Not that I agree with it, no, but it's not like they're acting above it.
These are not hypothetical questions. I'm not Dutch but in my own (EU) country it's a very common occurrence that the higher courts significantly modify or entirely cancel a fully approved law - often retroactively. Sometimes the state has to pay out damages.
IMHO a parliament acting like they can just vote for anything and that's it is exactly the definition of acting above the law.
It should, it's the job of the first chamber (aka the 'senate') to validate this. Unfortunately they have been playing politics more than anything.
> I'm not Dutch but in my own (EU) country it's a very common occurrence that the higher courts significantly modify or entirely cancel a fully approved law - often retroactively.
This sounds more like the common law system (US, UK, Ireland). In Holland it's not like that. The senate is supposed to check that an in fact a local judge can't directly reference the constitution. In common law they can and they create precedents to scope out a law further after implementation.
The EU does overrule it of course. And yes perhaps they can get fined damages. That would be good IMO because it will stop them doing it. But they didn't do anything wrong technically in that sense.
The worst thing they did technically was that this law was inplemented by a cabinet that had already stepped down after the coalition fell apart. New votes were held and a new parliament was formed, but the old cabinet is still in place until a coalition is formed to create the new cabinet.
The biggest problem there was that 24% of people voted for the extreme-right fascist party and nobody except the neoliberals (the party they split out from) and the farmers want to form a government with them. So it will take a lot of time. But the old (neoliberal) cabinet is not supposed to push through any legislation that can be considered controversial. They are doing that all the time though.
Not sure about the exact legal theory in the Netherlands but where I am it's not really the job of upper chamber to validate it. Both chambers should have done that but both are bodies with political agendas and they interpret it to their own liking - and that often doesn't pass through the courts.
