This is the full report of the hearing on the positive list that took place on 31 July 2025 before the Administrative High Court for Trade and Industry (CBb) in The Hague. The report aims to provide the most accurate possible account of the proceedings throughout the day.
A Dutch version can be found here
The hearing opened at 09:30.
Stichting AAP as intervening party
At the start of the hearing, the judges considered, among other things, whether Stichting AAP could act as a third party with a legitimate interest. We observed that one of the judges was critical of this idea.
The Counter-Report by Animalia
The minister’s representative argued that the Animalia counter-report should be excluded, claiming that several months would be needed to study the document properly.
Shortly after a brief recess, it was decided that the counter-report would in fact be admitted. A major win for us. The minister requested three months to review the report. Based on this, we consider it unlikely that a final ruling will be issued today.
General Binding Regulation or Individual Decision?
Next, the classification of the list was addressed: should it be regarded as a generally binding regulation (AVV) or as a concretising decision?
The attorney for Dibevo delivered a forceful rebuttal to the notion that the CBb lacked jurisdiction. According to the Animal Act, the CBb is the only court of appeal, and the statutory exception cited by the ministry does not apply here. It was noticeable that the minister’s representative lacked the necessary expertise to respond substantively on all points.
Classification of Animal Species
The classification of animal species was then discussed, divided as follows:
(1) Species currently on the list;
(2) Species that have been assessed but are no longer on the list – subdivided into (A) formerly listed but now not, and (B) never listed;
(3) Species not yet assessed.
Our position was that all three categories affect animal keepers. For category 3, the CBb can only wag its finger and say: ‘Now go assess them properly.’
Stichting AAP maintained that only keepers of category 1 species should be considered as having legal interest.
Development of the Assessment System
The hearing continued with the question of how the assessment system was developed and what legal status the Advisory Committee’s recommendations hold.
Our position was that the advisory opinions form the reasoning behind the decision.
Stichting AAP countered that such advice is merely customary and not decisive, thereby downplaying the report’s role.
Dibevo’s attorney pointed out that the decision itself explicitly states it is based on the committee’s advice – effectively undermining Stichting AAP’s claim.
Our attorney responded sharply: if the advice is not deemed relevant, then the decision’s reasoning becomes even weaker. (That was a slam dunk – thank you for making it so easy.)
After some debate, the minister’s representative eventually conceded that the decision was indeed based on the Advisory Committee’s recommendations.
Expertise, Independence, and Consensus in the Advisory Committee
The judge then posed critical questions about the committee members’ expertise.
The question “How did the minister determine the members’ expertise?” received no substantive answer.
Our attorney rightly pointed out the problem: “If the minister doesn’t even know, how can we verify it?”
Marcel Smits then addressed the topic of domestication. He investigated whether the experts had demonstrable expertise in that field.
According to Smits, they did not: no publications on domestication were found under their names. He illustrated the point with a vivid analogy: his son, a camel milker, would prefer a pilot in the cockpit over someone who hasn’t flown in 20 years – or a truck driver.
When the judge asked the minister’s representative how she knew the experts were qualified, no convincing answer followed.
The chair of the Advisory Committee, Mr. Staman, took the floor next.
He simply stated that the committee had significant expertise and that their CVs were impressive. He repeatedly emphasized that he and his committee were “independent” – noticeably often. According to him, the committee possessed practical and scientific expertise and applied “rigorous reasoning.” External experts were consulted on issues beyond their knowledge, such as dentistry. He viewed the re-evaluation as proof of quality.
Dibevo’s attorney raised a strong point: a good CV says little about expertise in this specific niche. It also remained unclear which external experts were consulted.
Frans Knapen distanced himself from how his report was handled. He explained that it was left untouched for a year, later modified by WAP, and eventually surfaced as appendix 6.
He stated that what was ultimately published on the ministry’s website bore no resemblance to his original report. He was “deeply frustrated” by this.
Finally, the issue of consensus within the committee was addressed. According to the members, consensus was achieved through endless discussions and a search for a “workable solution.” Staman viewed that unanimity as a strength. He confirmed that the committee made changes to the report themselves and had the authority to do so.
