Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Published in:
Deference to the Administration in Judicial Review: Comparative Perspectives Read chapter Read first chapter

2019 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

Deference to the Administration in Judicial Review: The Case of the Netherlands

Authors : Tom Barkhuysen, Michiel L. van Emmerik

Published in: Deference to the Administration in Judicial Review

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

In the Netherlands as elsewhere, the topic of deference to the administration is an important doctrine that continues to provoke much debate. This doctrine, which is also referred to as the limited judicial review of administrative actions, is the subject of dynamic developments. The exact role that the court should play in the review of administrative actions remains a contentious issue. The focus of this contribution is the relationship between the judiciary and the administration. How has this relationship developed and what are the expectations for the future? It is concluded that the review of administrative acts by the judiciary has been intensified in several cases in recent years. There is, however, no uniform approach. The judiciary differentiates with a greater focus on proportionality. Clear limits for the judicial review can be found where specific expertise of the administration is at stake.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
previous chapter Deference to the Administration in Judicial Review in Japan
next chapter The “Dreadful Truth” and Transparent Fictions: Deference in New Zealand Administrative Law
Footnotes
1
See in this regard Uzman (2010), pp. 423–468.
 
2
Cf. Van Angeren et al. (2014). Klap (2014) draws a distinction between various vague standards: those that entail a weighing of interests, those that demand an evaluation of future events, those that require specific expertise and those with a supranational character, as well as combinations thereof.
 
3
Parts of this section have been extracted from Barkhuysen et al. (2014b).
 
4
Struycken (1910).
 
5
Cf. Supreme Court 31 December 1915, NJ 1916, p. 407 (Guldemond-Noordwijkerhout).
 
6
See further Uzman et al. (2010).
 
7
See, in particular, Polak et al. (2014).
 
8
Kamerstukken [Parliamentary Documents] II 2009/10, 32450, no. 3, p. 55.
 
9
Supreme Court 25 February 1949, NJ 1949/558 (Doetinchem housing requisition).
 
10
Associated Provincial Picture Ltd. v Wednesbury Corp. [1948] 1 K.B. 223. Cf. Groenewegen (2014).
 
11
Council of State’s Jurisdiction Division, 23 October 1979, AB 1980/198 (St. Bavo).
 
12
Cf. Van Wijk et al. (2014), pp. 332–337; De Waard (2016); Schlössels and Zijlstra (2017), pp. 374–375.
 
13
European Court of Human Rights 23 October 1985, AB 1986/1, annotated by E.M.H. Hirsch Ballin, NJ 1986, 102, annotated by EAA (Benthem t. Nederland); see also Barkhuysen and van Emmerik (2016), AB-Klassiek [Classic Judgments in Administrative Law] 2016/8, Deventer: Kluwer.
 
14
Bestuur in geding [Judging the Administration], Haarlem 1997.
 
15
Cf. Koeman (2008), no. 4.
 
16
Cf. van Angeren (2009), pp. 1–11.
 
17
Administrative Law Association Committee on Legal Protection 2004.
 
18
Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State, AB [Judgments in Administrative Law] 1997/93, AB-Klassiek [Classic Judgments in Administrative Law] 2016/22, annotated by B.W.N. de Waard (Deventer: Kluwer 2016) (Maxis and Praxis).
 
19
Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State, 4 June 1996, JB 1997/172, (Huisman/APK). See further M.L. van Emmerik and Saris (2014).
 
20
Administrative Jurisdiction Division 27 January 2010, AB [Judgments in Administrative Law] 2010/48, annotated by O.J.D.M.L. Jansen.
 
21
By Daalder and Schreuder-Vlasblom (2000), pp. 214–221.
 
22
Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State, 21 April 1998, AB [Judgments in Administrative Law] 1998/199, annotated by G. Jurgens (Die Wende). See on this topic Leemans (2008).
 
23
Cf. Supreme Court 13 October 2006, ECLI:NL:HR:2006:AW2077 (Vie d’Or); Supreme Court 21 November 2014, ECLI:NL:HR:2014:3349 (AFM-DSB); Supreme Court 2 June 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:987 (Zalco).
 
24
Barkhuysen et al. (2014a).
 
25
Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State, 25 April 2012, AB [Judgments in Administrative Law] 2012/207 (Public Administration (Probity Screening) Act [Wet bevordering integriteitsbeoordelingen door het openbaar bestuur].
 
26
Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State, 18 November 2015, AB [Judgments in Administrative Law] 2016/82, annotated by Bröring & Brouwer.
 
27
Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State, 13 April 2016, AB [Judgments in Administrative Law] 2016/195, annotated by M. Reneman.
 
28
Cf. Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State, 26 October 2016, AB [Judgments in Administrative Law] 2016/447, annotated by Bröring (proportionality of the application of policy rules).
 
29
Cf. Gerards (2007), pp. 73–113; Ortlep and Zorg (2016), pp. 1–18. See further, in the vein of comparative law, Ranchordás and de Waard (2016).
 
30
Cf. Verheij (2013).
 
31
ECLI:NL:RVS:2017:3557. Cf. de Poorter and Capkurt (2017). A request for a preliminary ruling from the CJEU has been made by the the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State.
 
32
Court of Justice of the European Union 30 January 2018, ECLI:EU:C:2018:44.
 
33
Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State 20 June 2018, ECLI:NL:RVS:2018:2062.
 
34
Scheltema (2015), pp. 803–818.
 
35
See, for example, European Court of Human Rights 23 June 1981, NJ 1982/602 (Le Compte, Van Leuven & De Meyere v Belgium), par. 51. The following passages are partially extracted from Barkhuysen and van Emmerik (2017).
 
36
European Court of Human Rights 17 December 1996, NJCM-Bulletin 1997, p. 617 et seq., annotated by M.L.W.M. Viering (Terra Woningen BV v the Netherlands). See also, for example, European Court of Human Rights 13 February 2003, AB [Judgments in Administrative Law] 2004/52, annotated by B.W.N. de Waard (Chevrol v France).
 
37
Widdershoven et al. (2001), p. 37. Cf. Barkhuysen et al. (2007), p. 104 and the case law there cited.
 
38
See, in particular, European Court of Human Rights 22 November 1995, Series A. vol. 335A (Bryan v United Kingdom), and for confirmation of the Bryan line: European Court of Human Rights 7 November 2000, AB [Judgments in Administrative Law] 2003/25, annotated by L.F.M. Verhey (Kingsley v United Kingdom), confirmed in European Court of Human Rights 28 May 2002 (judgment of the Grand Chamber).
 
39
European Court of Human Rights 22 November 1995, Series A vol. 335-A (Bryan v United Kingdom); Widdershoven et al. (2001), pp. 34–38.
 
40
Cf. Schuurmans (2005), pp. 290–292; Kuipers (1996), pp. 97–112. See the judgments European Court of Human Rights 17 December 1996, NJCM-Bulletin 1997, p. 617 et seq., annotated by M.L.W.M. Viering (Terra Woningen BV v the Netherlands) and European Court of Human Rights 13 February 2003, AB [Judgments in Administrative Law] 2004/52, annotated by B.W.N. de Waard (Chevrol v France).
 
41
European Court of Human Rights 15 March 2016, AB [Judgments in Administrative Law] 2016/132, annotated by T. Barkhuysen & M.L. van Emmerik (Gillissen v the Netherlands).
 
42
European Court of Human Rights 8 October 2015, AB [Judgments in Administrative Law] 2016/167, annotated by T. Barkhuysen & M.L. van Emmerik (Korosec v Slovenia).
 
Literature
Barkhuysen T, Van Emmerik ML (2016) AB-Klassiek [Classic judgments in administrative law]. Kluwer, Deventer
Barkhuysen T, van Emmerik ML (2017) Europese grondrechten en het Nederlandse bestuursrecht. De betekenis van het EVRM en het EU-Grondrechtenhandvest [Fundamental European Rights and Dutch Administrative Law. The significance of the ECHR and the EU charter of fundamental rights]. Kluwer, Deventer
Barkhuysen T, Damen LJA, De Graaf KJ, Marseille AT, Den Ouden W, Schuurmans YE, Tollenaar A (2007) Feitenvaststelling in beroep, (derde evaluatie van de Awb) [Fact finding on appeal (Third Evaluation of the General Administrative Law Act)]. Boom Juridische Uitgevers, The Hague
Barkhuysen T, Van Emmerik ML, Van Ettekoven BJ, Mul V, Stijnen R, De Werd MFJM (2014a) Adequate rechtsbescherming bij grondrechtenbeperkend overheidsingrijpen [Adequate legal protection regarding Government Intervention restricting fundamental rights]. Kluwer, Deventer
Barkhuysen T, De Kruif C, Schuurmans YE, Den Ouden W (2014b) Bestuursrecht in het Awb-tijdperk [Administrative Law in the era of the General Administrative Law Act]. Kluwer, Deventer
Daalder EJ, Schreuder-Vlasblom M (2000) Balanceren boven nul [Balancing above zero]. NTB [Dutch J Admin Law] 4:214–221
De Poorter JCA, Capkurt F (2017) Rechterlijke toetsing van algemeen verbindende voorschriften [Judicial review of generally binding regulations]. NTB [Dutch J Admin Law] 10:1–15
De Waard BWN (2016) Leerstukken van bestuursprocesrecht [Principles of administrative procedural law]. Wolters Kluwer, Deventer
Gerards JH (2007) Het evenredigheidsbeginsel van art. 3:4 lid 2 Awb en het Europese recht [The principle of proportionality from Article 3:4(2) of the General Administrative Law Act and European Law]. In: Barkhuysen T et al (eds) Europees recht effectueren [Effectuating European law]. Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 73–113
Groenewegen FT (2014) De intensiteit van de rechterlijke toets in Engelse Judicial Review procedures. In: Klap AP, Groenwegen FT, Van Angeren JR (eds) Toetsing aan vage normen door de bestuursrechter in het Nederlandse, Duitse, Engelse en Franse recht: preadvies voor de Nederlandse Vereniging voor Rechtsvergelijking. Wolf Legal Publishers, Oisterwijk
Klap AP (2014) Rechterlijke toetsing aan vage normen in Nederland en Duitsland. In: Klap AP, Groenwegen FT, Van Angeren JR (eds) Toetsing aan vage normen in het Nederlandse, Duitse en Franse recht: preadvies voor de Nederlandse Vereniging voor Rechtsvergelijking. Wolf Legal Publishers, Oisterwijk
Koeman NSJ (2008) Versnelling in het bestuursprocesrecht [Acceleration in Administrative Procedural Law]. M en R [Environ Law] 35:227–230
Kuipers AJ (1996) Het recht op ‘full jurisdiction’ [The right to full jurisdiction]. In: Vucsán RL (ed) De Awb-mens: boeman of underdog? [The General Administrative Law Act Man: Bogeyman or Underdog?]. Damen bundle. Ars Aequi Libri, Nijmegen
Leemans TC (2008) De toetsing door de bestuursrechter in milieugeschillen [Review by the Administrative Court in environmental disputes]. (diss. Leiden). Boom Juridische Uitgevers, The Hague
Ortlep R, Zorg W (2016) Marginale rechterlijke toetsing onder druk: een voortgaande tred vooruit? [Limited review under pressure: continuous steps forward?]. In: Ortlep et al (eds) De rechter onder vuur [The Court under fire]. Wolf, Oisterwijk, pp 1–18
Polak JEM, de Moor-Van Vugt A, Schlössels RJN, Verheij N, Widdershoven RJGM (2014) VAR-Commissie rechtsbescherming, De toekomst van de rechtsbescherming tegen de overheid, Van toetsing naar geschilbeslechting [Administrative Law Association Committee on legal protection, the future of legal protection against the Government]. Boom Juridische Uitgevers, The Hague
Ranchordás S, De Waard BWN (eds) (2016) The judge and the proportionate use of discretion, a comparative study. Routledge, Abingdon
Scheltema M (2015) De Hoge Raad en het algemeen belang [The Supreme Court and the public interest]. In: Schlössels RJN et al (eds) De burgerlijke rechter in het publiekrecht [The Civil Court in Public Law]. Kluwer, Deventer, pp 803–818
Schlössels RJN, Zijlstra SE (2017) Bestuursrecht in de sociale rechtsstaat [Administrative Law in the Social State under the rule of law]. Kluwer, Deventer
Schuurmans YE (2005) Bewijslastverdeling in het bestuursrecht, Zorgvuldigheid en bewijsvoering bij beschikkingen [Division of the Burden of proof in Administrative Law, due care and the provision of evidence in respect of decisions]. (diss. VU). Kluwer, Deventer
Struycken AH (1910) Administratie of rechter [Administration or judiciary]. Gouda Quint, Arnhem
Uzman J, Barkhuysen T, Van Emmerik ML (2010) The Dutch Supreme Court: a reluctant positive legislator? In: Van Erp S, Van Vliet L (eds) Netherlands Reports to the Eighteenth International Congress of comparative law. Intersentia, Antwerpen, pp 423–468
Van Angeren JAM (2009) Mensenrechten en onafhankelijke bestuursrechtspraak [Human Rights and Independent administrative adjudication]. In: Barkhuysen T, Van Emmerik ML, Loof JP (eds) Geschakeld recht [Linked law]. Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn
Van Angeren JR, Groenewegen FT, Klap AP (2014) Toetsing aan vage normen in het Nederlandse, Duitse en Franse recht: preadvies voor de Nederlandse Vereniging voor Rechtsvergelijking. [Review against vague standards in Dutch, English and French law: preliminary advice Netherlands Association for the Judiciary]. Wolf Legal Publishers, Oisterwijk
Van Emmerik ML, Saris CM (2014) Evenredige bestuurlijke boetes [Proportionate administrative penalties], (Preliminary advice VAR). Boom, The Hague
Van Wijk HD, Konijnenbelt W, Van Male R (2014) Hoofdstukken van bestuursrecht [Chapters on administrative law]. Kluwer, Deventer
Verheij N (2013) Van grensrechter naar geschilbeslechter, een evolutie in de Nederlandse bestuursrechtspraak (preadvies voor de Vereniging voor de Vergelijkende Studie van het recht van België en Nederland) [From Linesman to dispute adjudicator, an evolution in Dutch Administrative Jurisdiction (preliminary advice for the Association for the comparative study of the law of Belgium and the Netherlands)]. Boom, The Hague
Widdershoven RJGM, Willemsen PA, Schlössels RJN, Stroink FAM, Ten Berge JBJM, Bok AJ, Voermans WJM, De Waard BWN (2001) Algemeen bestuursrecht 2001: hoger beroep [General Administrative Law 2001: appeal]. Bju, The Hague
Metadata
Title
Deference to the Administration in Judicial Review: The Case of the Netherlands
Authors
Tom Barkhuysen
Michiel L. van Emmerik
Copyright Year
2019
Book
Deference to the Administration in Judicial Review

Print ISBN: 978-3-030-31538-2

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-31539-9

Copyright Year: 2019

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31539-9_14

Premium Partner

    Image Credits