Na het opleveren van De Letselschade Richtlijn Rekenmodel Overlijdensschade 2015 is in 2019 de rekenmethodiek uitgebreid. Vanaf 2020 is de rekenmethodiek te gebruiken bij de diverse (andere dan traditionele) gezinssamenstellingen.

Deze bijdrage betreft het wettelijk tuchtrecht, gebaseerd op de Wet op de beroepen in de individuele gezondheidszorg, Wet BIG.

In letselschadezaken wordt steeds vaker de stap naar de tuchtrechter gemaakt. Bij de vraag wat voor impact dat heeft op de desbetreffende arts, wordt nauwelijks stilgestaan.

In dit artikel wordt de rol van het medisch tuchtrecht in de letselschadepraktijk belicht.

In het medisch tuchtrecht, zoals neergelegd in de Wet BIG, beoordeelt het tuchtcollege of een zorgverlener volgens de (medisch) professionele standaard heeft gehandeld. Het wettelijk tuchtrecht is bedoeld om de kwaliteit van de individuele beroepsuitoefening te bevorderen en te bewaken.
Oswald Nunes en ChiChi de Haan beschrijven de tuchtrechtelijke procedure en gaan daarbij ook in op recente wijzigingen in het tuchtrecht.

Those involved in a motor vehicle accident often have emotional needs that are not being met within the current framework of personal injury settlement. These needs include sharing one’s (side of the) story, getting in touch with the other person(s) involved and offering or receiving apologies. Following Nils Christie’s theory of ‘stolen’ conflicts, the fact that the people involved are often represented by lawyers or insurance companies is problematic because it alienates them from each other and it thwarts proper recovery. Incorporating restorative justice could offer a solution to this ‘theft’ of conflict, as it focuses on bringing all involved together to restore any of the harm done by concentrating on their needs. The central question to this dissertation is: how can restorative justice play a role in the sustainable resolution of conflicts after motor vehicle accidents so that the current insurance and liability system can better meet the immaterial needs of victims and perpetrators? Via several projects, the role of lawyers and insurance companies is studied. How beneficial or adversarial are their influences on victims and offenders? And can they incorporate restorative justice in their practice? The first publication is expected at the end of this year.

This contribution puts the developments of the socio-legal approach of access to justice and legal aid in the low countries (Belgium and the Netherlands) in a broad perspective. During the last 40 years, the journal has dealt with some general problems, related to the accessibility of justice and legal aid and the effects of legislation in that field. Some important differences between het Belgian and the Dutch situation are highlighted. Although the general situation has not changed dramatically in both countries, some improvements have been achieved, e.g. when it comes to the so called “social legal aid”. Still, a better and more equal access to justice has to be promoted and realised.

A forensic mental health report is requested in about 30% of more serious cases presented to the criminal court. These reports can be used at sentencing and advise the judge on criminal responsibility, recidivism risk, and possible treatment measures, but is not a formal factor in decisions about guilt. The current study focuses on the (unwarranted) effect of forensic mental health information on conviction decisions. Using an experimental vignette study among 155 criminology students, results show that when a mental disorder is present, conviction rates are higher than when such information is absent. In line with the story model of judicial decision-making, additional analyses showed that this effect was mediated by the evaluation of guilt rather than by the evaluation of other physical evidence. Implications for further research and practice are discussed.

Within orthodox-protestant schools in The Netherlands there is growing diversity and uncertainty about internal religious, cultural and social norms. Though orthodox-protestant schools are among the strongest semi-autonomous social fields, where it is difficult for equal treatment law to pervade, this growing diversity and uncertainty about internal norms can make this pervasion possible. The uncertainty about the meaning of the exception clause in equal treatment legislation for the appointment policy of religious schools also affects this.
Because of the uncertainty about the meaning of the exception clause the position of the school board was strengthened in comparison to the employee, even though the intention of the equal treatment law was the opposite. At a later stage the clarification of the anti-discrimination norm by changing the exception clause has strengthened the position of the employee. Though this is only possible when religious, cultural and social norms are changing. In that case orthodox-protestant schools, as semi-autonomous fields, are more open for the effects of this legal norm.
Uncertainty about the meaning of the requirement of a consistent appointment policy has led both to tightening as well as relaxation of the policy. In the first place tightening or relaxation of policies depends on the development of religious, cultural and social norms within different school denominations. Thus, uncertainty about internal norms works both contrary as well as strengthening to uncertainty about equal treatment legislation.

This article collects publications in this journal about the emergence and effects of legislation. It covers the developments and results of research of the last four decades. First it is concluded that there has been considerable attention to the subject. Second a clear broadening and (theoretical) deepening from different perspectives can be observed. Social-legal research of legislation also appears to have specific characteristics. Subsequently, various points of attention are pointed out, such as more attention to the relationship between legal characteristics and effects, more variation in research methods and more systematic theory-driven research. Finally, attention is drawn to the relationship between (the working of) legislation and social transformations such as globalization, digitization and the increasing and profound influence of social media in society.

In this contribution, the authors enter into a debate on the innovation The Netherlands Council for the Judiciary made quite recently, promoting social effective justice (maatschappelijk effectieve rechtspraak;to English readers more familiar under the label of ‘Problem solving courts’).
Klijn has quite serious doubts about this strategy. First of all: the judge is not - and never has been - a problem solver, as (a) the judge lacks the competences to do so and (b) the structure of legal procedure falls fundamentally short of this task. Secondly, in our contemporary society other professionals are in charge of intervening in social conflicts, and they are much better positioned to do so, at the appropriate moment in time. Thirdly, in making this choice the Council misunderstands its role as the Third State Power, vis-a-vis the much greater influence of changing societal conditions stimulating societal changes.

Because of the sharp contrast between the law-in-the-books and the law-in-action regulatory enforcement has always been a popular subject in socio-legal research. This paper looks back at forty years of Dutch research on regulatory enforcement, using several key publications in this journal from each decade. First, it is argued that these Dutch studies reveal three general themes: this research can be seen as a time machine that takes us back to some of the most important social and political events of the past decades, these studies emphasize the crucial role of individual enforcement officials, and in everyday enforcement state law only plays a limited role. Next, this review also discusses some of the strengths and weaknesses of Dutch research. Most studies on regulatory enforcement are more interested in the role of the state than in the role of citizens and businesses. As a result, research focuses more on issues of effectiveness and less on questions of legitimacy. Finally, empirical research is seen as more important than theory development. Based on this overview, the author introduces a new research agenda for future research on regulatory enforcement.

Hartendorp emphasizes in his contribution that a judge is a decision-maker bound by the law. He agrees with Klijn that this position makes it difficult to act as a problem solver. However, this does not alter the fact that, in order to act effectively, a judge must have a dual orientation on the conflict and the dispute between the parties. The Judiciary can only increase its social effectiveness if it manages to bring about a synthesis between its classic decisive task and an orientation aimed at effectiveness.

In From big five to high five the author analyzes the developments of sociology of law at the law faculties in the Netherlands since the 1970ies until today. Focusing on the professors (‘chairs’) he argues that after a strong start with five prominent scholars the discipline is now placed in the periphery of the law curriculum. Sociology of law is ‘intellectually strong, but institutionally weak’.
The author encourages the present generation professors (‘chairs’) to cooperate more. He claims that writing one modern Dutch Introduction to Sociology of law is crucial to win the hearts and minds of the law students. Furthermore, he suggests that collaborative research projects contributes to the visibility of sociology of law in policy arenas and public debates.