Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Judicial Review in Dutch Environmental Law: General Observations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Judicial Review of Administrative Discretion in the Administrative State

  • 530 Accesses

Abstract

In the Netherlands as elsewhere, the topic of deference to the administration is an important doctrine that continues to provoke much debate. This doctrine, which is also referred to as the limited judicial review of administrative actions, is the subject of dynamic developments. The exact role that the court should play in the review of administrative actions remains a contentious issue. The focus of this contribution is the relationship between the judiciary and the administration. How has this relationship developed and what are the expectations for the future? It is concluded that the review of administrative acts by the judiciary has been intensified in several cases in recent years. There is, however, no uniform approach. The judiciary differentiates with a greater focus on proportionality. Clear limits for the judicial review can be found where specific expertise of the administration is at stake.

Prof. Dr. T. Barkhuysen is professor of constitutional and administrative law at Leiden University, the Netherlands and partner at Stibbe (t.barkhuysen@law.leidenuniv.nl). Dr. M. L. van Emmerik is associate professor of constitutional and administrative law at Leiden University and deputy judge at the District Court Midden-Nederland (administrative cases; m.l.vanemmerik@law.leidenuniv.nl). This chapter was also presented as a national report at the IACL congress 2018 in Fukuoka, Japan and will be published in this context.

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 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
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.

    See in this regard Uzman et al. 2010.

  2. 2.

    Cf. J. R. Angeren, F. Groenewegen and A. Klap, Toetsing aan vage normen in het Nederlandse, Duitse, Engelse en Franse recht (preadviezen NVvR) [Review against vague standards in Dutch, English and French law (preliminary advice Netherlands Association for the Judiciary)], Oisterwijk: Wolf 2014. Klap draws a distinction between various vague standards: those that entail a weighing of interests, those that demand an evaluation of future events, those that require specific expertise and those with a supranational character, as well as combinations thereof.

  3. 3.

    Struycken 1910.

  4. 4.

    Cf. Supreme Court 31 December 1915, NJ 1916, p. 407 (Guldemond-Noordwijkerhout).

  5. 5.

    See further Uzman et al. 2010.

  6. 6.

    See, in particular, Polak et al. 2014.

  7. 7.

    Kamerstukken [Parliamentary Documents] II 2009/10, 32450, no. 3, p. 55.

  8. 8.

    Supreme Court 25 February 1949, NJ 1949/558 (Doetinchem housing requisition).

  9. 9.

    Associated Provincial Picture Ltd. v Wednesbury Corp. [1948] 1 K.B. 223. Cf. Groenewegen 2014.

  10. 10.

    Council of State’s Jurisdiction Division, 23 October 1979, AB 1980/198 (St. Bavo).

  11. 11.

    Cf. Van Wijk et al. 2014, pp. 332–337; De Waard 2016; Schlössels and Zijlstra 2017, pp. 374–375.

  12. 12.

    European Court of Human Rights 23 October 1985, AB 1986/1, annotated by E. M. H. Hirsch Ballin, NJ 1986, 102, annotated by EAA (Benthem t. Nederland); see also Barkhuysen and Van Emmerik 2016.

  13. 13.

    Bestuur in geding [Judging the Administration], Haarlem 1997.

  14. 14.

    Cf. Koeman 2008.

  15. 15.

    Cf. Van Angeren 2009, pp. 1–11.

  16. 16.

    Administrative Law Association Committee on Legal Protection 2004.

  17. 17.

    Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State, AB [Judgments in Administrative Law] 1997/93, AB-Klassiek [Classic Judgments in Administrative Law] 2016/22, annotated by B. W. N. de Waard (Deventer: Kluwer 2016) (Maxis and Praxis).

  18. 18.

    Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State, 4 June 1996, JB 1997/172, (Huisman/APK). See further Van Emmerik and Saris 2014.

  19. 19.

    Administrative Jurisdiction Division 27 January 2010, AB [Judgments in Administrative Law] 2010/48, annotated by O. J. D. M. L. Jansen.

  20. 20.

    By Daalder and Schreuder-Vlasblom 2000, pp. 214–221.

  21. 21.

    Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State, 21 April 1998, AB [Judgments in Administrative Law] 1998/199, annotated by G. Jurgens (Die Wende). See on this topic Leemans 2008.

  22. 22.

    Cf. Supreme Court 13 October 2006, ECLI:NL:HR:2006:AW2077 (Vie d'Or); Supreme Court 21 November 2014, ECLI:NL:HR:2014:3349 (AFM-DSB); Supreme Court 2 June 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:987 (Zalco).

  23. 23.

    Barkhuysen et al. 2014a.

  24. 24.

    Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State, 25 April 2012, AB [Judgments in Administrative Law] 2012/207 (Public Administration (Probity Screening) Act [Wet bevordering integriteitsbeoordelingen door het openbaar bestuur].

  25. 25.

    Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State, 18 November 2015, AB [Judgments in Administrative Law] 2016/82, annotated by Bröring and Brouwer.

  26. 26.

    Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State, 13 April 2016, AB [Judgments in Administrative Law] 2016/195, annotated by M. Reneman.

  27. 27.

    Cf. Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State, 26 October 2016, AB [Judgments in Administrative Law] 2016/447, annotated by Bröring (proportionality of the application of policy rules).

  28. 28.

    Cf. Gerards 2007, pp. 73–113; Ortlep and Zorg 2016. See further, in the vein of comparative law, Ranchordás and De Waard 2016.

  29. 29.

    Cf. Verheij 2013.

  30. 30.

    ECLI:NL:RVS:2017:3557; a request for a preliminary ruling from the CJEU has been made by the the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State Cf. De Poorter and Capkurt 2017.

  31. 31.

    Court of Justice of the European Union 30 January 2018, ECLI:EU:C:2018:44.

  32. 32.

    Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State 20 June 2018, ECLI:NL:RVS:2018:2062.

  33. 33.

    Scheltema 2015, pp. 803–818.

  34. 34.

    See, for example, European Court of Human Rights 23 June 1981, NJ 1982/602 (Le Compte, Van Leuven & De Meyere v Belgium), para 51. The following passages are partially extracted from Barkhuysen and Van Emmerik 2016.

  35. 35.

    European Court of Human Rights 17 December 1996, NJCM-Bulletin 1997, pp. 617 et seq., annotated by M. L. W. M. Viering (Terra Woningen BV v the Netherlands). See also, for example, European Court of Human Rights 13 February 2003, AB [Judgments in Administrative Law] 2004/52, annotated by B. W. N. de Waard (Chevrol v France).

  36. 36.

    Widdershoven et al. 2001, p. 37. Cf. Barkhuysen et al. 2007, p. 104 and the case law there cited.

  37. 37.

    See, in particular, European Court of Human Rights 22 November 1995, Series A. vol. 335A (Bryan v United Kingdom), and for confirmation of the Bryan line: European Court of Human Rights 7 November 2000, AB [Judgments in Administrative Law] 2003/25, annotated by L. F. M. Verhey (Kingsley v United Kingdom), confirmed in European Court of Human Rights 28 May 2002 (judgment of the Grand Chamber).

  38. 38.

    European Court of Human Rights 22 November 1995, Series A vol. 335-A (Bryan v United Kingdom); Widdershoven et al. 2001, pp. 34–38.

  39. 39.

    Cf. Schuurmans 2005, pp. 290–292 and Kuipers 1996, pp. 97–112. See the judgments European Court of Human Rights 17 December 1996, NJCM-Bulletin 1997, pp. 617 et seq., annotated by M. L. W. M. Viering (Terra Woningen BV v the Netherlands) and European Court of Human Rights 13 February 2003, AB [Judgments in Administrative Law] 2004/52, annotated by B. W. N. de Waard (Chevrol v France).

  40. 40.

    European Court of Human Rights 15 March 2016, AB [Judgments in Administrative Law] 2016/132, annotated by T. Barkhuysen and M. L. van Emmerik (Gillissen v the Netherlands).

