Basic information			Substance of the ruling			Accessibility of the case and further relevant links
Date	Name of the case (or case number)	The body delivering the decision	Keywords, topic	Executive part	Brief summary	Full text	Page at the website of the issuing court	Page in other databases	Unofficial materials, press communications
December 15. 2020.	No. 20/01476.	Supreme Court of the Netherlands	Right to access to justice; right to a fair trial	The Supreme Court of the Netherlands held that an online judicial hearing might also fulfil the requirement of publicness, while the judgment delivered in such a trial should be considered as publicly pronounced.	An individual subjected to an extradition case initiated a proceeding due to the alleged violation of his right to access to justice and right to a fair trial. During the public health emergency, the courts should have been closed, therefore, trials were conducted online. As a result, only the representatives of the media could attend at the trials online, the general public was excluded from these proceedings. The claimant considered that in this situation the public scrutiny of the judiciary is not possible, therefore, such proceedings shall not be considered as public, while the judgments delivered in these trials are not pronounced publicly. The Supreme Court rejected these claims, since through the media broadcast and reports, whoever could follow the proceeding, while streaming might be also available for individuals. As regard the pronounce of the judgment, the Supreme Court also dismissed the claim, alternative methods might be also proper forms of public pronouncing such as the online publication of the judgment. The reasoning of the Supreme Court made several references to the relevant ECtHR case law.	https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/#!/details?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2020:2008&showbutton=true&keyword=ECLI:NL:HR:2020:2008			https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/netherlands-supreme-court-no-2001476-2020-12-15
December 15. 2020.	S20/03532.	Supreme Court of the Netherlands	Right to access to justice; right to a fair trial	The Supreme Court of the Netherlands held that a trial with a three-judges-panel, where one of the three judge s was present through skipe due to suspected Covid-19 contamination did not infringe neither the Code of Criminal Proceedings, nor the Act on Temporary Rules During the Public Health Emergency.	In a criminal proceeding where a minor was accused, one of the three judges dealing with the case could not show up at the trial because suspected Covid-19 contamination. The public advocate agreed to hold the trial with the skipe participation of the judge concerned, however, the representative of the accused challenged this measure. The claimant turned to the Supreme Court and requested the cassation of the proceeding, since the online participation of one of the three judges mean a severe violation of right to access to justice and right to a fair trial, such a measure is in conflict with the provisions of the Act on Criminal Proceedings and the Act on Temporary Measures during the Public Health Emergency. The Supreme Court held, that in case of strongly justified cases, the virtual participation of one of the three judges should be acceptable, if parties do not agree with this, instead of appealing the judgment at the end of the proceeding, they shall request immediately the stay of the proceedings until a fully in person trial could be held.	https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/#!/details?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2020:2037&showbutton=true&keyword=S20%2F03532		https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/netherlands-supreme-court-s2003532-2020-12-15
June 19. 2020.	20/01147	Supreme Court of the Netherlands	Right to a fair trial	The Supreme Court of the Netherlands held that the delivery service during the public health emergency without phisical contact was acceptable during the public health emergency, and did not infringe right to a fair trial.	The claimant challenged the functioning of the delivery service during the public health emergency. The decision of the court was delivered just through a sealed envelope left at his residence, but without personal delivery of the envelope. The appellant considered, that this unusual delivery method resulted in the nullity of the proceeding, but this was rejected by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held, that the delivery without in person contact was reasonable during the public health emergency, therefore, the proceeding shall not be nullified, and the delivery of the decision shall not be repeated.	https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/#!/details?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2020:1088		https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/netherlands-supreme-court-netherlands-2001147-2020-06-19