Zoekresultaat: 5 artikelen

x
De zoekresultaten worden gefilterd op:
Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid x Rubriek Artikel x
Artikel

Comparitierechters in eenzelfde zaak vergeleken: de individuele aanpak van rechters

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 2 2011
Trefwoorden civil hearing, courts, dispute resolution, individual approach
Auteurs Silke Praagman
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    In the Netherlands, the way in which judges behave and communicate during hearings is increasingly being emphasized. This is related to the implementation of post-defence appearance in Dutch civil hearings (comparitie na antwoord) and a more general, albeit cautious, shift from dispute resolution, focused solely on resolving the legal aspects of a case, towards broader conflict resolution, in which other aspects of a case are considered too. This article compares how six judges managed a civil hearing of the same case. It seeks to explain the different outcomes that resulted from these judges’ hearings (i.e. settlement/judgement/referral to mediator) and seeks to identify what different ways of managing hearings imply for a possible shift from dispute resolution to conflict resolution. The empirical study found that the judges’ preparation of the case and their way of beginning and structuring the hearing were very similar; they also discussed similar subjects. Differences were found in how the judges interacted with the parties; the skills they used during hearings; how they used a specific skill; and in how they guided parties in the decision-making process about the outcome. No strong correlation emerged between a specific type of hearing management and the type of outcome selected. Interviews with the judges suggest that the explanation for the different outcomes lies partly in the judges’ personal views (on the appropriate outcome). Such beliefs influence how the judges manage a civil hearing, and indirectly the outcome of a case as well. These findings imply that for a shift from dispute resolution to conflict resolution to materialize, this will require judges to develop a common understanding of their responsibilities and to enhance their skills. They will also need to verify their assumptions more, so that the parties’ needs and the judge’s personal beliefs are better matched.


Silke Praagman
Silke Praagman heeft de VSR-scriptieprijs 2010 gewonnen. Zij studeerde rechtsgeleerdheid aan de Universiteit Utrecht en de Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam. Tijdens haar studie werkte zij als junior medewerker bij het Landelijk bureau Mediation naast rechtspraak. In dit kader was zij betrokken bij onderzoek naar de verwijzingsvoorziening naar mediation en de werkwijze van rechters. Ook heeft zij tijdens het schrijven van haar scriptie als buitengriffier bij de Rechtbank Rotterdam binnen de sector civiel gewerkt.
Artikel

Van besluit tot beslechting: ervaringen van burgers met de bezwaarprocedure

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 1 2011
Trefwoorden objection procedure, procedural justice, citizens’ experiences, qualitative study
Auteurs Mirjan Oude Vrielink en Boudewijn de Waard
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    The GALA lays down general rules that in principle apply to the entire field of administrative law. If a decision by an administrative body can be appealed to a court, the general rule is that an objection procedure must be followed before the matter can be taken to court. Recently, research has been conducted to survey citizens’ experiences before and during objection procedures, as well as factors influencing these experiences. The research was divided into a quantitative research and a subsequent qualitative study to gain insight into the underlying mechanisms. The article reports about the major findings of the qualitative study.
    On the whole, the interviewees appreciated their treatment at the hearing. They indicated that they were able to expound their position (voice), that their arguments were taken seriously (trustworthiness), and that they were treated with respect (interpersonal respect). On these elements, the qualitative study paints a slightly rosier picture than the quantitative study.
    The most critical comments on the hearing we recorded concerned the attitude of those representing the administrative authority in cases that were considered by an independent committee. That attitude was often judged to be rigid and the respondents were annoyed by the appearance at the hearing of (‘yet’) another official than the one(s) they had previously been in contact with.
    Many administrative bodies have chosen to use an informal approach which implies the use of mediation skills, after an objection has been lodged. When informal resolution was attempted, the response of the interviewees concerned was by no means invariably positive, and in some cases even distinctly negative.
    The interviews showed that the objectors would have preferred to have had more information about the actual objection procedure in detail and in advance. A number of interviewees indicated that they felt very uncomfortable when certain procedural aspects were sprung on them, such as the presence of the opposing party (which they had not expected) and a medical examination being carried out. Ambiance matters. It was found that the perceived level of treatment could be influenced by subtle expressions of social etiquette. The research shows that objectors set great store by a proper reception and value the physical layout of the hearing venue.


Mirjan Oude Vrielink
Mirjan Oude Vrielink is bestuurskundige en promoveerde op een rechtssociologisch proefschrift. Zij werkt als senior onderzoeker aan de Universiteit Twente. In deze functie is zij momenteel betrokken bij twee projecten: ‘Burgers maken hun buurt’ en ‘Evaluatie Wijkcoaches Velve-Lindenhof’. Belangrijke thema’s in haar wetenschappelijke onderzoek zijn burgerparticipatie, zelfregulering en coregulering, horizontale verantwoording, goed bestuur en de rol van professionals. Met B.R. Dorbeck-Jung e.a. publiceerde zij recent het artikel ‘Contested hybridization of regulation: Failures of the Dutch regulatory system to protect minors from harmful media’ (Regulation and Governance 2010-4(2), p. 113-260).

Boudewijn de Waard
Boudewijn de Waard is hoogleraar Staats- en Bestuursrecht aan de Universiteit van Tilburg. Daarvóór was hij verbonden aan de juridische faculteit van de Universiteit van Utrecht (1980-1991), laatstelijk als universitair hoofddocent. Van 1977 tot 1980 was Boudewijn de Waard advocaat te Utrecht.
Artikel

Wetgeving en de positie van de patiënt: instrument voor verandering of terugvaloptie?

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 3 2010
Trefwoorden impact of health law, evaluation of health law, patient empowerment, patient rights
Auteurs Roland Friele en Remco Coppen
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Empirical research on the practice of ‘informed consent’ and the right of complaint of patients shows that these rights are important as guarantees for carefulness and legal certainty. However, at the same time these rights seem to have hardly any effect on the position of the patient in the daily interactions with doctors and other medical personnel. Rather, they seem to have led to a formalization of institutional relations with patients. At the same time, in practice especially hospitals seem to aim at an informal and varied way of dealing with these patient’s rights.


Roland Friele
Roland Friele is adjunct-directeur van het NIVEL (Nederlands instituut voor onderzoek van de gezondheidszorg) en bijzonder hoogleraar aan de Universiteit van Tilburg. Hij doet onderzoek naar de sociaalwetenschappelijke aspecten van wet- en regelgeving in de gezondheidszorg. Wetsevaluaties in de gezondheidszorg vormen de hoofdmoot.

Remco Coppen
Remco Coppen is onderzoeker bij het NIVEL (Nederlands instituut voor onderzoek van de gezondheidszorg). Zijn onderzoek richt zich met name op sociaalwetenschappelijke aspecten van wet- en regelgeving. Hij is betrokken geweest bij verschillende wetsevaluaties, zoals de tweede en derde evaluatie van de Wet op de orgaandonatie, de tweede evaluatie van de Wet inzake bloedvoorziening, de evaluatie van de Wet marktordening gezondheidszorg en de Zorgverzekeringswet. In 2010 is hij gepromoveerd op een proefschrift over de effecten van de Wet op de orgaandonatie.
Artikel

Een verliezer is geen winnaar

De naleving van civiele rechtspraak, 15 jaar na Van Koppen en Malsch

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 2 2010
Trefwoorden courts, civil justice, enforcement of judgments, procedural justice
Auteurs Roland Eshuis
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    This article compares two studies on the compliance with judicial decisions and friendly settlements in Dutch civil court procedures. A new study (Eshuis 2009) finds a higher rate of compliance, which can largely be attributed to the selection of cases. The older study (Van Koppen & Malsch 1991) included a high number of default judgments, which are associated with a low level of compliance, while friendly settlements – associated with a high level of compliance – were excluded. The new study finds full compliance rates of 31% for default judgments, 74% for judgments in defended cases and 85% for friendly settlements. The high compliance with friendly settlements suggests these settlements are ‘better’ outcomes; however, the difference in compliance can well be explained by selection effects. Interviews reveal that many friendly settlements are not the harmonious solutions one might expect.
    The new study finds no solid relation between compliance and procedural or distributive justice. In two relevant ways the conditions in the ‘real life’ judicial procedure are different from those in experimental research in which such relations are found. First, a large part of the non-compliance is caused by an inability of parties to comply. These participants may find the procedure and outcome fully ‘just’, but still won’t comply. Second, for those who can comply, there is no free choice on whether to comply or not. There are quite effective means of enforcement for such cases. So, those who can comply will, even if the procedure and its outcome are experienced as fully ‘unjust’.
    The first part of the title of the article is a comment on Van Koppen and Malsch’s earlier research. They concluded that winning in court often was a Pyrrhic victory, and the loser would win after all. In the interviews however, few of those who do not comply were found to fit the image of a ‘winner’. The sad conclusion is that in judicial procedures winners and losers do not come in the same numbers; after all, it produces far more losers than winners.


Roland Eshuis
Roland Eshuis verricht, als onderzoeker bij het WODC, empirisch onderzoek naar (civiele) rechtspraak en rechtspleging. Hij promoveerde in 2007 op onderzoek naar interventies ter versnelling van gerechtelijke procedures (Het recht in betere tijden, 2007). Vorig jaar verscheen De daad bij het woord (2009), een onderzoek naar de naleving van civiele rechtspraak. Recent publiceerde hij, met collega’s van de Raad voor de rechtspraak en het CBS, de eerste editie van Rechtspleging Civiel en Bestuur (2010), waarin statistische gegevens over civiele en bestuursrechtspraak zijn gebundeld.
Artikel

Mediatie in Guatemala

Een bijdrage aan een vreedzame samenleving?

Tijdschrift Recht der Werkelijkheid, Aflevering 01 2008
Auteurs Laure d'Hondt
SamenvattingAuteursinformatie

    Mediation is on the rise in Guatemala. In this multicultural society that has a weak rule of law there is little trust in the state law system. Informal ways of dispute settlement are popular. NGO’s, state and semi-state invest in different forms of mediation as an alternative for the legal procedure. The state links mediation to courts; NGO’s and semi-state focus on local community leaders as mediators. Characteristic of mediation is the liberty of the conflicting parties to find a solution within their own conditions, without the limits, and protection, of a legal procedure. This provides opportunities but also creates dangers. The article shows the possibilities of mediation in a society where the state isn’t a good dispute settler. It also demonstrates the dangers of mediation; consequence of the liberty is that there is not much protection of the weaker party. As the state doesn’t offer an alternative mediation becomes vulnerable to abuse of power.


Laure d'Hondt
Laure d’Hondt studeerde Culturele Antropologie en Rechtsgeleerdheid aan de Universiteit van Leiden. Tijdens haar studie deed zij in Guatemala onderzoek naar het functioneren van rechtbanken in eerste instantie en naar geschilbeslechting door mediatie. Momenteel is zij werkzaam bij de Pensioen- en Uitkeringsraad.
Interface Showing Amount
U kunt door de volledige tekst zoeken naar alle artikelen door uw zoekterm in het zoekveld in te vullen. Als u op de knop 'Zoek' heeft geklikt komt u op de zoekresultatenpagina met filters, die u helpen om snel bij het door u gezochte artikel te komen. Er zijn op dit moment twee filters: rubriek en jaar.