Cases that matter

Battle for recognition for Q fever victims

December 1, 2025

Between 2007 and 2010, the Netherlands was hit by the largest Q fever epidemic in the world. Thousands of people became infected by a bacteria spread by goats. The consequences were enormous: an estimated 115 deaths and thousands seriously ill. Many victims still experience the effects of the infection on a daily basis. What happened and the impact on people and society The Q fever outbreak left deep scars. Many victims suffer permanently from severe fatigue, concentration problems and heart problems. Working or even leading a normal social life is no longer possible for many. Families were also badly affected: partners became informal caregivers, children saw their parents completely exhausted. In addition to personal suffering, there was social unrest about the role of the government: why did it take so long to intervene? The interests at stake The heart of this case touches on trust in government and the protection of public health. Victims feel that the State did not protect them sufficiently and took measures too late to stop the outbreak. The government invoked limited knowledge and discretion, but the question is: what did the State know at the time, and could faster action have prevented thousands of infections? For whom Beer advocaten stands up Beer advocaten represents more than 250 Q fever victims who are fighting together for recognition and compensation. We assist this group in their appeal against the Dutch State. Our commitment is not only legal, but also moral: victims must not suffer once again - this time from a system that refuses to acknowledge its negligence. The challenge: government liability The legal challenge is great. After all, the government has a certain freedom to make decisions based on the knowledge available at the time. Accordingly, the District Court of The Hague previously ruled that the State was not liable. In our opinion, the State already had sufficient information at the time to intervene more quickly. By not doing so, the State acted unlawfully. The plan of approach In the appeal we carefully map out what the government knew about the risks of Q fever and what measures would have been possible. We build up the file step by step, with the aim of convincing the court that the court's verdict was incorrect. The case is still ongoing - but the stakes are clear There is no appeal ruling yet. First it must be determined that the State is liable. Only then can the individual damages for each victim be assessed. The proceedings are expected to take years, but the determination among the victims is strong. As Caroline van Kessel, president of Q-uestion, said, “The court ruling was disappointing, but we are not giving up. The lives of Q fever victims have changed dramatically. With Beer advocaten, I feel we are well supported legally and are not alone in our struggle for recognition.” What really matters For Beer advocaten, this case is more than a legal battle. The

Noise pollution Schiphol - the voice of thousands of local residents

November 13, 2025

What happened. For years, thousands of residents living near Schiphol Airport have suffered severe noise pollution. Day and night their peace and quiet is disturbed by the constant roar of aircraft taking off and landing. The consequences are not limited to annoyance or nuisance: the nuisance affects the health, residential enjoyment and value of their homes. Local residents suffer from chronic sleep problems, stress, concentration disorders and an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Yet for years, many feel neither heard nor protected. Their interests have been structurally subordinated to those of the aviation industry. A structural problem that demands recognition Noise pollution around Schiphol is not a temporary inconvenience, but a structural problem. The District Court of The Hague confirmed in 2024 what local residents already knew: their interests have been ignored for years and the government has failed to enforce adequately. Still, actual compensation is not forthcoming. Many residents experience it as a form of invisible damage - not immediately visible to the outside world, but felt daily in their health and living environment. The role of Beer advocaten The Foundation Samen Sterk tegen Vliegoverlast, in which Lammert van Raan is a member of the Supervisory Board, has engaged Beer advocaten to prepare a collective action against Schiphol and the Dutch State. The goal is clear: finally recognition and appropriate compensation for the thousands of victims who have been suffering under the increasing air traffic for decades. This kind of mass damage case is not about one person, but about bundling thousands of stories with the same suffering. By acting together, victims increase their legal and social clout. The stakes and challenges The stakes are large and multifaceted. For residents, it is about health, peace and quiet, quality of life and preservation of the value of their homes. For the government and Schiphol, the continuity of air traffic and the economy are central. Precisely in this clash of interests lies the crux of this case: where is the line between economic growth and the right to a healthy living environment? Legally, the challenges are considerable. Noise standards, enforcement and health limits vary between Dutch, European and international regulations. Moreover, evidence of long-term noise damage is often complex and spread across numerous situations and measurement points. Therefore, in this case, Beer advocaten is working with noise experts, health experts and statistical consultants to convincingly prove the impact of the nuisance. Cooperation as key “Such a collective action requires cooperation - with other lawyers and experts, but especially with the people at stake.” said attorney Gerrit Nagel. Cooperation with residents and Foundation members is essential. Their stories of experience, noise measurements and medical data combine to provide evidence of structural injustice. At the same time, that cooperation helps Beer advocaten sharpen the social debate: the damage suffered by local residents must no longer remain invisible. The significance of the case The Schiphol case is an example of modern mass damage: collective, often invisible damage with great social impact. It is not just about legal liability, but about the question of how we in the Netherlands deal with the right to health, tranquility and quality of life.

Mass damage from toxic waste dumping

November 13, 2025

What happened. In 2006, on behalf of the oil company Trafigura, a large amount of toxic waste was shipped from Amsterdam on the ship Probo Koala. After processing proved impossible in the Netherlands, the waste was taken to Ivory Coast and illegally dumped in open dumpsites in the city of Abidjan. Thousands of residents were exposed to harmful fumes and chemicals. The consequences were severe: health complaints, deaths and permanent environmental damage. The impact on people and the environment The Probo Koala disaster left a trail of devastation. In the neighborhoods around Abidjan, families suffered from nausea, respiratory problems and chronic illnesses. The environment was also badly affected: soil and groundwater became contaminated, affecting agriculture and drinking water supplies for years. This case painfully demonstrates how transboundary environmental damage particularly affects vulnerable communities, often far out of sight of the perpetrator. The role of Beer advocaten Beer advocaten assists the Victimes des Déchets Toxiques Côte d'Ivoire Foundation, which stands up for thousands of victims of the waste dump. We litigate on their behalf in the Netherlands against Trafigura, seeking recognition and compensation. Our involvement goes beyond legal representation: it is about restoring trust in the law. Because when a multinational causes damage elsewhere, it should not go unpunished. Legal challenges and strategy The Probo Koala case is legally complex. The facts took place partly in the Netherlands and partly in Ivory Coast, which raised questions about jurisdiction and applicable law. Initially, the Foundation was declared inadmissible in its claims. In 2020, however, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled that Trafigura does have to answer in the Netherlands. The court recognized that the Dutch courts had jurisdiction to hear the victims' claims, a ruling that was upheld in the Supreme Court. Our approach was step by step: carefully substantiate that Trafigura had interfered with the transport of waste from the Netherlands, and then establish that victims were therefore entitled to access the Dutch courts. Interests and significance The case touches on fundamental values: human rights, environmental law and corporate responsibility. Beer advocaten represents not only the interests of the victims in these proceedings, but also the broader interest that companies be held liable for environmental damage wherever it occurs. The court's ruling has significance for future cross-border environmental cases. It confirms that the Netherlands cannot look away when decisions are made from here that cause great harm elsewhere. What this case shows The Probo Koala case shows that mass damage is not always domestic, but that justice must apply universally. Beer advocaten continues to advocate for communities affected by environmental damage anywhere in the world. Do you want to take on those who cause environmental damage? Do you want to use the law on behalf of a collective to protect victims and their environment? Beer advocaten supports citizens' initiatives, interest groups and NGOs in their struggle. Not only legally, but also strategically and organizationally. If you have questions about this, please contact Bojan Dekker.

When care fails, damage comes to light

September 23, 2025

On July 29, 2000, Valentina, then one-year-old, became seriously ill. Her mother called the doctor's office several times, but was fobbed off each time by the assistant. Only four hours later was she allowed to come in. By then it was too late: Valentina was in septic shock due to a meningococcal infection. Admissions, surgeries and finally an amputation of her left hand followed. Her legs also grew crooked due to infections in the growth plates. Her body, life and future were permanently changed. A complex medical and legal puzzle In 2012, I came into the picture through a colleague who was retiring. Medical malpractice had been acknowledged, but causation was still disputed. Thanks to expert research, it became clear that Valentina would have had residual symptoms even without the delay, but to a lesser degree. Why turn to Beer advocaten? The case required not only legal knowledge, but also stamina and understanding. Valentina was looking for someone who believed her story, saw her options, and continued to fight for an appropriate settlement. That's why she knocked on the door of Beer advocaten. More than an injury claim The injury is not just physical or financial. Valentina now lives with her partner in a home that is not wheelchair-accessible. She has Wajong benefits, and her mobility is severely limited. For example, her boyfriend lifts her up and down the stairs because she herself can only get up and down the stairs on her buttocks and is therefore ‘broken’ once she gets down or up. Yet despite all the setbacks, she has shown great perseverance. She is an extremely pleasant and realistic person, who appreciates small things and has not given up hope for a future as a mother. Listening ear Although the case is still ongoing, Valentina is satisfied: “Mirella has been my lawyer for several years and is a very kind and understanding woman. For me she has been a listening ear and has been fully committed to the lawsuit. I am very grateful to her for the time and effort she has put into the case.” If you have questions about this type of case, please contact Mirella Hartman.

