Justice delayed? Dutch state and agency liability in historical cases of illegal intercountry adoption

On 19 April 2024, the Dutch Supreme Court rendered a ruling in the case of Dilani Butink, a Dutch adoptee from Sri Lanka who initiated legal proceedings against the adoption agency and the Dutch state. The latter, the plaintiff asserted, had failed to adequately investigate the legitimacy of her adoption in 1992 amidst widespread reports of abuses occurring in Sri Lanka during that period. She argued that this negligence had contributed to the ongoing uncertainty regarding her origins and the circumstances of her relinquishment for adoption. Claiming violations of her rights to identity and origin under the ECHR, the plaintiff demanded financial reparations from the two stakeholders. The Supreme Court's ruling in this case serves as a significant point of reference in the ongoing discourse on reparation in the aftermath of past illegal intercountry adoption, not only in the Netherlands but also in other European countries. This case note explores the complexities surrounding the questions regarding accountability of stakeholders in the receiving countries in cases of illegal intercountry adoptions.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law
Published
2025-04-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263x251336671
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Conflict of Laws and Jurisdiction
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
8.52
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Justice delayed? Dutch state and agency liability in historical cases of illegal intercountry adoption

Elvira Loibl
1 citations
Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law
Conflict of Laws and Jurisdiction
8.52
article

Justice delayed? Dutch state and agency liability in historical cases of illegal intercountry adoption

Elvira Loibl
article en
1 citations

Abstract

On 19 April 2024, the Dutch Supreme Court rendered a ruling in the case of Dilani Butink, a Dutch adoptee from Sri Lanka who initiated legal proceedings against the adoption agency and the Dutch state. The latter, the plaintiff asserted, had failed to adequately investigate the legitimacy of her adoption in 1992 amidst widespread reports of abuses occurring in Sri Lanka during that period. She argued that this negligence had contributed to the ongoing uncertainty regarding her origins and the circumstances of her relinquishment for adoption. Claiming violations of her rights to identity and origin under the ECHR, the plaintiff demanded financial reparations from the two stakeholders. The Supreme Court's ruling in this case serves as a significant point of reference in the ongoing discourse on reparation in the aftermath of past illegal intercountry adoption, not only in the Netherlands but also in other European countries. This case note explores the complexities surrounding the questions regarding accountability of stakeholders in the receiving countries in cases of illegal intercountry adoptions.

Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative LawVol. 32(3)
Maastricht University (NL)
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Conflict of Laws and Jurisdiction
8.52
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Justice delayed? Dutch state and agency liability in historical cases of illegal intercountry adoption — Elvira Loibl · Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS