COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2020 Rule of Law Report Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Netherlands Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 2020 Rule of Law Report The rule of law situation in the European Union
Date: 2020-09-30
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: Netherlands, administrative transparency, coronavirus disease, corruption, democracy, epidemic, independence of the judiciary, infringement of EU law, political rights, rule of law

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 30.9.2020  SWD(2020) 318 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2020 Rule of Law Report  Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Netherlands Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS  2020 Rule of Law Report     The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2020) 580 final} - {SWD(2020) 300 final} - {SWD(2020) 301 final} - {SWD(2020) 302 final} - {SWD(2020) 303 final} - {SWD(2020) 304 final} - {SWD(2020) 305 final} - {SWD(2020) 306 final} - {SWD(2020) 307 final} - {SWD(2020) 308 final} - {SWD(2020) 309 final} - {SWD(2020) 310 final} - {SWD(2020) 311 final} - {SWD(2020) 312 final} - {SWD(2020) 313 final} - {SWD(2020) 314 final} - {SWD(2020) 315 final} - {SWD(2020) 316 final} - {SWD(2020) 317 final} - {SWD(2020) 319 final} - {SWD(2020) 320 final} - {SWD(2020) 321 final} - {SWD(2020) 322 final} - {SWD(2020) 323 final} - {SWD(2020) 324 final} - {SWD(2020) 325 final} - {SWD(2020) 326 final}  
 
 
ABSTRACT 

The Dutch justice system is characterised by a high level of perceived judicial independence, 
and  a  particular  attention  for  fostering  the  quality  of  justice.  Several  initiatives  to  further 
strengthen judicial independence are underway or are being discussed, inter alia concerning 
the method of allocation for court cases and the appointment procedures of members of the 
Council  for  the  Judiciary  and  of  the  Supreme  Court.  As  regards  the  quality  of  the  justice 
system,  numerous  small-scale  projects  aimed  at  fostering  access  to  justice  are  ongoing  and 
are  being  rolled  out  on  a  larger  scale.  A  reform  of  the  legal  aid  system  is  also  envisaged, 
giving  rise  to  discussions  among  legal  professionals.  Furthermore,  the  justice  system  is 
characterised by a consistently high level of efficiency.  

According to surveys, the Netherlands is perceived as one of the least corrupt countries in the 
EU and the world. There is a strong integrity culture in the public administration. The legal 
and  institutional  framework  to  fight  corruption  is  in  place  and  there  are  several  initiatives 
underway to further strengthen the framework to detect, investigate and prosecute corruption, 
in  particular  in  relation  to  the  financial  sector.  The  Whistleblowers’  Act  is  currently 
undergoing  evaluation,  which  may  result  in  a  revision  of  the  Whistleblowers’  authority’s 
mandate.  Certain  gaps  in  the  integrity  framework  exist,  particularly  as  regards  persons 
entrusted with  top  executive functions  and law enforcement  authorities, and some concerns 
have  been  raised  as  regards  lobbying,  ‘revolving  doors’  and  the  transparency  of  political 
party funding, though some steps are being taken to address these gaps. 

The Netherlands has a strong tradition, as well as a strong legal and institutional framework 
regarding media pluralism. The independent audiovisual media regulator plays an important 
role  for  ensuring  transparency  of  media  ownership.  The  authorities  contribute  to  fostering 
independent  journalism,  notably  via  the  allocation  of  grants  to  the  Journalism  Promotion 
Fund.  Overall,  the  framework  for  journalists’  protection  is  robust.  The  Council  for 
Journalism,  a  self-regulatory  mechanism,  is  entitled  to  issue  opinions  on  complaints 
concerning  journalistic  practices.  Media  workers,  including  journalists,  photographers  and 
cartoonists,  are  occasionally  confronted  with  threats,  online  and  offline.  The  protection  of 
journalists has come to the forefront in recent years and has resulted in increased cooperation 
between  journalists  associations,  the  police  and  the  prosecution  service.  The  recent 
“PersVeilig” initiative that helps journalists report and handle threats is a good example. 

The system  of  checks and balances is  well  established and the process  for enacting laws is 
inclusive. An impact  assessment framework and the involvement of stakeholders contribute 
to  the quality and transparency of the legislative process,  which includes a constitutionality 
check.  Several  independent  authorities,  including  the  College  for  Human  Rights  and  the 
National Ombudsman, contribute to safeguarding fundamental rights. The government has a 
policy  of  pursuing  a  dialogue  with  civil  society  and  making  information  accessible  to 
citizens. Regular discussions in Parliament as well as initiatives and reflections by different 
authorities on rule of law topics contribute to fostering a dynamic rule of law culture.  

1 

 
 
 
I.  JUSTICE SYSTEM  

The justice system is characterised by a court system composed of eleven district courts, four 
general courts of appeal, two specialised courts1, the Council of State2 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.3  Candidate  judges  are  selected  by  the  National 
Selection Committee for Judges4 and subsequently appointed for life by the executive5 on the 
proposal of the Minister of Justice.6 The prosecution service is separate from the Ministry of 
Justice  but  falls  under  the  political  responsibility  of  the  Minister.  The  Bar  Association  is 
established by law. It is independent from the Government and financed exclusively through 
lawyers’ annual contributions.7 

Independence 

The perceived level of independence of the judiciary is very high, and efforts to further 
strengthen  judicial  independence  continue.  The  level  of  perceived  judicial  independence 
has been consistently very high among the general population (77% consider it to be fairly or 
very good) and among companies (81% fairly or very good) over the last years.8 Even with 
these  high  levels  of  perceived  judicial  independence,  new  initiatives  to  further  foster  the 
traditionally strong judicial independence have been put forward. These reflect the particular 
role of independent advisory bodies and of the dialogue with the judiciary.  

A new code for case allocation was adopted in early 2020.  The new case allocation code 
has  been  adopted  by  the  Council  for  the  Judiciary,  in  consultation  with  the  judiciary,  the 
prosecution service and the bar association, and aims to foster transparency in  allocation of 
cases within courts. While the division of jurisdictional competence between courts is set out 
in  law,  the  allocation  of  cases  is  not.  The  code  provides  that  cases  will  in  principle  be 
allocated randomly between judges, and any exception to this rule will be made public in the 

1   The Central Appeal Tribunal and the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal.  
2   The  judicial  branch  of  the  Council  of  State  acts  as  the  highest  administrative  court  for  certain  cases.  The 

Council also has an advisory branch, which renders opinions on draft legislation. 

3   Law on Judicial Organisation. 
4   The National Selection Committee for Judges is composed of six judges and six non-judge members, among 

which at least one public prosecutor and one attorney.  

5   The appointment decision is adopted by Royal Decree, which is signed by the King and countersigned by the 
Minister of Justice and Security. The Minister solely verifies if the applicant fulfils the legal requirements to 
be  appointed,  and  the  Minister  has  in  all  cases  followed  the  recommendation  by  the  Council  for  the 
Judiciary.  

6   Law  on  the  Legal  Status  of  the  Judiciary;  The  Council  has  delegated  this  to  the  National  Selection 
Committee for Judges, which is composed of judges, public prosecutors, lawyers, public administrators and 
researchers.  The  Minister  of  Justice  and  Security  has  in  all  cases  followed  the  recommendation  by  the 
Council for the Judiciary. 

7   Law on Lawyers.  
8   EU  Justice  Scoreboard  2013  to  2020;  World  Economic  Forum  Global  Competitiveness  Reports; 
Eurobarometer  surveys.  While  27%  of  the  general  population  and  37%  of  companies  indicate  that  they 
perceive the level of judicial independence to be ‘very good’ and 50% of the general population and 44% of 
companies perceive  it as  ‘fairly  good’, only 10% of the general population and 7% of companies indicate 
that they perceive the level of judicial independence to be ‘fairly or very bad’. Figures 44 & 46, 2020 EU 
Justice  Scoreboard;  Eurobarometer  survey.  The  level  of  perceived  judicial  independence  is  categorised  as 
follows: very low (below 30% of respondents perceive judicial independence as fairly good and very good); 
low (between 30-39%), average (between 40-59%), high (between 60-75%), very high (above 75%). 

2 

 
 
                                                 
administrative regulations drafted by the court administrations.9 The code also states that any 
transfer of the case to another judge is notified to the parties together with the reasons for the 
transfer. The court administrations will elaborate more detailed rules per jurisdiction, based 
on the new case allocation code.  

