Onlangs zag de Hoge Raad zich in een zaak over bancaire (bijzondere) zorgplicht gesteld voor de vraag of het leerstuk van verlies van een kans ook van toepassing is ingeval het van gedrag van benadeelde zou hebben afgehangen of de kans zich zou hebben verwerkelijkt. In dit artikel wordt onderzocht of de Hoge Raad met het hier besproken arrest het leerstuk oprekte dan wel een eerder ingezette lijn bevestigde.

In this article we study a case of responsive law, i.e. the Dutch Social Support Act, which entails the open norm to provide tailored support as the antithesis of universal ‘one-size-fits-all-solutions’. Rather than assessing clients’ needs based on check lists, street-level bureaucrats are expected to jointly explore fitting solutions in dialogue with citizens during a so-called kitchen table talk. The space to tailor support to the individual situation, however, creates ambiguity about the interpretation of this open norm and conflicting expectations with regard to stakeholders’ roles. This role-ambiguity is not only situated in the interaction between professional and citizen at the kitchen table, but is nested in a multi-actor network of policy makers, frontline workers, clients of social support, lawyers and judges. In this article we zoom in on this network to investigate how multiple stakeholders cope with ambiguity regarding the interpretation of the open norm and each other’s roles. The conducted qualitative study (observations, interviews and document analysis) provides revealing insights into the strategies employed by multiple actors when role-ambiguity emerges, including strategies of standardization, proto professionalization and objectification. These strategies cannot be seen in isolation from one another and their interaction results in the unintended effect of more rules and administrative burden and less discretionary space for tailored support. Based on these findings we argue that mutual trust and insights into the various roles within this network is of great importance in order to prevent rule-reflex. In addition, professionals should be better equipped to conduct open dialogues about what constitutes appropriate support with the client. Finally, sufficient financial leeway is needed for municipalities so that they are not forced to constantly seek the legal boundaries of what can be regarded as the minimum variant of social support.

This article deals with the different expectations that government representatives face in court, where they need on the one hand be responsive to the demands of the judge and on the other hand are expected to defend the decision that was taken by the government body.

Legal professionals working in city and municipal government face changes in expectations about their roles within the organisation. Where in the past they mostly took on the reactive and detached role of guardians of legal quality, these days they are expected to take a more flexible, solution-oriented and cooperative stance. How do these legal professionals handle this shift? How far do they go in adapting and which factors play a role? Based on three different positions within the organisation I describe this process, focusing in particular on their perception of their professional roles, and their willingness to change. I conclude with some critical comments on the changing expectations from legal professionals.

This contribution reports on an ongoing study into the impact of the COVID pandemic on the rights of vulnerable litigants in the handling of court cases concerning supervision orders and custodial placements of juveniles. The research is based on interviews with judges, lawyers and other professionals in the youth protection chain and a survey among litigants. The central question is whether the handling of these cases should be considered acceptable from the perspective of procedural and fundamental rights. In addition, the procedural justice experienced by litigants is examined. The preliminary results, based on desk research and interviews, is that of varyingly successful improvisations with telephone and digital hearings, in which procedural and fundamental rights could not be fully realized. This is mainly due to technical problems and the complexity of judicial case management under these circumstances. The interviewees differed about whether the bottom of what is acceptable was reached and how often this was the case. The final report will take stock of this and draw lessons for the future.

As a part of measures taken to contain the spread of the coronavirus, sex work was barred in the Netherlands between 23 March and 1 July 2020, as well as between 15 december 2020 and 19 May 2021. Shortly after the start of the first lockdown, many sex workers appeared to be in increasingly precarious situations. They lost their main source of income but were largely excluded from receiving financial support provided by the Dutch government. This article examines the situation of sex workers during the first lockdown and in the weeks after they were permitted to resume work.

In the corona period, phenomena such as disinformation and conspiracy activism have taken on a greater and more disturbing significance. This article provides a first problem picture of current manifestations in the broader social context and offers tentative explanations. It looks in turn at who makes and distributes the fake news, what role conspiracy activism plays in this, what is known about social receptivity, and what the implications are for law enforcement and security. Finally, an action perspective is presented.

Voor deze aflevering van het estafette-interview spraken Marije Batting, Jeroen Goudsmit en Maaike Feenstra namens de redactie met Maarten Ruys (interim-inspecteur-generaal) en Pauline den Ambtman (directeur strategie) van de Nederlandse Voedsel en Warenautoriteit (NVWA).¹x Het gesprek vond plaats op 11 mei 2021. Mede naar aanleiding van de estafettevraag van Marian Kaljouw (voorzitter van de raad van bestuur van de Nederlandse Zorgautoriteit (NZa)) en Karina Raaijmakers (directeur toezicht en handhaving NZa), die de redactie interviewde voor nummer 2021-2 van Tijdschrift voor Toezicht, spraken wij met Maarten en Pauline over de uitdagingen waar de NVWA als toezichthouder voor staat en de ontwikkelingen die de NVWA de komende jaren wil doormaken.

Noten

• * De redactie van Tijdschrift voor Toezicht dankt Maaike Feenstra hartelijk voor haar bijdrage aan het interview.

• 1 Het gesprek vond plaats op 11 mei 2021.

Combinaties van publiek en privaat toezicht zijn niet weg te denken uit onze huidige maatschappij. In deze bijdrage vergelijken we de manier waarop privaat en publiek toezicht worden gecombineerd in twee sectoren, namelijk toezicht op voedselveiligheid en toezicht op veilige nieuwbouw. Na een uiteenzetting van de samenwerkingsarrangementen wordt ingegaan op de sterke en zwakke kanten van de gemaakte keuzes. Daarbij staat in het bijzonder één criterium centraal: betrouwbaarheid. Kan de overheid vertrouwen op toezicht en controle door private partijen? Zijn de private partijen in staat en bereid om effectief toezicht op voedselveiligheid en bouwkwaliteit uit te oefenen en welke factoren uit het samenwerkingsarrangement hebben hier invloed op? Naast de constatering dat private toezichthouders een toegevoegde waarde kunnen bieden aan de stelsels van toezicht, wijzen we op enkele potentiële risico’s die we in praktijk van bouw- en voedseltoezicht hebben geïdentificeerd: onvoldoende onafhankelijkheid en belangenverstrengeling, beperkte intrinsieke motivatie, kans op papieren werkelijkheid en onvoldoende corrigerende werking van het publieke toezicht.