Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Bipolar Constitutionalism in The Netherlands and Its Consequences for the Independence and Accountability of the Judiciary

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
European Yearbook of Constitutional Law 2019

Part of the book series: European Yearbook of Constitutional Law ((EYCL,volume 1))

Abstract

The expansion of the constitutional function of the judiciary in the Netherlands necessitates a perpetual review of its independence. Should it be reinforced in order to better protect judges from the possible repercussions of politically unwelcome judgments? Or should the safeguards be weakened in order to legitimize judicial interventions in political processes? This chapter analyses the historical expansion of the constitutional function and provides an overview of the current formal and informal constitutional safeguards relating to the legal status and institutional and functional independence of the judiciary in the Netherlands. The conclusion is that in particular the informal safeguards for independence such as the convention of co-optation and the sub judice principle can help to strike a balance between legal protection and democracy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    More precisely: ‘The members of the House of Representatives will be elected in the electoral districts, into which the Kingdom is divided, by the Dutch residents of majority age, in the full enjoyment of civil and citizenship rights’, Article 76 Dutch Constitution 1848 (author’s translation).

  2. 2.

    Supreme Court of the Netherlands, 18 May 1883, Weekblad van het recht, 45, No. 4917. See on this case Pessers 1983.

  3. 3.

    Supreme Court of the United States, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 6 March 1857, 60 U.S. 393.

  4. 4.

    Supreme Court of the United States, Brown v. Board of Education, 17 May 1954, 347 U.S. 483.

  5. 5.

    Supreme Court of the Netherlands, SGP, 9 April 2010, ECLI:NL:HR:2010:BK4549. See on this case: Van den Brink and Ten Napel 2013.

  6. 6.

    Uzman and Boogaard 2015.

  7. 7.

    Koopmans 2003, pp 248–251.

  8. 8.

    Van den Eijnden 2011; Van Emmerik et al. 2014, pp 16–18.

  9. 9.

    Van Boven 2011.

  10. 10.

    Brood 2011, p 243.

  11. 11.

    Van Koppen and Ten Kate 2003.

  12. 12.

    Brood 2011, pp 229–256.

  13. 13.

    From 2007 to 2011 senator E.F. Lagerwerf-Vergunst was a senator for the ChristenUnie party and a judge at the District Court Rotterdam. See www.parlement.com/id/vhjogfpxq4zz/e_f_flora_lagerwerf_vergunst. Accessed 1 March 2019.

  14. 14.

    See https://www.rechtspraak.nl/SiteCollectionDocuments/Leidraad-onpartijdigheid-en-nevenfuncties-in-de-rechtspraak-januari-2014.pdf, p 14. Accessed 1 March 2019.

  15. 15.

    In April 2018 senator J. Beuving became a justice at the Court of Appeal in Arnhem-Leeuwarden and as a result resigned from her position at the Senate. See https://www.eerstekamer.nl/nieuws/20180326/senator_beuving_pvda_vertrekt_uit. Accessed 1 March 2019.

  16. 16.

    Group of States against Corruption 2012, p 49 (Recommendation V).

  17. 17.

    Bossers 1987.

  18. 18.

    Technically because Article 116(3) Dutch Constitution refers to ‘partial participation’ of laypersons in the judicial system. A contrario, it can thus be deduced that a judicial system with full implementation via laypersons can be considered to be excluded.

  19. 19.

    Staatscommissie-Cals/Donner 1971, pp 247–249. See for a recent reiteration: De Roos 2013.

  20. 20.

    Jansen 2014.

  21. 21.

    See for a useful introduction to the current judicial organization the English web pages on rechtspraak.nl: www.rechtspraak.nl/English and on the website of the national government: www.government.nl/topics/administration-of-justice-and-dispute-settlement/the-dutch-court-system. Accessed 1 March 2019.

  22. 22.

    Merryman 1996; Pieterman 1990.

  23. 23.

