In a footnote on the last page of her article, Janneke Gerards writes: ‘Here I will leave to one side the debate on the involvement of the ECHR with questions that are not really constitutional.’ But it is precisely the involvement of the ECHR with questions that are ‘not really constitutional’ – and therefore not really fundamental – that the debate is about. It is regrettable that those who are indignant about my critique of the course that the ECHR is currently taking hardly – if ever – respond to my arguments against such an expansive course. The fact that the Court is now facing a pile of waiting cases rapidly approaching 200,000, as well as problems of legitimacy after taking a stand in undeniably political cases such as prisoners’ voting rights, limits to the freedom of speech, as well as its hinting that it would disapprove of a ban on the burqa, all undermine and impede what the ECHR was originally set up for: to be an effective, swift and authoritative voice in the protection of ‘fundamental principles of justice’. By indulging in meddlesomeness and political correctness, the ECHR is digging its own grave.

Adjudication by single judge or by a panel of judges: what difference does it make? Until the eighties, panels consisting of three judges predominantly presided on judicial cases in the Netherlands . As a result of arrears in settling cases, it was decided that one judge should administer justice should in first instance and in principle. However, little is known about the substantial differences between adjudication by single judge courts and panels, particularly when it comes to the quality of decision making. In his PhD research, Reyer Baas examines the substantial differences and similarities between these types of adjudication. The main method applied in this research is paired comparison between judgements in civil cases that are very similar in terms of content. Some of the examined cases are handled by one judge, other cases are considered by a panel of judges. Judges are surveyed and interviewed about their experiences with and opinions on adjudication in chambers consisting of one or three judges; (single judge and panels) court sessions and hearings in chambers are observed; and figures are gathered that show the extent to which judgements given by one judge and by three judges are reversed on appeal.

In this feature authors review recently published books on subjects of interest to readers of Beleid en Maatschappij.

In this feature authors review recently published books on subjects of interest to readers of Beleid en Maatschappij.

Over the last few months, the European Court of Human Rights has been heavily criticised in the Dutch media and by Dutch politicians. Although the criticism is mainly directed at the perceived overextension of the Court’s fundamental rights protection, it also concentrates on fundamental issues such as the interference with national sovereignty that is affected by supranational adjudication and the anti-democratic character of supranational judicial review. In this contribution to the debate, it is argued that the present criticism of the Court is largely misconceived. Although the Court and its case law should certainly not be accepted uncritically, the arguments on which the criticism is based either lack nuance or disregard the Court’s specific function as a protector of fundamental rights. To provide a better basis for sensible and relevant criticism of how the Court functions, this contribution therefore aims to revisit the main roles of the European Convention on Human Rights and of international human rights protection, as well as the classic debate on judicial review.

Faith in the constitutional state

In this feature authors review recently published books on subjects of interest to readers of Beleid en Maatschappij.

In this feature authors review recently published books on subjects of interest to readers of Beleid en Maatschappij.

In this feature authors review recently published books on subjects of interest to readers of Beleid en Maatschappij.

In this article we study ways in which the relationship between housing and integration of migrants are being justified and legitimated in policy documents from the cities of Arnhem and Nijmegen. Making use of a critical frame analysis, we are particularly interested in the assumptions made with regard to the preferred population composition of neighbourhoods, images of ‘normality’ and ‘the ideal society’. Based on the analysis of a set of policy documents (such as the most recent coalition agreement, housing policy document and several neighbourhood plans of each city) and a pilot study that includes interviews with local administrators and residents of twelve neighbourhoods, we found that most problems that are being related to residential segregation in neighbourhoods are defined in socio-economic terms. In general, the data show that the mixing of people with different socio-economic positions is thought to be the solution to this problem. References to migrants are mainly indirect: many documents mention that a large part of the poor people are migrants. The issue of integration is mostly dealt with in documents that focus on so-called ‘problem neighbourhoods’. We conclude that the desirability of diverse neighbourhoods in terms of types of housing and groups of people is widespread. Yet the assumptions on which these ideas are built remain largely implicit.

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.

This article demonstrates on the basis of a representative survey among the Dutch population (N=1,892) that it is not necessarily politically ‘rightist’ or ‘conservative’ to resist the toleration of illegal activities (‘gedoogbeleid’). Even though, generally speaking, political conservatives are most likely to be critical, this is merely because they unconsciously associate the latter with practices of tolerating illegal activities by marginal individuals. Whereas conservatives hence oppose the latter more than political progressives do, the latter for their part are more critical than conservatives about tolerating illegal activities by official agencies. These findings illustrate that gedoogbeleid does not have a universal legitimacy in the eyes of the public, but that its legitimacy is determined case by case by the concrete aims and targets addressed by this policy instrument.

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.

Domestic workers in Saudi Arabia suffer from severely limited access to justice, which affects the conflicts they may have with their employers. As there is no bargaining in the shadow of the law, the more powerful party, employer, can usually enforce their preferred outcome. This article focuses on the question of why domestic workers’ access to justice is so limited; are the underlying causes comparable to the ones in other countries, or does it concern an issue specific to Saudi Arabia? Literature on domestic workers points at both gender and citizenship as factors that weaken the position of these female migrant workers in many societies. This article discusses to what extent these two factors limit access to justice in Saudi Arabia and concludes with some critical remarks concerning the concept of intersectionality.