Piranha court case

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Piranha court case (Dutch: Piranhazaak) is a trial of an Islamist terror group — 'Piranha group' — which was a direct successor to the 2002-2004 Hofstadgroup.[1]

Piranha case[edit]

On December 1, 2006, the District Court of Rotterdam, sitting in 'de Bunker' in Amsterdam Nieuw-West, convicted Samir Azzouz of preparing a terrorist attack and sentenced him to 8 years in prison. Nouriddin El Fahtni and Mohammed Chentouf were sentenced to 4 years in prison, Soumaya Sahla was sentenced to 3 years in prison and Brahim Harhour was sentenced to 3 months in prison. The Court ruled that the six individuals had not formed a terrorist organization.

The defendants lodged appeal with the Court of Appeal in The Hague.

On 2 October 2008 the Court of Appeal sentenced all suspects to higher sentences than those given by the District Court of Rotterdam: Samir Azzouz got 9 years in prison, Nouriddin El Fahtni got 8 years, Mohammed Chentouf got 6 years and Soumaya Sahla was sentenced to 4 years in prison.

Samir Azzouz was released on 6 September 2013. (On 31 August 2022 he [2] — and others[3] — was convicted again for helping Dutch IS women to escape from camps in Syria.[4] )

Piranha II case[edit]

After the witnesses Lahbib B. and his wife Hanan S. had testified against the defendants in the Piranha case, they were prosecuted themselves.[5] They were charged with participating in a terrorist organization, the preparation of attacks and the possession of several firearms. The District Court of Rotterdam sentenced them to 3 years in prison. The Court of Appeal in The Hague reduced these sentences to 104 days (Lahbib B.) and 74 days (Hanan S.).

Court rulings (Piranah case)[edit]

Samir Azzouz
01-12-2006 10-600052-05 en 10-600100-06 ECLI:NL:RBROT:2006:AZ3589 8 years
22-07-2009 ECLI:NL:GHSGR:2009:BJ3346 [6]
02-10-2008 GHSGR[citation needed] 9 years
28-08-2013 99/000089-44 ECLI:NL:RBROT:2013:6691 [7]
Mohammed Chentouf[8]
01-12-2006 10-600108-05 en 10-600101-06 ECLI:NL:RBROT:2006:AZ3589 4 years
02-10-2008 22-007384-06 ECLI:NL:GHSGR:2008:BF5180 6;6 years
Nouriddin El Fahtni
01-12-2006 10-600134-05 en 10-600102-06 ECLI:NL:RBROT:2006:AZ3589 4 years
02-10-2008 22-007349-06 ECLI:NL:GHSGR:2008:BF3987 8 years
02-10-2008 10-000354-04 (22-000553-07) ECLI:NL:GHSGR:2008:BF3987 (8 years) [9]
15-11-2011 10-000354-04 (08/04272) ECLI:NL:HR:2011:BP7585 7;4 years [9]
[Suspect][citation needed]
01-12-2006 10-600109-05 en 10-600103-06 ECLI:NL:RBROT:2006:AZ3589 acquitted
02-10-2008 22-007350-06 ECLI:NL:GHSGR:2008:BF5225 3 months
Brahim Harhour
01-12-2006 10-600122-05 en 10-600104-06 ECLI:NL:RBROT:2006:AZ3589 3 months
Soumaya Sahla
01-12-2006 10-600023-06, 10-600093-06 en 10-600046-05 (TUL) ECLI:NL:RBROT:2006:AZ3589 3 years
02-10-2008 22-007351-06 ECLI:NL:GHSGR:2008:BF4814 4 years
15-11-2011 08/04418 ECLI:NL:HR:2011:BP7544
21-09-2012 23-005318-11 ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2012:BY2772 [10]
21-12-2012 23-005318-11 ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2012:BY9310 [11]
25-03-2014 23-005318-11 ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2014:915 3 years
16-02-2016 14/02720 ECLI:NL:HR:2016:241

Court rulings (Piranah II case)[edit]

Lahbib B.
25-03-2008 10-600111-05 ECLI:NL:RBROT:2008:BC7531 3 years
11-11-2009 22-001605-08 ECLI:NL:GHSGR:2009:BK2957 104 days
06-12-2011 10/01721 ECLI:NL:HR:2011:BR1146
25-03-2014 23-005454-11 ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2014:914 104 days [12]
Hanan S.
25-03-2008 10-600112-05 ECLI:NL:RBROT:2008:BC7539 3 years
11-11-2009 22-001599-08 ECLI:NL:GHSGR:2009:BK2888 74 days
06-12-2011 10/01718 ECLI:NL:HR:2011:BR1144
25-03-2014 23-005455-11 ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2014:905 74 days

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ Schuurman, Eijkman & Bakker 2014.
  2. ^ ECLI:NL:RBROT:2022:7335
  3. ^ ECLI:NL:RBROT:2022:7336 and ECLI:NL:RBROT:2022:7337
  4. ^ Rechtspraak 2022.
  5. ^ Novum 2008.
  6. ^ decision about suspension of pre-trial detention
  7. ^ parole (Samir Azzouz was released on 6 September 2013.)
  8. ^ Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken 2007.
  9. ^ a b after the case had been split-up in ECLI:NL:GHSGR:2008:BC4171 (see sub Hofstad Network > Court rulings)
  10. ^ Rejection of the Advocate General's claim to declare the Public Prosecution Service inadmissible in the criminal proceedings.
  11. ^ Decision on requests to hear employees of the AIVD as witnesses
  12. ^ This ruling mentions the incorrect case-number (in Dutch: parketnummer) 10-600112-05

References[edit]

  • Dutch News (2006-11-06). "Prosecution winds up in Piranha court case". Dutch News. Retrieved 2023-01-13.
  • Schuurman, Bart; Eijkman, Quirine; Bakker, Edwin (2014-06-08). "A History of the Hofstadgroup". Perspectives on Terrorism. 8 (4): 65–81. ISSN 2334-3745. JSTOR 26297197.