    Respectively Articles 11 and 12 of the General Provisions (Kingdom Legislation) Act (Act 15 May 1829, Bulletin of Acts and Decrees 829/28) (author’s translation).

  24. 24.

    Adams and Van der Schyff 2006; Boogaard and Uzman 2018.

  25. 25.

    Supreme Court of the Netherlands, Guldemond/Noordwijkerhout, 21 December 1915, ECLI:NL:HR:1915:AG1773.

  26. 26.

    Efthymiou and De Wit 2013; Martens 1998; Ten Kate and Van Koppen 1994.

  27. 27.

    Uzman et al. 2010.

  28. 28.

    Adams and Van der Schyff 2006.

  29. 29.

    For a general overview of Dutch administrative law, see: Seerden and Wenders 2012.

  30. 30.

    Struycken 1910.

  31. 31.

    European Court of Human Rights, Benthem v. Netherlands, 23 October 1985, ECLI:CE:ECHR:1985:1023JUD000884880. See on this case Van Dijk 1987.

  32. 32.

    Barkhuysen et al. 2012.

  33. 33.

    See www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/Organisatie/Centrale-Raad-van-beroep/English-summary. Accessed 1 March 2019.

  34. 34.

    See https://www.raadvanstate.nl/talen/artikel/. Accessed 1 March 2019.

  35. 35.

    European Court of Human Rights, Procola v. Luxembourg, 28 September 1995, ECLI:CE:ECHR:1995:0928JUD001457089; European Court of Human Rights, Kleyn v. Netherlands, 6 May 2003, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2003:0506JUD003934398.

  36. 36.

    Kamerstukken II 1980/ 81, 16 162, no. 3, pp 2–3.

  37. 37.

    For an English translation of the Dutch constitution, see https://www.government.nl/topics/constitution. Accessed 1 March 2019. On the judicial organization and its independence in particular, see: Van den Eijnden 2011; Bovend’Eert 2008.

  38. 38.

    Kamerstukken II 1980/81, 16 162, no. 3, p 2.

  39. 39.

    See www.rechtspraak.nl/English/The-Council-for-the-Judiciary. Accessed 1 March 2019. See also part 6 of the Judicial Organization Act.

  40. 40.

    Langbroek 2010.

  41. 41.

    Jansen 2005.

  42. 42.

    See https://www.rechtspraak.nl/SiteCollectionDocuments/judicial-refrom-in-the-Netherlands-2014.pdf. Accessed 1 March 2019.

  43. 43.

    Hofhuis 2018.

  44. 44.

    Kamerstukken II 2017/18, 29 279, No. 452.

  45. 45.

    See https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/Organisatie/Hoge-Raad-der-Nederlanden/Over-de-Hoge-Raad/Raad/Paginas/Profiel-raadsheer-en-groepsprofielen-kamers.aspx. Accessed 1 March 2019.

  46. 46.

    See https://www.raadvanstate.nl/publish/library/10/notitie-kwaliteiten-staatsraden.pdf. Accessed 1 March 2019.

  47. 47.

    Van den Eijnden 2011, pp 73–78.

  48. 48.

    Kuijer 2004; Van den Eijnden 2011; Van Emmerik et al. 2014, pp 28–38.

  49. 49.

    This convention is described (and criticized) by Bovend’Eert 2000, pp 19–21. Likewise on the appointment of judges in the Netherlands, see: De Werd 1994 and Van Koppen 1990.

  50. 50.

    Van Koppen 1990.

  51. 51.

    Ten Kate and Van Koppen 1994, p 147.

  52. 52.

    Bovend’Eert 2015, pp 94–101.

  53. 53.

    Transparency International 2012, p 93.

  54. 54.

    Hoekstra 2017, pp 1975–1979.

  55. 55.

    See extensively on the Anglo-Saxon background and the history and the use of the sub judice principle in The Netherlands Gommer 2008. Gommer himself disputes the existence of a sub judice convention in the Netherlands since he believes that not enough cohesion in its use can be discerned. However, in doing so he has raised the threshold for the existence of a convention too much.

