Bill Gates and the Leeuwarden COVID-19 Vaccine Lawsuit: What the Dutch Court Has and Has Not Decided

A civil lawsuit in the northern Dutch city of Leeuwarden has had a long second life online. Since October 2024, posts on social media have said that Bill Gates was "indicted" in the Netherlands, that he was "found guilty", or that he "lost the trial" over COVID-19 vaccines. The case is real. It is a civil damages claim brought by seven Dutch residents against seventeen defendants. Those defendants include Gates, former Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte, the Dutch State and, according to media reports, Pfizer chief executive Albert Bourla. The claim was heard on its merits on 22 October 2026, and the court has not yet ruled.

What Gates has lost so far is narrower than the headlines suggest. In October 2024 the District Court of Northern Netherlands (Rechtbank Noord-Nederland) rejected his argument that a Dutch court had no power to hear a case against him. It ordered him to pay €1,406 in legal costs for that procedural round. That ruling settled one question: where the case could be heard. It did not decide whether the plaintiffs' allegations are true. No court has found that Gates, or any other defendant, did anything wrong.

This article explains what the lawsuit alleges, what the defendants say, how Dutch civil procedure works, why a Dutch court accepted jurisdiction over a US resident, what the scientific and regulatory record says about COVID-19 vaccine safety, how liability shields such as the US PREP Act fit in, and what could happen next. It relies mainly on the court's own published rulings, which are available on rechtspraak.nl, the official website of the Dutch judiciary.

The short version

• What kind of case it is: A civil lawsuit for damages, not a criminal prosecution. A court spokesperson told AFP in 2024 that it is "not a criminal case, but a civil case." No one has been charged, indicted or arrested in connection with these claims.
• Who is suing whom: Seven plaintiffs, represented by Dutch lawyer Peter Stassen, are suing seventeen defendants. Court documents list one plaintiff as deceased as early as October 2024, and reports around the October 2026 hearing say two have now died.
• What Gates "lost": On 16 October 2024 the court rejected Gates's jurisdiction challenge (in Dutch, a bevoegdheidsincident) and ordered him to pay the plaintiffs' costs for that step: €1,228 in lawyer's fees plus €178 in follow-up costs, a total of €1,406.
• What has not happened: There has been no ruling on the merits. The court has not found that the vaccines were unsafe, that anyone misled the public, or that any defendant is liable for anything.
• Where things stand: A three-judge panel held the oral hearing on the merits (mondelinge behandeling) on 22 October 2026. Reports after the hearing said a decision could come on 9 December 2026 at the earliest and might slip to February 2027. As of 31 October 2026 we could not find an official date confirmed by the court.
• The "witness ruling": On 9 April 2026 the Amsterdam Court of Appeal declared inadmissible an appeal by three other people, also represented by Stassen, who wanted the courts to hear their chosen experts under oath. That decision went against the side bringing claims, not against Gates.

How the case began

The main case has the court reference C/17/190788 / HA ZA 23-172. The "23" shows it was registered in 2023. Like most Dutch civil cases, it began with a dagvaarding, a writ of summons. The plaintiffs' lawyers drafted it and a court bailiff served it on each defendant. The summons sets out the claims and orders the defendants to appear in court through a lawyer.

The plaintiffs were originally represented by two lawyers, Arno van Kessel and Peter Stassen. Van Kessel was arrested on 11 June 2025, together with seven other people, in a separate criminal investigation. NOS reports that police suspect him of belonging to a criminal network with anti-institutional views. NOS also reports that he was barred from practising law from late July 2025. That investigation is unrelated to the claims against Gates. Van Kessel has not been convicted, and he is presumed innocent. His supporters have said they believe the arrest was connected to the vaccine litigation. The NOS report gives that view but does not support it. Since his arrest, Stassen has represented the plaintiffs alone.

The court's published rulings anonymise every party, replacing names with letters or labels such as "[gedaagde sub 15]" (defendant number 15). The names that appear in public reporting come from the parties themselves, from media coverage and from fact-checkers. AFP's fact-checkers reported in 2024 that the case has seven plaintiffs and seventeen defendants, among them Gates, Rutte and the Dutch government. RTV Noord, a regional public broadcaster, reported that the defendants include Rutte, former health minister Hugo de Jonge, members of the government's former Outbreak Management Team (OMT) and Gates. Coverage of the October 2026 hearing also names Pfizer chief executive Albert Bourla. The defendants are a mix of politicians, public health officials, scientists and international figures, plus the Dutch State as a legal entity.

What the plaintiffs allege

Everything in this section is an allegation. None of it has been proven in court, and the defendants dispute it.

The original claim

The court's ruling of 16 October 2024 sets out the claims as the plaintiffs first filed them. They asked the court to:

1. Declare that the defendants, "as a group and each individually", acted unlawfully towards the plaintiffs by deliberately misleading them into receiving COVID-19 injections that the defendants knew, or should have known, were not safe and effective.
2. Order the defendants, jointly and severally, to compensate the plaintiffs for their damage, with the amount to be assessed in a separate follow-up procedure (schadestaatprocedure).
3. Order the defendants to pay the costs of the proceedings.

The court summarised the plaintiffs' reasoning in some detail. In their account, the defendants carried out what the plaintiffs call the "Covid 19: The Great Reset Project". They take the name from a 2020 book by World Economic Forum founder Klaus Schwab and a co-author. The plaintiffs argue that the pandemic was a pretended crisis used to justify forced global change. They say the injections "were never intended to protect" them "against an alleged virus", and that they suffered mental and physical injury as a result.

