Ullersma, who assisted the Syrian asylum seeker who was eventually allowed to be reunited with her family, mentions the well-founded legal criticisms that have been voiced earlier. “So said the Secretary of State himself. The judge’s verdict is – and I also read it in the articles written about the case – only a confirmation of what was already clear in advance. Legally it was one of the simplest sentences».
A statement with which VVD celebrity and former minister Uri Rosenthal did not agree. He spoke of “a disturbed balance of power” in a Tweet. What interests me, and there are no misunderstandings, is that if the court considers that a certain government provision is in conflict with the law on aliens or with the European directive, and says that the provision must be abandoned, I think it is fine ,” he says. “That’s the judge’s job. But then it’s up to the politicians to do something about it; change the laws and so on.”
Declaration
However, Rosenthal was particularly disturbed by the judge’s statement, who said his ruling “must be seen in light of the seriousness and scale of the reception crisis.” ‘In his assessment, the judge also expresses a judgment on the scope and gravity of the reception crisis. This goes too far for me.’
Ullersma disagrees. He believes that the judge complies fully with the facts presented by the Secretary of State, in the hands of the state attorney sent. ‘He presented a gigantic defense on how the reception crisis got so bad and why family reunification options were necessary. This is why the court paid attention to that argument in its ruling. It had to be, because this is what has been proposed in terms of substantiation».
Furthermore, Ullersma does not believe that the contentious part surrounding the restriction on family reunification of the asylum agreement cannot be maintained. “It has now been determined that there is no legal basis.”
It’s not the first time
This is not the first time the cabinet has been rejected by the court. The nitrogen regulation, the climate agreement, the Urgenda case, and this is also against Rosenthal’s sore leg. “I have noticed – and this is also a problem in many discussions – that the courts often interpret other issues dealt with in the European treaties quite broadly.” Rosenthal refers to judges who also apply “for example the right to safety of people and the right to the protection of their existence”, for example in the climate debate.
Ullersma also notes that there are more informants from the court but does not identify with Rosenthal’s statements. ‘If you now search the Internet for the words ‘goat trails’ and ‘news’, you will be shocked at all that you are trying to avoid claims that do not suit you. And this is also the case here. Mr. Rosenthal says he blames the court for addressing the crisis and trivializing it legally. And I absolutely do not share this view.’
VVD whistled back, now what?
Rosenthal doesn’t dare say what the VVD’s next steps will be, although he thinks State Secretary Eric van der Burg and the VVD are now discussing what can be done with the asylum deal. “The postponement of family reunification will suffer great strain,” he says. “This is the problem at hand. I remain of the opinion that in his ruling the judge effectively weighed the issue of family reunification on the one hand and the gravity and scope of the asylum crisis on the other. And I think the latter is going pretty far.’