It is important for the Dutch judiciary to monitor how society, professional partners and litigants perceive the administration of justice. Different polls and studies provide this information. However, up until 2012 little was known about the way top-level (public and private) decision makers and opinion leaders view the functioning of the courts. This prompted the Council for the Judiciary to commission a study on the external reputation of the administration of justice. The results of this study show that there is neither reason for serious concern nor reason for complacency. Criticism was voiced with regard to the operational capacity of the courts, most notably the case processing time and the lack of technical innovation. Also, it was concluded that the judiciary should take a more proactive stance concerning external communication.A couple of months after the study on the external reputation of the courts was completed, some justices of the Court of Appeal Leeuwarden conceived the so-called ‘Manifest’. Among other things, they criticized the caseload, which in their view threatens the independence of judges. Approximately 700 judges supported the Manifest. So lack of internal support rather than lack of external support seemed to pose a problem for the judiciary. What should the judiciary’s course of action be? Whereas the reputation study points to increasing the operational capacity of the courts, the supporters of the Manifest warn that too strong a focus on output would endanger the quality of justice. These contradictory factors demand reflection on the value identity of the judiciary. In our view this requires the Council for the Judiciary to focus less on management and more on governance. For judges this requires that they, through the development of professional standards, define and refine their view on ‘good administration of justice’.

This editorial offers an introduction to the current issue.