What the plaintiffs say Gates did

The jurisdiction ruling describes the specific conduct the plaintiffs attribute to Gates. According to the court's summary, the plaintiffs argue that Gates took part in the alleged deception internationally through two videos published on YouTube in 2020. The first, published on 30 April 2020, was titled "The race for a Covid-19 vaccine, explained". The second came from a 3 December 2020 interview on NBC's Today programme, posted under the title "It Looks Like Almost All The Vaccines Are Going To Succeed". The plaintiffs say Gates gave a false picture of the need for, and the safety of, the vaccines in these videos.

The plaintiffs also suggested that conduct by Gates's foundation should be attributed to him. At the jurisdiction stage the court set that point aside "now that they have not substantiated this". According to the plaintiffs, other defendants, including some who gave press conferences, carried out the alleged deception inside the Netherlands. The plaintiffs rely on Article 6:166 of the Dutch Civil Code. This provision makes members of a group jointly liable for damage caused by the group's unlawful conduct if they could have foreseen that the group's conduct created a risk of such damage.

The amended claim

The plaintiffs later broadened their claim. In its interim judgment of 26 November 2025, the court accepted an "increase of claim" (eisvermeerdering) because no defendant objected. In its amended form, the plaintiffs ask the court to declare that the defendants "continued to act unlawfully" towards them, including by unlawful omissions, until the court's final decision. The alleged conduct is deliberately misleading the plaintiffs and "the Dutch people" into receiving COVID-19 injections that the defendants allegedly knew, or should have known, were not safe and effective. The amended claim adds that the "false and misleading narrative" and the injections were harmful to health, fertility and psychological well-being. The claims for damages, to be assessed later, and for costs remain.

The "bioweapon" framing

In a related but separate court procedure, the court described the position taken in the main case more starkly. In August 2025, three other people, also represented by Stassen, asked the court to order a hearing of experts. In its decision, the court noted that the plaintiffs in the main case argue that COVID-19 "is not a disease but a project", that the mRNA injections are a crucial part of that project and qualify as "bioweapons" used to commit "genocide". The court recorded these as the plaintiffs' positions and noted that the defendants dispute them. It made no finding about whether they were true.

What the defendants say

The defendants have not given public statements in the case. Their positions are known mainly from what the court records and from reporting on the hearings.

Gates

Gates challenged jurisdiction first. That is a standard step for a defendant who lives abroad. His lawyers argued that the general rule of international jurisdiction is that a defendant must be sued in the courts of the place where they live. Because Gates does not live in the Netherlands, they said, that rule could not give the Dutch court jurisdiction. They also argued that none of the additional grounds the plaintiffs relied on applied. On the substance, the court recorded that Gates "disputed the plaintiffs' assertions in a general sense". He argued that the plaintiffs' claims lack "a sound and logical substantiation".

After losing the jurisdiction challenge, Gates was ordered to file his statement of defence (conclusie van antwoord). The court's November 2025 judgment confirms that the written phase has since closed, with two rounds of written pleadings. In the separate expert-hearing petition of 2025, the court recorded that the respondent represented by Gates's lawyer "refers to the judgment of the court" (refereert zich). That is a Dutch procedural formula for taking no position on a request and leaving it to the court.

The Dutch State and the officials it represents

The Dutch State, Rutte and a group of current and former officials are represented together by the State's lawyers. The court's November 2025 judgment quotes the opening line of their written defence: "the Covid-19 pandemic was an eventful period, in which various, sometimes far-reaching, measures were necessary to protect public health and society." (This is our translation of the Dutch wording quoted by the court.)

In a July 2025 hearing in the related expert-hearing petition, the Leeuwarder Courant reported that the State's lawyer pointed to a broad scientific consensus that vaccines are effective against COVID-19. The lawyer also argued that several of the proposed experts had previously spread conspiracy theories, and warned that hearing them under oath could lend legitimacy to unfounded claims. NRC reported from the October 2026 merits hearing that the State's lawyer warned against unfounded personal accusations against the officials involved.

Other defendants

Several other groups of defendants have their own lawyers, as the court's rulings show. Their detailed written defences are not public. Every defendant who responded to the 2025 expert-hearing petition asked the court to reject it or declare it inadmissible, except the respondent represented by Gates's lawyer. That respondent left the decision to the court.

A timeline of the case

The dates below come from the court's own published rulings unless another source is named.

