The Amsterdam Court of Appeal passed judgment on February 1 in the case of a gallery owner who sold Mein Kampf of Adolf Hitler in his gallery in Amsterdam.

The case began when the Federatief Joods Nederland (Federation Jewish Netherlands) reported against the gallery owner on October 27, 2013, because he sold the book Mein Kampf.

Historic object

According to the public prosecutor, the gallery owner was guilty of the distribution and stocking of an item that contains statements that may be considered as an insult to a group of people and incitement to hate and discrimination of Jews on the grounds of their race and religion.

On November 21, 2014, the Amsterdam district court ruled that the antiquarian owner cannot be punished, even though the act of selling Mein Kampf is illegal. Sentencing the gallery owner would violate Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which safeguards the freedom of expression.

The district court found that societal developments, including the fact that Mein Kampf can now be acquired easily and consideration that the book was sold as a historic object, made sentencing the gallery owner unnecessary in a democratic society. The public prosecutor lodged an appeal against the judgment.

Prudence

With its judgment on February 1, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal went even further than the district court. The Court of Appeal ruled that even the act of selling Mein Kampf is not punishable and has, therefore, declared the gallery owner discharged from all legal proceedings.

In the interest of a democratic society, prudence is essential when prohibiting expressions of opinions. The European Court of Human Rights standard is fixed to a very high level. Also, disagreeable opinions and beliefs that may be shocking, hurting or disturbing ought to be in the public domain as much as possible, the court said.

The Court of Appeal found that Mein Kampf, in the context of anti-Semitism and the fight against it in the public debate, considering its content and image of the book, plays a key role as one of the historic resources of the anti-Semitic body of thought.

In this case, there is no pressing social need to have the gallery owner sentenced for stocking the book Mein Kampf. He sold it to people who were interested in historic copies. He is not an adherent of the Nazi body of thought, nor is he a propagator of it. Besides, Mein Kampf is freely available in libraries and on the Internet.

The public prosecutor has indicated it will bring an appeal in cassation against the judgment of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal.