minister the authority to ban subversive organisations. Subversive organisations are organisations that create, promote or maintain a culture of lawlessness, which makes them a serious threat to the safety of citizens and to public authority. With this proposal, the initiators specifically focus on banning criminal motorcycle gangs, so-called Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs (OMGs), and similar organisations.
With this proposal, the initiators want to accelerate the procedure for banning organisations that undermine society. Furthermore, the initiators propose, among other things, to include rules on attributing behaviour to the organisation and to explicitly stipulate that political parties, religious communities and trade unions cannot be banned under administrative law. On 1 April 2025, it was announced that GroenLinks-PvdA and ChristenUnie withdrew as co-submitters.
Initiative proposal-Boswijk, Van Eijk and Diederik van Dijk Law on administrative prohibition of undermining organisations (35.079)
Impression of the debate
GroenLinks-PvdA: Far-reaching infringement of freedom of association
Senator Recourt said that citizens and the democratic constitutional state must be protected from organisations that want to undermine society. But, he continued, this law is a far-reaching infringement of the constitutional freedom of association. The possibility to ban associations has already been tightened as of 1 January 2022. Recourt therefore asked what shows that this tightening of the law is insufficient. Moreover, the restriction of the freedom of association must be sufficiently evident from the law itself. And that is not the case, according to the PvdA senator. He is also concerned about the role of the judge. With the current law, the civil judge reviews a ban in advance. With this law, this happens afterwards. According to Recourt, there is a danger that a ban will be drawn into politics. According to the initiators, this only concerns motorcycle gangs and similar organisations. But what is meant by similar organisations, Recourt asked.
D66: Governing by decree
Popularly, it concerns a ban on outlaw motorcycle gangs (OMGs): criminal motorcycle gangs. The Public Prosecution Service (OM) states, as Senator Dittrich said , that the problem of the OMGs still exists, just in a somewhat fragmented way. Motorcycle gangs can already be prosecuted under criminal law. Moreover, there has been a tightening up since 2022. Dittrich pointed to another bill that is being processed by parliament, the Transparency and Combating Undermining by Social Organisations Act . Is this private member’s bill still necessary after this proposal from the government, Dittrich asked. The private member’s bill is a serious violation of the Constitution. Haste makes waste. In the documents, the initiators do qualify the speed. However, the D66 faction is not yet convinced of this law. It is, as it were, governing by decree: with the stroke of a pen, a minister in the Netherlands can ban an association.
CDA: Judge can annul minister’s decision
According to Senator Doornhof , a judge cannot impose a ban too lightly. The aim of this bill is that a minister can also do this. In practice, this will happen if a mayor requests it. If you look at the changes that the bill has undergone after the adoption of an amendment by the House of Representatives, the CDA faction understands that the minister says that it mainly concerns motorcycle gangs. If the minister does not take the democratic constitutional state very seriously, the judge may annul that decision, Doornhof said. The judge will look at the legal framework, such as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This bill is focused on motorcycle gangs. The Public Prosecution Service is not completely out of the picture, because the minister has the obligation to first hear the Board of Attorneys General. The CDA faction is in favour of this proposal.
JA21: Whoever undermines must be banned
Senator Van Bijsterveld sees the bill as a supplementary instrument. According to her, if you are against this supplementary instrument, you are naive. It is time to act. JA21 applauds the aim of this bill. The right to association is an absolute right, but can be restricted. Van Bijsterveld continued: ‘The rule of law should not be a safe haven for the glorification of violence, intimidation or the glorification of terror. This ban is not limited to motorcycle gangs. It can and should be applied to other similar criminal or extremist organisations. Whether they drive in leather or call for the beheading of Jews.’ The administrative ban is explicitly intended as a supplement to the civil ban. If you abide by the law and the legal order, you have nothing to fear. Anyone who undermines must be banned, according to Van Bijsterveld. She asked the initiators how they view the withdrawal by GroenLinks-PvdA and ChristenUnie.
Christian Union: Doubts about added value
Senator Talsma reflected on the proposal with the fundamental right of freedom of association as an unchanged background. According to him, the fact that the ban can also be applied under administrative law is not up for discussion. The question is whether the bill offers added value. According to the initiators, the most important advantage is the time saved. But in the meantime, the civil law procedure has changed and accelerated, according to Talsma. He continued on the point of legal protection in advance and legal protection afterwards. Does the minister not consider it better to safeguard the improvements than to organize a parallel procedure with this bill, he asked. The state of the legislation is different, but the scope of application has also changed. The ban on seven OMGs has had its effect. Talsma asked whether the initiators agree with him that the urgency of the past is not there to the same extent now. Is this infringement necessary in a democratic society? The Christian Union faction is not convinced in advance.
PVV: Disproportionate means
Senator Bezaan is also critical. The bill seems sympathetic at first glance, but according to her the means are disproportionate. The initiators claim that action can be taken more quickly and efficiently against subversive organisations. The definition of subversive organisations is very broad. On the basis of which criteria is it determined that this means is used, Bezaan asked. She also wanted to know why a limitation to the OMGs is not explicitly included in the bill. Who prevents this arrangement from being abused for political vendettas? How is coordination between the Public Prosecution Service and the ministry? How is it guaranteed that retrospective assessment does not lead to irreparable damage for associations? According to Bezaan, the bill lacks a clear assessment of proportionality and subsidiarity. According to her, the bill is an open invitation to arbitrariness, the PVV faction opposes this.
VVD: Instrument for combating undermining organisations
Senator Meijer pointed out that the motives within OMGs have changed: from brotherhood to criminality. The VVD faction looks at this bill against that background. He asked for the initiators’ view of the bill’s procedure, in particular the withdrawal by GroenLinks-PvdA and ChristenUnie. He sees the tension between the bill and the Constitution. Freedom of association is a great asset. According to Meijer, it goes without saying that it must be done carefully by means of file formation. The amendment by the House of Representatives is an improvement. The judge also has the final say in the case of an administrative ban. Article 3 of the bill regulates which organisations may not be banned administratively. Meijer asked the minister whether he agrees with the initiators that in case of doubt he will refrain from an administrative ban and prefer the civil court. The VVD faction sees the bill as one of the instruments in the arsenal to combat undermining organisations.
BBB: Prior judicial review is lacking
Senator Van Gasteren outlined the balancing act of the bill: on the one hand, fundamental rights are being tampered with, on the other hand, there is a reason for this. If it is so important, why is it taking so long, he asked. Apparently, everything has been able to function well over the past seven years. On what points has it gone wrong in recent years and is this law still necessary, he asked. The BBB faction misses the judicial review in advance. Van Gasteren asked whether any thought has been given to a form of judicial review in advance? Due to the lack of judicial review in advance, there is a chance that it can be abused. The BBB faction also believes that there are too many open standards in the law. What prevents the members of an OMG from going underground or regrouping in another group, he wanted to know. Freedom of association is essential in our free and democratic society. Under the guise of ‘if it doesn’t help, it doesn’t hurt’, the Constitution is gradually being shaved off, according to Van Gasteren.
PvdD: Sliding scale
Aren’t we on a sliding scale where more and more freedoms of citizens are coming under pressure, senator Nicolaï also asked . When it comes to a serious infringement of a fundamental right, the question is whether that is necessary. Something had to be done about those motorcycle gangs, but if you look eight years ahead, bearing in mind what is happening in the United States with the erosion of the rule of law, then you become cautious, according to Nicolaï. In his eyes, the civil law route is sufficient. It is about protecting society, the general interest. But the minister can take a different route, because this bill makes it a political decision. If everyone says ‘don’t do it’, then the minister can still ignore that. According to Nicolaï, sometimes in a society you need the instrument of civil disobedience to shake people awake. But that is something different from being a subversive organization. The PvdD faction fears that the bill leaves room for being used for organizations other than subversive ones.
Volt: No use or necessity
According to Senator Hartog, association life in many shapes and colours is a great asset. Freedom of association is an important pillar of our society. He cited the criticism of the Council of State that there is no use or necessity for the bill: it is not clear whether time is saved with the administrative procedure. Hartog asked how many cases have occurred in recent years in which existing legislation was inadequate. He also asked whether it is right to make an exception for political parties, churches and trade unions. He wanted to know whether a minister can take measures independently or whether permission is required from the other members of the cabinet. Can the Prime Minister intervene? Hartog also pointed out the danger that actions of administrative disobedience fall under the law. How is the law applied to Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Sint Maarten, he asked in conclusion.
SP: Blindfold of Lady Justice comes off
Society, political reality and the world around us have changed since 2018. Why does the minister want to be given this authority, asked senator Janssen . Following the Council of State, he called the bill a bypass of the existing legal system. He also wanted to know from the initiators what they mean by ‘similar organisations’. To whom should this law apply? It cannot be deduced from the law. In that case, there is a risk that the minister will come up with it himself, according to Janssen. Every definition of an open standard raises new questions. He asked whether the initiators recognise that by leaving such a judgement to a political official, the blindfold of Lady Justice is removed. According to the SP, the judgement is not suitable to be left to the minister.
50PLUS: Usefulness, necessity and effectiveness unclear
Senator Van Rooijen also attaches great importance to fundamental rights. With this bill, the minister can ultimately impose a ban himself. Because the bill is based almost exclusively on criminal motorcycle gangs, he asked the initiators and the minister to provide examples of other associations for whom the law could apply. Finally, Van Rooijen wanted to know whether the current bill still meets the requirements of utility, necessity and effectiveness given the developments of recent years.
SGP: More than just the rule of law
According to Senator Schalk , this bill is not only about the rule of law, but also about the elements that must be given their due in that rule of law in all kinds of areas: social, economic and ethical. Can the submitters and the government once again explicitly confirm that legal protection is in order, also in the case of the administrative ban, Schalk asked. The scope of the bill has been better embedded and limited by the initiators after the criticism from the Council of State. He pointed out the increasing hardening in society and asked whether there are other organisations than the OMGs that qualify for an administrative ban.
FVD: Bomb under freedom of association
According to senator Van den Oetelaar, the bill undermines the foundations of the rule of law. FVD stands firmly for freedom of association and the bill places a bomb under it. He called it a political weapon in the hands of a temporary majority. Without this law, a minister cannot ban an association without judicial approval. The current procedures guarantee careful review. Van den Oetelaar called the bill a symbolic law that restricts the freedom of all citizens. He also asked for examples of organizations other than OMGs. The definition is so vague that any association can be affected, he said. Tackle criminals and not freedom of association, he concluded.
Response to initiators
Member of Parliament Boswijk also spoke on behalf of the other two initiators, Van Eijk and Van Dijk . He said that they respected the choice of GroenLinks-PvdA and ChristenUnie to withdraw as co-initiators of the bill. Boswijk did not elaborate on the considerations of those two parties.
Unfortunately, the bill is still needed, he said. At the end of last year, it became apparent that members of banned motorcycle clubs were setting up new clubs or switching to them. And they were also continuing their undermining activities there. That is why it is necessary to be able to act quickly and decisively. Civil procedures give criminals time to continue their activities or to move goods elsewhere. Speed is essential and that can be achieved through administrative law.
The law is only about OMGs, about undermining organizations, Boswijk continued. He said he could not think of a comparable organization in the Netherlands that has the same activities and structure. But according to him it is not unthinkable that a certain organization develops in this way. That is why the text of the law is not only about OMGs. There are clear criteria that comparable organizations must meet in order to qualify for a ban.
Minister’s response
Minister Van Weel of Justice and Security acted as an advisor to the House in the debate. The number of members of criminal motorcycle gangs has decreased, the intimidating effect has been dealt a blow and we see the motorcycle gangs less in the public space. There is fragmentation, however. So it is important to remain alert.
According to the minister, the added value of the bill is that it is an addition to the existing civil law. This administrative procedure and the authority that is created with it offer a further possibility to tackle the organizations. With an administrative ban, the activities can be stopped quickly and the activities are immediately punishable. Even though the bans on motorcycle gangs have been going faster and faster in recent times, with this law the number of weeks goes to 0. You can deal the organizations a blow with an administrative ban, according to Van Weel.
Report of the plenary meeting of Tuesday 20 May 2025