• 2023: The plaintiffs file the case. It receives the docket number HA ZA 23-172 at the District Court of Northern Netherlands, Leeuwarden location.
• 1 May 2024: The court issues a judgment on a procedural incident, with a correction (herstelvonnis) on 12 June 2024. The October 2024 ruling refers to these but does not describe them.
• 18 September 2024: The court holds an oral hearing on Gates's jurisdiction challenge. A statement by one of the plaintiffs is read aloud by her father.
• 16 October 2024: Judge T.P. Hoekstra rejects Gates's jurisdiction challenge (ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2024:4056). Gates is ordered to pay €1,406 in costs and to file his defence by 27 November 2024.
• Late October 2024: Claims that Gates had been "indicted" spread widely on social media. AFP and other fact-checkers rate them false.
• 11 June 2025: Co-counsel Arno van Kessel is arrested in an unrelated criminal investigation (NOS). He is later barred from practising law, and Stassen continues the case alone.
• July 2025: The court hears a separate petition by three other people, represented by Stassen, asking it to hear five experts under oath before any new proceedings start.
• 20 August 2025: The court rejects that petition (ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2025:3398).
• 1 October 2025: In the main case, the court announces that it will issue a judgment on several procedural points and then schedule an oral hearing.
• 26 November 2025: A three-judge panel (C.M. Telman, T.P. Hoekstra and P. van Eijk) orders an oral hearing on the merits and requires the parties to attend in person. It rejects requests to hear witnesses and party experts at that hearing, refuses a case-management hearing, and refuses to order an unredacted page of a Pfizer report (ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2025:5657).
• 9 March 2026: The Amsterdam Court of Appeal hears the appeal against the August 2025 expert-hearing decision.
• 9 April 2026: The Amsterdam Court of Appeal declares that appeal inadmissible and orders the appellants to pay costs (ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2026:949).
• Mid-October 2026: Plaintiff-aligned outlets report that the court has agreed to add the sworn video statements of four experts to the case file after objections by Stassen. We could not find a published court decision confirming this.
• 22 October 2026: The oral hearing on the merits takes place in Leeuwarden and is livestreamed. Gates does not attend in person, according to NRC.
• After the hearing: Reports say a ruling is possible on 9 December 2026 at the earliest, and possibly not until February 2027.

The jurisdiction ruling, explained

The October 2024 decision is the main source of the claim that Gates "lost". It is worth looking at what the court actually decided and why.

Why EU rules did not apply directly, but still mattered

Most people expect EU law to decide which country's courts can hear a cross-border civil case. Within the EU, that law is mainly Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, known as Brussels I bis. It mostly covers defendants who live in an EU member state, though. Gates lives in the United States. The court noted that no treaty between the Netherlands and the United States sets rules on jurisdiction in civil and commercial cases. It therefore applied the Dutch national rules on international jurisdiction, found in Articles 1 to 14 of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering, abbreviated "Rv").

EU law still shaped the decision. The court explained that the Dutch legislature modelled these national rules on Brussels I bis and its predecessors. As a result, Dutch judges should normally interpret them in line with the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Unless there is evidence that the legislature intended to depart from EU law, the court said, it should follow the European approach.

The "anchor defendant" rule

The plaintiffs relied on several grounds. The court needed only one: Article 7(1) Rv, the Dutch rule on multiple defendants. It says that if a Dutch court has jurisdiction over one defendant, it also has jurisdiction over the other defendants in the same case, "provided that there is such a connection between the claims against the various defendants that reasons of efficiency justify a joint hearing." The rule is based on Article 8(1) of Brussels I bis, which does the same thing for defendants who live in the EU.

Applying the rule took two steps.

1. An anchor defendant. At least one defendant must fall within the court's jurisdiction on some other ground. The court found that one defendant lives in its district. He is a public health doctor in Friesland who sat on the OMT. Under Articles 2 and 99 Rv, the court therefore had both international and local jurisdiction over him. He became the "anchor defendant".
2. A sufficient connection. The claims against the other defendants must be closely connected to the claims against the anchor defendant. The court applied the CJEU's test. The claims must arise from the same set of facts, and they must be so closely linked legally that the plaintiff cannot reasonably be expected to bring them before different courts. The CJEU also asks whether there is a risk of irreconcilable judgments.

The court found that both conditions were met. The legal basis of all the claims was the same: unlawful act committed as a group (onrechtmatige daad in groepsverband). Gates argued that the specific acts alleged against him, two YouTube videos, were different from those alleged against Dutch officials. The court accepted that point. It found, however, that the plaintiffs allege all these acts were carried out by one group. Any court hearing the case would first have to decide whether that group existed, and it would be deciding that same question for every defendant. If the claims were split between courts in different countries, the court said, there was a risk of "irreconcilable judgments" about that shared set of facts.

A "prima facie" test, not a finding of fact

The court stressed the limited nature of its review. Following CJEU case law, it said that a judge deciding jurisdiction should be able to rule "easily" on its own competence "without having to examine the case on the merits". Where facts are relevant both to jurisdiction and to the merits, the judge does not take evidence at this stage, because doing so would anticipate the main proceedings. The judge forms only a "prima facie" view, an assessment "at first sight".

Gates had argued that the plaintiffs' claims were unsubstantiated. The court answered that his general denial was itself "not further substantiated". It was not enough, the court said, to show that the plaintiffs' assertions were so baseless that they failed even this limited first-sight check. That is a very low bar. Passing it does not mean the claims are credible, likely to succeed or supported by evidence. It means only that they were not so obviously empty that the court should refuse to hear them at the threshold.

The court also found it had local jurisdiction over the claim against Gates under Article 107 Rv, the domestic equivalent of the multiple-defendants rule. Because Article 7(1) Rv was enough, it did not consider the plaintiffs' other proposed grounds.

The €1,406 costs order

Under Dutch civil procedure, the party that loses a procedural incident usually pays the other side's legal costs. These costs are calculated with a fixed tariff of "points", not the actual fees charged. The court ordered Gates to pay €1,228 for lawyer's fees (two points at €614 each) and €178 in follow-up costs (nakosten), a total of €1,406. The order was payable within fourteen days and declared immediately enforceable. The amount reflects a standard tariff for a procedural step. It is not a fine and not damages, and it has nothing to do with the merits of the case.

