bijl voordracht - in het engels

VN2025-016160 – Office of the Clerk of the City Council of Amsterdam Council Committee for General Affairs, Public Order and Safety, Enforcement and Supervision, Communication, Legal Affairs, and Council Matters [in Dutch: Algemene Zaken/AZ] Submission to the Committee for General Affairs of 4 December 2025 For discussion and for information Portfolio: Public Order and Safety Agenda item A10 Decision date: Not applicable

Subject The scope of the Mayor’s duty to provide information to the Municipal Council

The Committee is requested to discuss the legal opinion attorney-at-law Mr Gerrit van der Veen concerning the Mayor’s alleged breach of her duty to provide information to the Municipal Council. Legal basis Article 26 of the Rules of Procedure of the Municipal Council and Council Committees of Amsterdam: Paragraph 3. Any member of the committee may propose the consideration of matters not included on the agenda, apart from members’ motions. The committee member must submit such a proposal in writing to the committee clerk at least five working days prior to the meeting.

Administrative background Yet unanswered questions. Last year, the Maccabi disturbances became world news. The events damaged the reputation of the Netherlands. Concerning the operational conduct of the police leadership, acting under the authority of the Mayor, I submitted three extensive sets of written questions at the end of 2024. These were answered only on the day preceding the meeting of the Committee for General Affairs on 2 July 2025 – well beyond the prescribed response period. The responses were profoundly inadequate. Entirely obvious questions, which were also raised in numerous media publications, were met merely with general references to the (final) conclusions of reports by the Crisis Research Team (COT) and the Inspectorate of Justice and Security of the Justice Ministry. The unacceptable responses of the Mayor concerns the following points:

1. No convoy: the failure to receive Maccabi supporters at Station Square and escort them ‘in convoy’ to Dam Square. The decision to allow them to merge into the general public, given their visibly yellow-and-blue attire, was a grave mistake [in Dutch: een blunder]. 2. No learning capacity: on the day, evening and night preceding the match, there were numerous ‘hit-and-run’ incidents. How, then, could the mayor claim to have been taken by surprise by the ‘hit-and-run’ actions after the match? 3. No adequate information position: the police’s deficient situational awareness of what was impending was exacerbated by the failure, or at least the insufficient application, of data analysis, notwithstanding the fact that such analysis was certainly possible; see the advice from AKD [law firm in Amsterdam] dated 8 July 2025. * 4. No ‘robust’ police presence: the near-total absence of police between 11 and 12 p.m. at Station Square, Damrak and Burgwallen. Both reports state (without substantiation) that the police was present. However, footage by [journalist ed.] Bender clearly demonstrates that there was no ‘robust’ police presence at that time. Where, then, were the purported 800 officers in the city centre after the match? 5. No arrests: the Amsterdam police made not a single arrest during the disturbances following the match.

This confirms the impression there was only a (very) minimal police presence at that time. The cardinal question is therefore this: by basing her responses entirely on the conclusions of the COT and the Ministery’s Inspectorate of Justice and Security, has the Mayor breached her duty to provide information to the Council? The COT and Inspectorate of Justice and Security reports The assessment by Professor Helsloot concludes that the COT report fails in every respect to meet the requisite methodological and scientific standards. The concepts employed are not defined, with the result that the conclusions bear no grounded relationship to the statement of facts contained in the Inspectorate’s report. Consequently, the Mayor should never have uncritically forwarded this document to the Municipal Council; reference is made in this regard to the advice of Mr Gerrit van der Veen. Forum for Democracy believes the Municipal Council should entirely disregard the COT report in its further deliberations. Regarding the Inspectorate of Justice and Security report, this is of a higher standard than the COT report, insofar as most of the concepts used are defined.

However, in a (final) conclusion concerning the so-called ‘equipment and preparedness of the police’ the same flaw recurs: conclusions regarding the number of police officers deployed on the streets and the police’s information position appear all of a sudden and without substantiation. After all, between 11 and 12 p.m. there was no meaningful police presence where such presence was required. Reason for discussion Considering the manifest deficiencies in the reports of both the COT and the Inspectorate of Justice and Security, we once again place on the agenda the assessment (review) thereof by

Professor Dr Ira Helsloot. This analysis is strictly methodological in nature and therefore does not address the five substantive issues outlined above. Forum voor Democratie also places on the agenda the legal opinion concerning the scope of the mayor’s duty to provide information to the Council. The mayor’s duty to provide information to the Council must be enforced rigorously. Otherwise, there is no end in sight. Outcome of external advice Not applicable. Confidentiality Not applicable. Other invited council committees Not applicable. VN2025-016160 – Office of the Clerk Andreas 2 AZ Council Committee for General Affairs, Public Order and Safety, Enforcement and Supervision, Communication, Legal Affairs, Council Matters Does this item discharge a commitment or other motion? Not applicable. Documents provided Reg. no.

Title

AD2025073008

Helsloot – Methodological Analysis of the Amsterdam Disturbances7–8 November 2024 (PDF)

AD2025073009

Memo on the Duty to Provide Information (62762054.2) (PDF)

AD2025073010

Hemmer – Legal Opinion on Access to CCTV Footage Maccabi–Ajax (PDF)

AD2025073011

Letter to Ms Knol (chief of Dutch national politce) (PDF)

AD2025073012

Letter to the College of Procurators General mr. Otte and mr. Groen (PDF)

AD2025073013

AZ Committee Speech (PDF) [Committee for General Affairs – included below]

Responsible official Further information may be obtained from Councillor Van Schijndel (Forum voor Democratie). anton.van.schijndel@raad.amsterdam.nl