The Netherlands Helsinki Committee prepared the Monitoring Action for Civic Space (MACS) country report on the Netherlands. The Committee announced the report in this article. From the article:
The Netherlands Report
The MACS country report on the Netherlands includes an in-depth analysis of challenges and victories for civil society, policy recommendations for decision-makers to better support and protect civil society, and key EU law insights identifying where the EU has or could exercise legal authority to act. Similar analysis and recommendations are presented in the six other country reports.You can download the Netherlands report below:
What is MACS?
The Monitoring Action for Civic Space (MACS) captures the state of civil society space in EU member states. Collectively, 9 European organisations have created this new monitoring tool to draw the attention of EU institutions, states and civil society to civic space issues that matter. Find out more about the project here.
Key developments: 2025 marked a further deterioration of civic space in the Netherlands
Page 5 of the report starts with disturbing news:
2025 marked a further deterioration of civic space in the Netherlands, accelerating a trend of democratic backsliding already identified in other reports. According to the Netherlands National Human Rights Institute, 86% of civil society organisations (CSOs) surveyed indicated that conditions for their work had worsened over the past two years1 0F —a striking confirmation of a shrinking space for fundamental freedoms. Against this backdrop, a range of new legislative proposals on transparency, terrorism, and surveillance threaten to erode core rights, including the freedoms of assembly, association, and expression, as well as the right to privacy. Together, these measures risk significantly narrowing the space for dissent and public participation.
Rather than recognising CSOs as essential democratic actors and watchdogs safeguarding the rule of law, political discourse has increasingly portrayed critical organisations as extremist or destabilising. This shift is reflected in parliamentary debates, where motions targeting specific CSOs, restricting access to funding or calling for repressive tools to counter so-called “public order disruptions” have proliferated and, notably, have begun to receive majority support, including from traditionally centrist parties. Such developments reinforce a broader pattern in which public order and security considerations consistently outweigh the state’s obligations to protect peaceful activism.
Ellen Timmer - juridische artikelen en berichten 