As Utrecht University law professor Remme Verkerk told AFP in November 2024, the fact that a court has jurisdiction says nothing about whether a case has merit. In principle, anyone can take a claim to court. Verkerk and the court's spokesperson also explained that Gates was not required to appear in person at that stage, because civil cases do not work that way.

How Dutch civil procedure works

Many of the misunderstandings about this case come from treating it like an American criminal trial. Dutch civil procedure is quite different. The main steps are below.

1. The summons (dagvaarding)

A civil case in the district court starts when the plaintiff has a bailiff serve a writ of summons on the defendant. The writ sets out the facts, the legal grounds and the specific orders the plaintiff wants, known as the petitum. It also names the date on which the case first appears on the court's docket (rol). Representation by a lawyer is compulsory in this kind of case.

2. Preliminary objections (incidenten)

Before or alongside the defence on the merits, a defendant can raise procedural "incidents". A jurisdiction challenge (bevoegdheidsincident) asks the court to declare that it cannot hear the case. Other incidents can concern security for costs, joining parties or producing documents. The court decides incidents in an interim judgment (vonnis in incident). Gates's jurisdiction challenge was an incident of this kind.

3. Written pleadings

The defendant files a statement of defence (conclusie van antwoord). The court can then order an oral hearing or allow further written rounds. In this case, the plaintiffs filed a reply (conclusie van repliek) and the defendants a rejoinder (conclusie van dupliek). The November 2025 judgment confirms that two written rounds have been completed.

4. Interim rulings on procedure

Along the way, the court decides procedural requests. In November 2025, for example, it refused to order a defendant to produce an unredacted page of a Pfizer report. The plaintiffs had said that the redacted information, the number of doses shipped, did not matter to the research described in the report, so the court found they had no interest in it. The court also refused to split the defendants into groups and to hold a separate case-management hearing. It refused to hear party experts and witnesses during the oral hearing, explaining that the relevant provision (Article 87(3) Rv) is meant to speed up cases that are relatively simple on the facts, which this one is not. Hearing many witnesses would also take a great deal of time, and the defendants would then need the chance to call their own.

5. The oral hearing (mondelinge behandeling)

The oral hearing is not a trial in the American sense. There is no jury and usually no live witness testimony. The judges, here a panel of three, question the parties and their lawyers about the facts and arguments in the written file. In November 2025 the court ordered that the parties themselves must attend: "natural persons in person and the State properly represented." It explained that because two written rounds had already taken place, the hearing was "mainly intended to let the parties themselves speak". Dutch courts can draw conclusions they consider appropriate when a party does not appear. In a separate case, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal noted in April 2026 that parties are generally free to choose their own procedural approach, so non-attendance does not automatically lead to any particular result.

6. Evidence, if needed

If the court finds that a disputed fact matters to the outcome, it can give one party the task of proving it in an interim judgment (bewijsopdracht). That can lead to witness hearings or a court-appointed expert. The court noted in November 2025 that no such order had been made. In the related 2025 petition, it observed that when the parties' experts are directly opposed on a complex question, a report by an independent expert appointed by the court after consulting the parties is usually a better way to get evidence than a debate between experts chosen by each side.

7. The judgment

After the hearing, the court can do several things. It can give a final judgment (eindvonnis) rejecting the claims or granting them in whole or in part. It can give another interim judgment, for example ordering evidence or asking for further written comments. It can also rule on outstanding formal issues. The November 2025 judgment said that issues such as whether certain exhibits are admissible would be decided by judgment after the oral hearing. If damages were ever awarded, the plaintiffs asked for the amount to be set in a separate schadestaat procedure, which would add further time.

8. Appeals

The losing party in a final judgment of a Dutch district court can appeal to the court of appeal (gerechtshof) within three months. The court of appeal for Leeuwarden is the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal. It rehears the case on the facts and the law. After that, either side can bring an appeal in cassation, limited to points of law, to the Supreme Court of the Netherlands (Hoge Raad). As a general rule of Dutch procedure, an interim judgment such as the jurisdiction ruling can be appealed only together with the final judgment, unless the court has allowed an earlier appeal. Gates could therefore, in principle, raise the jurisdiction question again on appeal if the final outcome went against him. Some procedural decisions cannot be appealed at all unless the court grants permission, as the April 2026 ruling showed.

The witness and expert rulings, including 9 April 2026

Much of the recent online coverage focuses on whether the plaintiffs' experts would be heard. Three separate decisions are relevant, and they are easily confused.

August 2025: the petition for a preliminary expert hearing

In 2025, three people who were not parties to the main case filed a separate petition (case HA RK 25-17), represented by Stassen. They said they were considering either joining the main case or starting their own case against the same defendants. They asked the court to order a preliminary hearing at which five experts they had chosen would answer questions under oath, partly by video link from abroad.

On 20 August 2025 the court rejected the petition. Its main reasons were these:

• It would undermine the existing case. A preliminary hearing of evidence cannot be requested in proceedings that are already under way. Allowing it for people who intended to join those proceedings would "unacceptably" cut across the main case, which was being managed by a three-judge panel.
• It was the wrong tool. Because both sides agreed their experts were directly opposed, a report from an independent expert appointed by the court would be more appropriate than a hearing of party-chosen experts.
• The petitioners lacked sufficient interest. They already knew what their experts would say and could obtain written or video statements from them.
• The experts were not real "witnesses". Dutch law lets a witness testify only about facts they have personally observed. The court found that the proposed questions concerned the experts' professional knowledge, not their own observations. At the hearing the petitioners argued that the experts could testify from personal observation because "they live in a time in which all this is happening." The court found that this was not specific enough.
• Some questions were not relevant. For example, questions about US regulations on viruses, vaccines and biological weapons were included without any explanation of why US law mattered.

