EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 20.7.2021 SWD(2021) 721 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2021 Rule of Law Report









Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in the Netherlands Accompanying the COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 2021 Rule of Law Report









The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2021) 700 final} - {SWD(2021) 701 final} - {SWD(2021) 702 final} - {SWD(2021) 703 final} - {SWD(2021) 704 final} - {SWD(2021) 705 final} - {SWD(2021) 706 final} - {SWD(2021) 707 final} - {SWD(2021) 708 final} - {SWD(2021) 709 final} - {SWD(2021) 710 final} - {SWD(2021) 711 final} - {SWD(2021) 712 final} - {SWD(2021) 713 final} - {SWD(2021) 714 final} - {SWD(2021) 715 final} - {SWD(2021) 716 final} - {SWD(2021) 717 final} - {SWD(2021) 718 final} - {SWD(2021) 719 final} - {SWD(2021) 720 final} - {SWD(2021) 722 final} - {SWD(2021) 723 final} - {SWD(2021) 724 final} - {SWD(2021) 725 final} - {SWD(2021) 726 final} - {SWD(2021) 727 final}



Abstract The Dutch justice system continues to be characterised by a very high level of perceived judicial independence, and efforts continue to further foster the quality of justice. Several initiatives relating to judicial independence are being taken forward, such as the Constitutional revision to reform the appointment procedure for Supreme Court judges. As regards the quality of justice, the development of small-scale projects to enhance quality has entered a new phase of rolling out initiatives on a larger scale. Efforts to improve the level of digitalisation continue for civil, administrative and criminal justice, and have been accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Some concerns persist as to the adequate funding of the current system for legal aid, and the reform of the legal aid system is foreseen to be completed by 2025. Overall, the justice system continues to perform efficiently, although the COVID-19 pandemic created a backlog for 2020 and 2021. As last year, the Netherlands continues to be perceived as one of the least corrupt countries in the EU and the world. Integrity is a key component of the framework governing the public administration. In 2020, an extensive programme on combating subversive organised crime was launched, including a holistic approach to prevent, detect and sanction corruption, after investigations showed that criminals are actively looking to exercise undue influence on civil servants. The capacity of the National Police Internal Investigations Department and of the prosecution service has been strengthened through additional funding. New legislation extending screening of police officers and external consultants was adopted in October 2020. Further legislation to strengthen the integrity of elected and appointed officials is foreseen to be implemented by March 2022. Concerns remain as regards the integrity framework applicable to top executive functions within the public sector as well as regards lobbying, revolving doors and the transparency of political party financing. The Netherlands continues to have a high degree of media freedom. The authorities continue to contribute to fostering independent journalism via grants from the Journalism Promotion Fund, and an additional temporary fund has been set up during the COVID-19 pandemic for local media. The independent audiovisual media regulator reports regularly on media ownership structures. However, there is scope for more comprehensive disclosure of such structures to the public. The legislative framework for access to information is being amended to improve transparency of the Government and provide better access to public information after many delays and incomplete answers have been reported. The murder of an investigative journalist, currently under investigation, and increased threats highlight the importance of initiatives like “PersVeilig”, which helps journalists report and handle threats. Extensive debates and reflections on the proper functioning of the system of checks and balances are taking place following a Parliamentary investigation report on the implementation of the childcare allowances system finding that principles of the rule of law had not been respected. Follow-up measures and inquiries are currently envisaged or ongoing. The COVID-19 pandemic has continued to be high on the legislative and judicial agenda, in particular with a law adopted to provide a more solid legal basis for COVID-19 measures, and high-profile COVID-19 measures challenged in court. Independent authorities continue to play an important role in the system of checks and balances, including for safeguarding fundamental rights. The landscape for civil society continues to be open, although some questions have been raised regarding new draft legislation on transparency and legislation expanding the possibilities to prohibit so-called ‘radical organisations’.