  41. 41.

    European Court of Human Rights 8 October 2015, AB [Judgments in Administrative Law] 2016/167, annotated by T. Barkhuysen and M. L. van Emmerik (Korosec v Slovenia).

References

  • Barkhuysen T, Van Emmerik M L (2016) AB-Klassiek [Classic Judgments in Administrative Law]. Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Barkhuysen T, Damen L J A, De Graaf K J, Marseille A T, Den Ouden W, Schuurmans Y E, Tollenaar A (2007) Feitenvaststelling in beroep, (derde evaluatie van de Awb) [Fact Finding on Appeal (Third Evaluation of the General Administrative Law Act)]. Boom Juridische Uitgevers, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Barkhuysen T, Van Emmerik M L, Van Ettekoven B J, Mul V, Stijnen R, De Werd M F J M (2014a) Adequate rechtsbescherming bij grondrechtenbeperkend overheidsingrijpen [Adequate Legal Protection regarding Government Intervention Restricting Fundamental Rights]. Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Barkhuysen T, De Kruif C, Schuurmans Y E, Den Ouden W (2014b) Bestuursrecht in het Awb-tijdperk [Administrative Law in the Era of the General Administrative Law Act]. Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Daalder E J, Schreuder-Vlasblom M (2000) Balanceren boven nul [Balancing above Zero]. NTB [Dutch Journal for Administrative Law] 2000, 4:214–221

    Google Scholar 

  • De Poorter J C A, Capkurt F (2017) Rechterlijke toetsing van algemeen verbindende voorschriften [Judicial Review of generally binding regultions]. NTB [Dutch Journal for Administrative Law] 10:1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • De Waard B W N (2016) Leerstukken van bestuursprocesrecht [Principles of Administrative Procedural Law].Wolters Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerards J H (2007) Het evenredigheidsbeginsel van art. 3:4 lid 2 Awb en het Europese recht [The Principle of Proportionality from Article 3:4(2) of the General Administrative Law Act and European Law]. In: Barkhuysen T et al (ed) Europees recht effectueren [Effectuating European law]. Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 73–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Groenewegen F T (2014) De intensiteit van de rechterlijke toets in Engelse Judicial Review procedures. In: Klap A P, Groenwegen F T, Van Angeren J R (eds) Toetsing aan vage normen door de bestuursrechter in het Nederlandse, Duitse, Engelse, en Franse recht: preadvies voor de Nederlandse Vereniging voor Rechtsvergelijking. Wolf Legal Publishers, Oisterwijk

    Google Scholar 

  • Klap A P (2014) Rechterlijke toetsing aan vage normen in Nederland en Duitsland. In: Klap A P, Groenwegen F T, Van Angeren J R (eds) Toetsing aan vage normen in het Nederlandse, Duitse en Franse recht: preadvies voor de Nederlandse Vereniging voor Rechtsvergelijking. Wolf Legal Publishers, Oisterwijk

    Google Scholar 

  • Koeman N S J (2008) Versnelling in het bestuursprocesrecht [Acceleration in Administrative Procedural Law]. M en R [Environment and Law] 35:227–230

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuipers A J (1996) Het recht op ‘full jurisdiction’ [The Right to Full Jurisdiction]. In: Vucsán R L (ed) De Awb-mens: boeman of underdog? [The General Administrative Law Act Man: Bogeyman or Underdog?]. Damen bundle, Ars Aequi Libri, Nijmegen