The hearing was then adjourned for lunch.
Systematics
After lunch, the focus shifted to the structure of the assessment framework.
The key question: “Is THIS method sufficient?” The issue was not whether there were better alternatives, but whether the current model is legally and substantively adequate.
The judge noted that the appeals contained extensive criticism of the framework’s design and implementation, to which the government had scarcely responded.
The minister’s representative offered a vague and disjointed reply. When the judge pressed her on the binary yes/no model, which left no room for conditions or measures, she still failed to provide a clear answer.
Husbandry Measures
The debate moved to the exclusion of husbandry measures from the current assessment framework.
The judge explicitly asked whether this was due to enforceability. He suggested that permitting animals under clear care guidelines might be part of the system. Since omitting such measures limits the number of species that can be kept, he asked: why not allow those animals to be kept under conditions?
The minister’s representative claimed that it is scientifically difficult to substantiate care measures. As an example, she said: “You can keep a hamster indoors, but what if someone opens a window?”
Sebastiaan from Animalia countered brilliantly, noting that committee member Marc Damen also sits on the zoo inspection board, where correct husbandry is precisely what’s assessed. He also pointed to the use of German guidelines in enforcement cases.
Dibevo’s attorney added that the LICG, funded by the ministry, provides husbandry advice – even for species no longer on the list. The law also requires sellers to inform buyers of proper care.
Gerrit Hofstra sharply criticised the assumption that people are incapable: “If you buy a bicycle and can’t ride, you fall on your face.”
The judge then summarised: “If care guidelines exist, they must be considered in the risk assessment.”
He also asked whether, in light of Article 36 TFEU (free movement of goods), it had been properly investigated whether some risks could be mitigated by care conditions. He pointed out that the law already requires that animals be kept in a way that prevents health issues.
— The prevailing sense in the room, among those representing Animalia, was that the judge held the minister’s representative to account, while her responses came across as vague and incoherent. At one point, the judge, clearly irritated, said: “That’s not an answer to my question, but I doubt I’ll get one anyway.” —
The discussion concluded with the notion that husbandry measures should indeed have been part of the assessment.
Stichting AAP attempted to object, claiming one cannot assume people will follow care instructions, citing the cheetah as an example. To which the judge curtly responded: “You’re not allowed to keep a cheetah anyway.” Point made.
Domestication
The focus then shifted to how domestication was handled in the assessment. The judge opened with the example of dogs.
The minister’s representative claimed that dogs simply have “more variation.” Dibevo’s attorney rightly countered that no research had been conducted into potential gradations within species, such as between wild and domesticated forms.
The judge asked: “So how did that come to pass? When did you start addressing the issue of domestication?”
Our attorney clearly demonstrated that the Advisory Committee failed to properly distinguish wild from domesticated variants, lumping them together.
The example used was the rabbit. Both the wild and domestic rabbit were classified as risk class D, yet the domestic rabbit appears on the list due to domestication. This reasoning is flawed. The judge seemed to realise this.
The minister’s representative tried to explain that “a line had to be drawn somewhere,” but the argument lacked clarity.
It also became clear that the Advisory Committee had no proven expertise on domestication – already evident when they classified the mink as domesticated but not the dromedary.
The son of the dromedary expert (the “camel milker”) reiterated the criticism in a striking and humorous way: the framework lacks both consistency and expertise.
Gerrit Hofstra cited the feral cat to show that tameness is not genetically fixed. He argued that the benefits of domestication begin with the first steps of keeping and selecting animals.
The judge then asked aloud what this discussion was meant to achieve. “Surely we don’t want to remove domesticated animals from the list,” he said, questioning the point of the debate.
It was explained that this shows the system itself is flawed: a rushed measure was introduced, but its foundation is shaky.
Gerrit also pointed to the Russian dwarf hamster, previously in the lowest risk class, now suddenly deemed “unkeepable.” The real question should have been: where did the system go wrong?
