The considerations of the court are most interesting:

1. The Court considers everything the State argues, which is: We are the State, we do as we please, as gospel.

2. Double negative reasoning.

3. vaccination is the only way out. The basis for such is not given, expounded upon or supported with evidence. The testimony of prof Capel was not even mentioned. Medication is totally left out of the picture.

4. The Court cannot even make up it's mind where it concerns the actual target. They mixup covid-19 with a virus.

5. curbing the spread of a virus, meaning that the object of the measures is to influence human behavior such that a virus no longer can jump from one person to the next, is the highest attainable cause and everything is apparently permitted.

6. By not declaring a national emergency, yet invoking the emergency powers, the court has just created out of thin air new ways to impose, under the color of law, the deprivation of rights.

7. Alleen als evident is dat de Staat onjuiste keuzes maakt en de Staat dus in redelijkheid niet voor het gevoerde beleid heeft kunnen kiezen, of wanneer de Staat een bevoegdheid aanwendt zonder dat daarvoor in de gegeven omstandigheden een wettelijke grondslag bestaat, is plaats voor rechterlijk ingrijpen

Translation: Only when it is evident that the State is making incorrect choices and the State therefor reasonably has not been able to choose for the executed policy, or when the State employs a power without a legal foundation in the given circumstances, a judicial interference is appropriate.

My comment is that if not for such a situation, when would that be? Personally, I think that the European Court of Human Rights has acted based on less egregious transgressions.

Nowhere does the Court actually consider any of the arguments put formward by Viruswaarheid, they simply state: the Court rejects.

Conclusion: The court is totally ok with the idea: the end sanctifies the means. And how dare you object.

Side note: during the initial appeal process the State demanded the injuction of the lower court to be injuncted. Why? As the attorney for the Stte argued: We are the State, we do as we please, and if you do not grant us our demands, we will take more serious measures.

Although, a cursory reading may lead someone to think this concerns anti corono-virus spread measures, it can also mean the attorney for the State threatened the Court in plain sight.

End note: it is disgusting! But this is the face of the police state.

I think this should go to the supreme court, who, in my opinion would not want to touch this, and it should be brought to the ECHR. This ruling cannot, and should not, stand.

The consideration of the court are most interesting:

1. The Court considers everything the State argues, which is: We are the State, we do as we please, as gospel.

2. Double negative reasoning.

3. vaccination is the only way out. The basis for such is not given, expounded upon or supported with evidence. The testimony of prof Capel was not even mentioned. Medication is totally left out of the picture.

4. The Court cannot even make up it's mind where it concerns the actual target. They mixup covid-19 with a virus.

5. curbing the spread of a virus, meaning that the object of the measures is to influence human behavior such that a virus no longer can jump from one person to the next, is the highest attainable cause and everything is apparently permitted.

6. By not declaring a national emergency, yet invoking the emergency powers, the court has just created out of thin air new ways to impose, under the color of law, the deprivation of rights.

Nowhere does the Court actually consider any of the arguments put formward by Viruswaarheid, they simply state: the Court rejects.

Conclusion: The court is totally ok with the idea: the end sanctifies the means. And how dare you object.

Side note: during the initial appeal process the State demanded the injuction of the lower court to be injuncted. Why? As the attorney for the Stte argued: We are the State, we do as we please, and if you do not grant us our demands, we will take more serious measures.

Although, a cursory reading may lead someone to think this concerns anti corono-virus spread measures, it can also mean the attorney for the State threatened the Court in plain sight.

End note: it is disgusting! But this is the face of the police state.