Not Just “Dual-Use”: Court Must Conduct Full Review

Summary:
The District Court of North Holland ruled that judges must conduct a full assessment when determining whether a product qualifies as a dual-use item. In doing so, the court followed the Dutch Supreme Court’s approach regarding military goods. In this case, the exported valves were found not to fall under SG heading 2B350.g.1 and therefore did not require an export license.

The Case

An exporter applied for a license to export valves to China (SG heading 2B350.g.1). The Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation denied the application, citing possible risks of misuse and alleged links between the Chinese end user and a state-owned company listed on foreign sanctions lists.
The exporter argued that the valves were not dual-use items and thus not subject to licensing. Technical data showed that while the valves were made from nickel- and chromium-based alloys, some parts contained less than 20% chromium and were uncoated. Under SG heading 2B350.g.1, all surfaces in contact with chemicals must consist of alloys with over 25% nickel and over 20% chromium.

The Ruling

The court concluded that the valves did not meet these specifications and therefore did not qualify as dual-use goods—no export license was required. Importantly, the court extended the Dutch Supreme Court’s reasoning from 3 March 2023 (no. 20/03639): just as with military goods, full judicial review applies to dual-use goods. Judges may not limit themselves to checking whether the minister’s decision was “reasonable,” but must independently determine whether the product falls within the scope of the Dual-Use Regulation.

Practical Implications

This decision highlights that export control decisions cannot rely solely on administrative reasoning. Both the minister and the judiciary must base their conclusions on careful technical and legal analysis, supported by accurate product data.

Exporters are advised to seek expert assessment of a product’s technical classification in cases of doubt. Inspection certificates, material analyses, and product specifications can be decisive.

Although the license application in this case was unnecessary, the court noted that a “positive refusal” could have been issued—confirming that no license was required.

Conclusion

The ruling confirms that full judicial review is the standard for dual-use goods. This enhances legal certainty but demands greater diligence from both authorities and companies. For exporters, it is a reminder that technical precision and transparency are essential—only complete information allows for fair evaluation.

Companies can rely on this precedent when applying for dual-use licenses: authorities must issue well-reasoned, substantiated decisions, or risk them being overturned in court.

The case was heard alongside HAA 25/1851, in which the court annulled a license denial for insufficient reasoning.

(District Court of North Holland, Case No. HAA 25/1913, Judgment of 9 May 2025)