The minister’s representative offered an unclear answer and was visibly corrected by the judge, who seemed to find her response evasive rather than clarifying.
Stichting AAP tried to argue that this example did not expose flaws in the system but failed to support the claim convincingly.
The dromedary expert reiterated that genetic differences between breeds have been demonstrated in research – research ignored by the authorities. His message was clear: valid counterarguments are raised, but structurally ignored.
Precautionary Principle
Naturally, the Andibel ruling came up.
The judge asked whether the Advisory Committee based its assessments on theoretical risks or real, evidence-based risks.
It was acknowledged that the minister had admitted the actual likelihood of risk was not considered – only theoretical risk.
Dibevo’s attorney pointed out that Wagner’s gerbil had been listed in 2015 under WAP’s system but is now omitted.
The minister’s representative claimed this was due to a new methodology, but Dibevo’s attorney called that nonsense.
A committee member suggested it was based on “new scientific insights.”
“Rubbish,” said Sebastiaan of Animalia. “There are no new publications.” The room fell silent.
The judge also asked whether the Netherlands had notified the European Commission only of listed species, or also those omitted. The ministry said they submitted everything they had.
It was noted that this notification means little. The judge agreed, but wanted clarity on what had been submitted.
Zoonoses
The dromedary expert provided another clear example:
Dromedaries may pose a zoonosis risk, but since you can’t import them – and certainly not smuggle one in your pocket – the practical risk is minimal.
Proportionality
It was argued that the minister could have deviated from the Advisory Committee’s advice and should have formulated the assignment more broadly. Proportionality should have been part of the decision-making.
Stichting AAP attempted to sway opinion by asking if David van Gennep could speak. The judge allowed him only brief remarks.
David said the new system is better and expressed hope that in the future, Dutch citizens will still be able to enjoy animals – but only “easy-to-keep” species.
The Advisory Committee chair added that it would be a shame if his system, which he claimed was based on thorough research, were discarded.
Enforcement
A practical issue followed: the judge asked whether enforcement would continue before a ruling is issued.
The minister’s representative said transitional rules apply and that animals may not breed or be traded. She was incorrect: animals owned or born before 1 July 2024 may legally be traded.
The government concluded that enforcement would be “risk-based,” but no assurance was given that it would not occur at all.
The judge noted that if we disagreed, we would need to request interim relief.
Non-Assessed Species
This topic also briefly arose. The minister’s representative again failed to present a clear position.
The judge concluded with the remark that while legal arguments can always be exchanged, cooperation and citizen-friendly policy should not be forgotten.
Kleindierpark Het Hertenkamp (Alexander Knoth’s Case)
The judge asked why no formal request was filed for non-assessed species. Alexander explained that it would cost him 2,000 Euro (four species at 500 Euro each).
The judge noted the notification did not state: “I request you to assess.” Sebastiaan clarified that the purpose of the temporary exemption was to alert the government that these species are already kept in the Netherlands.
A decision in this case is expected on 9 September; a substantive ruling must follow within six weeks after that.
Conclusion of Hearing – 18:00
At the end of the day, it was noted that the court had scheduled this hearing early – originally, it would have taken place six months later. We deeply appreciate this.
A letter from the court with the next steps is expected by the end of next week. The aim is to resolve these matters swiftly and carefully.
A final note of appreciation: we were impressed by the judges’ preparation. They were extremely well-read, often cited exact passages, and only asked for clarification where truly necessary. We were deeply impressed.
Closing Remarks
This concludes our report of the 31 July 2025 hearing on the positive list.
We have made every effort to document all arguments truthfully and as completely as possible during this long and hectic day. Following the live blog on Facebook, we made some refinements in this web version.
One final addition not yet shared on Facebook: During the hearing, a committee member casually mentioned they are already working on the reptile list. Remarkable – given the legal status of the current list is still under dispute, work on the next is apparently already underway.
It was a long day for all of us, but we are proud of how – together with our brilliant attorney Janina Hamann and the other parties in the courtroom – we forcefully defended the right to keep animals, our vision of responsible animal ownership, and the flawed process behind the positive list.