The Justice and Security Committee organized a second expert meeting on the morning of April 15 to prepare for the debate on the State of the Rule of Law, which will be held later this year. In total, nine experts, including those from the judiciary and legal profession, engaged in discussions with committee members. Committee chair Boris Dittrich (D66) moderated the conversation.
Safeguards
Jonathan Soeharno, former CDA senator and professor of legal proceedings from a philosophical perspective at the University of Amsterdam, spoke first. Currently, there is no doubt about the integrity of the rule of law, he said, but there are anti-institutional sentiments that are increasingly gaining political traction. This raises concerns about constitutional safeguards. Soeharno advocated for cutting the undesirable umbilical cord between politics and the judiciary.
Fred van der Winkel, president of the Overijssel court, pointed to the international context. According to him, the democratic rule of law requires active protection and strengthening. He also mentioned anti-institutional sentiments and their implications for societal stability. Therefore, stronger constitutional safeguards are needed for the independence of the judiciary. He found a separate judiciary budget desirable. Van der Winkel compared it to the Drents Museum: a single lock does not keep crown jewels secure; more is needed.
Bart van Meegen, president of the Amsterdam court, took listeners into the Amsterdam practice. He warned of the disturbed balance between the legislative, executive, and judicial powers. Togadragers are threatened, and judicial rulings are dismissed as just an opinion. He advocated for strengthening a rule of law where all citizens have access to the courts and there are sufficient safeguards that the judiciary is independent and impartial.
Rinus Otte, chairman of the College of Prosecutors General, warned that speaking in grand terms about the decline of the rule of law can lead to polarization. The Netherlands has a beautiful rule of law; it is about its implementation. According to Otte, everything hinges on execution, and there are major problems. He mentioned long processing times, an excessive backlog of criminal cases, and a lack of psychiatrists to assess individuals. He also called attention to the rapid rise in online crime, while only 1% of police capacity is available for it.
Linda Dubbelman, senior public prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service, advocated for more frequent application of the OM penalty order, resolution outside of court, even for young people. For minor recidivism, a community service ban applies. Prosecutors increasingly encounter this, as many cases involve significant debt issues. At the intersection of care and punishment, according to Dubbelman, too many people still fall through the cracks.
Hanneke Ekelmans, member of the National Police Corps leadership, said that the police are facing various issues: from the increase in the number of confused individuals to the desire to quickly implement something without considering the coherence within the organization. Additionally, facts are being questioned more than before. More citizens believe in conspiracies. Finally, she referred to international issues such as the Gaza war and the war in Ukraine that lead to polarization in Dutch society.
Sanne van Oers, general dean of the Dutch Bar Association, named three areas of concern regarding the rule of law: reliable government, fundamental rights and freedoms, and an independent judiciary. Regarding legislation, she advocated for careful consultation and an implementation test. She also stated that the self-reliance of citizens is often overestimated. Furthermore, she mentioned the erosion of confidentiality between lawyer and client and said that politically neutral budgets are needed for legal aid and the judiciary.
Reinier Feiner, youth law specialist, spoke as chairman of the Association of Social Lawyers Netherlands (VSAN). Feiner called social lawyering the lubricant of the law. A citizen only ends up there when it has not been possible to solve a problem in a simple way. Without social lawyering, the judge is blind to the needs of ordinary citizens, he said. The government should not make too many promises. Funding is necessary for good social lawyering.
Adri de Bruijn, chairman of the Advisory Committee on ICT Testing, indicated how significant the influence of digitalization is on the functioning of the rule of law. He advised placing the citizens perspective at the center regarding new technology: the law must be accessible to everyone, and people must be able to understand why something has been decided, especially when artificial intelligence has been used. The use of new technology makes it possible to conduct large-scale analyses of databases. How do we ensure that fundamental rights and privacy are sufficiently protected in this context? De Bruijn called attention to digital autonomy: are we sufficiently protected against criminal actors?
Questions from Senators
The senators then asked questions. For instance, they wanted to know whether a nationwide network of social assistance can ensure that citizens are less likely to go to court. And whether the decline of social lawyering means that only people with well-filled wallets have access to the judiciary. There were also questions about the State Commission on the Rule of Law, which published its advisory report on June 10, 2024, and offered it to citizens, government, parliament, and judiciary, and for which a response from the government is still awaited. Senators also asked what is needed to increase the inflow into social lawyering and whether the regions are under more pressure than the Randstad. Whether there is sufficient cooperation among institutions was another question. Finally, it was suggested that the judiciary could do more communication towards citizens and whether more could be done against online threats to judges.
The experts referred in their answers to democratic core values that must be widely shared. In the regions, shortages arise, and blind spots in the country are concerning. The courts have made significant efforts to shorten the processing times of cases. There is good cooperation in the trias politica, but complicated cases like the nitrogen dossier are sometimes placed before judges. The judiciary is not necessarily pleased about this but has the duty to respond to the questions posed. Regarding communication, there is a new courtroom in Vught, where hearings can be followed via livestream. The judiciary is trying to inform the broader public in a modern way.