Onder 2.28.1. Rechtbank Den Haag 1 juni 2022

(5) According to the plaintiffs, by the time of World War II during which those alleged offending acts were committed, the rule provided in Article 3 of the Hague Convention had been established as a rule of international customary law that obligated an offending State to pay compensation to individuals who suffered damages due to its conduct violating not only the Hague Regulations, but also international humanitarian law in general. The plaintiffs allege that they obtained their right to claim for compensation against the respondent through this rule of international customary law. However, since Article 3 of the Hague Convention cannot be a ground to support the claim, it is clear that a rule of international law of the same content, even if it existed, cannot serve as the basis for the claim. Moreover, even if the allegation by the plaintiffs pointed to the existence of international customary law recognizing direct individual claims for compensation against the offending State irrespective of Article 3 of the Hague Convention, there exist no such rules of international customary law to date. ”

$ curl -s https://bron.page/api/v1/blobs/e8a8cfaf37c7b8ac82d218f053586fedf6656b7fcf8645a4386f95e2f12c7a00 | shasum -a 256