I.Justice System The justice system is characterised by a court system composed of eleven district courts, four general courts of appeal, two specialised courts , the Council of State and a Supreme Court. An independent Council for the Judiciary plays a key role in safeguarding the independence of the judiciary and is tasked with fostering the quality of the justice system, including allocating financial resources to courts . Candidate judges are selected by the National Selection Committee for Judges and subsequently appointed for life by the executive on the proposal of the Minister of Justice . The prosecution service is separate from the Ministry of Justice and Security but falls under the political responsibility of the Minister of Justice. The Bar Association is established by law. It is independent from the Government and financed exclusively through lawyers’ annual contributions . The Netherlands participates to the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. Independence The level of perceived independence of the judiciary remains very high. Among the population, 77% consider the level of independence of courts and judges to be ‘fairly or very good’, as well as 82% of businesses . This level of perceived judicial independence has been consistently high over the last years, both among the general population and among businesses . Further steps have been taken to prepare the Constitutional revision to amend the appointment procedure for Supreme Court judges . In December 2020, the Government sent a draft text of the Constitutional revision to change the appointment procedure for Supreme Court judges to the Council of State for advice. The objective of the envisaged reform is to further limit the role of the executive and legislative powers in the appointment of Supreme Court judges, which is consistent with Council of Europe recommendations . Following an online consultation on a draft law which was based on the recommendation of the independent State Commission on the Parliamentary System in the Netherlands , certain modifications were made to the draft text. The advice of the Council of State will become public when the proposal is sent to the Parliament. Progress is being made regarding the revision of the appointment procedures for members of the Council for the Judiciary and of court management boards. Following the request of the Minister for Legal Protection of February 2020 , the Council of State provided its advisory opinion on a possible revision of the appointment procedures for members of the Council for the Judiciary and of court management boards on 23 September 2020. While the Council of State concluded that the current appointment procedures for the Council for the Judiciary and court management boards are in line with the requirement of judicial independence, it advised to explore how the participation of judges and court staff could be increased in the appointment procedures of court management boards. Following an agreement reached between the Council for the Judiciary, the judiciary association and other representatives of the judiciary, the Council for the Judiciary established a new appointment procedure for members of court management boards for 2021 and part of 2022 . The agreement aims to give judges more influence on the appointment of the members of court management boards, in particular by establishing a committee composed of four judges, two members of the court management board and two court officials, which interviews candidates and proposes one candidate for appointment to the Council for the Judiciary. In the event of a tie, the four judges have a deciding vote. Furthermore, the Council for the Judiciary will start its deliberations with the judiciary association and other representatives of the judiciary in the summer of 2021, on a possible revision of the appointment procedure for members of the Council . The objective of these efforts is to further limit the influence of the executive or legislative powers on the appointment of the members of the Council for the Judiciary, which is consistent with Council of Europe recommendations . Quality The reform of the legal aid system will be based on the findings of a number of pilot projects. The reform of the legal aid system is now foreseen to be completed by 2025 , and will start with a number of pilot projects aimed at collecting best practices in preparing further legislative reforms. As for the current system of legal aid, some concerns persist as to the adequacy of available funding . Digitalisation efforts continue for civil, administrative and criminal justice, and were accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. There remains room to improve the digitalisation of the justice system , in particular as regards the online publication rate of judgments and the availability of digital solutions to initiate and follow court proceedings, and several initiatives aim to address this . Regarding criminal justice, the judiciary and prosecution service are jointly developing a digital plan together with other justice stakeholders. For civil and administrative justice, a new digitalisation programme focuses on digital access to justice for citizens and legal professionals . Legal procedures will be gradually digitalised starting with national tax cases and seizure requests, to be then extended to other areas of law. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Council for the Judiciary adopted new rules for organising court hearings at distance, which allowed the courts to continue functioning. The current rules apply until 1 August 2021, and can be prolonged if necessary to guarantee the functioning of the courts. The law on Experiments in the Administration of Justice will allow rolling out pilot projects on the administration of justice on a larger scale. Following the development of numerous pilot projects relating to the quality of justice under the ‘Societally Effective Justice’ programme , the expected entry into force of the Law on Experiments in the Administration of Justice in the summer of 2021 will allow for the roll-out of quality projects on a larger scale. Such quality projects include for example the introduction of a ‘debt judge’, who aims to increase the effectiveness of judgments by treating all cases of an individual debtor simultaneously. This approach of testing out pilot projects on a small-scale and subsequently implementing them on a larger scale can provide innovative ideas to foster the quality of the justice system . Efficiency The COVID-19 pandemic has had an effect on the efficiency of the justice