Misjudgment with fatal consequences

July 17, 2025

A youth nurse advises a young mother to cut off all contact with her baby's father. Within two weeks, the father is dead. Not from violence, but from grief and addiction. What began as well-intentioned youth care ended in irreparable loss. A family without a voice The father had just gotten his life back on track when he was told he could no longer see his newborn child. The youth nurse gave this urgent advice to the mother, without hearing both sides of the argument. She even threatened out-of-home placement if the mother opened the door to him. The father, just clean, sank into grief and used again. Two weeks later, he was found to have died of an overdose. Why the family sought help The paternal grandparents were intimately involved in the baby's care. They did not understand why they had not been informed, let alone heard. They felt left out. They wanted clarity. And recognition. Unauthorized and careless The youth nurse did not have the authority to give such far-reaching advice. Yet she did it. Without legal basis, without hearing both sides of the argument, without factual verification. What made her actions extra serious was that she requested and used medical information without permission. Much of it turned out not to be correct. How I proceeded I tried to rectify the situation by filing a disciplinary complaint with the Regional Disciplinary Tribunal for Health Care. With the family's permission, I was given access to the medical file under the BIG Act. In it I saw that the youth nurse had gone beyond her duties. She based her advice on incomplete and incorrect information. And gave the family no chance to tell their side of the story. How I look back on this case This case affected me deeply. If the father had been heard, taken seriously, this may never have happened. As a personal injury lawyer at Beer Advocaten, I remain committed to bringing these types of mistakes to light. After all, no one should be a victim of a system designed to protect. If you have questions about these types of cases, please contact Mildred Brun.

Getting home safely after work

July 15, 2025

After a long day of work in a Brabant boner factory, eight Romanian migrant workers board a van on their way to their shared home in Germany. The van, owned by the employer, is driven by a colleague. Presumably due to fatigue, he gets on the wrong side of the road and collides head-on with a truck. Five are killed, three are seriously injured. The grief that remains Ana survives the accident, but loses her fiancé Dorian. She is seriously injured, both physically and mentally. Their future plans - they were to marry - are gone overnight. Dorian dies in her arms. Elena and Florentin, Dorian's parents, lose their daughter Gabriela and son-in-law Horatiu. They now care for their grandson Bela, who lost both his parents. Claudiu, Horatiu's father, is left heartbroken. The impact on these families is unimaginable. Why this affects me personally I am writing this blog on the way back from Bucharest. The conversations with Ana, Elena, Florentin and Claudiu do not let me go. The raw emotions, the enormous resilience of these families and the loss that affects them: it grips me. I am ashamed of the conditions under which some people have to work in the Netherlands. Why they need legal help so badly Ana and the relatives have lost their loved ones and now have to fight for compensation. On your own you won't make it in the complex personal injury system. Especially when you have to deal with language barriers, grief and financial worries all at the same time. That's why they asked me for help. Who is liable - and why that was clear In this case, liability is clear. The driver presumably fell asleep after a long day of work. In such a case, the occupants' damages will have to be compensated by the passenger van's insurer, while the employer can be held responsible for employee mistakes. How I approached this My focus was on securing all of the victims' rights. I invoked several (legal) bases: the no-fault third-party rule, the employer's liability for staff mistakes, as well as the lack of proper insurance. Each victim and each survivor is entitled to their own approach and calculation of damages. To this end, I work together with medical and financial experts. How I look back on this case I admire the strength of these families. And frustration with the system that puts people in such vulnerable circumstances. This case reminds me why I became a lawyer: to provide justice. If you have questions about this type of case, please contact Bojan Dekker.

More business

Calls

What concerns us

ChatGPT in your personal injury case: convenient, but not without danger

January 12, 2026

Introduction Recently, I have noticed it more and more often in my practice as a personal injury lawyer: clients who have ‘talked’ to ChatGPT (or some other tool) before contacting me. Clients who have their answers to my questions written by ChatGPT. Clients who submit my advice to a chatbot for review. Or clients who have compensation calculated by an AI tool. Let me say up front: I completely understand. You are in a crisis, a very uncertain situation, and are full of questions. Through your laptop, you have access to a tool that, within seconds, answers all the questions you've been walking around with for a long time. Why not take advantage of that? An understandable thought, but I also want to warn you with this blog: artificial intelligence can help you gain some insight into your situation. At the same time, it can also provide false information that can damage your business (or perhaps more importantly, your expectations of it). We want to avoid that. OpenAI draws its own line My warning relies on an important change from OpenAI itself. OpenAI is the organization behind ChatGPT that conducts research in the field of artificial intelligence (AI) and its implementation. Late last year, OpenAI made an interesting change to its usage policy. ChatGPT may no longer be used for “providing customized advice requiring a license, such as legal or medical advice, without adequate involvement of a licensed professional.” Freely translated, this means that ChatGPT may continue to help you with medical or legal questions. But: tailored legal (and medical) advice for your specific situation may only come from someone with authority, preferably a lawyer or doctor. Why does OpenAI do this? Because it knows things could go wrong. OpenAI does not want to bear responsibility for any harm a user suffers, such as when they act in line with ChatGPT's legal advice and suffer harm as a result. By drawing this line sharply in the terms of use, OpenAI is trying to hedge against liability. In doing so, OpenAI seems to implicitly acknowledge that legal advice from AI does not have the same value as advice from a professional. This deserves our attention, because when even the company behind ChatGPT says you should be careful with this, it sends an important message. Why ChatGPT doesn't fully understand your business That signal is not without reason. I explain this using a real-life example. I get a call from a client who says, “I have already done a quick search through ChatGPT to find out about liability in my case.” The client then talks about the extensive output on medical malpractice, liability and compensation. I hear things like, “In medical errors, liability of the doctor is never established beyond 80%, so you are always stuck with 20% of your damages. There is case law on that”. Such information is generated (perhaps even with references to case law) and it feels true, but it is not always accurate. In personal injury cases, -

Femicide: the most talked about murder

October 21, 2025

Femicide is gender-related killing: being a woman and gender inequality and/or attitudes play a role. In most cases of femicide, there is a personal relationship between the perpetrator and the victim, such as a (former) partner or family member. From 2018 to 2022, 172 (out of 217) women were killed by someone in the domestic circle, according to the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS). That's nearly 80%. The figures are shocking: every eight days a woman becomes a victim of femicide. This makes the Netherlands the country with the highest rates in Western Europe. Femicide is often predictable and nevertheless just as often not prevented. There is usually a pattern of coercive control prior to killing a woman. Scientist Jane Monckton Smith has outlined eight phases related to femicide. Stage 1: relationship history: often the first signs are already visible during a first date, for example by statements such as ‘my ex was disturbed. Phase 2: moving too fast, such as wanting to move in together very quickly. Phase 3: control: rules are imposed by the man and if they are broken there is a consequence. Phase 4: a violent event, such as a relationship break-up. This is often the tipping point. Stage 5: escalation: an attempt is sometimes made through escalation to return to stage 3, which causes the relationship to resume. Stage 6: thinking about murder: when a man feels so rejected and/or humiliated by the ending of the relationship, plans to kill a woman begin to emerge. Stage 7: murder plans: concrete plans are made. Stage 8: murder and suicide. This phase may follow immediately after phase 7 or there may be time in between. Not only the woman is at risk, but also the children if there are any. So there are several phases prior to the moment a woman is killed, which would allow intervention by aid agencies. Despite this, there is still often insufficient attention by agencies to the signs, and many divorces or relationship breakdowns are often still wrongly labeled as fighting divorces. As a victim advocate, I regularly assist women who are victims of severe domestic and honor-based violence as well as survivors of women who became victims of femicide. In my opinion, earlier intervention is needed by government agencies to protect women from abuse and murder. I find that it is no easy task for women to be seen by police as victims of coercive control - I can help. If you have any questions about this blog, please contact the author, Nicole Hoogenboom

Access to justice

October 16, 2025

A fundamental right The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) names due process and access to justice as fundamental human rights. You would think that this would settle it always and everywhere, but it does not. Whether citizens actually have access to civil justice depends on practical matters, such as the ability to finance the costs of litigation. Complex liability proceedings often involve high costs. These include the costs of legal aid and often experts. Only for the rich? There are few citizens who without special provisions (such as legal expenses insurance, for example) are able to bear such costs. The question to be asked is whether only those with a lot of money have the fundamental right of access to justice. In addition to the costs necessary to conduct proceedings, there is also the risk of a court cost award in the unlikely event that the proceedings are lost. The risk of a court cost award can be so daunting that it frustrates access to justice. In the Netherlands, this risk is relatively limited because the courts use fixed amounts, which have no direct relationship to actual costs. In other countries, such as England, it may involve an order to pay the other party's actual litigation costs, which can lead to very high orders. Government The government has an important role in shaping citizens' access to justice. One way that role is fulfilled is through the regulations governing government-subsidized legal aid for citizens with limited financial resources. Those rules determine who does and does not qualify for subsidized legal aid and what fees are paid. Reimbursements for lawyers are limited, expert fees are not reimbursed, if at all, and the risk of the litigation costs order remains in full force. The legal profession The legal profession also has a responsibility. This usually involves making flexible financial arrangements with the client that make it possible to conduct the proceedings. Very recently, the Dutch Bar Association decided, after a year-long experiment, to make it definitively possible for lawyers in injury and death cases to make so-called result-related fee agreements. In concrete terms, such agreements mean No Cure No Pay. This removes financial barriers to access to justice. Lawyers are not obliged to make such agreements. Those seeking justice remain dependent on lawyers who are willing to do so. Mass claims In recent years, group or mass claims are increasingly involved. These are proceedings brought on behalf of large numbers of individuals. The possibility of bringing such claims contributes to access to justice, in part because the costs of the proceedings can be borne more easily by the group than by an individual. The Law on Settlement of Mass Damage in Collective Action (WAMCA) makes it possible for injured parties, in the case of mass damage, to jointly, through a foundation or an association

More blogs