The court also noted that it was up to the panel in the main case to decide whether hearing the experts was necessary.

9 April 2026: the appeal is declared inadmissible

The petitioners appealed. The appeal was filed at the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal and then referred to the Amsterdam Court of Appeal, which heard it on 9 March 2026. On 9 April 2026 the Amsterdam court declared the appeal inadmissible (niet-ontvankelijk).

The reason was procedural. Under Article 200 Rv, a decision on a request for preliminary evidence-taking cannot be appealed unless the first-instance court allows it. The petitioners had never asked for that permission. They could therefore succeed only by showing a recognised "ground for breaking through" the ban on appeals, such as a breach of so fundamental a principle of law that there had been no fair and impartial hearing. The court of appeal found none:

• The petitioners argued that the August 2025 hearing had not been public. The appeal court said this "lacks a factual basis". The hearing took place in public, as an audio recording confirmed. Allowing only accredited press to take photographs and recordings, in line with the judiciary's press guidelines revised on 1 June 2025, did not breach the right to a fair and public hearing under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
• The court said that a decision about whether non-accredited journalists could film was a matter of keeping order in the courtroom. It was not part of the legal argument between the parties, so deciding it without hearing the petitioners' lawyer did not breach their right to be heard.
• On the petitioners' argument about the importance of their case, the court said that "a claimed great interest, social, financial or otherwise" does not justify setting aside the ban on appeals.
• The petitioners also objected to their experts being called "party experts". The court said the label only distinguishes experts brought by a party from experts appointed by the court. It "says nothing about partiality or independence."

The appeal court also addressed the fact that none of the respondents had attended in person despite being summoned. It saw no reason to attach consequences to this. It said that "parties may choose their own procedural stance" and that, as is usual in petition procedures, parties had been given the opportunity to appear only through their lawyers. The appellants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs on appeal.

The 9 April 2026 ruling did not concern Gates's liability, and Gates did not lose it. It was a defeat for the people seeking the expert hearing.

November 2025 and October 2026: experts in the main case

In the main case itself, the court refused in November 2025 to hear party experts or witnesses during the oral hearing. In mid-October 2026, outlets aligned with the plaintiffs, including NineForNews, reported that after two objections from Stassen the court had agreed to add sworn video statements from four experts, totalling just over three hours, to the case file as exhibits. We could not find a published court decision confirming the details. If accurate, it would mean the statements are in the file as documents. The court would still weigh their evidential value in its final assessment. It would not mean the court has accepted their content.

What happened at the 22 October 2026 hearing

The merits hearing took place on Thursday 22 October 2026 at the courthouse in Leeuwarden and was livestreamed. NRC reported that three judges heard the case and that Gates did not come to Leeuwarden. NRC also reported that the State's lawyer warned against unfounded personal accusations.

Detailed accounts of the hearing come mainly from outlets that support the plaintiffs, and they should be read with that in mind. One such account, by Potkaars, reports that the court asked questions about the scope of the claim: whether it concerned the general interest or only the plaintiffs' own interests, how many injections were involved, and whether it covered products other than Pfizer's mRNA vaccine. These are typical questions for a court trying to pin down exactly what it is being asked to decide.

No ruling was given at the hearing. Dutch courts rarely give judgment on the spot in complex civil cases. In the days that followed, plaintiff-aligned reports said a decision could come on 9 December 2026, but that given the complexity of the case it might be delayed until February 2027. We could not find a court announcement confirming either date. Readers should treat both as provisional.

What the science and regulators say about COVID-19 vaccine safety

The plaintiffs' case depends on proving that the defendants knew, or should have known, that the vaccines were not safe and effective, and that they deliberately misled the public. The court will decide what has and has not been proven in this particular case. To understand the broader context, it helps to know what medicines regulators and public health bodies have concluded. Their conclusions are not binding on the court, but they represent the mainstream scientific position.

Benefits

Large studies have estimated that COVID-19 vaccines prevented a very large number of deaths. A WHO Regional Office for Europe study published in January 2024 estimated that vaccination saved more than 1.4 million lives in the WHO European Region and reduced pandemic deaths by at least 57%. Most of those lives were saved during the Omicron period, from December 2021 to April 2023, and most of the people saved were aged 60 or older. The study estimated that the first booster dose alone saved about 700,000 lives. WHO Regional Director for Europe Hans Kluge said: "The evidence is irrefutable." Later versions of this analysis, published in a peer-reviewed journal, reported somewhat higher figures. Estimates of this kind depend on modelling assumptions, but the overall conclusion that vaccination substantially reduced deaths is widely shared among public health agencies.

Known risks, including myocarditis

Regulators have also acknowledged that the vaccines, like all medicines, carry risks, and that some rare side effects were identified after the vaccines came into wide use. This is how drug safety monitoring is supposed to work. Rare effects often appear only after millions of doses have been given, and regulators then update product information.