    Google Scholar 

  • Leemans T C (2008) De toetsing door de bestuursrechter in milieugeschillen [Review by the Administrative Court in Environmental Disputes] (diss. Leiden). Boom Juridische Uitgevers, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortlep R, Zorg W (2016) Marginale rechterlijke toetsing onder druk: een voortgaande tred vooruit? [Limited Review under Pressure: Continuous Steps Forward?]. In: Ortlep et al (eds) De rechter onder vuur [The Judge under Fire]. Wolf, Oisterwijk, pp 1–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Polak J E M, Moor-Van Vugt A de, Schlössels R J N, Verheij N, Widdershoven R J G M (2014) VAR-Commissie rechtsbescherming, De toekomst van de rechtsbescherming tegen de overheid, Van toetsing naar geschilbeslechting [Administrative Law Association Committee on Legal Protection, The Future of Legal Protection against the Government]. Boom Juridische Uitgevers, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Ranchordás S, De Waard B W N (eds) (2016) The Judge and the Proportionate Use of Discretion, A Comparative Study. Routledge Abingdon-Oxon-New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheltema M (2015) De Hoge Raad en het algemeen belang [The Supreme Court and the Public Interest]. In: R.J.N. Schlössels et al (eds) De burgerlijke rechter in het publiekrecht [The Civil Court in Public Law]. Kluwer, Deventer, pp 803–818

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlössels R J N, Zijlstra S E (2017) Bestuursrecht in de sociale rechtsstaat [Administrative Law in the Social State under the Rule of Law]. Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuurmans Y E (2005) Bewijslastverdeling in het bestuursrecht, Zorgvuldigheid en bewijsvoering bij beschikkingen [Division of the Burden of Proof in Administrative Law, Due Care and the Provision of Evidence in respect of Decisions], (diss. VU). Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Struycken A H (1910) Administratie of rechter [Administration or Judiciary]. Gouda Quint, Arnhem

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Angeren J A M (2009) Mensenrechten en onafhankelijke bestuursrechtspraak [Human Rights and Independent Administrative Adjudication]. In: Barkhuysen T, Van Emmerik M L, Loof J P (eds) Geschakeld recht [Linked Law]. Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Angeren J R, Groenewegen F T, Klap A P (2014) Toetsing aan vage normen in het Nederlandse, Duitse en Franse recht: preadvies voor de Nederlandse Vereniging voor Rechtsvergelijking. [Review against vague standards in Dutch, English and French law: preliminary advice Netherlands Association for the Judiciary]. Wolf Legal Publishers, Oisterwijk

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Emmerik M L, Saris C M (2014) Evenredige bestuurlijke boetes [Proportionate administrative penalties], (Preliminary advice VAR). Boom, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Wijk H D, Konijnenbelt W, Van Male R (2014) Hoofdstukken van bestuursrecht [Chapters on Administrative Law]. Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Verheij N (2013) Van grensrechter naar geschilbeslechter, een evolutie in de Nederlandse bestuursrechtspraak (preadvies voor de Vereniging voor de Vergelijkende Studie van het recht van België en Nederland) [From Linesman to Dispute Adjudicator, An Evolution in Dutch Administrative Jurisdiction (preliminary advice for the Association for the Comparative Study of the Law of Belgium and the Netherlands)]. Boom, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Widdershoven R J G M, Willemsen P A, Schlössels R J N, Stroink F A M, Ten Berge J B J M, Bok A J, Voermans W J M, De Waard B W N (2001) Algemeen bestuursrecht 2001: hoger beroep [General Administrative Law 2001: Appeal]. Bju, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Tom Barkhuysen & Michiel van Emmerik

Authors
  1. Tom Barkhuysen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michiel van Emmerik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tom Barkhuysen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Public Law and Governance, Tilburg Law School, Tilburg, The Netherlands

    Jurgen de Poorter

  2. Department of Public Law and Governance, Tilburg Law School, Tilburg, The Netherlands

    Ernst Hirsch Ballin

  3. Law Technology Society and Markets/LAW, Tilburg Law School, Tilburg, The Netherlands

    Saskia Lavrijssen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 T.M.C. Asser press and the authors

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Barkhuysen, T., van Emmerik, M. (2019). Judicial Review in Dutch Environmental Law: General Observations. In: de Poorter, J., Hirsch Ballin, E., Lavrijssen, S. (eds) Judicial Review of Administrative Discretion in the Administrative State. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-307-8_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-307-8_6

  • Published:

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

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-306-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-307-8

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation