This article serves to gain insight in the use and non-use of various types of legal advice, particularly in relation to income levels and legal costs. Based on (logistic regression) analyses involving survey data on 1,928 Dutch citizens who experienced a non-trivial problem in the period May 2009 to May 2014, main findings are as follows: (1) 37% of citizens facing a (potential) legal problem contacted various types of legal advisers once or repeatedly. (2) In the explanation of use/non-use of advocates, problem characteristics turned out to matter significantly, in contrast with the level of household income. Entitlements to subsidized legal aid (lower income groups) as well as legal expenses insurance have made income a factor of less importance. (3) Looking at the degree in which citizens reported (high) costs being a reason for not using legal advice, again no significant differences were found between income groups. Especially advocates were deemed too expensive, regardless of household income; a reason for non-use in half of the cases in which advocates had been considered.

This contribution explains what access to justice can encompass and how the ideals about access to justice have developed in time. The way to do this is going back to the work of the famous scholars Cappelletti and Garth, who were responsible for a worldwide project on access to justice in the 1970s. Their main issue was to explain access to justice is more than the access to a judge and the organization of courts. Primarily, the system must be equally accessible to all, irrespective of social or economic status or other incapacity. But it also must lead to results that are individually and socially just and fair. Equal access and effective access are the central notions. Their work is put in perspective. The importance of their legacy and the question how we can get along with their work are stressed. Their definition is compared to a few other authoritative definitions. The waves in the history of access to justice are described and putting them in the current context illustrates why a fourth waved can be observed. The major question to be answered is how one can assess the challenges and obstacles of access to justice in the current context. Therefore, some recent dimensions and developments within access to justice are presented: the democratic dimension, the effectiveness of new social rights, the attention for poor and vulnerable people, further juridification, expanding frontiers of and monitoring access to justice, e-justice, and self-help. Finally, a few building blocks for reforms are presented.

The right to adequate housing has since long been established in international and European human rights law and has been (constitutionally) incorporated into many domestic legal systems. This contribution focuses on the extent to which this fundamental right influences rental law and the horizontal relationship between tenant and landlord and how it contributes to the tenant’s access to justice. The right to housing certainly accounts for tenant’s rights, but since international and European human rights law evidently centres around state obligations, any possible impact on the position of tenants remains indirect. This is of course different on the national plane. In Belgium, the constitutional right to housing has been implemented through regional Housing Codes, complementing private law measures and creating additional protection to tenants. Nonetheless, many challenges still remain in increasing access to justice for tenants, both top-down and bottom-up: lack of knowledge and complexity of law, imbalance in power and dependency, discrimination, etc.

The use and expenditure of the Legal Aid System is ever increasing. In addition, some people make use of the Legal Aid System more often than others. In fact, a small percentage of clients (2,6%) uses a substantial part (11,2%) of the legal aid. This paper sheds light on the occurrence of multiple use of legal aid and gives insight into the frequency and characteristics of multiple use.
In the research described in this article, we have made use of the data from 2000 until 2009 concerning legal aid that was provided by the Legal Aid Board. This dataset contains over 3 million cases (so-called certificates that are issued by the Board). The main difference between this research and other (paths to justice) studies is that the dataset contains actually provided legal aid and not self-reported problems by clients. Therefore, the representativeness is guaranteed and no false recollections can occur. At the same time, this means that the research is limited to people who are entitled to legal aid (approximately 39% of the Dutch population) and have actually received a certificate.
The results show that the provision of legal aid leads to new cases for which legal aid is again provided. Also, certain certificates coincide with and act as a trigger for certain other certificates. In the discussion we clarify the significance and implications of the results that are presented. Furthermore, we discuss the recently ordered budget cut in legal aid in the Netherlands. We describe ways to decrease the use and expenditure of the Legal Aid System, some of which are already implemented in the system. Finally, we discuss possible other (non-legal) problems that can be experienced by multiple users of the Legal Aid System.