Thus, Pro Soualiga cannot claim that it represents the population of Sint Maarten, so that it does not meet the requirements of representativeness of Article 3: 305a BW via this route.
The other defenses
Another defense of admissibility is being brought up by the State, namely that the legal claims instituted are time-barred. However, this is not addressed to the General Court now that the first defense of admissibility is effective. Nor does the General Court assess the substantive arguments of the parties.
Litigation costs order
As an unsuccessful party, Pro Soualiga will be ordered to pay the costs, as stated in the decision.
declares Pro Soualiga inadmissible in its claims,
orders Pro Soualiga to pay the costs of the proceedings, estimated on the part of the State at nil in disbursements and at NAf. 2,500.00 to the authorized salary and declares the legal costs order enforceable in stock.
This judgment was rendered by mr. AJJ van Rijen, judge, and pronounced in open court on 23 March 2021 in the presence of the registrar.