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
Date: 2021-07-20
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, 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.  

investigation  report  on 

taking  place  following  a  Parliamentary 

Extensive  debates  and  reflections  on  the  proper  functioning  of  the  system  of  checks  and 
balances  are 
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’.  

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  courts3.  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 Justice6. 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  contributions7.  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 businesses8. This level of perceived judicial independence has been 
consistently  high  over  the  last  years,  both  among  the  general  population  and  among 
businesses9.  

Further  steps  have  been  taken  to  prepare  the  Constitutional  revision  to  amend  the 
appointment procedure for Supreme Court judges10. 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  recommendations11. 
Following an online consultation on a draft law which was based on the recommendation of 

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   Figures [48 and 50] 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 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%). 

9   2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
10   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in the Netherlands, p. 3. 
11   Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, para. 47. 

2 

 
                                                 
the independent State Commission on the Parliamentary System in the Netherlands12, 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  202013,  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  association14  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 
202215.  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  Council16.  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 
recommendations17. 

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  system18  is  now  foreseen  to  be  completed  by  202519, 
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 funding20.  

Digitalisation  efforts  continue  for  civil,  administrative  and  criminal  justice,  and  were 
accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. There remains room to improve the digitalisation 

12   For a detailed description of the content of the proposal, see 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on 

the rule of law situation in the Netherlands, p. 4. 

13   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in the Netherlands, p. 3. 
14   Nederlandse Vereniging voor Rechtspraak. 
15   Nederlandse  Vereniging  voor  Rechtspraak,  Dossier:  nieuwe  procedure  bestuursbenoemingen  rechtspraak, 

16 March 2021.  

16   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in the Netherlands, pp. 3-4. 
17   Recommendation  CM/Rec(2010)12 of the  Committee of  Ministers of the  Council of Europe, paras 27, 46 

and 47. 

18   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in the Netherlands, p. 5. 
19   Input from the Netherlands to the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 
20   Information received in the context of the country visit to the Netherlands, see also United Nations CCPR 
(2019) and 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in the Netherlands, p. 5. 

3 

 
                                                 
of the justice system21, in particular as regards the online publication rate of judgments22 and 
the  availability  of  digital  solutions  to  initiate  and  follow  court  proceedings,  and  several 
initiatives  aim  to  address  this23.  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 professionals24. 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’  programme25,  the  expected  entry  into  force  of  the  Law  on  Experiments  in  the 
Administration  of  Justice26  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 system27.  

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 cases28. 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 
202129. As part of the approach, the prosecution service continues to make use of its power to 
render  a  decision  itself  on  certain  criminal  cases30.  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 

21   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in the Netherlands, pp. 5-6. 
22   Which currently remains below 5%. 
23   Figure  [44]  2021  EU  Justice  Scoreboard.  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%). 

24   Basisplan reset digitalisering civiel en bestuur.  
25   Maatschappelijk effectieve rechtspraak, see also 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of 

law situation in the Netherlands, p. 6. 

26   Experimentenwet rechtspleging. 
27   However, stakeholders have stressed that the law should not lead to circumvention of the regular process for 

enacting laws on the organisation of the justice system. 
28   Input from the Netherlands to the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 
29   Input from the Netherlands to the 2021 Rule of Law Report.  
30   Such decisions cannot impose a prison sentence and can be contested in court, see also 2020 Rule of Law. 

Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in the Netherlands, p. 6. 

4 

 
                                                 
lawyer.  This  has  started  on  1  April  2021  for  a  number  of  cases,  and  will  be  gradually 
extended to all other cases.31 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 
informed32, 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  appeal33.  The  efficiency  of  the 
justice system has been high overall over the past years34. The length of proceedings at first 
instance for civil and commercial cases is short, at around 100 days in 201935. 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 instance36, although 
proceedings at second and third instance are relatively lengthy37. While the overall clearance 
rate  at  first  instance  remains  effective38,  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  manageable39. 
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 crimes40. 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 justice41. 

II. 

ANTI-CORRUPTION FRAMEWORK  

The competence to investigate and prosecute corruption is shared between several authorities. 
The  National  Police  Internal  Investigation  Department42  (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. 

31   Answer by the Minister for Legal Protection to a Parliamentary question on 17 February 2021.  
32   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.  

33   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in the Netherlands, pp. 6-7. 
34   2013-2021 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
35   2021 EU Justice Scoreboard, Figure 6. 
36   2021 EU Justice Scoreboard, Figure 8. 
37   2021 EU Justice Scoreboard, Figure 9. 
38   2021 EU Justice Scoreboard, Figure 10. 
39   2021 EU Justice Scoreboard, Figures 14 and 15. 
40   Input from the Netherlands to the 2021 Rule of Law Report.  
41   Information received in the context of the country visit to the Netherlands. 
42   As  an  investigation  service,  the  Rijksrecherche  is  under  the  authority  and  management  of  the  College  of 

Principal Public Prosecutors.  

5 

 
                                                 
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  globally43.  This  perception  has  been  relatively  stable44  over  the  past  five 
years45.  

Following  instances  of  organised  crime  infiltration  and  leaks  within  law  enforcement, 
fighting  corruption  and  organised  crime  has  been  strengthened46.  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 team47.  

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 Representatives48. 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 cases49 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 
Security50.  

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 capacity51. The 
Encrochat  investigations,  which  have  yielded  key  information  for  the  identification, 
investigation and prosecution of criminal networks52, also revealed allegations of corruption 
within law enforcement. The investigations also revealed that criminals are actively looking 

43   Transparency  International,  Corruption  Perceptions  Index  2020  (2021),  pp.  2-3.  The  level  of  perceived 
corruption is categorised as  follows: low (the perception among experts and business  executives of public 
sector  corruption scores  above  79);  relatively  low  (scores  between  79-60),  relatively  high  (scores  between 
59-50), high (scores below 50). 

44   In 2015 the score was 84, while, in 2020, the score is 82. The score significantly increases/decreases when it 
changes  more  than  five  points;  improves/deteriorates  (changes  between  4-5  points);  is  relatively  stable 
(changes from 1-3 points) in the last five years. 

45   The Eurobarometer data on corruption perception and experience of citizens and businesses as reported last 
year is updated every second year. The latest data set is the Special Eurobarometer 502 (2020) and the Flash 
Eurobarometer 482 (2019). 

46   An example of this is the Encrochat investigation. 
47   Input from the Netherlands to the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 
48   Draft law on strengthening the criminal law approach to subversive crime.  
49   Instruction on investigating and prosecution foreign corruption. 
50   Instructions on high amount transactions. New legislation is currently in consultation.  
51   Input from the Netherlands to the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 
52   The  investigation  has  so  far  inter  alia  led  to  the  arrest  of  more  than  100  suspects.  See  also  Europol, 
Dismantling of an Encrypted Network sends Shockwaves through Organised Crime Groups across Europe.  

6 

 
                                                 
to  corrupt  civil  servants  and  other  organisations53.  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 Police54. 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 202155. 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 bribery56. 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 cases57.  

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 
sanctions58.  Updated  Integrity  Guidelines  for  Holders  of  Political  Offices,  including  model 
Codes of Conduct for elected and appointed officials, were adopted on 30 March 202159. 

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 Conduct60 as a mandatory requirement for appointed officials 

53   National Police, New investigation team for corruption investigations ‘Encrochat’.  
54   Letter to the Parliament on the evaluation of integrity investigations at the national police. 
55   Input from the Netherlands to the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 
56   Country mission input – FIOD. 
57   Netherlands - OECD Anti-Bribery Convention Phase 4 Monitoring Report.  
58   Input from the Netherlands to the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 
59   Guidelines on integrity of political office holders at municipalities, provinces and water boards.   
60   Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Representatives.   

7 

 
                                                 
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 officials61. 

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  character62. 
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  down63.  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”64.  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 matters65. 

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 
level66. The Act on political party financing is expected to be replaced by the Political Parties 

61   Input  from  the  Netherlands  to  the  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report,  the  new  legislation  is  foreseen  to  come  into 

effect by March 2022. 

62   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in the Netherlands, p.10. 
63   There are, however, exceptions to this ban, as former cabinet members working in trade industry after they 
leave office may head or form part of a trade delegation organised by their former ministry, GRECO Fifth 
Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report, p. 20. 

64   GRECO Fifth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report, p. 2. 
65   GRECO Fifth Evaluation Round – Evaluation Report, p. 16. 
66   NL Helsinki Committee Contribution 2021 Rule of law Report. 

8 

 
                                                 
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  202067.  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 
company68.  According  to  the  findings  of  the  evaluation,  the  legal  protection  of  the 
whistleblowers can be further increased. As a result, the legislation will be amended69. 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 Netherlands70.  

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  courts71.  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)72. In  addition,  the  authorities 
reported  that  the  international  character  of  foreign  bribery  investigations  may  be  further 
limited due to COVID-19 measures73.  

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 professions74. The country continues to enjoy a high degree of 
media freedom and journalistic protection75.  

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 mandate76. Furthermore, the 

67   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in the Netherlands. 
68   Final evaluation report on the Act on the House for Whistleblowers.  
69   Input from the Netherlands to the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 
70   OECD (2021) Implementing the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention. Phase 4 Report: Netherlands, p. 21. 
71   Input from the Netherlands to the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 
72   See: Jaarbericht FIOD 2020, Opsporend Nederland samen sterk in de fraudebestrijding.  
73   Information received in the context of the country visit to the Netherlands. 
74   Commissariaat voor de Media (2020), Media monitor 2020 p 6. 
75   The  Netherlands  is  at  the  6th  place  worldwide  in  the  Reporters  Without  Borders’  annual  World  Press 
Freedom Index, and at the 4th place in the EU. Over the last years, the situation has slightly deteriorated, the 
Netherlands having dropped four places since 2016. 

76   Information received in the context of the country visit to the Netherlands. 

9 

 
                                                 
appointment conditions  of the members of the  collegiate bodies  are in  the process  of being 
amended77, with the objective of strengthening the guarantees of independence78.  

Several  self-regulatory  bodies  ensure  the  application  of  journalistic  standards.  In 
addition  to  the  Council  for  Journalism79,  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 complaints80.  

Challenges regarding transparency of media  ownership and media concentration have 
been  identified.  There  is  limited  regulation  concerning  the  disclosure  of  media  ownership 
details to the public, as reported in the Media Pluralism Monitor 202181, which evaluates the 
area  as  medium  risk.  Information  on  ownership  structures,  not  necessarily  including  the 
beneficial owners82, 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 202183. 

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  media84.  Journalism  continued  to  be  supported  by  the 
Government  through  dedicated  funds85,  and  a  temporary  fund  for  local  media  hit  by  the 
COVID-19  pandemic  had  been  additionally  set  up86.  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  202087,  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  stakeholders88.  The  legal 
framework is currently being reviewed in order to improve transparency of the Government 
and  provide  better  access  to  public  information89.  Stakeholders  generally  welcome  the 
changes, while indicating further areas of improvement90. One of the welcomed amendments 

77   Amendment of the Media Act 2008 (Wijziging van de Mediawet 2008). 
78   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in the Netherlands. 
79   As mentioned in 2020 Rule of Law report. 
80   Input from the Netherlands to the 2021 Rule of Law report. 
81   2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for the Netherlands, p. 10. 
82   Ibid, p. 10. 
83   The 2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for the Netherlands, p 10 indicates that two players own 
90% of the newspaper market; furthermore, the first three television providers have a market share of 74%, 
while the first three players on the radio market have 73% market share. 

84   Commissariaat voor de Media (2020), Media monitor 2020 pp 35-36; see also 2021 Media Pluralism 

Monitor, country report for the Netherlands, p. 10.  

85   The Dutch Journalism Fund (Stimuleringsfonds voor de Journalistiek); Dutch Fund for In-depth Journalism 

(Fonds Bijzondere Journalistieke Projecten). 

86   Beleidsregel van het stimuleringsfonds voor de journalistiek van 1 maart 2021. 
87   2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for the Netherlands, p. 8. 
88   Information received in the context of the country visit to the Netherlands. 
89   Input from the Netherlands to the 2021 Rule of Law report. 
90   NVJ (2021), Belangenorganisaties roepen Eerste Kamer op de nieuwe Woo te steunen. 

10 

 
                                                 
concern  the  establishment  of  an  independent  advisory  committee91,  which  would  ensure 
mediation between the journalists and the authorities in case of complaints92. 

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”93.  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 Vries94 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  intimidation95.  Further  attacks  and 
intimidations have been reported on the Mapping Media Freedom platform96. 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 agencies97, 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’ sources98. 

The  Netherlands  continues  to  strengthen  its  framework  for  the  protection  of 
journalists99.  ‘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 
journalists100. 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 

91   Villamedia (2021), Belangenorganisaties aan Eerste Kamer: red minstens deze punten in nieuwe Woo. 
92   Input from the Netherlands to the 2021 Rule of Law report. 
93   2021 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for the Netherlands, p. 9. 
94   The case is currently under investigation.   
95   Council  of  Europe  Platform  to  promote  the  protection  of  journalism  and  safety  of  journalists  –  the 
Netherlands  (see  also  the  reply  of  the  Dutch  authorities,  published  on  the  Council  of  Europe  platform, 
pointing in particular to the close cooperation between police, public prosecutor, the  Dutch Association of 
Journalists and the Dutch Society of Editors-in-Chief to enhance coordination and communication to address 
such issues). The increase in threats and violence against journalists is being raised also in the contribution 
of the Netherlands Helsinki Committee to the 2021 Rule of Law report. 

96   Mapping Media Freedom - the Netherlands.  
97   The  Council  of  Europe  Platform  to  promote  the  protection  of  journalism  and  safety  of  journalists  has 
published an alert concerning the National Security Services Act (W.I.V) of July 2017, mentioning reports 
by  public  bodies  supervising  the  Dutch  intelligence  agencies  that  “information  on  journalists  and/or  their 
sources  have  come  into  the  hand  of  entities  within  the  intelligence  agencies  that  were  not  authorised  to 
access such information”. 

98   Input from the Netherlands to the 2021 Rule of law report; see also the Dutch government assessment of the 

2020 Rule of Law Report.  

99   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in the Netherlands, pp. 12-13. 
100  Contribution of the Netherlands Helsinki Committee to the 2021 Rule of Law Report. 

11 

 
                                                 
well  as  improving  communication  between  journalists  and  police  and  prosecution  services. 
Additional improvements aim to better cover the situation of freelance journalists101. 

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 entities102, a Parliamentary investigation committee rendered its report on 17 December 
2020103,  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 irregularities104. 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  victims105.  A  full  Parliamentary  inquiry106  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 functioned107. 

101  Input  from  the  Netherlands  to  the  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report;  the  review  and  improvement  proposals  are 
detailed  in  the  letter  from  the  Ministry  for  Justice  and  Security  to  the  President  of  the  House  of 
Representatives, 
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/kamerstukken/2021/03/31/tk-functioneren-
protocol-persveilig. 

102  Between  2017  and  2020,  by  the  Ombudsperson,  the  Advisory  committee  on  the  implementation  of 

allowances and the National Audit Service. 

103  ‘Ongekend Onrecht’. 
104  The report noted that this practice caused considerable financial distress for those concerned.  
105  Including  the  Government  taking  over  of  private  debts  of  victims  of  the  affair.  See  State  Secretary  for 
Finance,  Allowances  and  Customs,  Sixth  update  childcare  allowances  and  answers  to  Parliamentary 
questions, 25 May 2021.   

106  Parlementaire  enquête,  which  is  the  Parliament’s  most  far-reaching  instrument  to  control  Government 

action. 

107  Considering  also  that  the  Ombudsman  report  was  already  issued  in  August  2017.  See  Nationale 

Ombudsman, report of 9 August 2017: ‘Geen powerplay maar fair play’. 

12 

 
                                                 
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’108.  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  legislation109.  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.110  

A new Open Government Act is being discussed in Parliament. On 26 January 2021, the 
House of Representatives approved the new Open Government Act111, 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  transparency112.  The  new  Act  would  replace  the  current 
Openness  of  Government  Act113,  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  management114.  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 
improvement115.  

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.116.  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 

108  Council of State, Programma van reflectie van de Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak. 
109  Council of State, Aanbevelingen ter bevordering van de wetgevingskwaliteit, 19 April 2021. 
110  Raad voor Openbaar Bestuur, Een Sterkere Rechtstaat, April 2020. 
111  Wet open overheid. 
112  The Parliamentary investigation committee also found that the Government had not sufficiently informed the 

Parliament, and that there were obstacles to access to information on Government activities. 

113  Wet openbaarheid van bestuur. 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in 

the Netherlands. 

114  This committee would be competent to receive complaints from journalists about access to information and 

mediate in cases with governmental bodies. 

115  Information received in the context of the country visit to the Netherlands. 
116  Advisory Opinion W04.20.0139/I/Vo of the Council of State of 25 May 2020, see also 2020 Rule of Law 

Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in the Netherlands, p. 14.  

13 

 
                                                 
entering  into  force117,  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 law118. 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 
balances119.  The  Ombudsperson  institution120  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 mandate121, it has criticised a lack of government follow-up to 
recommendations made in its 2017 report on the ‘childcare allowances affair’ (see infra)122. 
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 
recommendations123.  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  2020124.  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 community125.  

The  landscape  for  civil  society  continues  to  be  open126,  although  questions  are  raised 
regarding new draft legislation on transparency.  While the Netherlands is  considered  as 
having  an open civil  society landscape127, stakeholders have raised concerns regarding new 
draft legislation aimed at preventing undesirable foreign influence by increasing scrutiny of 

117  The law provides for an exception when public health runs acute risk, in which case measures may directly 

enter into force.  

118  The Government can decide to prolong the application of the law in view of a ‘continued direct threat of an 

epidemic’.  

119  2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in the Netherlands, p. 14. 
120  The Nationale Ombudsman is a High College of State, enshrined in the constitution and independent.  
121  Information received from the National Ombudsman in the context of the country visit to the Netherlands. 
122  Nationale Ombudsman, report of 9 August 2017: ‘Geen powerplay maar fair play’. 
123  Van  de  Bunt  Adviseurs,  Research  into  the  effectiveness  of  own  initiative  investigations  by  the  National 

Ombudsman, 11 April 2017. 

124  GANHRI  Report  and  Recommendations  of  the  Virtual  Session  of  the  Sub-Committee  on  Accreditation 

(SCA), 7-18 December 2020. 

125  GANHRI  Report  and  Recommendations  of  the  Virtual  Session  of  the  Sub-Committee  on  Accreditation 

(SCA), 7-18 December 2020, p. 25. 

126  2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in the Netherlands, p. 15. 
127  See  the  rating  given  by  CIVICUS;  ratings  are  on  a  five-category  scale  defined  as:  open,  narrowed, 

obstructed, repressed and closed. 

14 

 
                                                 
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 law128. 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 organisations129.  

Rule  of  law  topics  continue  to  take  a  prominent  place  in  the  public  debate130.  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 report131, 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 topics132. Regarding the recommendation by the Council for Public Administration that 
the  Government  develop  a  ‘Rule  of  Law  Policy  Agenda’133,  the  Government  has  not  yet 
provided  a  follow-up.  As  indicated  by  stakeholders134,  this  delay  may  be  due  to  the 
Government  wanting  to  also  include  in  its  response  the  lessons  learned  from  the  childcare 
allowances affair135, which dominates current political discussions on the rule of law.  

128  The draft law is still pending in the House of Representatives. Following the advice of the Council of State, 
the draft law was revised and submitted to Parliament. Further changes to the law, including to the scope of 
the  origin  of  finance,  are  currently  being  considered,  see  Ministry  of  Justice  and  Security,  Letter  to  the 
Parliament on tackling undesirable foreign financial flows, 8 June 2021. 

129  The draft law was approved by the House of Representatives and the Senate, and is expected to come into 

effect on the 1 January 2022. 

130  2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in the Netherlands, p. 15. 
131  Council of State, Annual Report 2019. 
132  Council of State, In gesprek. Bijdragen aan de dialoog over de rechtsstaat. 
133  2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in the Netherlands. 
134  Information received in the context of the country visit to the Netherlands. 
135  Information received in the context of the country visit to the Netherlands. 

15 

 
                                                 
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 

tracking 
CIVICUS 
(https://monitor.civicus.org/country/netherlands/).  

Monitor 

(2021), 

civic 

space: 

the 

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 
| 
Rijksoverheid.nl.). 

integriteitsonderzoeken  politie 

|  Kamerstuk 

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. 

16 

 
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 
boards. 
(https://www.politiekeambtsdragers.nl/publicaties/brochures/2021/03/30/handreiking-integriteit). 

municipalities, 

provinces 

water 

and 

Ministry  of  Justice  and  Security  (2021),  Letter  to  the  Parliament  on  the  functioning  of  the  Press 
functioneren  protocol  Persveilig),  31  March  2021 
Security  Protocol 
(https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/kamerstukken/2021/03/31/tk-functioneren-protocol-
persveilig). 

(Kamerbrief  over 

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 
(https://www.politie.nl/nieuws/2020/september/16/nieuw-rechercheteam-voor-corruptieonderzoeken-
encrochat.html). 

investigations  ‘Encrochat’ 

for  corruption 

investigation 

team 

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 
(https://www.nvj.nl/nieuws/belangenorganisaties-roepen-eerste-kamer-nieuwe-woo-te-steunen). 

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). 

17 

 
 
Annex II: Country visit to the Netherlands 

The Commission services held virtual meetings in April and May 2021 with: 

Instituut voor Informatierecht 

  Fiscale Inlichtingen- en Opsporingsdienst  
  House of Representatives Committee on Justice and Security  
  Huis voor Klokkenluiders 
 
  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 
  Netherlands Helsinki Committee  
  Open Society European Policy Institute 
  Philanthropy Advocacy 
  Protection International  

18 

 
 
  Reporters without Borders 
  Transparency International EU 

19