system. The COVID-19 pandemic has created an increase in the backlog of court cases for 2020 and 2021, in particular for criminal cases . Specific measures have been taken by the Council for the Judiciary and the court management boards to address these consequences, such as improving videoconference facilities for court hearings, appointing retired judges as substitute-judges, and more frequent recourse to single-judge chambers. The aim is to eliminate backlogs that have arisen in the criminal justice system due to the COVID-19 pandemic by the end of 2021 . As part of the approach, the prosecution service continues to make use of its power to render a decision itself on certain criminal cases . Following concerns expressed by the Dutch Bar Association and Members of Parliament, the Minister for Legal Protection announced in November 2020 that suspects would be granted a free consultation with a lawyer. This has started on 1 April 2021 for a number of cases, and will be gradually extended to all other cases. Given that the use of these powers by the prosecution service may impact on the right to a fair trial, in particular when citizens are not adequately informed , the provision of a free legal consultation is of particular importance in such cases. The justice system continues to be characterised by a high level of efficiency at first instance, although proceedings are relatively lengthy in appeal . The efficiency of the justice system has been high overall over the past years . The length of proceedings at first instance for civil and commercial cases is short, at around 100 days in 2019 . By contrast, proceedings are lengthy for civil and commercial cases at third instance with an average of 459 days in 2019. Administrative justice still performs efficiently at first instance , although proceedings at second and third instance are relatively lengthy . While the overall clearance rate at first instance remains effective , the rate of resolving first-instance administrative cases has gradually declined to 94% in 2019. This could lead to some future backlogs in administrative justice, although the current amount of pending cases appears manageable . As regards criminal justice, a new action plan following a 2020 review focuses on improving its efficiency, in particular for cases of common crimes and high-impact crimes . While this may help to foster efficiency and address backlogs, stakeholders emphasise that such initiatives should not come at the expense of the quality of justice . II.Anti-Corruption Framework

The competence to investigate and prosecute corruption is shared between several authorities. The National Police Internal Investigation Department (NPIID) investigates wrongdoing within the Government. The Fiscal Intelligence and Investigation Service (FIOD) is responsible for the investigation of financial crimes, including foreign and commercial bribery. The National Prosecution Service focuses on domestic bribery of public officials, and the prosecution service for Serious Fraud, Environmental Crime and Asset Confiscation is responsible for the investigation of commercial and foreign bribery. The Whistleblowers Authority provides support and advice for people who wish to report a work-related situation of abuse in the public or in the private sector. The cooperation between specialised anti-corruption and intelligence teams within law enforcement bodies continues. The Anti-corruption Unit (ACC) within the FIOD plays a key role against financial crime and corruption. The Political Finance Act and legislation strengthening the integrity of elected and appointed officials on the local and provincial level are under discussion. The perception among experts and business executives is that the Netherlands is one of the least corrupt countries in the world. In the 2020 Corruption Perception Index by Transparency International, the Netherlands scores 82/100 and ranks 3th in the European Union and 8th globally. This perception has been relatively stable over the past five years. Following instances of organised crime infiltration and leaks within law enforcement, fighting corruption and organised crime has been strengthened. In 2020, the Netherlands launched an extensive programme focusing on combating subversive organised crime, which includes corruption. A Directorate General within the Ministry of Justice and Security was set up to coordinate the programme. This has led to additional funding in this field and the creation of a multidisciplinary intervention team. A draft law aims to strengthen effectiveness of the fight against subversive crime, including corruption. A new bill strengthening the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure is currently with the House of Representatives. The aim of the bill is to increase the effectiveness of the fight against subversive crime, including corruption, by increasing the maximum penalties for several subversive crimes, such as the threatening of public officials. Administrative instructions were issued on 1 October 2020 with updated guidance for the prosecution service on the investigation and prosecution of foreign corruption cases and on 4 September 2020 with guidance on large settlements, entrusting legal oversight over certain settlements to a temporary independent commission instead of the Minister of Justice and Security. The institutional framework to prevent and fight corruption remains solid with a strong cooperation between law enforcement bodies. Specialised anti-corruption teams and intelligence units within the Fiscal Intelligence and Investigation Service and the prosecution service cooperate on investigating cases. The ACC within the FIOD plays a key role in the fight against financial crime and corruption. The NPIID is set to receive additional funds, which will strengthen both the NPIID and prosecution service’s investigatory capacity. The Encrochat investigations, which have yielded key information for the identification, investigation and prosecution of criminal networks, also revealed allegations of corruption within law enforcement. The investigations also revealed that criminals are actively looking to corrupt civil servants and other organisations. This led to an increased vigilance and focus on subversive crime and the set-up of a Corruption Team to investigate police corruption following the Encrochat investigation. This team is led by the NPIID and is supported by investigators from the National Unit of the Police. The NPIID also contributes to prevention by highlighting specific corruption risks to public institutions they have investigated. In