The  Government  has  announced  plans  to  amend  the  appointment  procedure  for 
Supreme Court judges. Following recommendations of an independent State Commission10 
in  2018,  the  Government  has  announced  the  preparation  of  a  Constitutional  revision  to 
change  the  appointment  procedure  for  Supreme  Court  judges.  Currently,  a  Committee  of 
Supreme  Court  judges  draws  up  a  list  of  six  candidates  and  submits  it  to  the  House  of 
Representatives, which selects and ranks three candidates and invites the first-ranked person 
for  an  interview.  The  selected  candidate  is  then  nominated  by  the  Minister  of  Justice  for 
appointment  by  the  executive.11  The  State  Commission  recommended  establishing  a 
committee, composed of a member of Parliament assigned by the House of Representatives, a 
member of the Supreme Court assigned by its President, and an expert appointed jointly by 
the House of Representatives and the Supreme Court.12 This committee would be in charge of 
nominating  new  Supreme  Court  judges,  which  is  currently  the  prerogative  of  the  House  of 
Representatives.  The  nomination  would  be  submitted  for  appointment  by  the  executive, 
which would be bound by the nomination. The Government has drafted a concept proposal 
for  a  revision  of  the  Constitution  to  implement  this  recommendation.  The  proposal  was 
published  for  an  online  stakeholder  consultation  from  December  2019  to  March  2020.  The 
objective  pursued  by  this  envisaged  reform  is  to  further  limit  the  role  of  the  executive  and 
legislative  branch  in  the  appointment  of  Supreme  Court  judges,  which  is  consistent  with 
Council of Europe recommendations.13 

A  reflection  is  ongoing  on  the  procedures  for  the  appointment  of  members  of  the 
Council for the Judiciary and of court management boards. The Council for the Judiciary 
plays a key role for safeguarding judicial independence. Discussions are ongoing on whether 
judges  should  have  greater  influence  on  the  appointment  process  of  the  members  of  court 
management  boards14  and  members  of  the  Council  for  the  Judiciary.15  A  working  group 
including the Council and the association of judges was set up to discuss nominations to court 
management  boards  and  the  involvement  of  judges  in  the  process.  As  for  the  Council,  the 

9   According to Council of Europe standards, the allocation of cases within a court should follow objective pre-
established criteria in order to safeguard the  right to an independent and impartial judge. See in particular 
paragraph  24  of  Recommendation  CM/Rec(2010)12  of  the  Committee  of  Ministers  of  the  Council  of 
Europe; CCJE Opinion N19 (2016) – The Role of Court Presidents; ENCJ Minimum Judicial Standards IV – 
Allocation of Cases: ENCJ Report 2013-2014.  

10   The State Commission on the Parliamentary System in the Netherlands. 
11   The appointment decision is adopted by Royal Decree. See above.  
12   State Commission on the Parliamentary System in the Netherlands (2018), Democracy and the rule of law in 
equilibrium – final report of the State Commission on the Parliamentary System in the Netherlands, p. 216. 
13   Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, para. 47. See 
also,  as  regards  the  process  of  judicial  appointment  from  the  perspective  of  judges’  independence  and 
impartiality,  judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  19  November  2019  in  Joint  Cases  C‑ 585/18,  C‑ 624/18 
and C‑ 625/18, paras 124-125 and 133-134; judgment of the Court of Justice of 9 July 2020, Land Hessen, 
C-272/19, paras 54-60. 

14   Court  boards  exist  of  three  members,  two  judges  and  a  non-judge  member,  who  are  tasked  with  the 
management  of  the  court.  Court  board  members  are  appointed  by  the  executive  on  the  nomination  of  the 
Minister of Justice, following the recommendation of the Council of the Judiciary, who hears the court board 
of the court in question.  

15   Letter from the Minister for Legal Protection to the House of Representatives of 17 September 2019:‘Ways 

in which to create a strong justice system’. 

3 

 
 
                                                 
Minister for Legal Protection has announced legislation to amend the appointment procedure 
for  members  of  the  Council.16  Currently,  the  Minister  and  the  Council  for  the  Judiciary 
establish jointly a list of maximum six persons to fill a vacancy.17 This list is submitted to a 
Recommendation Committee,18 which draws up a list of maximum three persons and submits 
it to the Minister, who then nominates the new member of the Council to be appointed for six 
years by the executive19. The announced legislation would limit the role of the Minister in the 
appointment  procedure,  who  would  no  longer  appoint  a  member  of  the  Committee,  nor 
participate  in  establishing  the  list  of  six  persons.20  A  parliamentary  motion21  also  called on 
the  Government  to  request  a  Council  of  State  opinion  on  potential  weaknesses  in  the  legal 
framework  regarding  the  appointment  of  members  of  the  Council  for  the  Judiciary  and  of 
members  of  court  boards,  and  to  report  on  this  to  the  Chamber.  In  February  2020,  the 
Minister asked the Council of State for advice in this regard. The objective of this reflection 
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 22.  

The  power  of  the  Minister  of  Justice  to  issue  specific  instructions  to  the  prosecution 
service is  accompanied  by safeguards and not used in practice. The  prosecution service 
falls under the political responsibility of the Minister of Justice, although it is not itself part of 
the Ministry.23 The Minister is periodically informed by the prosecution service of important 
cases, and disposes of the power to give instructions to prosecute a specific case or to refrain 
from  doing  so.  Specific  legal  safeguards  are  in  place  to  limit  the  possibility  of  arbitrary 
intervention: the Minister has the obligation to inform the Board of Prosecutors-General and 
the written instruction, together with the views of the Board, would be added to the case file. 
An  instruction  to  refrain  from  prosecution  would  also  have  to  be  notified  to  the  House  of 
Representatives and the Senate together with the views of the Board, in so far as this would 
not  be  against  the  interests  of  the  State.  In  practice,  there  have  been  no  cases  of  specific 
instructions  for  decades,  as  reported  by  the  Dutch  authorities.  These  safeguards,  combined 
with  the  fact  that  the  Minister  of  Justice  does  not  make  use  of  the  prerogative  to  instruct 
prosecutors in individual cases, appear to mitigate any potential risk for the autonomy of the 

16   Letter from the Minister for Legal Protection to the House of Representatives of 17 September 2019: ‘Ways 

in which to create a strong justice system’, p. 10. 

17   Law on Judicial Organization. 
18   The  Recommendation  Committee  is  composed  of  one  court  president,  a  representative  of  the  Dutch 
Association for the Judiciary, a member of the College of Representatives of the courts, a non-judge member 
of a court administration and a person appointed by the Minister. 

19   The appointment decision is adopted by Royal Decree.  
20   Letter from the Minister for Legal Protection to the House of Representatives of 17 September 2019: ‘Ways 

in which to create a strong justice system’, p. 10. 

21   Motion from the Members of the House of Representatives Maarten Groothuizen and Michiel  van Nispen 

about potential vulnerabilities in the law on judicial organization. 

22   Recommendation  CM/Rec(2010)12 of the  Committee of  Ministers of the  Council of Europe, paras 27, 46 
and 47. The European Court of Justice has, in the  context  of judicial appointments  made by the executive 
branch upon a request  from the council for the  judiciary, indicated that for such a council to contribute to 
making the process more objective, it should be sufficiently independent of the legislative and executive and 
of the authority to which it is required to deliver a judicial appointment proposal (judgment of the Court of 
Justice of 19 November 2019 in Joined Cases C‑ 585/18, C‑ 624/18 and C‑ 625/18, paras 137-138).  

23   It  is  to  be  noted  that  a  pending  preliminary  reference  before  the  Court  of  Justice  raises  the  question  of 
whether  the  Dutch  Public  Prosecutor  is  covered  by  the  concept  of  a  judicial  authority,  as  referred  to  in 
Article  6(2)  of  Council  Framework  Decision  of  13  June  2002  on  the  European  arrest  warrant  and  the 
surrender  procedures  between  Member  States,  see:  Court  of  Justice,  Case  C-510/19,  Openbaar  Ministerie 
(Faux en écritures).  

