Summary

On June 25, 2026, the court heard the appeal filed by BAS against the municipality’s refusal to enforce measures to restore the neglected national monument De Kempenaer House at Eisenhowerlaan 132. During the hearing, it became clear that the municipality takes the position: ‘We cannot and may not determine whether the property is in poor condition. We rely on the statement from Saudi Arabia that they are using the property. The Netherlands does not dispute that the property has diplomatic status.’

BAS is of the opinion that the property is visibly in disrepair (the Municipal Executive acknowledged this as early as 2020 in response to questions from council members), that everything indicates that it is not being used by Saudi Arabia (SA), and that multiple statements by (members of) the Municipal Executive make it clear that the Netherlands informed the embassy in 2023 that Eisenhowerlaan 132 does not have diplomatic status.

New information from the municipality is that SA has carried out some maintenance (it is unclear what) and that the embassy is awaiting approval from the capital for the sale of the property. The judge grants the municipality three weeks to provide information indicating within what timeframe SA intends to sell the property; subsequently, BAS is given four weeks to respond. If no clarity has been reached after seven weeks, the judge will issue a ruling.

Detailed report of the hearing

On June 25, 2026, the court heard the appeal filed by BAS against the municipality’s refusal to enforce measures to restore the neglected national monument De Kempenaer House at Eisenhowerlaan 132. More precisely: BAS filed an enforcement request on November 28, 2023, which the municipality rejected on December 20, 2023; BAS lodged an objection against this on January 30, 2024, and that objection was declared unfounded by the municipality on May 15, 2024. BAS lodged an appeal against this latter decision with the District Court of The Hague on June 19, 2024.

The hearing begins with questions from the judge to the municipality’s spokesperson. First of all: whether the municipality disputes BAS’s assertion that the property has never been put into use since its purchase in 2007 by Saudi Arabia (hereinafter SA). The municipality does indeed dispute this; it relies on what SA states, namely that the property is used for the mission (diplomatic representation). ‘No one can see what is happening inside.’ The BAS spokesperson indicates that there is very little activity at the property. Neighbors occasionally see someone park a car at the back and go inside briefly. The gate at the front is opened very rarely.

In response to the poor condition of the building raised by BAS, the municipality argues that visual observations are insufficient for enforcement purposes under the Bouwbesluit (Building Decree). In the case of a property enjoying diplomatic protection, the municipality is not permitted to enter the grounds to conduct an investigation. Moreover, an investigation is pointless because the municipality states it cannot take enforcement action.

The judge asks whether the municipality disputes that the Netherlands (the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, hereinafter MoFA) contests the diplomatic status of the property. To this end, the municipality refers to a note verbale from 2023 and one from June 24, 2026, which were allegedly sent to the court under confidentiality. The judge has not received these. Later, the municipality states that the Netherlands does not contest the diplomatic status, but it can’t explain why that would have been different in 2023.

BAS indicates that the municipality has withheld documents in this case, including the note verbale from May 2023. The municipality states that this note verbale was not used in the decision on the objection. SA does not want the note verbale to be made public.

Furthermore, it became apparent during the hearing that talks between MoFA and SA are still ongoing and that the municipality is involved in them. The note verbale from one day (!) before the court hearing states that something (the municipality does not clarify exactly what) was done regarding maintenance and that the embassy is awaiting approval from the capital for the sale of the property.

BAS responds that no evidence of maintenance has emerged to date. SA is not using the property. MoFA has pointed out to SA that the property does not have diplomatic status. In 2023, Alderman Balster informed the Commissie Ruimte (Spatial Planning Committee) that the note verbale from May 2023 indicates that, according to the MoFA, the building has no diplomatic status. According to the municipal spokesperson, the Alderman’s statement is second hand information that cannot be relied upon. Rather a curious view regarding a statement made by an Alderman in public, no less.

BAS recalls the 2020 ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in a case between Equatorial Guinea and France. According to the ICJ, France could rightfully challenge the diplomatic status of a building owned by Equatorial Guinea. The judge concludes from this ruling that the ‘sending’ country (which has a diplomatic representation in the host country) cannot unilaterally determine that a building belongs to the mission.

The judge points to the council documents, which clearly state that the MoFA disputes the diplomatic status. According to the municipal spokesperson, the MoFA was of the opinion at the time of the objection procedure that the building was being used by the mission. The municipality is unable to explain how this can be reconciled with an earlier dispute.

The sale of the building now appearing to be imminent was new information, but we must remember that this case shows that promises are not always kept. In consultation, the following timetable has been established for the continuation:

• The municipality is given three weeks to submit documents showing within what timeframe SA intends to sell the property at Eisenhowerlaan 132;
• BAS is given four weeks to respond to that new information;
• If there is still no clarity after seven weeks, the judge will issue a ruling;
• If the notes verbales (eventually) arrive at the court, the Confidentiality Chamber will determine whether they may be made public.

In summary, the municipality’s position is: We cannot and may not determine whether the property is in poor condition. We rely on the statement by SA that they are using the property. The Netherlands does not dispute that the property has diplomatic status. Apart from the aspect of whether or not the property is in use, it takes little effort to find evidence that these statements do not correspond with previous statements by the Board of Mayor and Aldermen and its members. As early as 2020, questions were asked by council members Oudshoorn-van Ginderen and Pronk, the first of which read: ‘Is the Municipal Executive aware of the dilapidated status of the properties at Eisenhowerlaan 132 and Alexanderstraat 19?’ The answer from the Municipal Executive: ‘Yes, the Municipal Executive is aware of the current status of the properties at Eisenhowerlaan 132 and Alexanderstraat 19.’ Even then, the municipality was in discussions with the embassy, ​​assisted by the MoFA, regarding the (lack of) maintenance of the building.

In response to questions from council members Van Basten Batenburg and De Ridder, Alderman Balster stated on July 4, 2023: ‘In May of this year, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs last sent the embassy a so-called Note Verbale (a diplomatic note) in which urgent attention was once again requested regarding the condition of the aforementioned properties. In doing so, the Ministry indicated that it was of the opinion that the properties do not possess diplomatic status. In the absence of this status, the municipality can, in principle, initiate an enforcement process.’ The answer also states that the Ambassador of SA disagrees with the judgment of the MoFA and that the municipality is awaiting his response to the note verbale.

Hopefully, more clarity will emerge regarding Saudi Arabia’s sales plans in the coming weeks. Taking enforcement action against that country is, of course, pointless if a sale is imminent. We will keep you informed of any new developments.

The photos of the dilapidated De Kempenaer House (Eisenhowerlaan 132) and the outbuilding at Van Bleiswijkstraat 118 were taken with a telephoto lens on April 7, 2024, from the street or from a home on Van Bleiswijkstraat.