addition to carrying out investigations, the NPIID is increasingly using its expertise to advise in the fight against and prevention of integrity violations. Steps are being taken to strengthen the prevention, detection and investigation of corruption within the police and public administration in general. On average, at the NPIID there is an influx of 50 cases of corruption or leaks of sensitive information per year for police officers or public servants. New legislation extending the screening of police officers and external consultants before appointment and during employment has been adopted in October 2020 and it is expected to be fully implemented by the end of 2021. The screening is now being put in place in the police and the intensity for the screening would depend on the integrity risks associated with the function. The ACC within the FIOD continued to play an important role as regards the fight against corruption and financial crime. This is in particular the case for cases of bribery of foreign public officials and non-officials both internally and internationally. The ACC within the FIOD reported 30 criminal investigations regarding corruption which are currently ongoing and which relate to commercial and foreign bribery. Several of these investigations also focus on the role of Dutch financial service providers. The ACC within the FIOD also cooperated with other authorities such as the NPIID, which handles cases of public corruption. This institutional framework set up by ACC within the FIOD as well as the Prosecution Service for Serious Fraud, Environmental Crime and Asset Confiscation has been improved in the past decade and positively recognised by OECD due to the capacity of the dedicated and specialised anti-corruption teams to investigate and prosecute foreign bribery cases. The House of Representatives adopted a Code of Conduct in 2020 and introduced a supervisory system as regards declaration requirements. The Code of Conduct for members of the House of Representatives covers independence, gifts, registrations, use of confidential information and the rules of procedure. A regulation, which entered into force on 1 April 2021, establishes an independent College to investigate complaints regarding Members’ compliance with the Code of Conduct and to advise the House on possible sanctions. Updated Integrity Guidelines for Holders of Political Offices, including model Codes of Conduct for elected and appointed officials, were adopted on 30 March 2021. New legislation concerning the strengthening of the integrity of elected and appointed officials at local and provincial level will be debated in Parliament. The proposed bill prescribes inter alia a Code of Conduct as a mandatory requirement for appointed officials at local and provincial level and introduces a supervisory system as regards declaration requirements. This includes a mandatory risk analysis on integrity for appointed local and provincial officials. The promotion of integrity in the fight against corruption takes place through the Platform on Fighting Corruption, which is operated by the Ministry of Justice and Security. It aims to promote awareness and joint action in the fight against national and international corruption by sharing knowledge and information more effectively. The platform participants are Government employees from different ministries and organisations addressing corruption. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it has not been possible to meet in the last 18 months. Since 2020, more transparency is envisaged by each Ministry publishing information on the breaches of integrity that occurred internally, with a short description of the type of infringement and the penalty imposed. In addition, an (external) investigation is currently being conducted into the risks and resilience of public official and non-public official corruption, in relation to subversive crime, more specifically at Schiphol Airport and the Port of Rotterdam. The investigation should show whether the Dutch prevention and repression anti-corruption policy at main ports are sufficient. Research results are expected in the first half of 2022. Concerns remain regarding the integrity framework applicable to top executive functions within the public sector in particular due to their non-binding character. Informal rules included in the code of conduct for Ministers and State Secretaries state that they are expected to act with integrity. Furthermore, former high-level officials are banned from lobbying their former ministry, while former ministers are not allowed to lobby for their former ministry for two years after they have stepped down. However, the framework remains rather limited, as also pointed out by the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) in its assessment, that “the few and limited measures in place in the Netherlands appear insufficient”. The Netherlands has a voluntary and publicly available lobbying register for the House of Representatives in place since 2012. The lobbying register is regularly updated and entails information on the list of entities requesting access to the House of Representatives. To receive a fixed access pass to parliament, a lobbyist must be registered as an organisation. However, there is no monitoring or enforcement mechanism as regards the contacts between lobbyist and office holders or civil servants. In this respect, GRECO recommended when it comes to the contacts between top executive functions and lobbyist, that rules and guidance are ensured, as well as an increase in the transparency of contacts and subject matters. The party financing legislation is under revision. As regards political financing, the legal framework consists of laws regulating the subsidies and the administration of political parties does not include the financing of political parties and the finances of candidates on a local level. The Act on political party financing is expected to be replaced by the Political Parties Act, which is now under consideration by Parliament. The revised legislation aims at protecting the functioning and organisation of political parties against foreign interference. The evaluation of the Whistleblowers Authority Act took place in 2020. The Whistleblowers Authority is the central reporting and investigation institution to which abuses of whistleblowers from both the public sector and the private sector can be reported. The Whistleblowers Authority Act underwent an evaluation by an independent research company. According to the findings of the evaluation, the legal protection of the whistleblowers can be further increased. As a result, the legislation will be amended. The Authority is expected to provide advice to the whistleblowers and to conduct independent investigations. In 2020, the Whistleblowers Authority completed three major investigations and published final reports on those investigations. Additionally, as noted by OECD, while reporting mechanisms and whistleblower protection frameworks in Dutch companies and Government agencies are in place, these have not contributed to the detection of foreign bribery in the Netherlands. Especially in the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a large impact on criminal investigations, which led to delays. According to the authorities, for several months, specific activities such as dawn-raids, hearing suspects and witnesses or observations were either not possible or had to be adapted. Law enforcement was also influenced by the fact that only limited hearings were organised in the courts. Additionally, FIOD also investigated several cases of fraud related to the COVID-19 pandemic. This has led to several criminal investigations and prosecutions related to fraud (protective equipment, fraudulent health certificates and misuse of governmental subsidies). In addition, the authorities reported that the international character of foreign bribery investigations may be further limited due to COVID-19 measures. III.Media Pluralism and Media Freedom The legal framework concerning media pluralism is based on a set of constitutional and legislative safeguards. The right to information is enshrined in the Constitution. The Dutch Media Authority is the independent regulator of audiovisual media services overseeing the implementation of the Media Act. Journalism was listed, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, among the essential professions. The country continues to enjoy a high degree of media freedom and journalistic protection . The scope of the regulator’s supervisory activities has been expanded following the transposition of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive. The resources available to the institution appear to remain adequate for it to effectively fulfil its mandate. Furthermore, the appointment conditions of the members of the collegiate bodies are in the process of being amended, with the objective of strengthening the guarantees of independence . Several self-regulatory bodies ensure the application of journalistic standards. In addition to the Council for Journalism, a self-regulatory mechanism, entitled to issue opinions on complaints concerning journalistic practices, an ombudsperson for public broadcasters and several ombudspersons for national and regional newspapers assess journalistic practices and investigate complaints. Challenges regarding transparency of media ownership and media concentration have been identified. limited regulation concerning the disclosure of media ownership details to the public, as reported in the Media Pluralism Monitor 2021, which evaluates the area as medium risk. Information on ownership structures, not necessarily including the beneficial owners, is provided to the public via the Media Monitor published by the Media Authority. The news media sector is characterised by high market concentration, as indicated by the Media Pluralism Monitor 2021. The Government has stepped in to help media during the pandemic. During the COVID-19 pandemic, despite the increase in the demand for news, the advertising revenues declined, affecting in particular local media. Journalism continued to be supported by the Government through dedicated funds, and a temporary fund for local media hit by the COVID-19 pandemic had been additionally set up. Journalists were exempted from the COVID-19 travel ban so that they could continue to follow events and provide first hand reporting.

Draft legislation aims to improve access to information. Delays and incomplete answers were reported for two thirds of requests for access to information made in 2020, as indicated by the Media Pluralism Monitor, which evaluates the right of access to information as being at medium risk. This issue has also been confirmed by stakeholders. The legal framework is currently being reviewed in order to improve transparency of the Government and provide better access to public information. Stakeholders generally welcome the changes, while indicating further areas of improvement. One of the welcomed amendments concern the establishment of an independent advisory committee, which would ensure mediation between the journalists and the authorities in case of complaints. An increase of threats and violence against journalists has been reported. According to the 2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, “the Dutch National Coordinator for Counterterrorism and Security for the first time identified journalists as a target of serious threats and aggression in 2020”. The Council of Europe Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists has published five recent alerts. The most recent ones concern the murder of the investigative journalist Peter R. de Vries and the cancellation of a TV programme due to a serious threat against the editorial office; others concern an attack on a photographer, attacks on physical safety and integrity of journalists that took place in several parts of the country, and online harassment and intimidation. Further attacks and intimidations have been reported on the Mapping Media Freedom platform. This was also confirmed by stakeholders during the country visit. Furthermore, concerns have been raised in relation to the protection of sources in relation to the intelligence agencies, but the Dutch authorities clarified that judicial approval is needed for investigatory powers to be used when such use may lead to acquisition of data on journalists’ sources. The Netherlands continues to strengthen its framework for the protection of journalists . ‘PersVeilig’, the project aimed at reducing threats, violence and aggression against journalists, a joint initiative of the prosecution service, the police, the Society of Editors-in-Chief and the Association of Journalists, is being increasingly used by journalists. The project foresees measures like higher priority given by the police and the prosecution service to cases of violence against journalists, as well as preventive actions against aggression and violence. In 2021, the protocol (a set of agreements for investigation and prosecution between the police and the Public Prosecution Service in the event of aggression against journalists) has been reviewed, and several improvements have been proposed. These include improving the processing of complaints from journalists by police and prosecution services, better information provision on the scope and powers of police and prosecution services, awareness-raising among journalists on how the protocol can help, as well as improving communication between journalists and police and prosecution services. Additional improvements aim to better cover the situation of freelance journalists. IV.Other Institutional Issues related to Checks and Balances The Netherlands has a bicameral parliamentary system of Government which provides for an ex ante constitutional review of draft legislation. The Parliament is composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Legislative proposals can originate from the Government and from members of the House of Representatives. The Council of State gives advisory opinions on draft legislation. Independent authorities and civil society play an important role in the checks and balances system. Extensive debates on the proper functioning of checks and balances are taking place. This follows the Parliamentary investigation report into the childcare allowances affair, which led to the resignation of the Government in January 2021. Following earlier reports by other entities , a Parliamentary investigation committee rendered its report on 17 December 2020 , which concluded that principles of the rule of law had not been respected in the implementation of the childcare allowances system. The report found that the implementation of a system of subsidies for childcare had led to a large number of citizens being required to repay in full the subsidies they had received due to alleged irregularities . Finding that the legislator had adopted laws that left no room for fair interpretation in individual cases, that the executive had incorrectly considered a large number of citizens as fraudsters due to its focus on combatting fraud, and that administrative justice had validated this interpretation of the law until October 2019, the report called on all state powers to reflect on how to prevent such situations for the future. The report also found that the Government had not sufficiently informed the Parliament, and that there were obstacles to information on Government activities. Meanwhile, the House of Representatives has requested an opinion from the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission on the functioning of the system of checks and balances in the affair, and on whether additional safeguards are needed within the system of administrative justice. Following the report, the authorities promptly awarded compensation to the victims . A full Parliamentary inquiry will further investigate the affair, with hearings expected in the summer of 2022. Although it took time for the situation to be resolved, the work of the Parliamentary investigation committee, the responses of institutional actors involved and the ongoing debates illustrate how the system of checks and balances has functioned . The Council of State is also engaging in the follow-up to the debates on the proper functioning of checks and balances, both in terms of its judicial role and as regards the law-making process. In light of the Parliamentary investigation report regarding also administrative justice, the judicial branch of the Council of State announced its intention to start a ‘self-reflection process’ . This process will reflect on its role in the childcare allowances affair, and will also extend to other cases where effective legal protection could be improved. Furthermore, the Council of State addressed a letter to the Prime Minister with recommendations to improve the legislative process and the quality of legislation . The recommendations include developing a new legislation policy, devoting more time and attention to discussing legislation in both Chambers of Parliament, and involving implementing authorities more in the legislative process. In its April 2020 report on “a stronger rule of law”, the Council for Public Administration recommended to devote more attention to the quality of the law-making process and to strengthen the research and support capacity for Members of the Parliament. A new Open Government Act is being discussed in Parliament. On 26 January 2021, the House of Representatives approved the new Open Government Act, which aims to provide more transparency in relation to Government action and is currently with the Senate. Discussions on the new Act were accelerated by the childcare allowances affair, which triggered criticism as to a lack of transparency. The new Act would replace the current Openness of Government Act , and would require active publication of Government information, as opposed to the current system of publication upon request. The new Act would also establish a permanent independent advisory committee on open Government and information management . While the adoption of this new legislation would further facilitate access to Government information, stakeholders report that beyond the applicable legal framework, the timeliness and completeness of replies to information warrant further improvement . A Temporary law on COVID-19 measures was adopted to provide a more solid legal basis for COVID-19 restrictions. In the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, measures were adopted through emergency ordinances under the pre-existing Law on Public Health and the Law on Safety Regions, while an important degree of latitude was given to regions and municipalities to adopt their own measures. The Parliament continued its work through written or digital means, and debates continued to be organised, albeit less frequently. In May 2020, the Council of State advised that the prolongation of the crisis situation required a more solid legal basis. . Under the Temporary law on COVID-19 measures, in force since 1 December 2020, draft COVID-19 measures are submitted to Parliament one week before entering into force , during which the House of Representatives can decide to reject the measure. The law will automatically cease to be in force on 1 September 2021, unless the Government decides to prolong the law . The draft decision to prolong the Temporary law is submitted to Parliament before entering into force, which can decide to reject the prolongation. High-profile COVID-19 measures have been struck down in court before being validated on appeal. On 16 February 2021, the Hague district court found the national curfew measure to be unlawful due to its lack of a correct legal basis. That same day, the Hague appeal court ordered interim measures allowing the curfew to stay in place until the final decision of the appeal court. After the Parliament had adopted an urgent law establishing a new curfew measure on 19 February 2021, the Court of Appeal ruled on 26 February 2021 that the initial curfew measure had been adopted on a correct legal basis. Independent institutions continue to play an important role in the system of checks and balances . The Ombudsperson institution continues to fulfil an important role in the system of checks and balances, by issuing non-binding opinions on Government actions and investigating citizens’ complaints, but also by initiating reports of its own motion. When the Ombudsperson makes recommendations, the Government has to respond and provide reasons if it decides not to follow them. While the Ombudsperson does not face significant obstacles in the general exercise of its mandate , it has criticised a lack of government follow-up to recommendations made in its 2017 report on the ‘childcare allowances affair’ (see infra) . The Ombudsperson has initiated a project on how to ensure effective follow-up to its recommendations, which has led to a structural approach to monitor implementation of its recommendations . Furthermore, the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights was re-accredited with A-status by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) in December 2020 . GANHRI’s recommendations to the Institute included continuing to advocate for the necessary funding to allow it to address a broader range of priorities, including the rights of migrants and of the LGBTI community . The landscape for civil society continues to be open , although questions are raised regarding new draft legislation on transparency. While the Netherlands is considered as having an open civil society landscape , stakeholders have raised concerns regarding new draft legislation aimed at preventing undesirable foreign influence by increasing scrutiny of civil society organisations (CSOs) financed from outside the EU/EEA. In its advice of 28 August 2020, the Council of State emphasised the importance that such legislation be proportionate, also pointing out the large number of organisations that could potentially be subject to requests under the law . Stakeholders also raised concerns as regards a draft law for amendment of the civil code, which would expand the possibilities to prohibit so-called ‘radical organisations’. The draft law would lower the burden of proof required for the prosecution service to request the judge to prohibit and dissolve such organisations . Rule of law topics continue to take a prominent place in the public debate . In November 2020, a large majority of the House of Representatives voted in favour a draft legislation fostering the knowledge of and respect for the rule of law as a core assignment of education boards and the curricula they establish for school education. The draft legislation is currently with the Senate. Furthermore, as announced in its 2019 annual report , the Council of State has started its organisation of ‘Rule of Law Conversations’ with Members of Parliament, members of the Government, judges, academics, civil servants and media representatives. In this regard, the Council also published a bundle of contributions on rule of law topics . Regarding the recommendation by the Council for Public Administration that the Government develop a ‘Rule of Law Policy Agenda’ , the Government has not yet provided a follow-up. As indicated by stakeholders , this delay may be due to the Government wanting to also include in its response the lessons learned from the childcare allowances affair , which dominates current political discussions on the rule of law. Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order* * The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2021 Rule of Law report can be found at https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/upholding-rule-law/rule-law/rule-law-mechanism/2021-rule-law-report-targeted-stakeholder-consultation . Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (2021), Media pluralism monitor 2021 – Country report for the Netherlands CIVICUS (2021), Monitor tracking civic space: the Netherlands ( https://monitor.civicus.org/country/netherlands/ ). Council for Public Administration (2020), Een sterkere rechtsstaat. Council of Europe, Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists – the Netherlands ( https://www.coe.int/en/web/media-freedom/netherlands ).

Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers (2010), Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities. Council of State (2020), Advisory Opinion W04.20.0139/I/Vo. Council of State (2020), Annual Report 2019. Council of State (2021), Aanbevelingen ter bevordering van de wetgevingskwaliteit. Council of State (2021), In gesprek. Bijdragen aan de dialog over de rechtsstaat. Council of State (2021), Programma van reflectie van de Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak ( https://www.raadvanstate.nl/kinderopvangtoeslag/programma-reflectie/ ). Dutch Government (2020), Dutch government assessment of the European Commission’s 2020 Rule of Law Report ( https://www.government.nl/documents/parliamentary-documents/2020/12/08/dutch-government-assessment-ec-2020-rule-of-law-report ). Dutch Government (2020), Letter to the Parliament on the evaluation of integrity investigations at the national police ( Kamerbrief over evaluatie integriteitsonderzoeken politie | Kamerstuk | Rijksoverheid.nl .). Dutch Government (2021), Input from the Netherlands for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. Dutch Judiciary Association (2021), Dossier: nieuwe procedure bestuursbenoemingen rechtspraak ( https://nvvr.org/nieuws/2021/dossier-nieuwe-procedure-bestuursbenoemingen-rechtspraak ). Dutch Media Authority (2020), Media monitor 2020 ( https://www.mediamonitor.nl/wp-content/uploads/Mediamonitor-2020.pdf ). European Commission (2016), EU Justice Scoreboard. European Commission (2017), EU Justice Scoreboard. European Commission (2018), EU Justice Scoreboard. European Commission (2019), EU Justice Scoreboard. European Commission (2020), EU Justice Scoreboard. European Commission (2021), EU Justice Scoreboard. European Commission (2020), Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in the Netherlands. Europol (2020), Dismantling of an Encrypted Network sends Shockwaves through Organised Crime Groups across Europe ( https://www.europol.europa.eu/newsroom/news/dismantling-of-encrypted-network-sends-shockwaves-through-organised-crime-groups-across-europe ).

GANHRI (2020), Report and Recommendations of the Virtual Session of the Sub-Committee on Accreditation of 7-18 December 2020. GRECO (2018), Fifth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report on Netherlands on Preventing corruption and promoting integrity in central governments (top executive functions) and law enforcement agencies. Whistleblowers Authority (2020), Final evaluation report on the Act on the House for Whistleblowers ( https://www.huisvoorklokkenluiders.nl/actueel/nieuws/2020/07/15/eindrapport-evaluatie-wet-huis-voor-klokkenluiders ). Mapping Media Freedom - the Netherlands ( https://www.mappingmediafreedom.org/country-profiles/netherlands/ ). Minister for Legal Protection Sander Dekker (2021), Answer to questions of Member of the House of Representatives Nispen of 17 February 2021. Ministry of Interior and Kingdom Relations (2021), Guidelines on integrity of political office holders at municipalities, provinces and water boards. ( https://www.politiekeambtsdragers.nl/publicaties/brochures/2021/03/30/handreiking-integriteit ). Ministry of Justice and Security (2021), Letter to the Parliament on the functioning of the Press Security Protocol (Kamerbrief over functioneren protocol Persveilig), 31 March 2021 ( https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/kamerstukken/2021/03/31/tk-functioneren-protocol-persveilig ). Ministry of Justice and Security (2021), Letter to the Parliament on tackling undesirable foreign financial flows (Kamerbrief over aanpak ongewenste buitenlandse geldstromen), 8 June 2021 ( https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/kamerstukken/2021/06/08/tk-aanpak-ongewenste-buitenlandse-geldstromen ). National Ombudsperson (2017), No Power Play but Fair Play. National Ombudsperson (2020), Proper Provision of Information is the Basis of Access to Justice – Bottlenecks in the Provision of Information about Penalties and Dismissal Decisions. National Police (2020), New investigation team for corruption investigations ‘Encrochat’ ( https://www.politie.nl/nieuws/2020/september/16/nieuw-rechercheteam-voor-corruptieonderzoeken-encrochat.html ). Netherlands Helsinki Committee (2021) Contribution from the Netherlands Helsinki Committee for the 2021 Rule of Law Report. NVJ (2021), Belangenorganisaties roepen Eerste Kamer op de nieuwe Woo te steunen ( https://www.nvj.nl/nieuws/belangenorganisaties-roepen-eerste-kamer-nieuwe-woo-te-steunen ). OECD (2021), Implementing the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention. Phase 4 Report: Netherlands ( https://www.oecd.org/corruption/anti-bribery/netherlands-phase-4-report-en.pdf ). Reporters without Borders – The Netherlands ( https://rsf.org/en/netherlands ). Villamedia (2021), Belangenorganisaties aan Eerste Kamer: red minstens deze punten in nieuwe Woo ( https://www.villamedia.nl/artikel/belangenorganisaties-aan-eerste-kamer-red-minstens-deze-punten-in-nieuwe-woo ). Annex II: Country visit to the Netherlands The Commission services held virtual meetings in April and May 2021 with: ·Fiscale Inlichtingen- en Opsporingsdienst

·House of Representatives Committee on Justice and Security ·Huis voor Klokkenluiders ·Instituut voor Informatierecht ·Ministry of Education, Culture and Science ·Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations ·Ministry of Justice and Security ·Nederlands Juristencomite voor de Mensenrechten ·Netherlands Helsinki Committee ·Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten ·Nederlandse Vereniging voor Rechtspraak ·Nederlandse Vereniging voor Journalisten ·National Ombudsperson ·National Police ·National Police Internal Investigation Department ·Prosecution service ·Raad voor de Rechtspraak ·Raad voor het Openbaar Bestuur * The Commission also met the following organisations in a number of horizontal meetings: ·Amnesty International

·Center for Reproductive Rights ·CIVICUS ·Civil Liberties Union for Europe ·Civil Society Europe ·Conference of European Churches ·EuroCommerce ·European Center for Not-for-Profit Law ·European Centre for Press and Media Freedom ·European Civic Forum ·European Federation of Journalists ·European Partnership for Democracy ·European Youth Forum ·Front Line Defenders ·Human Rights House Foundation ·Human Rights Watch ·ILGA-Europe ·International Commission of Jurists ·International Federation for Human Rights ·International Planned Parenthood Federation European Network (IPPF EN) ·International Press Institute