Marie-Anne Tan-De Sonnaville
| Marie-Anne Tan-De Sonnaville|
Judge who erratically and emotionally suspended the lift of the Dutch Covid 19 2021 curfew ordered 4 hours earlier after being saved from a judicial disqualification.
Tan-De Sonnaville has a degree in law achieved from a currently not known university. Tan-De Sonnaville was an intern at the Court of The Hague from 1977, and was a court auditor in 1983, becoming a judge in 1985. Newspaper NRC named her "a judge that has been presiding over numerous cases against the Dutch government". Tan-De Sonnaville was promoted to Senior Councillor and vice-president of the Superior Court of Justice of the Hague in 2013. Tan-De Sonnaville has had dozens of other side activities as well including a ten-year spell at the Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security where she was part of the Violent Offenses Compensation Fund, becoming chairman in 1996.
Shell & Tata Steel vs Farmers
One influential case of Tan-De Sonnaville was the "State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation" (Dutch: De Staat Der Nederlanden v. Stichting Urgenda), a court case heard by the Supreme Court of the Netherlands in 2019 related to government efforts to curtail carbon dioxide emissions. The case was brought against the Dutch government in 2013, arguing the government, by not meeting a minimum carbon dioxide emission-reduction goal established by scientists to avert harmful climate change, was endangering the human rights of Dutch citizens as set by national and European Union laws. The verdict caused the government to blame farmers for not reaching the CO2-limits leading to the Dutch Nitrogen Crisis of 2020, a series of demonstrations by Dutch farmers, blocking roads, highways, the Dutch parliament, occupy public spaces and raid meetings of mayors and municipalities, who accused the farmers of attempting to intimidate officials. The farmers called for more policy to punish companies like Shell and Tata Steel for their part in polluting the Dutch land.
During the Dutch Covid-19 curfew, Tan-De Sonnaville chose to temporarily suspend the verdict of the court of The Hague, who concluded the government of Mark Rutte "continuously talked about the implementation, which proved the urgent need to implement with a law likened to war-time measurements - especially without a parliamentary vote through both chambers - was deemed a constitutional violation of the Dutch people's privacy because the curfew is a far-reaching violation of the right to freedom of movement and privacy and (indirectly) limits, among other things, the right to freedom of assembly and demonstration.". The decision was suspended 45 minutes before the end of the curfew in an expedited appeal after the court denied the tense and seemingly nervous Tan-De Sonnaville processing the appeal to be judicially disqualified on 4 points brought forward by the plaintiffs earlier. Tan-De Sonnaville amongst other things also allowed the head of the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment Jaap van Dissel to be called as a witness (as he and the cabinet were standing outside the courthouse) without an oath and allowed him to give arguments against the original decision of the court. Arguing on the content of the case was previously forbidden - and to be punished with removal from the session - when tried by the plaintiffs, a sign of immediate intervention by the Dutch Deep State.
Conflict of Interest
Tan-De Sonnaville has worked with the head of the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment Jaap van Dissel in the Dutch Medical Disciplinary Court from 2008 to 2013, raising questions. Multiple scholars and lawyers criticized Tan-De Sonnaville's strange "authoritarian presence". The spokesperson for the court responded that there is no conflict of interests as Van Dissel was only "incidentally" present, and they only met "a few times" in matters "purely business". Why Tan-De Sonnaville allowed Van Dissel to discuss the contents of the case when she prohibited the plaintiffs from doing so was not discussed in commercial media.
|After Van Dissel has had 35 minutes to hand out charts and argue for the general lockdown and curfew. 3:27:15: "Plaintiffs, I've said repeatedly, we're not gonna discuss the content of the case tonight." 3:27:23: "But you already started by inviting Van Dissel, as a witness, who handed out notes of evidence they failed to do when we all prepared for the case!" 3:27:40: "I... Think, it's time now that professor Van Dissel may go home and we continue."|
As everyone was leaving the court, Tan-De Sonnaville is heard out of view saying "And now everyone needs to go home quickly cause the curfew is still active!" 
After the Covid-19 curfew case, numerous defenders of Tan-De Sonnaville were called by the media, who jumped to defend her erratic behavior reciting "she just regained her speech again after a very severe disease" up to and including her husband who called her "non a government supporter as her verdict on the Urgenda-case caused a lot of trouble for the Dutch government".