Text annual report 2025

Complaint categories

Complaints regarding a judicial decision

In this reporting period, too, a large part of the complaints handled concerned one or more court decisions. In total, it was argued in 70 of the complaint cases settled that, among other things, the complainant did not agree with a judicial decision.

The term "judicial decision" pertains first and foremost to the final decision in a case. One example is the complaint against justices of the Supreme Court that the Supreme Court wrongly, and contrary to the opinion of the Advocate General, dismissed the appeal in cassation and (at least partly)disposed of this dismissal by applying Article 81(1) of the Dutch Judiciary Organisation Act. The Procurator General informed the complainant that a court decision cannot be complained of. A similar response followed complaints concerning the assessment of evidence by the judge and the reasoning of the final decision. Such complaints fall outside the scope of the statutory complaints regulation. The same fate befell a complaint about a factual finding in the final decision of a District Court.

In addition, the term "judicial decision" also refers, among other things, to the course of both the proceedings in general and the hearing in particular. For example, one complaint was denied based on the statutory limitation that judicial decisions cannot be complained of to the extent that it read that the supervisory judge in the bankruptcy did not fulfil his supervisory duty under Article 64 of the Dutch Bankruptcy Act. The complaint about a judge who allegedly asked a question or made a comment using the term "cultural aspect" was also – and to the extent that the complaint related to the question asked or comment made – a complaint about a judicial decision. According to the applicant, the term originated from a report that was part of the case file. The deputy Procurator General emphasised the basic principle that judges should be free to ask any questions or make any comments they deem necessary at a hearing. Another complaint concerning a judicial decision was filed by a parent about a request to his minor child to write a letter to the juvenile court. This request was related to a nationwide pilot based on a recommendation by the Working Group on the Position and (Right to) Participation of Minors in Family and Juvenile Matters in which children from the age of eight were given the opportunity to have a conversation with or write a letter to the juvenile court. The same qualification was given to the complaint about a judge who had designated the applicant in the proceedings as an informant and the related decision of the challenge chamber that the challenge of the informant be declared inadmissible. This decision of the challenge chamber was based on the opinion that an informant does not qualify as a party within the meaning of Article 36 of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure. According to the Procurator General, all aspects of the complaint pertained to judicial decisions.

On the basis of special laws in which (all or part of) the statutory complaints regulation is applied mutatis mutandis, complaints may also be directed against persons other than judicial officers charged with the administration of justice as referred to in the Judiciary Organisation Act. However, the same limitation that the decision itself cannot be complained of applies. A complaint concerning the substance of a decision of the regional disciplinary tribunal for the healthcare sector is one that cannot be considered, because it complains of a judicial decision. The same applies to the complaint that (the presiding member of) the Disciplinary Board had erred in disregarding a letter from the applicant, which stated that under certain circumstances the applicant would be forced to withdraw the disciplinary complaint. The Procurator General referred to the decision in his letter. It is found in this decision that the letter was not added to the case file because it was submitted outside the deadline provided for in the applicable National Rules of Procedure. Thus, according to the Procurator General, the disregard of the letter was based on a decision of the presiding member, as is evident from the considerations in the decision.

Complaints about a judge's conduct

Complaints that can be considered are, for example, those complaining of a judge's conduct towards the applicant. The issue in that case is whether the judge conducted himself properly in the matter to which the complaint relates.

Many complaints concerning the conduct of judges essentially relate to an (alleged) lack of impartiality of the judge complained against. Article 13b(1), opening words and (f) of the Judiciary Organisation Act stipulates that if a remedy is or has been available to the applicant with regard to the complaint and the applicant has not availed himself of that remedy, or if a judicial authority has rendered a final decision with regard to the complaint, then the Procurator General is not obliged to comply with the request to bring an action before the Supreme Court requesting an investigation into the (relevant) conduct. This legal basis, if applicable, is generally applied. Only in exceptional cases will this be deviated from.

During the reporting period, some of the complaints concerning the conduct of judges were disregarded on the grounds that the applicant submitted or could have submitted a request challenging the judge. One such complaint disregarded by the deputy Procurator General, given the provisions of Article 13b(1), opening words and (f) of the Judiciary Organisation Act, entailed that the applicant thought the judge was not impartial during the hearing. One aspect considered by the deputy Procurator General in his assessment was the circumstance that the applicant actually challenged the judge. Disregarded on the same ground was a complaint that the applicant had no confidence in the objectivity and independence of the judge complained against in connection with what the applicant referred to as a preconceived attitude of the judge complained against. The Procurator General also disregarded the complaint that a (deputy) judge effectively answered most of the questions for the Tax and Customs Administration and to the detriment of the applicant, because the law provides for the possibility of a challenge for such complaints.

Another commonly applied legal basis for not bringing an action before the Supreme Court is that the complaint was filed with the court where the judge is practising, the complaint was settled there, and the applicant does not reasonably have a sufficient interest in an investigation as referred to in Article 13a of the Judiciary Organisation Act (see Article 13b(1), opening words and (c) Judiciary Organisation Act).

One example of this was a complaint about alleged improper conduct by a judge during the hearing, more specifically that the judge allegedly laughed at the applicant during the hearing. The applicant was present at the hearing in the place of his partner, claimant in the proceedings. The court administration presented this complaint to the judge complained against, in the context of the complaints procedure based on the internal complaints regulation of the relevant court. The judge made it known to the administration that he did not laugh at the applicant. Moreover, the judge informed the court administration, he spoke with the applicant during the hearing about the latter's accusation that the judge had laughed at the applicant. According to the judge, he explained to the applicant at the hearing that and why he had to smile at one point. In addition, the administration took note of the hearing notes taken by the court clerk, which confirm the foregoing. Based on this investigation, the court administration declared the complaint unfounded. The Procurator General finds that the court administration assessed the complained with due care. Thus, in the opinion of the Procurator General, the applicant does not reasonably have a sufficient interest in an investigation by the Supreme Court.

Another example concerns a complaint about a judge who had not disclosed his ancillary position as an arbitrator in the national register of ancillary positions of judges. The applicant complained to the administration of the court where the judge complained against was practising. To that extent, the court administration found the complained well-founded. In addition, the ancillary position of the judge in question was then included in the register. The Procurator General is of the opinion that this part of the complaint has been properly handled and settled. In view of the fact that the complaint was deemed well-founded combined with the addition to the register, in the opinion of the Procurator General, there was insufficient interest in an investigation as referred to in Article 13a of the Judiciary Organisation Act. The Procurator General did underline that the complainant was right to raise this issue and right to stress the importance of a complete register.

Other complaints

Under Article 13f(1), second sentence of the Judiciary Organisation Act, the Supreme Court may also assess whether or not the relevant court administration acted properly, particularly in connection with the internal handling of a complaint by the administration. Such complaints were also filed during the reporting period.

One example concerns a complaint that the administration based its decision on an incorrect factual basis. In his decision, the Procurator General cites the relevant passages of the court administration's letter to the applicant. These show that the administration took note of the court record of the hearing, among other things. In addition, the administration gave the judge the opportunity to give his perspective. The judge complained against acknowledged that his tone towards the applicant's client was firm, but also emphasised that the applicant's client was behaving inappropriately. The applicant's client and her counsel had been speaking for more than an hour when the judge ** with regard to this part of the complaint, the Procurator General found that he saw no indication in the application that the court administration started from an incorrect factual basis. According to the Procurator General – again with regard to this part of the complaint – the complaint was handled with due care and the assessment was not found to be erroneous. The Procurator General found that the applicant did not have sufficient interest in an investigation by the Supreme Court.

Another example concerns a complaint that the President of the District Court refused to hear the applicant's complaints. The Procurator General took note of the administration's assessment of this complaint, which shows the following. According to the court administration, the applicant was reminded on several occasions that complaints must be filed by e-mail to a specific e-mail address of the District Court. As it was established that nothing was received at the specific e-mail address of (the administration of) the District Court intended for complaints, the complaint was deemed unfounded. The Procurator General finds that the assessment of this complaint is not erroneous. It follows that the complainant reasonably does not have a sufficient interest in an investigation by the Supreme Court.

Claim

In the reporting period, the Procurator General brought no action before the Supreme Court seeking a further investigation into the conduct of a judge under Article 13a et seq. of the Judiciary Organisation Act.