De laatste maanden werd de Unie opgeschrikt door wetgeving in Hongarije en Polen die door veel lidstaten werd beschouwd als ernstige schending van de rechtsstaat. Er kwamen reacties dat dergelijke inbreuken op de waarden van de EU niet geaccepteerd konden worden en dat beide landen daarvoor via het nieuwe rechtsstaatmechanisme gekort moesten worden in hun subsidies uit de EU-begroting en met name het herstelinstrument. In deze bijdrage ga ik na wat het rechtsstaatmechanisme precies inhoudt en in hoeverre inbreuken op het EU-recht en met name de waarden die in artikel 2 VEU zijn neergelegd daarmee gesanctioneerd kunnen worden. De auteur komt in de analyse tot de conclusie dat dit niet zo eenvoudig is als sommigen aanvankelijk dachten.
Verordening (EU) 2020/2092 van het Europees Parlement en de Raad van 16 december 2020 betreffende een algemeen conditionaliteitsregime ter bescherming van de Uniebegroting (PbEU 2020, L 433/1).

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.

De Parlementaire ondervragingscommissie Kinderopvangtoeslag velde een negatief oordeel over de bestuursrechtelijke aanpak van fraude met kinderopvangtoeslag. De menselijke maat ontbrak. Het oordeel van de commissie roept de vraag op of ook ten aanzien van de strafrechtelijke aanpak van uitkeringsfraude kan worden gezegd dat de menselijke maat ontbreekt. Of ziet de strafrechter kansen daarmee wel rekening te houden en zo ja, op welke wijze en in welke gevallen? Deze vragen worden aan de hand van rechtspraakanalyse van arresten van hoven beantwoord.

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.

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.