The best-known example for the mRNA vaccines, Pfizer-BioNTech's Comirnaty and Moderna's Spikevax, is inflammation of the heart muscle (myocarditis) and of the lining around the heart (pericarditis). The European Medicines Agency's safety committee, PRAC, first concluded in July 2021 that these conditions can occur in very rare cases after vaccination. In December 2021, PRAC reviewed two large epidemiological studies from France and the Nordic countries and concluded:

• The risk is "very rare", meaning it may affect up to 1 in 10,000 vaccinated people.
• The increased risk of myocarditis is highest in younger males.
• Symptoms generally appear within a few days of vaccination, mostly within 14 days, and more often after the second dose.
• The available data suggest that the course of myocarditis or pericarditis after vaccination is no different from these conditions in general.

The studies estimated the number of extra myocarditis cases in younger males after a second dose. For Comirnaty they found about 0.26 extra cases per 10,000 people aged 12 to 29 within seven days (French study) and 0.57 per 10,000 people aged 16 to 24 within 28 days (Nordic study). The figures for Spikevax were higher, at about 1.3 and 1.9 per 10,000 respectively. EMA's overall conclusion was that "the benefits of all authorised COVID-19 vaccines continue to outweigh their risks."

Other rare side effects have been identified for other COVID-19 vaccines, and regulators have changed their recommendations as evidence came in. Those details fall outside the scope of this case, which, according to the hearing reports, centres on the mRNA vaccines.

Why this matters for the lawsuit

The existence of rare, documented side effects is not the same as the plaintiffs' claim. Regulators publicly identified myocarditis, updated the product information and issued warnings. The plaintiffs allege something different and much broader: that the vaccines were never meant to protect anyone, that they were part of a coordinated global project, and that officials deliberately lied. Mainstream scientific bodies do not support those claims. Even so, a civil court decides a case on the evidence the parties put before it and on the applicable legal standards. It does not simply adopt the views of regulators. It has to ask whether each plaintiff has proven an unlawful act, causation and damage for each defendant.

Individual vaccine injuries are a separate question from conspiracy. A person can genuinely suffer an adverse reaction to a vaccine without anyone having acted unlawfully. Many countries run compensation schemes for exactly that situation. Whether any plaintiff in this case suffered a vaccine-related injury is a factual question that the court has not decided.

Liability shields: the PREP Act and the European position

Much online discussion of vaccine lawsuits refers to "liability shields". It helps to separate the US rules from the European ones.

The US PREP Act

The US Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) lets the Secretary of Health and Human Services declare that certain "covered countermeasures", such as vaccines, tests and treatments, are protected during a public health emergency. The Secretary issued a COVID-19 declaration effective 4 February 2020, and it was published in March 2020.

According to the US Congressional Research Service, the protection is broad:

• Who is covered: Manufacturers, distributors, "program planners" such as state and local governments, and "qualified persons" such as licensed health professionals who administer countermeasures, plus their employees and agents.
• What it does: Covered persons are generally immune from lawsuits for money damages for losses connected to the countermeasures. Courts have described this immunity as "sweeping".
• The one exception: Death or serious physical injury caused by "willful misconduct". Such claims must be brought in the federal district court in Washington, DC, and proven by clear and convincing evidence. The injured person must first pursue the administrative compensation scheme.
• Compensation: The Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), run by the Health Resources and Services Administration, can pay for medical expenses, lost income and survivor benefits for serious injuries or deaths directly caused by a covered countermeasure. It does not pay for pain and suffering or lawyers' fees, and its decisions cannot be reviewed by a court.

The PREP Act is US federal law. It governs lawsuits in US courts under US federal and state law. The Leeuwarden case is brought in a Dutch court under Dutch tort law, mainly Articles 6:162 and 6:166 of the Dutch Civil Code. The PREP Act does not decide the outcome there. Under the Dutch rules on which law applies, the court could in principle have to consider foreign law for some issues, but nothing in the published rulings suggests the PREP Act has played any role in the case so far. The Leeuwarden court's 2025 decision specifically criticised questions about US regulation that came with no explanation of why US law was relevant.

The European position

In the EU, the starting point is the Product Liability Directive (Council Directive 85/374/EEC). Under it, a producer is liable for damage caused by a defect in its product. The EU's advance purchase agreements with vaccine makers, negotiated by the European Commission in 2020 and 2021, included clauses under which member states would indemnify (reimburse) manufacturers for certain liabilities under strict conditions. The Commission's stated reason was the risk companies took by developing vaccines on a shortened timetable.

In July 2024, in Cases T-689/21 (Auken and Others v Commission) and T-761/21 (Courtois and Others v Commission), the EU General Court addressed these clauses in a case about public access to the contracts. It made two points. First, a producer's liability to a victim "cannot be limited or excluded" by contract under the directive. Second, nothing in the directive stops a third party, such as a member state, from reimbursing a producer for damages it has paid. The court also found that the Commission had not given the public sufficiently wide access to the indemnification clauses and other parts of the contracts.

In practice, then, vaccine makers in the EU can still be held liable to injured people under the product liability rules. The indemnity clauses affect who ultimately pays, not whether a victim can claim. The Leeuwarden plaintiffs are not bringing a classic product liability claim against a manufacturer, though. They allege a deliberate, group-wide tort by named individuals and the State, which is a different and much harder legal theory to prove.

Other Dutch litigation on COVID-19 vaccines

Dutch courts have heard other cases about COVID-19 vaccines. In April 2022, for example, the Court of Appeal in The Hague rejected claims by the foundation Viruswaarheid and the Dutch Association for Critical Vaccination (NVKP), which had sought an order to stop the administration of COVID-19 vaccines. The court found that the groups did not meet the legal requirements for bringing a collective action. That case had different parties, procedure and claims, and its outcome does not decide the Leeuwarden case.

Did Bill Gates "lose the trial"?

No. The table below shows each claim about the case and what the court record actually shows.

Saying that Gates "lost" in October 2024 is accurate only in the narrow sense that his jurisdiction objection was rejected and he had to pay costs for it. The court made no finding of wrongdoing, liability or fault against Gates or any other defendant.

What happens next

Several outcomes are possible once the court issues its next decision.

1. A final judgment rejecting the claims. The court could find that the plaintiffs have not sufficiently substantiated the facts they need: an unlawful act by each defendant, a group within the meaning of Article 6:166 of the Civil Code, causation and damage. In that case the plaintiffs would usually be ordered to pay the defendants' legal costs according to the standard tariff.
2. A final judgment granting the claims in whole or in part. The court could grant some or all of the declarations sought. Any damages would then be assessed in a separate schadestaat procedure.
3. Another interim judgment. The court could order one party to prove specific facts, appoint an independent expert, or ask for written comments on particular issues. That would add months or years to the case.
4. Rulings on formal issues. The court has said it will rule after the hearing on outstanding formal questions, such as whether certain exhibits are admissible. These could be dealt with in the same judgment or separately.

Whatever the result, the losing side can appeal to the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal within three months of a final judgment, and then bring a cassation appeal on points of law to the Supreme Court. If the case went to appeal, the jurisdiction question decided in October 2024 could in principle be raised again. A final, unappealable outcome could therefore be several years away.

Reports after the hearing said a decision could come on 9 December 2026 at the earliest, with February 2027 also possible. Courts in the Netherlands often postpone the date for judgment in complex cases. The most reliable source for the date and content of the decision will be rechtspraak.nl, where the court publishes anonymised rulings under ECLI numbers.

Frequently asked questions

Is Bill Gates on trial in the Netherlands?

He is one of seventeen defendants in a civil damages lawsuit in Leeuwarden. It is not a criminal trial, and he has not been charged with any crime. The court has jurisdiction to hear the claims against him, but it has not decided whether they are well founded.

What exactly did Gates lose?

On 16 October 2024 the court rejected his request to declare that it had no jurisdiction over him. He was ordered to pay €1,406 in legal costs for that procedural step, calculated with the standard Dutch tariff. That is the only decision against him so far.

Has any court found that Gates or the other defendants did something wrong?

No. As of 31 October 2026, there has been no ruling on the merits, and no finding of wrongdoing, liability or fault against any defendant.

Why can a Dutch court hear a case against an American?

Under Article 7(1) of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure, if a Dutch court has jurisdiction over one defendant, it can also hear claims against defendants abroad, as long as the claims are so closely connected that hearing them together is efficient. Here, one defendant lives in Friesland, and all the claims rest on the same alleged group tort. The rule mirrors Article 8(1) of the EU's Brussels I bis Regulation, and Dutch courts interpret it in line with EU case law.

Did the court say the plaintiffs' claims are credible?

No. At the jurisdiction stage the court applies only a "prima facie" test. It said that Gates's general denial was not enough to show that the claims were so unfounded that they could not pass even that limited check. That is a low threshold and says nothing about whether the claims will succeed.

Who are the plaintiffs?

Seven Dutch residents whose names are anonymised in the court's published rulings. They say they were harmed by COVID-19 vaccination. The October 2024 ruling already lists one plaintiff as deceased, and reports around the October 2026 hearing say two have now died. Their lawyer is Peter Stassen.

Who are the defendants?

There are seventeen. Reporting and fact-checks identify them as including Bill Gates, former prime minister Mark Rutte, former health minister Hugo de Jonge, members of the former Outbreak Management Team and the Dutch State. Coverage of the hearing also names Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla. The court's rulings anonymise the defendants.

What was the 9 April 2026 decision?

The Amsterdam Court of Appeal declared inadmissible an appeal by three people, not parties to the main case, who had asked for five experts to be heard under oath. Dutch law does not allow an appeal against this type of decision without the lower court's permission, and the court found no fundamental breach of fair-trial rights that would justify an exception. The appellants had to pay costs. The decision did not concern Gates's liability.

Did Gates attend the hearing on 22 October 2026?

NRC reported that he did not come to Leeuwarden. The court had ordered parties to attend in person. Dutch courts can draw the conclusions they consider appropriate from a party's absence, but absence is not in itself a finding of liability.

When will the court rule?

Reports after the hearing said the ruling could come on 9 December 2026 at the earliest, or possibly in February 2027. We found no official confirmation from the court. Dates for judgment are often postponed in complex cases.

Could the outcome be appealed?

Yes. A final judgment can be appealed to the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal within three months, and then to the Supreme Court on points of law.

Does the US PREP Act protect Gates in this case?

The PREP Act is US law that limits liability in US courts for covered pandemic countermeasures. This case is brought under Dutch law in a Dutch court, and the published rulings show no role for the PREP Act so far. Gates's defence, as recorded by the court, is that the claims lack a proper factual and logical basis.

Do regulators say COVID-19 vaccines are safe?

The European Medicines Agency has concluded that the benefits of authorised COVID-19 vaccines outweigh their risks. It has also confirmed rare side effects, including myocarditis and pericarditis after mRNA vaccines, which are most common in younger males. WHO Europe estimates that vaccination saved more than 1.4 million lives in its region. These are the conclusions of regulators and public health bodies. The Leeuwarden court will decide this case on the evidence and law before it.

Is Arno van Kessel's arrest connected to the case?

He was co-counsel for the plaintiffs until his arrest on 11 June 2025 in a separate criminal investigation. NOS reports that police suspect him of membership of a criminal network. He has not been convicted and is presumed innocent. His supporters believe the arrest is linked to the vaccine litigation, but the NOS report does not support that view.

Sources and further reading

Court rulings (official Dutch judiciary data service, rechtspraak.nl):

• Rechtbank Noord-Nederland, 16 October 2024, ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2024:4056 (jurisdiction ruling): https://data.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraken/content?id=ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2024:4056
• Rechtbank Noord-Nederland, 20 August 2025, ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2025:3398 (expert-hearing petition rejected): https://data.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraken/content?id=ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2025:3398
• Rechtbank Noord-Nederland, 26 November 2025, ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2025:5657 (oral hearing ordered; procedural requests rejected): https://data.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraken/content?id=ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2025:5657
• Gerechtshof Amsterdam, 9 April 2026, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2026:949 (appeal declared inadmissible): https://data.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraken/content?id=ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2026:949
• Rechtbank Noord-Nederland news release, "Rechtbank wijst verzoek om getuige-partijdeskundigenverhoor over COVID-19 injecties af" (August 2025): https://www.rechtspraak.nl/organisatie-en-contact/organisatie/rechtbanken/rechtbank-noord-nederland/nieuws/2025/08/rechtbank-wijst-verzoek-om-getuige-partijdeskundigenverhoor-over-covid-19-injecties-af
• Rechtspraak.nl, "Hoger beroep civiele zaak" (appeals in civil cases): https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Naar-de-rechter/Hoger-beroep/civiele-zaak
• Gerechtshof Den Haag news release, "Vorderingen over COVID-19 vaccins afgewezen" (19 April 2022): https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/Organisatie/Gerechtshoven/Gerechtshof-Den-Haag/Nieuws/Paginas/Vorderingen-over-COVID19-vaccins-afgewezen.aspx

News and fact-checks:

• AFP fact-check (via EDMO hub), "From AFP archives: Bill Gates was not 'indicted' over Covid-19 vaccine activism": https://admohub.eu/en/media/afp/factchecks/from-afp-archives-bill-gates-was-not-indicted-over-covid-19-vaccine-activism/
• RTV Noord, "Noordelijke rechtbank negeert bezwaar Bill Gates en neemt klacht tegen hem toch in behandeling" (16 October 2024): https://www.rtvnoord.nl/politiek/1225633/noordelijke-rechtbank-negeert-bezwaar-bill-gates-en-neemt-klacht-tegen-hem-toch-in-behandeling
• NOS, "Honderden protesteren bij gevangenis voor vrijlating voormalig advocaat" (August 2025): https://nos.nl/l/2578234
• Leeuwarder Courant via Headliner, "Weer rechtszaak tegen Gates en Rutte over vaccinaties" (9 July 2025): https://friesland.headliner.nl/item/weer-rechtszaak-tegen-gates-en-rutte-over-vaccinaties-is-een-hypnose-expert-ook-een-coronadeskundige-lc-105857
• NRC via Drimble, "Bill Gates kwam niet naar Leeuwarden, waar drie rechters zich bogen over de aanklacht…" (22 October 2026): https://drimble.nl/regio/friesland/leeuwarden/108371118/bill-gates-kwam-niet-naar-leeuwarden-waar-drie-rechters-zich-bogen-over-de-aanklacht-dat-de-mondiale-elite-met-covid-19.html

Plaintiff-aligned sources (used only for attributed, unconfirmed details such as the possible ruling dates and the October 2026 expert-statement decision):

• NineForNews, "Eerst geweigerd, nu toegelaten: nieuwe wending in de zaak tegen Bill Gates in Leeuwarden" (16 October 2026): https://www.ninefornews.nl/eerst-geweigerd-nu-toegelaten-nieuwe-wending-in-de-zaak-tegen-bill-gates-in-leeuwarden/
• NineForNews, "Zaak tegen Bill Gates nadert ontknoping: uitspraak mogelijk in december" (27 October 2026): https://www.ninefornews.nl/zaak-tegen-bill-gates-nadert-ontknoping-uitspraak-mogelijk-in-december/
• Potkaars, hearing report (22 October 2026): https://potkaars.nl/blog/2026/10/22/rechtszaak-covid-19-thegreatreset
• Stichting Recht Oprecht, news and updates: https://www.rechtoprecht.online/nieuws-updates

Science, regulation and liability:

• European Medicines Agency, PRAC meeting highlights, 29 November to 2 December 2021 (myocarditis and pericarditis): https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/meeting-highlights-pharmacovigilance-risk-assessment-committee-prac-29-november-2-december-2021
• WHO Regional Office for Europe, "COVID-19 vaccinations have saved more than 1.4 million lives in the WHO European Region, a new study finds" (16 January 2024): https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/16-01-2024-covid-19-vaccinations-have-saved-more-than-1.4-million-lives-in-the-who-european-region--a-new-study-finds
• Congressional Research Service, "The PREP Act and COVID-19, Part 1: Statutory Authority to Limit Liability for Medical Countermeasures": https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/LSB10443.html
• Court of Justice of the European Union, Press Release No 113/24, Cases T-689/21 and T-761/21 (17 July 2024): https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2024-07/cp240113en.pdf