4 

 
 
                                                 
prosecution.24 Following the recent case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on 
the  European  Arrest  Warrant25,  the  existence  of  this  right  to  instruction  has  led  the 
Netherlands to change in 2019 its procedure for issuing such arrest warrants.26 

Quality 

A reform of the legal aid system is foreseen to be completed by 2024. The legal aid system 
is  multi-tiered.  Besides  online  information  available  to  citizens,  there  are  Legal  Advice 
Centres  that  offer  advice  free  of  charge  (‘first  line’)  and  may  refer  to  private  lawyers  and 
mediators (‘second line’), who are paid a fixed fee by the Legal Aid Board according to the 
type of case. Citizens may also apply directly for a subsidised lawyer or mediator. Legal aid 
is financed mainly through public funds, and around 38% of citizens would qualify for legal 
aid.27 An envisaged reform of the legal aid system foresees further improvement in providing 
information to citizens, as well as an expansion of the number of Legal Advice Centres. The 
reform also foresees an increased focus on out-of-court solutions, and new service providers, 
other than lawyers or mediators, would be allowed into the ‘second line’. While the reform 
aims to tailor legal aid to citizens’ needs, the introduction of an advisory body that can review 
which  cases  qualify  for  subsidised  legal  aid  may  have  a  negative  impact  on  access  to 
justice.28  Stakeholders  including  the  Bar  Association  and  the  Association  for  the  Judiciary 
have voiced their criticism against the envisaged reform, emphasising that the right of access 
to justice must be safeguarded.29 Furthermore, some concerns have been expressed about the 
funding available for the legal aid system.30  

There  remains  room  to  improve  the  digitalisation  of  the  justice  system.  While  the 
provision  of  online  information  about  the  judicial  system  for  the  general  public  is 
comprehensive, the availability of electronic means to submit cases, to transmit summons and 
to  monitor  the  stages  of  proceedings  remains  partial.31  While  judgments  of  courts  at  all 
instances  can  be  accessed  online,  the  publication  rate  remains  rather  low,32  although  the 

24   Committee of Ministers Recommendation Rec(2000)19, para 13(d): “where the government has the power to 
give  instructions  to  prosecute  a  specific  case,  such  instructions  must  carry  with  them  adequate  guarantees 
that transparency and equity are respected in accordance with national law”. As regards the safeguards, see 
para 13 (points d to e). 

25   Judgment of the Court of Justice of 27 May 2019 in joined cases OG, C-508/18 and PI, C-82/19 PPU. 
26   As of 13 July 2019, the competent authority to issue a European Arrest Warrant is the investigative judge on 
the request of the prosecutor, see Surrender of Persons Act, Arts. 17-18. See also the Report by the European 
Commission on the implementation of Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest 
warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, p. 5-6. 

27   See 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard for more information.  
28   United Nations CCPR (2019) – the Netherlands was recommended to review the ongoing reform measures 
in the legal aid system, with a view to ensuring that people, including the most vulnerable in all constituent 
countries, can benefit  from the new  system on an equal  footing and to enhancing access to justice  for all, 
including in the constituent countries. 

29   ‘Stand up for the rule of law!’, joint declaration by the Dutch Bar Association, the Dutch Association for the 

Judiciary, Social Work Netherlands, and the RIBW Alliance.  

30   United Nations CCPR (2019) – the Netherlands was recommended to review the ongoing reform measures 
in the legal aid system, with a view to ensuring that people, including the most vulnerable in all constituent 
countries, can benefit  from the new  system on an equal  footing and to enhancing access to justice  for all, 
including in the constituent countries. 

31   Figures 22 & 28, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard.  
32   The current publication rate is around 2-3%.  

5 

 
 
                                                 
authorities envisage an increase over the next three years.33 A programme was set up by the 
judiciary in 2018 to improve digital access to justice.34    

Numerous small-scale projects aimed at fostering access to justice are ongoing and are 
being rolled out on a larger scale. The ‘Societally Effective Justice’ programme35 consists 
of  numerous  projects  that  aim  to  tailor  the  justice  system  to  citizens’  needs.  By  launching 
numerous local pilot projects and subsequently evaluating them, Societally Effective Justice 
aims  to  expand  projects  that  improve  access  to  justice  to  courts  around  the  Netherlands. 
Examples of such projects include ‘the neighbourhood judge’, who helps resolve disputes at 
an  early  stage  and  a  ‘debt  judge’,  who  treats  all  cases  of  a  certain  debtor  simultaneously 
within one debt restructuring exercise. By providing a framework for numerous small-scale 
projects  to  be  tested,  evaluated  and  potentially  expanded,  the  authorities  aim  to  create  a 
beneficial environment to continuously improve the quality of and access to justice.  

The  COVID-19  pandemic  has  had  an  impact  on  the  functioning  of the  justice  system. 
Stakeholders have raised some concerns about the effective safeguarding of the right to a fair 
trial and the quality of justice during the COVID-19 pandemic,36 and the number of criminal 
cases  awaiting  a  hearing  has  increased  significantly  due  to  the  crisis.  In  that  regard,  the 
prosecution  service  has  announced  plans,  in  consultation  with  the  judiciary,  to  make 
increased  use  of  its  power  to  decide  itself  on  certain  criminal  cases.37  This  could  have  an 
impact on the right to a fair trial, in particular if citizens are not adequately informed.38 On 
the  other  hand,  the  COVID-19  pandemic  resulted  in  an  increased  use  of  digital  tools  in 
proceedings, including live streams and online court sessions. 

Efficiency 

The  justice  system  is  characterised  by  a  consistently  high  level  of  efficiency.  The 
efficiency of the justice  system has been  consistently high over the past  years.39 There is  a 
low  disposition  time  in  particular  for  first  instance  civil  and  commercial  cases,40  and  a 
consistent  clearance  rate  of  around  100%  shows  that  the  justice  system  is  able  to  deal 
effectively overall with the number of incoming cases.41 This is corroborated by the absence 

33   Answer by the Minister for Legal Protection to a Parliamentary question on 27 March 2020: an increase to 

5% is envisaged over the next three years. 

34   Letter  from the President of the Council for the  Judiciary to the Minister  for Legal Protection of  10  April 

2018: ‘Rest digitalisation of justice’. 
35   Maatschappelijk Effectieve Rechtspraak.  
36   Information  received  in  the  context  of  the  virtual  country  visit.  See  also  for  instance:  The  Netherlands 
Committee  of  Jurists  for  Human  Rights  (2020),  Letter  on  concerns  about  corona  measures  in  criminal 
justice. 

37   Such decisions by the prosecution service cannot impose a prison sentence and can be contested in court. See 
the Letter from the Minister for Justice and Security and the Minister for Legal Protection to the House of 
Representatives of 25 June 2020: ‘Contours of the Approach to Address Backlogs in Criminal Justice’. See 
also 
the  prosecution  service: 
https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/Organisatie/Raad-voor-de-
rechtspraak/Nieuws/Paginas/Rechtspraak-en-OM-werken-corona-achterstanden-weg.aspx; 
https://www.om.nl/onderwerpen/coronavirus/nieuws/2020/06/25/wegwerken-corona-achterstanden-
strafrechtketen-voor-eind-2021. 

the  announcements  of  25  June  2020  by 

judiciary  and  by 

the 

38   See in that regard: National Ombudsman, Proper Provision of Information is the Basis of Access to Justice – 

Bottlenecks in the Provision of Information about Penalties and Dismissal Decisions.  

39   2013-2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
40   Figures 5 & 6, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard 2020.  
41   Figure 10, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard 2020. 

6 

 
 
                                                 
of any serious backlog overall in civil, commercial and administrative cases.42 The efficiency 
of  justice  is  fostered  further  by  projects  such  as  ‘Disposition  times  in  movement’,43  which 
identified possible avenues for increasing the efficiency of justice. The level of efficiency as 
regards  competition  law  cases  is  high,  while  the  length  of  judicial  review  in  electronic 
communications, consumer protection and money-laundering cases is average. Nevertheless, 
the Council for Public Administration highlights that some concerns exist as regards the work 
pressure to which the judiciary is subject.44  

II. ANTI-CORRUPTION FRAMEWORK 

The competence to investigate and prosecute corruption is shared between several authorities. 
The  National  Police  Internal  Investigation  Department  investigates  wrongdoing  within  the 
Government.  The  Fiscal  Intelligence  and  Investigation  Department  is  responsible  for  the 
investigation  of  financial  crimes,  including  foreign  and  commercial  bribery.  The  National 
Public Prosecutor’s Office focuses on domestic bribery of public officials, and the National 
Public Prosecutor’s Office 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  and  in  the  private  sector.  New  initiatives  aim  at  strengthening  the 
integrity  frameworks  applicable  to  members  of  Parliament  and  the  Act  on  Political  Party 
Financing is at present undergoing a revision. 

