# Pressure on Judges: How the Budgeting System Can Impact on Judge's Autonomy
## 4 Performance-Based Budget in the Judiciaries: Finland and The Netherlands
### The Netherlands  
Unlike in Finland, in The Netherlands the budget allocated to each court depends directly on the number of decided cases. The more cases are decided, the more money the court receives. The formula linking budget to performance is P \(\times\) Q, where P is the price assigned to each category of cases, and Q is the number of cases decided for each category. The prices are negotiated every three years, and are based on the time necessary to judges and staff to solve the case, multiplied for the price per minute. The negotiation process follows two separated and overlapping flows: One from the Ministry to the Council, and the other from the Council to the Courts. The basis for the calculation of the budget allocated to the Council differs from the basis for the calculation of the budget allocated to the courts: The first one is based on 11 case categories, while the second one is based on 70 case categories. The Ministry of Justice decides the prices for case categories every three years, quantities are negotiated with the Council every year, by the forecasted number of solved cases. The Council sets both prices and quantities every year, mainly by forecasted caseflow and courts' outputs. These prices are then used to allocate funding to the courts. Each court receives the same amount of money for a given case category. Courts that manage to keep their real costs low for case categories can thus retain a surplus. In this way, there is an incentive for courts to reduce costs (De Rechtspraak-Council for the Judiciary 2014). Courts that produce more than forecasted receive 70% of the agreed price on the surplus of cases. Courts that produce less than expected must return 70% of the agreed price of the unsolved cases in an \"equalization account\" managed by the Council for the Judiciary. One of the main features of the budgetary reform in The Netherlands is the autonomy of the courts, which are self-administering organizations, under the supervision of the Council. Each court has its management board, which is the decision-making body in charge of the general management. The board is composed of the president of the court, the director of operations (usually a person with a managerial background), and another judge of the court appointed by the Council (Consultative Council of European Judges of the Council of Europe (CCEJ) 2016). The management board is in charge of the allocation of resources within the court. No amount is earmarked, which means that the board has a large discretion about how to spend the money and can obtain additional resources if the court solves more cases than planned. As salaries represent around 75% of the total court expenses, judges cannot be moved and the revenue is calculated on solved cases, the leverages that court management can use to increase the court's budget and/or decrease the costs are: (a) Stimulating judges' production to increase the number of cases solved; (b) moving judges within the court based on the caseload; (c) hiring staff from temporary recruitment agencies to increase productivity; (d) not replacing retired judges to decrease the cost per case, (e) moving judges, only with their consent, to other courts and adding the judges' salary costs to these latter courts, (f) moving cases from an overwhelmed court to another and receive financial compensation for this.18  
Footnote 18: Interview with the Financial Director—Council for the Judiciary in The Netherlands—11 April 2018. Table 1 summarizes the main differences between the two budgeting models.