  56. 56.

    Court of Appeal Amsterdam 18 July 2003, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2003:AI0123. The Court found this to have been ‘risky’ and ‘in the danger zone’, but not serious enough to be unlawful.

  57. 57.

    As cited in NRC Handelsblad, ‘Ontslaggronden voor rechters’, 25 November 2009 (author’s translation).

References

  • Adams M, Van der Schyff G (2006) Constitutional Review by the Judiciary in the Netherlands. A Matter of Politics, Democracy or Compensating Strategy. Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 66:399–413

    Google Scholar 

  • Barkhuysen T, Den Ouden W, Schuurmans Y E (2012) The Law on Administrative Procedures in the Netherlands. NALL, http://www.nall.nl/tijdschrift/nall/2012/06/NALL-D-12-00004 Accessed 1 March 2019

  • Boogaard G, Uzman J (2018) Commentaar op artikel 120 van de Grondwet. In: Hirsch Ballin E M H, Leenknegt G (eds) Artikelsgewijs commentaar op de Grondwet. https://www.nederlandrechtsstaat.nl/module/nlrs/script/viewer.asp?soort=commentaar&artikel=120 Accessed 1 March 2019

  • Bossers G F M (1987) Welk eene natie, die de jurij gehad heeft, en ze weder afschaft! De jury in de Nederlandse rechtspraktijk 1811–1813. Eburon, Delft

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovend’Eert P P T (2000) Benoeming en ontslag van rechters. Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovend’Eert P P T (2008) Rechterlijke organisatie, Rechters en rechtspraak. Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovend’Eert P P T (2015) Terugkerend rumoer over benoemingen door de regering en de Tweede Kamer. Nederlands Juristenblad 2015/90:94–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Brood P (2011) Rechters in de politiek. In: Van Boven M W et al (eds) Tweehonderd jaar rechters. Verloren, Hilversum, pp 229–256

    Google Scholar 

  • De Roos Th A (2013) Democratischer strafrechtspraak? De betekenis van de inbreng van leken, Ars Aequi, 7(8):560–565

    Google Scholar 

  • De Werd M F J M (1994) De benoeming van rechters: constitutionele aspecten van de toegang tot het rechtersambt in Nederland en in de Amerikaanse deelstaat New York. Gouda Quint, Arnhem

    Google Scholar 

  • Efthymiou N S, De Wit J C (2013) The Role of Dutch Courts in the Protection of Fundamental Rights. Utrecht Law Review 9(2):75–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gommer H (2008) Onder de rechter. Wolf, Nijmegen

    Google Scholar 

  • Group of States against Corruption (2012) Evaluation Report Netherlands. https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000016806c799a Accessed 22 February 2019

  • Hoekstra J (2017) De rechter kan tegen een stootje, ja zelfs tegen een beuk, maar behoeft zich stoten onder de gordel niet te laten welgevallen. Nederlands Juristenblad 2017/1515:1975–1979

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofhuis H F M (2018) De selectie voor rechters geanalyseerd. Nederlands Juristenblad 2018/999:1431–1433

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen C J H (2005) De spagaat van de leden van de Hoge Raad in de Tweede Wereldoorlog. Nederlands Juristenblad 17:880–886

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen C J H (2014) The Participation of Laymen in the Dutch Judiciary 1811–2011. Fundamina 20(1):427–436

    Google Scholar 

  • Koopmans T (2003) Courts and Political Institutions: A Comparative View. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kuijer M (2004) The Blindfold of Lady Justice. Judicial Independence and Impartiality in Light of the Requirements of Article 6 ECHR. Wolf, Nijmegen

    Google Scholar 

  • Langbroek P M (2010) Organization Development of the Dutch Judiciary. Between Accountability and Judicial Independence. International Journal for Court Administration 2(2):1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martens S K (1998) Incorporating the European Convention. The Role of the Judiciary. European Human Rights Law Review 3:5–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Merryman J H (1996) The French Deviation. The American Journal of Comparative Law 44(1):109–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pessers D (1983) 100 jaar na de zaak Aletta Jacobs. Nederlands Juristenblad 58:663–664

