Editing Constitution of the Netherlands (section)

====Chapter 1: Basic rights====
Chapter 1 is mainly a [[bill of rights]]. There is no [[Normative#Law|normative]] [[hierarchy]] indicated by the constitution: all basic rights are principally equal in value and importance. Some rights are absolute, most can be limited by parliamentary or "formal" law, many can be limited by delegation of limiting powers. They include:
* [[Equality before the law]] and [[prohibition of discrimination]] (Article 1). This article forbids any discrimination on any grounds but allows [[affirmative action]]. This right can only be limited by law, if there is an objective, reasonable justification for restricting it. In that case, the court will decide if the law is suitable, necessary and in proportion to reach the purpose of the law.   
* Nationality, citizenship and right to reside in the country (including extradition) is specified in article 2.
* Right to be appointed to a public function and to hold multiple nationalities is specified in article 3.
*The [[Suffrage|right to vote]] (Article 4). The right can be limited by formal law; no delegation is allowed.
*The right of (written) [[petition]] (Article 5). This ancient right is absolute and cannot be limited by law. The right of petition has a long tradition in the Netherlands; indeed, the [[Dutch War of Independence]] started after a petition was rejected by the [[Habsburg]] authorities, which went so far as to treat the noble petitioners as "beggars" (''[[Geuzen]]''). The constitution of 1815 limited the ancient right to written petitions, hoping to curtail the typical disorder created by large groups of delegates. Nevertheless, such public mass petitioning has always remained very popular. The right of petition does not imply an accompanying right to be answered, but in practice all public bodies have special commissions to do just that. Often petitions are directed to the King, although the system of ministerial responsibility makes it impossible for him to take action by himself; his secretarial cabinet relegates such petitions to the relevant ministries.
*[[Freedom of religion]] (Article 6). This right can be limited by formal law; delegation is possible.
*[[Freedom of speech]] (Article 7). This article has only been partially changed in the 1983 revision, as it was linked to very complicated case law. Subarticle 1 contains the classic [[freedom of the press]]. Any [[censorship]] is absolutely forbidden. However, formal law can otherwise limit this freedom, e.g. by making a certain content punishable under penal law. Such limiting powers cannot be delegated to lower administrative bodies such as [[municipality of the Netherlands|municipalities]]; the related right of distribution of printed materials can similarly only be limited by formal law. However, the [[Hoge Raad|Supreme Court]] has nevertheless ruled since 1950 that such bodies may in fact limit the distribution of materials, if such a limitation is not based on the content of those materials and does not imply a complete impediment to any separate means of distribution. They may for instance limit the spreading of pamphlets to certain hours for reasons of public order. Subarticle 2 has the same arrangement for [[Television in the Netherlands|television]] and radio broadcasts. Subarticle 3, added in 1983, gives a general right of expression, for those cases where neither printed nor broadcast information is involved; this includes the [[freedom of speech]]. Again, no censorship is ever allowed, but the right can otherwise be limited by formal law; explicitly mentioned in subarticle 3 is the possibility to limit the viewing of movies by minors under the age of sixteen. Although no delegation is possible, lower bodies may limit the exercise of the right for reasons of public order if such limitations are not based on the content of the expressed views. Subarticle 4 states that commercial advertising is not protected by article 7. The Dutch constitution does not contain a [[Freedom of information legislation|freedom of gathering of information]].
*[[Freedom of association]] (Article 8). This right can be limited by formal law, but only to safeguard public order. No delegation is allowed. Almost any organization posing any conceivable danger to public order in the broadest sense is forbidden by the still extant ''Wet vereniging en vergadering'' ("Law of association and assembly") of 1855, but this law only very rarely leads to an official disbandment of an organization as a legal entity under the civil code. Dutch legal doctrine holds that the freedom of association does not protect against forced membership of organizations, e.g. when such membership is a condition for being active in a certain profession.
*[[Freedom of assembly]] and freedom of demonstration (Article 9). The revision of 1983 split the old combination of "freedom of assembly and association" and added the former to a new freedom of demonstration. The right can be limited by formal law. Delegation is allowed but only to protect public health, for traffic concerns and to prevent public disorder.

These first eight rights (excluding present Article 8) were the only ones present in the original 1815 document.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Grondwet voor het Koningrijk der Nederlanden (1815) - Wikisource |url=https://nl.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Grondwet_voor_het_Koningrijk_der_Nederlanden_(1815) |access-date=2025-01-09 |website=nl.wikisource.org |language=nl}}</ref> The remainder were added starting in the 20th century.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Grondwet voor het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden (herzieningen 1922-1983) - Wikisource |url=https://nl.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Grondwet_voor_het_Koninkrijk_der_Nederlanden_(herzieningen_1922-1983) |access-date=2025-01-09 |website=nl.wikisource.org |language=nl}}</ref>

*Right to [[privacy]] (Article 10). This right, introduced by the revision of 1983, is a general right to be protected whenever the personal integrity is threatened. The right can be limited by formal law. Delegation is allowed, but only in relation to [[database]]s. The article imposes a duty on the government to protect against a threat to privacy posed by a possible abuse of databases (subarticle 2); and to regulate the right of persons to be informed about the content of such databases concerning their person and the right to improve possible mistakes in such content (subarticle 3).
*Inviolence of the (human) body (Article 11). This right, introduced by the revision of 1983, can be limited by formal law; delegation is allowed. The right is a subspecies of the general right to personal integrity expressed in article 10, so no dichotomy is intended between the two concepts. It protects against violations like forced medical experiments, corporal punishment, torture and mutilation. It does not end with death and thus demands a legal basis for [[organ donation]].
*Prohibition of unlawful entry of the home when no permission of the inhabitant has been obtained (Article 12). Although often presented as a general "right of the home", this article is in fact more based on the principle that the authorities do have a fundamental right to enter homes, but that this must be given a legal basis. The law has to indicate in which case and by which persons entry is legal. Delegation is allowed. Dutch courts tend to give precedence to the practicality of police investigation, so this article has had little protective value.{{Citation needed|date=January 2012}}
*[[Secrecy of communication]] (Article 13). Subarticle 1 contains the [[Secrecy of correspondence|privacy of correspondence]]. This can only be violated on order of a judge and only in those cases indicated by formal law. No delegation is allowed. The judge in question is rarely a court but in practice the [[investigative judge]] (''rechter-commissaris''). The Dutch penal code offers a further protection of this right as several types of violating it are punishable as crimes. Subarticle 2 contains the privacy of communication by telephone and telegraph. This right can be limited by law; such law has to indicate which persons have the authority to allow a violation. No delegation is allowed. For most cases again the investigative judge has the competent authority. Since the nineties there is doctrinal consensus that the right extends to [[cell phone]] communication, but earlier this was contended. 
*Prohibition of unlawful [[Nationalization|expropriation]] (Article 14). The Dutch constitution contains no general [[right to property]]. This has been defended by successive governments with the argument that such right is so fundamental to Dutch society that it is redundant to explicitly mention it. Expropriation is only allowed to serve the public interest and on the condition that prior formal assurance is given of (full) indemnity, meaning that some exact sum has to be determined. It has to be based on law; delegation is allowed, but only as regards the indemnity determination procedure, not the expropriation as such. Subarticle 2 states, however, that in an emergency situation the prior assurance has not to be given — in those cases the amount of compensation will be determined later. Subarticle 3 extends this arrangement to cases of destruction, partial damage, total loss and limitations of the right to property, caused by the competent authority to serve the public interest. Normal cases of damage are ruled by the civil code.
*[[Right to liberty]] (Article 15). This right can be limited by formal law. Delegation is allowed since the revision of 1983. Subarticle 2 safeguards access to the competent judge for anyone detained; this judge has the power to order the release of the detainee, like in the common law [[habeas corpus]] doctrine. In fact all relevant laws order the authorities to obtain approval from the judge within a certain time limit, but deny to the detainee access by his own initiative until that limit has been reached. Subarticle 3 contains the penal law obligation of the authorities to ensure that a trial takes place and is finished within a reasonable period of time. This right cannot be limited by law. In fact the Dutch penal code contains loopholes making it possible to delay trials indefinitely.{{Citation needed|reason=which loopholes?|date=October 2008}} Subarticle 4 states that all basic rights of a detainee can be limited in the interest of his detention.
*[[Nulla poena sine lege|Nulla poena sine praevia lege]] (Article 16). This fundamental principle of legality (which requires that one cannot be punished for doing something that is not prohibited by law), already present in the penal code and introduced to the constitution in the revision of 1983, is absolute and cannot be limited by law. However, at the same time, the additional article IX was added to the constitution making an exception for [[war crimes]] and [[crimes against humanity]].
*[[Jus de non evocando|Ius de non evocando]] (Article 17). This ancient right states that no one can against his will be kept from the competent court. It cannot be limited by law — but law decides which court is competent.

In addition to these classic rights the revision of 1983 introduced a number of social rights. The distinction between the two categories is not strictly  based on any legal doctrine and in fact the social right articles contain many freedom rights. The social rights are:

*[[Right to counsel]] (Article 18). Subarticle 1 contains a freedom right: anyone has the right to be legally assisted or represented in court or during administrative appeal. This right is absolute and cannot be limited by law. Nevertheless, the law may impose qualification requirements on legal representatives so that e.g. only attorneys are allowed to represent. Subarticle 2 contains the right to legal aid for the destitute. The right can be limited by formal law; delegation is allowed. However, doctrine holds that the State has an absolute duty to provide a minimum of legal aid.
*[[Labour rights]] (Article 19). Subarticle 1 imposes a duty on the government to ensure sufficient employment. This does not imply a right to be employed for the individual. Subarticle 2 demands that laws are made regarding the legal position of workers, including the [[Occupational safety and health|protection of workers against accidents]] and [[workers' participation]]. Subarticle 3 contains a general freedom [[right to labour]]. This right can be limited by formal law; delegation is allowed. The right is limited to those of Dutch nationality, so in principle foreign nationals can be denied access to the labour market. The law in fact denies such access to [[illegal immigrants]] and [[asylum seekers]].
*Welfare of the people (Article 20). Subarticle 1 imposes a duty upon the government to ensure the subsistence of the population and an adequate distribution of wealth. Subarticle 2 demands that laws are made concerning the entitlements to social welfare. Delegation is allowed. Subarticle 3 contains a right to welfare for the destitute. The right can be limited by formal law; delegation is allowed. The government has a duty to make a law implementing the right. The right is limited to those Dutch nationals living in the Netherlands.
*[[Environmental protection]] (Article 21) This article imposes a duty on government to ensure the habitability of the land — including the general infrastructure and especially the vital sea-defences — and the protection and improvement of the environment. Doctrinal consensus holds that "improvement" implies that government is not allowed to make environmental laws much less strict.
*[[Public healthcare|Health]], housing, [[culture]] and [[recreation]] (Article 22). This is a basket article combining rights that were too important to remain unmentioned, but too unimportant to warrant a separate article status. Subarticle 1 imposes a duty upon government to improve public health. Subarticle 2 does the same for living conditions and subarticle 3 for "cultural self-realisation" and recreational activities.
*Freedom of education (Article 23). The [[Education system|Dutch education system]] is characterized by ideological divisions. The constitutions of 1814 and 1815 expressed the principle of neutral state education; even in private schools giving a full curriculum religious education was forbidden. Parents wanting their children to be given some formal religious instruction had to send them to special bible classes in [[Sunday school]]s. In the revision of 1848 the freedom of education was first expressed. However, this was a negative right: parents were at liberty to let their children be educated in denominational schools, but had to pay for this themselves, whereas state schools offered free education. As the frame of government grew ever more democratic, this arrangement proved untenable in the gradually becoming more "[[pillarisation|pillarised]]" Dutch society. The school system became the central battleground of political change: the [[School struggle (Netherlands)|school struggle]] between elitist neutral [[liberalism in the Netherlands|liberals]] and conservatives on the one and mass-oriented [[Christian democracy in the Netherlands|confessional]] [[protestant]]s and [[catholicism in the Netherlands|Catholics]] and eventually [[socialism in the Netherlands|socialists]] on the other hand.<ref>{{cite book | last = Hooker | first = Mark | year = 2009 | title = Freedom of Education: The Dutch Political Battle for State Funding of all Schools both Public and Private (1801-1920) | publisher = CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform | isbn = 978-1-4404-9342-3 }}</ref> In 1889 a system of school funding for denominational schools was introduced; in the revision of 1917 this was formalised by a guarantee of full constitutional equality between public and [[special school (Netherlands)|special schools]]: the [[Pacification of 1917|Pacification]]. Even in 1983 this issue remained so sensitive that government and parliament failed to reach consensus over a changed redaction. As a result, Article 23 remained unchanged. It is therefore outside of the uniform terminology and systematics of the renewed constitution: some elements of Article 23 are absolute rights, others can be limited by law, for some this limitation can be delegated to lower administrative bodies — but it is impossible to understand from the article itself what is the situation for each element; this can only be learned from case law and doctrine. Absolute is the [[right to education]] itself (subarticle 2), the equality between public and special schools and the duty of the State to finance them all. The right to education is primarily a right to ''give'' education of any kind; the right to ''be'' educated is seen as derived; parents are free in the choice of schools. The right implies the right to found schools, the right to freely choose their underlying religion or philosophy of life and the right to organise them in accordance with such religion or philosophy. So not all "special" schools are denominational; some are e.g. [[anthroposophy|anthroposophic]] or [[Platonism|platonist]]. All have to be funded by government and with the strictest equality (subarticle 7); until recently law stated that this equality was nominal, meaning that if a municipality spent a certain sum per student in public schools, exactly the same sum had to be spent in its special schools. The right can be limited by formal law in that minimal quality requirements can be imposed (subarticle 5), both as regards the level of education and the standard of organization. Some of this power is in fact delegated to lower bodies; one of the breaking-points in 1983 was the refusal of parliament to express this in the constitution. The duty of State to (equally) fund is limited to free [[compulsory education]] (presently until the age of sixteen); Subarticle 7, however, states that law will specify the conditions under which non-compulsory education will be funded; unsurprisingly there is in fact in this field also strict equality. Subarticle 1 expresses the social right that education in general is an ongoing concern for the government; Subarticle 4 states that municipalities have the duty to provide for sufficient [[primary school]]s.