This is something of a coincidence. After I posted that item the other day, about Dutch naturists winning a case on appeal, it made me think of a Dutch naturist friend, who told me back in tulip season that he'd been involved in a public-nudity case too. He'd been assessed a fine of 90 euros but he said he'd filed an appeal. So with a couple of other things to chat about (we're both going on the Naked European Walking Tour in July, etc) I emailed him yesterday and asked how his case was going. And he replied and said it was still before the court. But then today he emailed again and said the court had reversed the judgment!
Here is a not-very-good translation of the court's decision. The key issue seems to have been that a local government had accused him of being naked in a place "Not suitable for nudity" and he was able to get the appeal court to agree that there was no proof of this alleged "unsuitability".
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fuitspraken.rechtspraak.nl%2Finziendocument%3Fid%3DECLI%3ANL%3AGHARL%3A2017%3A454&edit-text=Article 430a Penal Code reads: "He who is outside by the City Council as suitable for Undressed public recreation designated place, undressed located at or to a public traffic destined place for Undressed recreation is not appropriate, shall be punished by a fine of the first category."
It follows from that provision, as has the Supreme Court in its judgment of December 8, 2015, ECLI: NL: HR: 2015: 3462 ruled that Undressed recreation is not only permitted by the City Council designated places.
It is certain that the place where the suspect is the alleged date has found unclothed in this case was not an unclothed as suitable for public recreation place designated by the city council. Nor is it disputed that a public traffic here were destined place. Where a difference of opinion exists or that place at that time for recreation Undressed was suitable.
The legislature has "not suitable" not further specified term. It is - as is clear from the legislative history - was the express intention of the legislature to assess what place is and what place is not suitable in specific cases to the court.
Answering the question of which intended for public traffic, not appointed by the City Council, places are not suitable for recreation undressed, depending on the circumstances of the case. Each case must therefore be assessed whether the site is not suitable for recreation undressed, which is clear from the legislative history and taking into account the placement of art. 430a Penal Code in Title II of the Third Book of the Criminal Code ( "Violations of public order") may include whether (i) Undressed recreation of the social views, such as those at the time of the conduct spot life is considered acceptable, (ii) the location is such that there is unsolicited or unwanted confrontation of third parties, and (iii) whether the public order is disturbed.
Given the wording of Article 430a of the Criminal Code, on which the indictment is based, the burden of proof that the relevant place is not suitable for Undressed recreation on the prosecution (and is not suspected to demonstrate that the relevant instead this is appropriate, as the Advocate General at the hearing).
The prosecution has failed to prove in this case that the relevant place is not suitable for recreation undressed. Based on the documents and the hearing has shown that one person in the police report made of the fact that there was clothing optional. This fact does not mean that this site is not suitable.
From the (additional) minutes of findings April 30, 2016 shows that 500 meters from the location where suspect was found a parking place is which accommodates about 42 cars, the forest has hiking trails and gates, to see often during patrols is that the parking lots are frequently used by recreationists and the area in particular is used by nature lovers and hikers. These conditions, however, are not proof of it in the place where suspect undressed recreated (then) it was not suitable. In addition, the court also takes into account that from the defendant submitted information showing that Forestry Commission, which manages the nature reserve on organized locally nude hiking. Not shown that Forestry Commission does not offer this more naked hiking as the area for this purpose is found to be unsuitable.
In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that insufficient evidence exists that the place where the suspect was located on the alleged date, was not suitable for recreation undressed, under Article 430a Sr. The defendant must therefore be acquitted of laid the charges.