    Google Scholar 

  • Pieterman M (1990) De plaats van de rechter in Nederland 1813–1920. Gouda Quint, Arnhem

    Google Scholar 

  • Seerden R J G H, Wenders D W M (2012) Administrative Law in the Netherlands. In: Seerden R J G H (ed) Administrative Law of the European Union, its Member States and the United States. A Comparative Analysis. Intersentia, Antwerp, pp 101–175

    Google Scholar 

  • Staatscommissie-Cals/Donner (1971) Eindrapport van de Staatscommissie van advies inzake de Grondwet en de Kieswet. http://resources.huygens.knaw.nl/watermarker/pdf/cc/scans/1967a_cie_cals-donner/verslag/plenair/data/1971-03-29/1971-03-29.pdf Accessed 1 March 2019

  • Struycken A A H (1910) Administratie of rechter? Gouda Quint, Arnhem

    Google Scholar 

  • Ten Kate J, Van Koppen P (1994) Judicialization of Politics in The Netherlands: Towards a Form of Judicial Review. International Political Science Review 15(2):143–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Transparency International (2012) National Integrity System Assessment. http://files.transparency.org/content/download/282/1132/file/2012_NetherlandsNIS_EN.pdf Accessed 1 March 2019

  • Uzman J, Barkhuysen T, Van Emmerik M L (2010) The Dutch Supreme Court: A Reluctant Positive Legislator? In: Van Erp J H M, Van Vliet L P W (eds) Netherlands Reports to the Eighteenth International Congress of Comparative Law. Intersentia, Antwerp/Oxford/Portland, pp 423–468

    Google Scholar 

  • Uzman J, Boogaard G (2015) Make It a Better Place. Transnational Public Interest Litigation and the Separation of Powers. In: Ten Napel H M T D et al (eds) The Powers That Be. Rethinking the Separation of Powers. Leiden University Press, Leiden, pp 295–319

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Boven M W (2011) Rechters en regenten. De benoemingen van de leden van de nieuwe rechterlijke macht in 1811. In: Van Boven M W et al (eds) Tweehonderd jaar rechters. Verloren, Hilversum, pp 159–202

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Brink J, Ten Napel H M T D (2013) The Dutch Political Reformed Party (SGP) and Passive Female Suffrage. A Comparison of Three High Court Judgments From the Viewpoint of Democratic Theory. Utrecht Journal of International and European Law 29(77):29–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Eijnden P M (2011) Onafhankelijkheid van de rechter in constitutioneel perspectief. Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Dijk P (1987) The Benthem Case and its Aftermath in the Netherlands. Netherlands International Law Review 34(1):5–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Emmerik M L, Loof J P, Schuurmans Y E (2014) Systeemwaarborgen voor de kernwaarden van de rechtspraak. Raad voor de Rechtspraak Research Memoranda 2/2014

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Koppen (1990) The Dutch Supreme Court and Parliament: Political Decision Making versus Non-political Appointments. Law and Society Review 24(3):745–780

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Koppen P J, Ten Kate J (2003) De Hoge Raad in persoon. Benoemingen in de Hoge Raad der Nederlanden 1838–2002. Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Geerten Boogaard

Authors
  1. Geerten Boogaard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Geerten Boogaard .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands

    Ernst Hirsch Ballin

  2. Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands

    Gerhard van der Schyff

  3. Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands

    Maarten Stremler

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Boogaard, G. (2020). Bipolar Constitutionalism in The Netherlands and Its Consequences for the Independence and Accountability of the Judiciary. In: Hirsch Ballin, E., van der Schyff, G., Stremler, M. (eds) European Yearbook of Constitutional Law 2019. European Yearbook of Constitutional Law, vol 1. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-359-7_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-359-7_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-358-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-359-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation