Er is sprake van een forse wachtlijstproblematiek in de gesloten jeugdhulp. Het gebrek aan een passende (doorstoom)plek voor kinderen in gesloten jeugdhulp is soms zo nijpend dat kinderrechters een machtiging voor gesloten jeugdhulp verlengen in weerwil van het ontbreken van een materiële rechtsgrond of formele rechtswaarborgen uit de Jeugdwet. Er wordt daarbij een beroep gedaan op art. 3 lid 1 IVRK. Het is maar zeer de vraag of dit een wenselijke praktijk is. Er worden handvatten aangereikt vanuit General Comment no. 14 van het VN-Kinderrechtencomité.

In the Netherlands, mayors are entitled to close public and non-public premises if drug-related activities are being conducted there. Using data from the case law of Dutch lower courts, published between 2008 and 2016, this article examines the relative success of different types of litigants, and the influence of case characteristics on drug-related closure cases. We build on Galanter’s framework of ‘repeat players’ and ‘one-shotters’, to argue that a mayor is the stronger party and is therefore more likely to win in court. We categorise mayors as ‘upperdogs’, and the opposing litigants as ‘underdogs’. Moreover, we distinguish stronger mayors from weaker ones, based on the population size of their municipality. Similarly, we distinguish the stronger underdogs from the weaker ones. Businesses and organisations are classified as stronger parties, relative to individuals, who are classified as weaker parties. In line with our hypothesis, we find that mayors win in the vast majority of cases. However, contrary to our presumptions, we find that mayors have a significantly lower chance of winning a case if they litigate against weak underdogs. When controlling for particular case characteristics, such as the type of drugs and invoked defences, our findings offer evidence that case characteristics are consequential for the resolution of drug-related closure cases in the Netherlands.

Luc Vanheeswijck summarizes the current position of tax mediation in Belgium and outlines the differences between the Belgian and Dutch mediation method in fiscal matters. He also outlines the differences between mediation in tax matters and ‘classic’ mediation. He concludes that Belgian tax mediation is not mediation as is commonly understood. The article closes on a description of the results of de ‘Fiscale Bemiddelingsdienst’ (the Fiscal Mediation Service).

Every mediator has to act independently and impartially. These are core values of mediation. However, what if a mediator tries to enrich himself? The aim of this contribution is to shed light on some correction mechanisms under the Belgian law of obligations, focusing on the latest developments in the case law of the Belgian Supreme Court.

A question that has preoccupied sociolegal scholars for ages is whether law can change ‘hearts and minds’. This article explores whether non-discrimination law can create social change, and, more particularly, whether it can change attitudes and beliefs as well as external behaviour. The first part examines how sociolegal scholars have theorised about the possibility and desirability of using law as an instrument of social change. The second part discusses the findings of empirical research on the social working of various types of non-discrimination law. What conclusions can be drawn about the ability of non-discrimination law to create social change? What factors influence this ability? And can non-discrimination law change people’s hearts and minds as well as their behaviour? The research literature does not provide an unequivocal answer to the latter question. However, the overall picture emerging from the sociolegal literature is that law is generally more likely to bring about changes in external behaviour and that it can influence attitudes and beliefs only indirectly, by altering the situations in which attitudes and opinions are formed.

Claims have been made that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is more lenient in accepting age discriminating measures affecting older people than in those affecting younger people. This claim is scrutinised in this article, first, by making a quantitative analysis of the outcomes of the CJEU’s case law on age discrimination cases, followed by a qualitative analysis of the line of reasoning of the CJEU in these cases and concluding with an evaluation of the Court’s reasoning against three theoretical approaches that set the context for the assessment of the justifications of age discrimination: complete life view, fair innings argument and typical anti-discrimination approach. The analysis shows that the CJEU relies more on the complete life view approach to assess measures discriminating old people and the fair innings argument approach to assess measures discriminating young people. This results in old people often having to accept disadvantageous measures and young workers often being treated more favourably.

‘Voorzorg’ en samenwerking van het medisch en sociaal domein ten behoeve van ouderenzorg zijn essentieel. Gemeenten hebben een belangrijke taak in het formuleren van maatregelen bij gezondheidsbedreigingen. Risico’s als gevolg van bezuinigingen op thuiszorg kunnen worden voorkomen door de specialist ouderengeneeskunde in te schakelen. Preventief ouderenbeleid levert gezondheidswinst.

Met het oog op de coronapandemie zijn in de intramurale ggz beduidende beperkingen doorgevoerd: het ontvangen van bezoek, de vrijheid van bewegen in de kliniek en het verlof om de kliniek te verlaten worden aanmerkelijk begrensd. In deze bijdrage worden vraagtekens geplaatst bij de rechtmatigheid van deze collectieve maatregelen die op instellingsniveau worden vastgesteld. Bedenkingen zijn er tevens ten aanzien van te signaleren beperkingen in het klachtrecht en inspectietoezicht. De rechtsbescherming van opgenomen psychiatrische patiënten lijkt medio april 2020 niet op orde.