In  the  latest  Corruption  Perceptions  Index  of  Transparency  International,  the 
Netherlands scored 82/100 and was ranked 4th in the European Union and 8th globally.45 
While  47%  of  Dutch  respondents  to  the  Eurobarometer  survey  think  that  corruption  is 
widespread in their country (EU average 71%), merely 4% of Dutch respondents are of the 
view  that  corruption  affects  their  daily  lives  (EU  average  26%).46  Similarly,  only  12%  of 
businesses consider corruption to be a problem when doing business in the Netherlands (EU 
average 37%). Furthermore, 53% of people find that there are enough successful prosecutions 
to deter people from corrupt practices (EU average 36%) while 38% of companies consider 
that people and businesses caught for bribing a senior official are appropriately punished (EU 
average 31%).47  

The  legal  framework  for  fighting  corruption  is  largely  in  place.  Bribery  offences  are 
criminalised  by  the  Criminal  Code.48  All  recommendations  by  GRECO  concerning 
incriminations had been implemented by 2010.49 The possibility for criminal prosecution of 
members  of  Parliament,  ministers  and  state  secretaries  for  office-related  offences  has  been 
embedded in  law.50  A special procedure pursuant  to  Article 119 of the Constitution applies 
with regard to violations of the law committed by ministers, members of Parliament and state 
secretaries while in office. Several crimes are covered, including passive bribery and abuse of 

42   Figure 13, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard 2020. 
43   Steering Group Disposition Times (2019), Disposition  times in movement! – final report of the disposition 

times in movement project. 

44   Advice of the Council for Public Administration: ‘A stronger rule of law  – connecting and protecting in a 

pluralistic society’.  

45   Transparency International (2020), 2019 Corruption Perceptions Index. 
46   Special Eurobarometer 502 (2020).  
47   Flash Eurobarometer 482 (2019).  
48   Wetboek van Strafrecht.  
49   GRECO Third Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report and Compliance Report.  
50   Act on the responsibility of members of the House of Representatives, ministers and state secretaries.  

7 

 
 
                                                 
office. In such situations, ministers, members of Parliament and state secretaries can be tried 
only following a decision either by the Government or by Parliament and such cases are tried 
by the Supreme Court. In 2018, GRECO recommended ensuring that this procedure does not 
hamper the criminal justice process as regards corruption-related offences.51 The procedure is 
at present undergoing a review by a dedicated committee.  

A  number  of  authorities  are  responsible  for  the  investigation  and  prosecution  of 
corruption  offences.  The  National  Police  Internal  Investigations  Department  investigates 
criminal conduct within the Government, including when a public servant or police officer is 
suspected  of  a  criminal  offence  such  as  fraud  or  bribery.  It  acts  under  the  authority  of  the 
Board  of  Prosecutors-General.  The  Fiscal  Intelligence  and  Investigation  Department  is  the 
specialised  investigation  service  of  the  Tax  and  Customs  Administration  and  is  responsible 
for  the  investigation  of  financial  crimes,  including  foreign  and  commercial  bribery.  The 
Public Prosecution Service is led by the Board of Prosecutors-General and is responsible for 
the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases. The National Public Prosecutor’s Office 
focuses on international forms of organised crime and on domestic bribery of public officials. 
The National Public Prosecutor’s Office for Serious Fraud, Environmental Crime and Asset 
Confiscation is responsible for the investigation of fraud and environmental crime, including 
commercial and foreign bribery. 

The Whistleblowers’ Authority acts as a centralised office, for both the public and the 
private sector and provides support and advice for people who wish to report a work-
related situation of abuse. This authority, created in 2016, can also carry out investigations 
into wrongdoing. Its service is confidential and free of charge. However, the authority faced 
some  challenges  in  the  first  years  of  its  functioning,  including  lengthy  or  inefficient 
procedures. Reportedly, these were mainly due to old and complicated cases inherited at the 
start  of  the  functioning  of  the  Authority.  In  2019,  the  Whistleblowers’  Authority  started 
working on 331 requests for advice, of which 27 were assessed as actual whistleblower cases 
with  a  reasonable  suspicion  of  abuse.52  57%  of  Dutch  respondents  to  the  Eurobarometer 
survey  indicate  that  they  would  not  know  where  to  report  a  case  of  corruption  should  they 
experience  or  witness  it  and  49%  highlighted  that  they  may  decide  not  to  report  a  case  of 
corruption  due  to  lack  of  adequate  protection.53  The  Whistleblowers’  Act54  is  currently 
undergoing  an  evaluation.  Whilst  the  final  report  has  already  been  delivered,  an  additional 
research  report  is  due  to  be  published  in  September.  This  could  lead  to  a  revision  of  the 
mandate of the Whistleblowers’ Authority.  

Several  recent initiatives aim to improve the institutional  capacity to fight corruption. 
The  2019  annual  report  of  the  Public  Prosecution  Service  shows  that  the  National  Police 
Internal  Investigations  Department  has  carried  out  61  investigations  into  corruption-related 
offences by public administration officials. Some of the investigations concerned the leakage 
of  sensitive  information  and  contacts  with  organised  crime  groups.55  In  recent  years,  the 
institutional  capacity  to  fight  corruption  has  been  strengthened.  Among  other  things,  the 
Government  has  increased  funding  since  2016,  leading  to  an  additional  annual  EUR  20 
million  since  2018  for  the  prosecution  service  and  the  Fiscal  Intelligence  and  Investigation 
Department on corruption and money-laundering. As a result, a specialised Anti-Corruption 

51   GRECO Fifth Evaluation Round– Evaluation Report. 
52   House for Whistleblowers (2019), annual report 2019. 
53   Special Eurobarometer 502 (2020). 
54   Wet Huis voor Klokkenluiders. 
55   Openbaar Ministerie, Jaarbericht 2019, pp. 22-23. 

8 

 
 
                                                 
Centre  was  established  within  the  Fiscal  Intelligence  and  Investigation  Department  in 
September  2016.  Furthermore,  a  ‘corruption  team’  was  established  in  the  National  Public 
Prosecutor’s Office for Serious Fraud, Environmental Crime and Asset Confiscation in 2017, 
focussing  on  the  investigation  of  foreign  bribery  and  commercial  corruption.  A  legislative 
act, adopted in November 2019, enables the collection in a central register of ‘soft data’ on 
bribery of public officials. The aim of the new register is to be able to store police data and 
use it for a longer period of time. This will allow the National Police Internal Investigations 
Department  (NPIID)  to  use  this  data  at  a  later  time  in  an  investigation  or  to  start  new 
investigations based on numerous signals. 

Innovative  tools  have  been  deployed  in  order  to  fight  corruption  more  effectively, 
including a best-practice project on suspicious transaction reports. The Anti-Corruption 
Centre  of  the  Fiscal  Intelligence  and  Investigation  Department  has  adopted  a  project-based 
approach consisting of cross-matching tax, bank and accounting data and flows for detecting 
common clues and recurrent operative modes. A good practice example is the joint analysis 
of files by the Anti-Corruption Centre and the Financial Intelligence Unit, ensuring a sharing 
of  know-how  and  a  more  efficient  and  broader  analysis  of  unusual  transactions  related  to 
corruption. The major  added value of the ‘suspicious  transaction reports’ project  is  to  raise 
awareness about the various forms, indicators and features of corruption in order to increase 
the  number  of  reports  and  enhance  their  quality,  thereby  improving  the  efficiency  and 
effectiveness of the entire reporting chain.  

A public-private partnership has been established in order to strengthen the integrity of 
the  financial  sector.  While  the  overall  level  of  perceived  corruption  is  low,  the  financial 
sector  is  considered  to  be  a  high-risk  sector.56  A  partnership  between  authorities  with 
supervisory, control, prosecution or investigation tasks in the financial sector aims at taking 
preventive  action  in  order  to  identify  and  combat  threats  to  the  sector’s  integrity.  The 
Financial  Expertise  Centre  also  plays  a  key  role  in  the  dissemination  of  information.  Its 
annual plan for 2020 lists corruption as a priority topic and highlights the establishment of a 
specific project, aiming to strengthen the prevention and detection of corruption by banks.57  

Integrity is a key component of the framework governing the public administration. The 
Civil Service Act58 prescribes a code of conduct for the public administration and lays down 
asset disclosure rules. The rules on integrity for civil servants are contained in the National 
Government  Integrity Code of Conduct.  Additionally,  a new bill  promoting the integrity of 
(candidate)  members  of  decentralised,  regional  or  local  governments  is  at  present  pending 
adoption.  The  Interdepartmental  Platform  on  Integrity  Management  focuses  on  cross-
government  integrity  policy,  the  monitoring  and  registration  of  violations  and  the 
development  of  new  instruments  in  public  administration.  Since  2015,  an  Advisory  Team 
Integrity  Investigation  gives  independent  advice  to  politically  responsible  officials. 
Nevertheless,  50% of respondents  to  the Eurobarometer  are of the opinion that bribery  and 
the abuse of power for personal gain are widespread among officials awarding public tenders 
and  55%  are  of  the  opinion  that  this  is  the  case  for  officials  issuing  building  permits, 
respectively.  Innovative  tools  to  promote  integrity  have  been  set  up  at  the  local  level.  For 
example, the Integrity Office59 (part of the administration of the city of Amsterdam) promotes 

56   Tax Justice Network, 2020 Financial Secrecy Index of the world’s  most secretive jurisdictions in  terms of 

financial services. 

57   Financieel Expertise Centrum, Annual plan 2020.  
58   Ambtenarenwet. 
59   Bureau Integriteit. 

9 

 
 
                                                 
integrity with the local political and administrative level, but also with service providers and 
businesses.  This  is  a  good  practice,  particularly  given  that  stakeholders  indicate  that  the 
process  of  decentralisation  should  be  carefully  assessed  in  light  of  possible  risks  of 
corruption.  

While  new  initiatives  aim  at  strengthening  the  integrity  frameworks  applicable  to 
members  of  Parliament,  concerns  remain  as  regards  persons  entrusted  with  top 
executive functions. New integrity measures have been introduced as regards both chambers 
of Parliament.  In 2019, the Senate adopted a code of conduct for its members that provides 
guidelines on contacts with third parties, including lobbyists. The House of Representatives is 
in the process of adopting a code of conduct and introducing a supervisory system as regards 
declaration requirements.60 Certain integrity gaps have been identified with regard to persons 
entrusted  with  top  executive  functions.  This  issue  has  also  been  highlighted  by  GRECO, 
which  recommends  the  provision  of  appropriate  guidance  on  conflicts  of  interest  and 
integrity-related matters and that persons entrusted with top executive functions declare on an 
ad hoc basis any conflicts between private interests and official functions, as well as making 
their financial interests public on a regular basis.61  

Law enforcement authorities enjoy a good level of trust with regard to the fight against 
corruption. 60% of the Eurobarometer respondents have most trust in the police to deal with 
a corruption case.62 However, 34% of respondents think that bribery and abuse of power for 
personal gain are widespread among police and customs authorities.63 In this respect, a 2017 
study shows that more could be done to fight corruption and other integrity violations within 
law  enforcement  authorities.64  GRECO  recommended  for  example  that  the  vetting  and 
screening of law enforcement staff take place at regular intervals during the entire service and 
that  the  control  measures  in  respect  of  access  to  and  use  of  confidential  information  be 
enhanced in order to prevent the unauthorised access to and leaking of information.65 A draft 
law  extending  the  screening  of  police  officers  and  external  consultants  before  appointment 
and during employment is pending adoption.  

Rules  to  prevent  ‘revolving  doors’  include  a  ban  on  lobbying  for  former  high-level 
officials. Former ministers and state secretaries are not allowed to engage in any way with the 
employees  of  their  former  ministry  as  lobbyists  on  behalf  of  a  company,  semi-public 
organisation or lobby organisation for two years after their end of mandate. They also cannot 
act  as  intermediaries  or  agents  in  commercial  contacts  with  the  ministry.  However, 
stakeholders point out that there are no general rules on dealing with lobbyists or with post-
employment  restrictions  when  employment  in  the  private  sector  is  sought  by  persons 
entrusted with top executive functions. This has also been highlighted by GRECO.66  

There  are  few  restrictions  on  political  party  financing  and  these  are  not  applicable  to 
local parties or local departments of national parties. This raises questions about the need 
to register donations and their control. There is an ongoing debate regarding the financing of 

60   These  reforms  follow  up  on  GRECO  recommendations:  GRECO  Fourth  Evaluation  Round  preventing 
corruption in respect of members of Parliament, judges and prosecutors – Evaluation Report and Compliance 
Reports. 

61   GRECO Fifth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report. 
62   Special Eurobarometer 502 (2020). 
63   Special Eurobarometer 502 (2020). 
64   Organized Crime and Integrity Violations within Law Enforcement Organisations (2017).  
65   GRECO Fifth Evaluation Round– Evaluation Report. 
66   GRECO Fifth Evaluation Round– Evaluation Report. 

10 

 
 
                                                 
political  parties,  and  the  Act  on  Political  Party  Financing  is  currently  being  revised.67  For 
example,  the  amendments  aim  at  strengthening  the  transparency  of  gifts  for  parties  and 
prohibit gifts from outside the European Economic Area. It is foreseen that gifts from within 
the European Economic Area will be disclosed without a threshold. The threshold for Dutch 
donations that have to be disclosed would remain at EUR 4 500. The revision of the Act does 
not  include  rules  on  the  financing  of  local  and  regional  units  of  political  parties.  Some  of 
these issues were also identified in GRECO reports on the transparency of party funding.68 A 
new Political Parties Act is being drafted in that regard. The draft law is expected to include 
transparency rules on the financing of local parties or local departments  of national parties. 
50%  of  Dutch  respondents  to  the  Eurobarometer  survey  are  of  the  opinion  that  there  is 
insufficient transparency and supervision of the financing of political parties and 43% think 
that bribery and abuse of power for personal gain are widespread among political parties.69  

III.  MEDIA PLURALISM 

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  and  the 
Openness  of  Government  Act70  regulates  the  public’s  right  to  access  of  administrative 
documents  held  by  public  authorities.  The  independent  audio-visual  media  regulatory 
authority ensures transparency of media ownership. The authorities are working to strengthen 
the protection of journalists against violence and aggression, notably via a dedicated Steering 
Group.71  

The regulator for audiovisual media services, the Commissariaat voor de Media (CvDM) 
is an independent administrative authority established by statute under the Media Act 
2008 as a public entity with legal personality. The Authority has a statutory obligation to 
publish its decisions and is considered to be transparent.72 Its independence was assessed at 
very low risk by the Media Pluralism Monitor (MPM) covering 2018 and 2019.73 Under the 
Framework  Act  for  Independent  Administrative  Authorities,74  the  Minister  of  Education, 
Culture  and  Science  appoints  the  head  and  members  of  the  collegiate  body  of  the  Media 
Authority.  Draft  legislation  currently  pending  in  Parliament  proposes  revisions  to  the 
appointment procedure: the Minister would appoint the head and members of the collegiate 
body on the basis of unanimous advice from an independent  appointment committee set up 
by  the  Media  Authority.  The  Minister  could  only  deviate  from  this  advice  if  the  rules  of 
procedure were not respected or if an appointment would be contrary to the law. Suspension 
and dismissal can only take place due to unsuitability for the position fulfilled, incompetence, 
or  other  compelling  reasons  related  to  the  person  concerned.  Such  strengthening  of 
guarantees  of  independence  further  contributes  to  the  reduction  of  the  risk  to  media 

67   Wet financiering politieke partijen.  
68   GRECO  Third  Evaluation  Round–  Evaluation  Report  and  Compliance  Report.  For  example,  GRECO 
recommends to lower the disclosure threshold of €4,500 and to extend the applicability of the provisions on 
donations to local and regional units of political parties.  

69   Special Eurobarometer 502 (2020). 
70   Wet Openbaarheid van Bestuur.  
71   In  2020,  the  Netherlands  are  at  the  5th  position  worldwide  in  the  Reporters  Without  Borders  World  Press 

Freedom Index. See: https://rsf.org/en/ranking.  

72   Its published decisions can be accessed via: https://www.cvdm.nl/.  
73   2020 Media Pluralism Monitor. 
74   Kaderwet zelfstandige bestuursorganen. 

11 

 
 
                                                 
pluralism.75 Furthermore, the Council for Journalism, a self-regulatory mechanism, is entitled 
to issue opinions on complaints concerning journalistic practices. The Council is comprised 
equally  of  journalists  and  of  other  members,  mainly  legal  experts,  and  operates 
autonomously.  

In  the  absence  of  media-specific  legal  provisions  ensuring  the  disclosure  of  ownership 
details to the public, information on media ownership is provided to the public via the 
Media  Monitor  published  by  the  CvdM.  The  Media  Pluralism  Monitor  has  assessed 
transparency  of  media  ownership  in  the  Netherlands  at  medium  risk,  due  to  the  absence  of 
media-specific provisions requiring disclosure of ownership details to the public. In practice, 
information  on  media  ownership  is  provided  to  the  public  via  the  annual  Media  Monitor 
published by the CvdM.76 In addition, upon payment of a small fee, the public can consult the 
records  of  the  chamber  of  commerce  to  retrieve  relevant  information.77  As  indicated  by 
stakeholders,78  this  transparency  is  all  the  more  important  since  media  ownership  is  highly 
concentrated,  mainly  in  the  press  sector.  The  Media  Authority  monitors  the  impact  of 
financial-economic market developments and consolidation of ownership on media pluralism 
and  independence  of  the  supply  of  information  in  the  Netherlands.  The  Government 
contributes to fostering independent journalism. Support is provided via the Journalism Fund, 
managed by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, which is responsible for media 
policy, and via the Fund for In-depth Journalism as well as the Journalism Promotion Fund79.  

The  right  to  access  to  information  is  laid  down  in  law.  The  public’s  right  to  access 
administrative  documents  held  by  public  authorities  is  specified  in  the  Openness  of 
Government  Act.  The  absolute  grounds  for  denial  of  access  to  documents  listed  in  the  law 
raise some doubts as to their conformity with the principles of proportionality and necessity.80 
Certain  stakeholders  report  that  requests  for  access  to  information  to  public  authorities  are 
complied  with  rapidly  and  that  there  are  no  particular  issues.  However,  representatives  of 
journalists are critical about the time it takes for public authorities to respond to requests for 
information. Some public authorities apply an active transparency policy, proactively making 
information on their activity publicly available. 

There is an extensive framework for the protection of journalists. According to the Media 
Pluralism  Monitor,  existing  penal81  and  civil  restrictions,  such  as  for  example  liability  for 
defamation, are not abused in practice and do not impede a very lively public expression of 
ideas.  Since  2014  and  2019  respectively,  blasphemy  and  lèse-majesté  no  longer  constitute 
criminal  offences.  Stakeholders 
journalists, 
photographers  and  cartoonists,  are  occasionally  confronted  with  threats,  online  and  offline. 
An  agreement  on  strengthening  the  position  of  journalists  against  violence  and  aggressions 

that  media  workers, 

including 

report 

75   The revised Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) sets out a range of specific guarantees for the 

independence and effectiveness of national media regulators.  

76   Media  Authority,  Media  monitor:  Media  concentration.  In  that  respect,  it  should  be  recalled  that 
transparency  requirements  are  listed  in  Recommendation  CM/Rec(2018)1  of  the  Council  of  Europe 
Committee of Ministers to member States on media pluralism and transparency of media ownership. 

77   The revised AVMSD encourages Member States to adopt legislation obliging media service providers make 

accessible information concerning their ownership structure, including beneficial owners. 

78   Information  received  in  the  context  of  the  virtual  country  visit.  See  also  for  instance:  The  Netherlands 
Committee  of  Jurists  for  Human  Rights  (2020),  Letter  on  concerns  about  corona  measures  in  criminal 
justice.  

79   Dutch Government, Safeguarding press freedom.  
80   2020 Media Pluralism Monitor. 
81   Imprisonment is among the envisaged sanctions for defamation. 

12 

 
 
                                                 
was  concluded  in  July  2018  by  the  Steering  Group  on  Aggression  and  Violence  against 
Journalists, consisting of the public prosecution service, the police, the Society of Editors-in-
Chief and the Association of Journalists.82 This resulted in the ‘PersVeilig’ protocol aimed at 
reducing threats, violence and aggression against journalists. Although not a direct follow-up 
to  the  Council  of  Europe  Recommendation  on  the  protection  of  journalism  and  safety  of 
journalists and other media actors, the PersVeilig protocol is aligned with its guidelines and is 
considered  as a  good practice by media experts. Stakeholders report  good experiences with 
the new tool and welcomed a new law on the protection of sources, which is in place since 
two  years.  Some  concerns  exist  as  regards  the  amended  national  security  services  Act 
(W.I.V)  of  July  2017,  dubbed  “dragnet  Act”.  The  law  allows  national  security  services  to 
collect  internet  and  telephone  data  from  citizens  in  bulk  for  investigation  needs.83  The 
Association of Journalists has expressed concern that this could undermine the protection of 
journalistic sources.84 In 2019, the Council of Europe Platform to promote the protection of 
journalism and safety of journalists published two alerts for the Netherlands,85 concerning a 
TV reporter who was briefly arrested for refusing to disclose a source at a murder trial, and a 
new  law  under  which  citizens  travelling  to  an  area  “controlled  by  terrorist  groups”  must 
request  permission  from  the  Justice  Ministry.86  Similar  alerts  were  posted  on  the  Mapping 
Media Freedom platform.87  

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 Senate88 
and the House of Representatives89. 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.  

Conducting  impact  assessments  and  consulting  stakeholders  are  well-established 
practices for enacting legislation. A legislative proposal can originate from the Government 
or from members of the House of Representatives, after which it is submitted to the Council 
of  State  advisory  division  for  its  opinion.90  The  proposal  is  then  adopted  by  the  House  of 
Representatives  and  subsequently  by  the  Senate91,  after  which  it  is  signed  into  law  by  the 
King  and  the  responsible  Minister.  Legislative  proposals  are  analysed  through  an  impact 

82   Professor Tarlach McGonagle (2018), Agreement of the Steering Group on Aggression and Violence against 
Journalists.  https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Agreement-of-the-Steering-Group-on-Aggression-and-
violence-against-journalists-EN-translation.pdf. 

83   Wet op de inlichtingen- en veiligheidsdiensten. The Act has been adopted and implemented even though it 

had been rejected in a March 2018 consultative referendum. 

84   In  that  respect,  it  should  be  recalled  that,  in  line  with  Council  of  Europe  standards,  a  comprehensive 
legislative  framework  that  enables  journalists  and  other  media  actors  to  contribute  to  public  debate 
effectively  and  without  fear  is  recommended.  See  CM/REC(2016)4  of  the  Committee  of  Ministers  on  the 
protection of journalism and safety of journalists and other media actors. 

85   Similar  alerts  were  posted  on  the  Mapping  Media  Freedom  Platform,  see  European  Centre  for  Press  & 

Media Freedom, Mapping media freedom: The Netherlands. 

86   Council of Europe, Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists.  
87   European Centre for Press & Media Freedom, Mapping media freedom: The Netherlands. 
88   Eerste Kamer der Staten-Generaal.  
89   Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal.  
90   The opinion is authoritative but non-binding.  
91   The Senate may only approve or reject the proposal; it has no right of amendment nor right of initiative. 

13 

 
 
                                                 
assessment framework before they are submitted to Parliament.92 In preparing legislation, it is 
Government policy to submit draft proposals for an open internet consultation of four weeks 
minimum.93 A short summary of the comments received and how they have been taken into 
account is published online.94 It is to be noted that the Council for the Judiciary is consulted 
on  new  laws  in  relation  to  the  administration  of  justice.  The  opinions  of  the  Council  are 
adopted after consulting with the courts. Additionally, permanent advisory councils like the 
Council for Public Administration play a role in the checks and balances system by providing 
independent  opinions  on  their  own  initiative  or  on  a  request  from  the  Government  or  from 
Parliament.  

A draft bill seeks to provide a specific legal basis for measures to combat the COVID-19 
pandemic.  The  Government  submitted  a  proposal  for  a  temporary  law  on  COVID-19 
measures to Parliament in July 2020. The law aims to provide a solid legal basis for measures 
aimed at combatting the COVID-19 pandemic, which until now were often adopted through 
emergency ordinances95. The law also grants the Parliament and representative bodies at the 
local level96 increased powers to scrutinise such measures. The Council of State indicated in 
an  advisory  opinion  of  May  2020  that  the  longer  the  crisis  situation  lasts,  the  stronger  the 
need for a solid legal  basis for such measures becomes.97 The law is  expected to  enter into 
force in autumn 2020.  

Respect  for  fundamental  and  constitutional  rights  is  ensured  in  several  manners.  An 
explanatory  note  attached  to  legislative  proposals  discusses  constitutionality,  and  manuals 
exist  for  civil  servants  in  this  regard.  The  Council  of  State  also  scrutinises  the 
constitutionality  of  draft  legislation  in  its  opinions.  The  constitutionality  of  draft  laws  then 
becomes  the  subject  of  debates  in  Parliament,  on  which  the  Senate  in  particular  debates  at 
length.  Ordinary  courts  can  carry  out  a  decentralised  form  of  ‘constitutional’  review  in  the 
absence of a centralised constitutional court. While acts of parliament may not be reviewed 
against the constitution, review is possible against directly effective treaties.98 In practice, this 
means  that  all  laws  can  be  reviewed  in  light  of,  inter  alia,  the  European  Convention  on 
Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.  

Independent  authorities  play  a  role  in  safeguarding  fundamental  rights.  Independent 
authorities in the Netherlands include the College voor de Rechten van de Mens, which aims 
to protect human rights and foster awareness of and compliance with human rights standards, 
and  the  National  Ombudsman.  The  College  is  also  the  independent  gender  equality  body 
competent  to  monitor  and  promote  equal  treatment.  It  is  accredited  with  A  status  by  the 
Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) as regards its compliance 
with the UN Paris Principles. Among other recommendations, the College was encouraged by 
GANHRI to advocate for the formalisation of a clear, transparent and participatory selection 
and  appointment  process.  The  National  Ombudsman  is  an  independent  and  constitutionally 
enshrined  office  competent  to  issue  non-binding  judgments  on  concrete  actions  by 
government  authorities.  The  Ombudsman  may  also  investigate  complaints  of  citizens  and 
report on their findings, possibly issuing recommendations.  

92   https://www.kcwj.nl/kennisbank/integraal-afwegingskader-voor-beleid-en-regelgeving.  
93   In exceptional cases, this period can be shortened or online consultation can be omitted.  
94   Except for comments received anonymously. 
95   Based on the pre-existing Law on Public Health. 
96   ‘Gemeenteraden’ (Municipal councils). 
97   Advisory Opinion W04.20.0139/I/Vo of the Council of State of 25 May 2020. 
98   All other legal instruments may be reviewed against the constitution and against other higher norms.  

14 

 
 
                                                 
The  Government  has  a  policy  of  pursuing  a  dialogue  with  civil  society  and  making 
information  accessible  to  citizens.  The  Netherlands  is  considered  as  having  an  open  civil 
society  landscape.99  In  2019,  the  Government  introduced  a  policy  regarding  the  framework 
for civil society organizations in which it introduces partnerships (e.g. Power of Voices and 
Women, Peace and Security) in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). 
Draft  legislation  has  been  submitted  to  Parliament  aiming  at  increasing  the  accessibility  of 
administrative decisions taken by various authorities through a unique portal entry point. The 
portal can also provide tailor-made notifications of legislation or administrative decisions that 
concern a citizen’s specific environment.   

There  is  a  strong  attention  for  rule  of  law  topics  in  politics  and  in  society.  The  Senate 
organises  regular  policy  debates  on  the  State  of  the  Rule  of  Law,100  which  provide  an 
opportunity  for  senators  to  debate  with  ministers  and  to  introduce  motions  on  rule-of-law-
related topics.101 For example, in March 2020, senators introduced eight new motions, related 
inter alia to the autonomous management of resources for the judiciary. This practice in the 
Senate  has  been  followed  in  the  House  of  Representatives.  In  January  2020,  the  House 
Committee for Justice and Security organised a conference where the judiciary, lawyers and 
politicians debated the ‘Rule of Law in the 21st Century’. These initiatives provide a forum to 
debate matters related to the rule of law and to foster awareness of such topics. Additionally, 
the assassination of a lawyer in a high-profile criminal case in September 2019 was perceived 
as an attack on the rule of law moving the Government to take additional measures to tackle 
organised  crime  and  provide  extra  funding  for  the  protection  of  local  politicians,  judges, 
prosecutors, police officers, lawyers and journalists.102 At the same time, a number of high-
profile court rulings103 sparked a political debate on the role of the judiciary in relation to the 
other  state  powers.104  These  developments  have  fed  reflections  and  initiatives  to  further 
promote the rule of law culture.  Recent  reports by the Council for Public Administration105 
and by the Council of State106 highlight that the rule of law has become a topic of discussion 
in  recent  years.  The  Council  for  Public  Administration  recommends  the  Government  to 
develop a ‘Rule of Law Policy Agenda’ to promote a culture of rule of law.107 The Council of 
State  has  announced  its  intention  to  organise  ‘Rule  of  Law  Conversations’  to  facilitate  an 
exchange of views between representatives of different state institutions that play a role for 
the rule of law. 

99   See  the  rating  given  by  CIVICUS;  ratings  are  on  a  five-category  scale  defined  as:  open,  narrowed, 

obstructed, repressed and closed.  

100  Staat van de Rechtsstaat. 
101  This policy debate was organised in 2014, 2018, 2019 and 2020.  
102  Dutch Government, Measures against undermining criminality.  
103  Including  the  judgment  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  Netherlands  of  13  September  2019,  Urgenda, 
ECLI:NL:HR:2019:2007  and  Judgment  of  the  Council  of  State  of  29  May  2019,  Nitrogen  Action 
Programme, ECLI:NL:RVS:2019:1604.  

104  Advice  of  the  Council  for  Public  Administration,  A  stronger  rule  of  law  –  connecting  and  protecting  in  a 

pluralistic society. 
105  See previous footnote. 
106   Council of State Annual Report 2019.  
107  Advice  of  the  Council  for  Public  Administration,  A  stronger  rule  of  law  –  connecting  and  protecting  in  a 

pluralistic society. 

15 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order.* 

* The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2020 Rule of Law Report 

can be found at (COM website).  

Centre  for  Media  Pluralism  and  Media  Freedom  (2020),  2020  Media  pluralism  monitor. 

https://cmpf.eui.eu/media-pluralism-monitor/mpm-2020.  

CIVICUS, 

Monitor 

tracking 

civic 

space: 

the 

Netherlands. 

https://monitor.civicus.org/country/netherlands/.     

Consultative Council of European Judges (2016), CCJE Opinion No.19: The role of court presidents.  

Council  for  Public  Administration  (2020),  A  stronger  rule  of  law  –  connecting  and  protecting  in  a 

pluralistic society.  

Council  of  Europe,  Platform  to  promote  the  protection  of journalism  and  safety  of journalists  – the 
https://www.coe.int/en/web/media-freedom/all-

Netherlands. 
alerts?p_p_id=sojdashboard_WAR_coesojportlet&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_col_id=column-
4&p_p_col_count=1&_sojdashboard_WAR_coesojportlet_keywords=&_sojdashboard_WAR_coes
ojportlet_selectedStringFilters=year.2019&_sojdashboard_WAR_coesojportlet_selectedCategories
=11709554.  

Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers (2000), Recommendation Rec(2000)19 of the Committee 

of Ministers to Member States on the role of public prosecution in the criminal justice system.  

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  Europe:  Committee  of  Ministers  (2016),  Recommendation  CM/Rec(2016)4  of  the 
Committee of Ministers to member States on the protection of journalism and safety of journalists 
and other media actors.  

Council  of  Europe:  Committee  of  Ministers  (2018),  Recommendation  CM/Rec(2018)1  of  the 
Committee  of  Ministers  to  member  States  on  media  pluralism  and  transparency  of  media 
ownership. 

Council of State (2019), Annual Report 2019.  

Council of State, Advisory Opinion W04.20.0139/I/Vo of 25 May 2020. 

Council of State, judgment of 29 May 2019, Nitrogen Action Programme, ECLI:NL:RVS:2019:1604.  

Council  of  the  European  Union  (2002),  Council  Framework  Decision  of  13  June  2002  on  the 

European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States. 

Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 19 November 2019, C‑ 585/18, C‑ 624/18 and 

C‑ 625/18.  

Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 27 May 2019 in joined cases OG, C-508/18 and 

PI, C-82/19 PPU. 

Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 9 July 2020, Land Hessen, C-272/19. 

Court  of  Justice  of  the  European  Union,  pending  case  C-510/19,  Openbaar  Ministerie  (Faux  en 

écritures). 

Directorate-General for Communication (2016-2020), Eurobarometer: perceived independence of the 

national justice system in the EU among the general public. 

Directorate-General  for  Communication  (2019),  Flash  Eurobarometer  482:  businesses’  attitudes 

towards corruption in the EU. 

Directorate-General for Communication (2020), Special Eurobarometer 502: corruption. 

16 

 
 
Dutch Bar Association, Dutch Association for the Judiciary, Social Work Netherlands, Federation on 
law! 

Shelter, 
https://www.advocatenorde.nl/nieuws/gezamenlijke-verklaring-nova-nvvr-en-swn-sta-op-voor-de-
rechtsstaat.  

Alliance 

(2019), 

RIBW 

Stand 

rule 

the 

for 

up 

of 

Dutch Government (2020), Input from the Netherlands to the 2020 Rule of Law Report.  

Dutch  Government,  Funds 

for 

the  media.  https://www.government.nl/topics/the-media-and-

broadcasting/funds-for-the-media.  

Dutch 

Government, 

Measures 

against 

undermining 

criminality. 

https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/ondermijning/maatregelen-tegen-ondermijnende-
criminaliteit.  

Dutch  Government,  Safeguarding  press  freedom.  https://www.government.nl/topics/the-media-and-

broadcasting/safeguarding-press-freedom.  

Dutch 

Media 

Authority, 

Media 

monitor: 

Media 

concentration. 

https://www.mediamonitor.nl/mediabedrijven/.  

European  Audiovisual  Observatory  (2019),  IRIS  Special  2019-1:  The  independence  of  media 
https://rm.coe.int/the-independence-of-media-regulatory-

in  Europe. 

regulatory 
authorities 
authorities-in-europe/168097e504.  

European  Centre  for  Press  &  Media  Freedom,  Mapping  media  freedom:  The  Netherlands. 

https://mappingmediafreedom.org/country-profiles/netherlands/.   

European  Commission  (2013,  2014,  2015,  2016,  2017,  2018,  2019,  2020),  The  EU  Justice 

Scoreboard.  

European Commission (2020), Report on the implementation of Council Framework Decision of 13 

June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States. 

European  Commission,  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council 
assessing  the  extent  to  which  the  Member  States  have  taken  the  necessary  measures  in  order  to 
comply with Council Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA of 22 July 2003 on combating corruption 
in the private sector, COM(2019)355 final. 

European  Network  of  Councils  for  the  Judiciary  (2013-2014),  Development  of  minimum  judicial 

standards IV: allocation of cases.  

Financial Expertise Centre (2019), FEC annual plan 2020.  

GRECO  (2008),  Third  Evaluation  Round  –  evaluation  report  on  the  Netherlands  on  Incriminations 

(ETS 173 and 191, GPC 2).  

GRECO  (2008),  Third  evaluation  round  –  evaluation  report  on  the  Netherlands  on  transparency  of 

party funding.  

GRECO (2010), Third evaluation round – compliance report on the Netherlands: Incriminations (ETS 

173 and 191, GPC 2), Transparency of Party Funding.  

GRECO  (2012),  Fourth  evaluation  round  –  evaluation  report  on  the  Netherlands  on  corruption 

prevention in respect of members of parliament, judges and prosecutors.  

GRECO (2012), Third evaluation round – second compliance report on the Netherlands transparency 

of party funding.  

GRECO  (2015),  Fourth  evaluation  round  –  compliance  report  on  the  Netherlands  on  corruption 

prevention in respect of members of parliament, judges and prosecutors.  

GRECO  (2018),  Fifth  evaluation  round  –  evaluation  report  on  the  Netherlands  on  preventing 
corruption  and  promoting  integrity  in  central  governments  (top  executive  functions)  and  law 
enforcement agencies.  

17 

 
 
House for Whistleblowers (2019), Annual Report 2019 House for Whistleblowers. 

Members  of  the  House  of  Representatives  Maarten  Groothuizen  and  Michiel  van  Nispen  (2019), 

Motion about potential vulnerabilities in the law on judicial organization.  

Minister  for  Justice  and  Security  Ferdinand  Grapperhaus  (2020),  Answer  to  the  question  of  the 
Member of the House of Representatives Groothuizen about the report that the Ministry of Justice is 
failing businesses in corruption cases.  

Minister  for Justice  and  Security  Ferdinand  Grapperhaus  and  Minister  for  Legal  Protection  Stander 
Dekker  (2020),  Answer  to  questions  of the  Members  of  the  House  of  Representatives  Buitenweg 
and Van den Berge on criminal justice during times of COVID-19. 

Minister  for Justice  and  Security  Ferdinand  Grapperhaus  and  Minister  for  Legal  Protection  Stander 
Dekker  (2020),  Letter  to  the  House  of  Representatives  on  Contours  of  the  Approach  to  Address 
Backlogs in Criminal Justice. 

Minister  for  Legal  Protection  Sander  Dekker  (17  September  2019),  Letter  to  the  House  of 

Representatives about ways in which to create a strong justice system.  

Minister  for  Legal  Protection  Sander  Dekker  (2020),  Answer  to  questions  of  the  Member  of  the 

House of Representatives Groothuizen about algorithmic analysis of judgments.  

Ministry  of  Justice  and  Security,  Integral  assessment  framework  for  policy  and  regulation. 

https://www.kcwj.nl/kennisbank/integraal-afwegingskader-voor-beleid-en-regelgeving.  

National  Ombudsman  (2020),  Proper  Provision  of  Information  is  the  Basis  of  Access  to  Justice  – 

Bottlenecks in the Provision of Information about Penalties and Dismissal Decisions. 

Netherlands  Committee  of  Jurists  for  Human  Rights  (2020),  Letter  on  concerns  about  corona 
measures in criminal justice. https://njcm.nl/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/NJCM-brief-aan-minister-
Grapperhaus-gewijzigde-aanhef.pdf.  

OECD (2015), The Netherlands: follow-up to the phase 3 report & recommendations.  

Official Gazette of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (2019), Decree of 28 November 2019, amending 
the decree on police data concerning theme-processing to combat official bribery and amending the 
decree on police data for special investigative forces concerning theme-processing to combat human 
trafficking.  

President of the Council for the Judiciary (2018), Letter to the Minister for Legal Protection on a rest 

of the digitalisation of justice. 

Press  Freedom  Associations  (2019),  Dutch  Senate:  make  a  clear  exemption  for  journalists. 
https://www.freepressunlimited.org/en/news/dutch-senate-make-a-clear-exemption-for-journalists.     

Professor  Tarlach  McGonagle  (2018),  Agreement  of  the  steering  group  on  aggression  and  violence 
against  journalists.  https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Agreement-of-the-Steering-Group-on-
Aggression-and-violence-against-journalists-EN-translation.pdf. 

State Commission on the Parliamentary System in the Netherlands (2018), Democracy and the rule of 
law  in  equilibrium  –  final  report  of  the  State  Commission  on  the  Parliamentary  System  in  the 
Netherlands. 

Steering  Group  Disposition  Times  (2019),  Disposition  times  in  movement!  –  final  report  of  the 

disposition times in movement project.  

Supreme  Court  of 

the  Netherlands, 

judgment  of  13  September  2019,  Urgenda, 

ECLI:NL:HR:2019:2007.  

Tax Justice Network (2020), 2020 Financial Secrecy Index.  

UN Human Rights Committee (2019), International covenant on civil and political rights: concluding 

observations on the fifth periodic report of the Netherlands.  

18 

 
 
Virtual country visit to the Netherlands in the context of the 2020 Rule of Law Report.  

World Economic Forum (2013-2015), The global competitiveness report. 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex II: Country visit to the Netherlands 

The Commission services held virtual meetings in May and June 2020 with: 

  Academic Expert 
  Council for Public Administration   
  Council for the Judiciary  
  Dutch Association for the Judiciary  
  Dutch Bar Association 
  Dutch Media Authority 
  House for Whistleblowers  
 
Institute for Financial Crime 
  Ministry of Foreign Affairs 
  Ministry of Justice and Security 
  Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations 
  The Netherlands Association of Journalists 

* The Commission also met the following organisations in a number of horizontal meetings:  

  Amnesty International 
  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  
  Free Press Unlimited 
  Front Line Defenders 
 
ILGA-Europe 
 
International Commission of Jurists 
 
International Federation for Human Rights  
 
International Press Institute  
  Lifelong learning Platform  
  Open Society Justice Initiative/Open Society European Policy Institute 
  Reporters without Borders  
  Transparency International EU  

20