Assessment framework for compulsory government action in urgent situations.

Feature W01.25.00121/I Date pending May 21, 2025 Date established May 7, 2025 Date of opinion May 7, 2025 Date of publication May 26, 2025 Location Website Council of State

You don't just make allowancesAn assessment framework for the government's involuntary action in urgent situationsPreambleIt often happens that the government is confronted with unusual, profound situations involving groups of citizens. The usual legal frameworks do not always offer a solution for this. Often, these situations are mainly about restoring trust in someone else, the government, society and also about restoring self-confidence. This thought prompted us to consider the principles of how the government should deal with this. The situations can be very diverse. Recent and less recent examples include surcharges, Groningen, disasters such as the Limburg flood, MH17 or the Bijlmer disaster, or also transgender legislation. This has resulted in the current assessment framework. The purpose of the assessment framework is to provide the government with a number of principles for dealing with pressing situations. The framework is intended for the national government. It can also be important for other governments.Recognition in difficult situations Citizens can ask the government to recognize the exceptional, burdensome circumstances in which they have found themselves.. Their honor and dignity, their existence in the broadest sense of the word, can sometimes be profoundly affected. This often involves very different situations. For the government, this is a complex and usually unexplored area. This is because you have to act outside the strict rules that the government normally follows. These are situations that require considerations that go beyond the rules. Ethical, social, economic and political considerations play a major role.Government action in urgent situations is not only complex because of the lack of appropriate rules and perspectives for action. The questions asked by citizens who are in a vulnerable situation are also very different from the questions that the government is used to dealing with. Often, these citizens request recognition of the suffering they have experienced or are still experiencing. They ask for respect for their plight and for fair treatment. Finding a good answer to these questions requires a lot. It requires specific knowledge and experience to do this in a trusting and effective way.Is it possible to get a better grip on these questions? We think so. The following are a number of principles for the government. The essence of this is that the questions of citizens who are in great difficulty are different from the many questions that can be answered within the framework of law. An appropriate response therefore requires careful preparation, where these citizens “get to speak”. The principles also make it clear that the government does not always have an answer to all, very diverse situations where citizens have fallen into trouble. There are limits to what can be expected of the government and what the government can do.“Compensation” can be done in many ways and should therefore be understood broadly. It includes various measures that can be taken as part of recognition. Recognition of serious suffering by the government should help restore the dignity of severely affected citizens. How this happens depends mainly on the context. Understanding the needs of citizens is therefore very important. This way, the government does not leave these people alone. An unmandatory payment should not be the first option, but rather the last.The assessment framework provides an overview of the most important questions and principles that arise when recognizing serious suffering. Based on this, government decision-making about whether, and if so, how it wants to respond to a request for recognition can be strengthened. The framework is not a step-by-step plan. However, the three preliminary questions will always have to be answered first.The three preliminary questions aim to identify the possible reactions of the government. The first question is what exactly (was) going on. Next, the question whether the government is legally obliged to compensate for damage or other disadvantage. If this obligation is missing or there is a discussion about it, the third question comes up: why should the government take the situation unnecessarily.These questions cannot simply be answered with yes or no. There are various sub-questions and interests behind it. Careful investigation into what happened is needed. The government must also pay attention to the interests of all citizens, not just the interests of the affected citizens. The government must use both the manpower and the financial resources that are available responsibly.When considering whether to improve the situation as a government, there are questions such as: Who are those involved? What is the composition of the target group and how can it be defined? What is necessary and possible? By talking to those involved and listening, the problems, the need for recognition and the size of the group can be better identified.In that case, the government is expected to take appropriate, effective and efficient measures to acknowledge suffering. This can happen in many different ways. The government has good use to make good use of this space. It is crucial that this is done with care and attention. Although swift action is usually required, an approach that is too quick can backfire.It must be clear what has helped citizens the most and what is in the public interest. Intangible aspects are often more important for recognition than material contributions. In combination with other non-financial recognition measures, in exceptional situations, an unmandatory payment to individual stakeholders can be discussed. If this is decided, it is preferably a fixed and limited amount.It is very important that the implementation of the recognition measures is carried out carefully and properly. This contributes to the significance of acknowledging the suffering. The government's involuntary action must therefore be aimed at making it one-off and definitive. Make sure that the recognition measures are also monitored and evaluated so that the government can learn from them for the future. Although the assessment framework wants to encourage careful decision-making, not everyone will consider the recognition measures to be sufficient, while others may not need government recognition.You don't just provide compensation. Assessment framework for the government's involuntary action in urgent situationsFor questions 1. What exactly (was) going on? 2. Is the government legally obliged to compensate for damage or other disadvantage? 3. Why should the government take control of the situation without obligation? Considerations when acknowledging suffering 4. Careful identification and involvement of the target group is crucial.5. Make use of the options available to acknowledge suffering. Considerations in the event of an uncompulsory payment6.An uncompulsory payment is preferably a limited, fixed amount.7. A separate legal basis in a formal law is preferred.Other considerations8. Recognition measures are carried out by an organization equipped for this.9. If the government is not obliged to accept a situation, this recognition is one-off and final.10. Monitor and evaluate the recognition measures and do something about it.Explanation of the assessment framework for questionsQuestion 1. What exactly (was) going on?When an urgent call is made to the government to acknowledge or address the loss or suffering of citizens, it listens closely. In this subject, it is very important that, if the government takes a step forward, this decision is widely supported and accepted, especially if it goes outside the usual (legal) frameworks. In addition, thoughtfulness comes before decisiveness. Progress starts with reflection.The government must formulate its response properly at once; there is often no second chance, or government action becomes a protracted affair. The government should not promise more than it can deliver. Pain cannot be undone, but it can be alleviated. Good preparation is therefore essential for every response that is given. This preparation starts with a thorough exploration of the seriousness, extent and root causes of the problem.Managing expectations is crucial at this early stage. The fact that an investigation - if necessary independently - into exactly what happened does not automatically mean that the government can or should actually do something. Ultimately, you can also choose to do nothing else. Doing something isn't always better than doing nothing. This does not mean that the government should avoid talking to citizens in advance.Conversations with stakeholders, interest or peer organizations and the government itself are important in getting the facts clear. By listening carefully, asking questions and explaining the situation, insight is gained into the nature and extent of the problem. The different needs and wishes of those involved are also becoming clearer. This exploration requires the necessary time, attention and expertise, especially in the case of immaterial interests.Even if the problem seems manageable, a careful and personal approach is needed to prevent errors. Sharing suffering and experiences is often very important for the emotional recovery of those involved and for connecting with others. Space for emotions is crucial and forms the basis for the chance of success in any subsequent steps. An organizational top-down approach should therefore be avoided.It is and remains important that no unrealistic expectations are and remain important in the discussions with those involved. are awakened or, even worse, commitments are made that could hamper informed decision-making by the cabinet or legislator. It should always be clear to those involved that listening, seeking the conversation, interpreting, is not equivalent to entering into obligations by the government.Question 2. Is the government legally obliged to pay compensation for damage or other harm? If it is clear exactly what happened, then the question is whether the government is obliged by law to compensate for the damage or other disadvantage caused. This legal question is very important, because the government must also comply with the law. The question can then be raised whether the government should unnecessarily take care of the situation.It makes a big difference whether the government is obliged to do something, or whether it does something voluntarily.. That is why this question needs to be looked at carefully first. It is important that when answering this, use is made of legal assistance by officials with special knowledge of liability law. This can be done, for example, in the form of an interdepartmental expert committee, to which a ministry can submit questions of liability for which expertise is scarce. Such a (standing) committee can provide advice carefully, but also quickly.A fundamental principle in the Netherlands is that everyone bears their own damage.. This also applies when the government is asked to acknowledge suffering or provide recovery. Bad luck and misfortune, no matter how bad, can happen to anyone in due course. Citizens and companies can therefore also be expected to take responsibility in many ways to bear or limit inevitable (financial) setbacks, for example by means of insurance.In three cases, this is different and there is a legal obligation for the government to pay. This concerns the following situations: a. Compensation after an unlawful government act: If the government acts unlawfully, it is liable for the resulting damage. In this case, the government has the legal obligation to compensate for this damage.b. Disadvantage compensation for lawful government actions: Sometimes the legitimate actions of the government can disproportionately affect certain people or companies. In such cases, the government may be obliged to compensate the disproportionate disproportionate disadvantage.c. Compensation under a special legal obligation: Under specific circumstances, there may be a legal obligation for the government to compensate certain victims for the damage or disadvantage they have suffered.An example of this is the Disaster Damage Compensation Act (Wts). In the event of a disaster, as defined in this Act, victims are entitled to compensation for certain types of damage. However, there are conditions: the damage or costs must be uninsurable, the victims must have taken sufficient measures to prevent or limit the damage or costs, and they must not have already received compensation in any other way. Recently, an evaluation of the Wts took place. It follows that a review of the law is necessary to make the Wts consistent and predictable now and in the future. be able to deploy. (see note 1)Although the government's legal obligations come first here, this (pre) question is not always quick or easy to answer. Sometimes a lot of research is needed to determine who is liable for the damage, or the answer only becomes clear after a very long time. There may also be an acute emergency situation that requires immediate action by the government, so that the question of legal obligations only comes up in the second instance.The situation may also occur that there will remain discussions about whether or not the government is partly liable for damage suffered.. This situation of possible liability that remains unresolved has not been fully understood in the assessment framework. In the assessment framework, any government action in this case is classified as involuntary action, because it is not certain whether there is an obligation for the government.If the government is obliged by law to compensate damage or disadvantage, the existing legal rules apply and this assessment framework remains disregarded.. However, - by analogy - parts of the assessment framework can be of added value in further dealing with this. If a legal obligation is missing or there is (still) discussion about it, then the government not required for any compensation for damage or disadvantage. Should the government nevertheless consider - without obligation - to address the situation, there are the following important things to keep in mind.For question 3. Why should the government take action without obligation?If the government has nothing to do with the origin of the situation, nor does it have the legal obligation to do anything, it is not legally obliged to do anything. In other cases, it may be that it has not (yet) been established whether the government is obliged by law to compensate damage or disadvantage or is still under discussion.In response to an urgent call for recognition or compensation, the government may consider taking the situation in question without obligation.. However, this always happens as a exception. The reason for this reluctance is that the government is thus going outside the legal framework. There must be compelling reasons for this and convincing justification is required.The government has something to explain if it wants to take on a certain situation without obligation. After all, the actions of the government concern all citizens. Here, therefore, the more fundamental question is why, in view of its obligation to act in the public interest, the government should approach a certain group of stakeholders to whom it owes nothing. This is partly in mind what general and special provisions have already been arranged in the Netherlands.It is also important to realize that all government actions, in whatever form, are ultimately paid for by the community. The jointly raised financial resources can only be spent once. The same applies to the - often limited - available manpower; it can also only be deployed once. That is also why the use of public funds for involuntary action deserves careful consideration and decision-making.There is no general answer to the question when the government should take care of a situation.; each situation requires an individual and comprehensive consideration. Because there are no legal obligations, ethical, social, economic and political considerations will form the basis for the government's involuntary action. The available public funds and policy priorities also play a role.When considering whether there are compelling reasons for the government to take care of a certain situation, various factors play a role.. In this context, it can also be helpful to make use of existing knowledge and expertise in this area within the government or beyond.When the government is (has been) involved in the situation in a certain way, it may be important: - the government's share in causing the event; - the degree of social disruption Direction.In view of the position of those involved, consideration may be given to: - the the inescapability of the suffering for those involved; - the severity and distressing of the situation for those involved; - the person concerned's own role, both in causing the suffering and in the efforts to prevent or limit it by taking measures.Ultimately, the question is: what can citizens - not just the victims - expect from each other and from the government? It is crucial that government and citizens' own positions are not lost sight of or disappear behind the horizon. After all, the government cannot always offer solutions to every problem. In some cases, the immediate environment of the citizen - family, neighborhood, association, church - can do this much better. Crowdfunding can also play a role.Even if there seems to be a reason for government action, it is far from obvious that the government is unobliged to take a certain situation into account.. Indeed, it remains the case that in this situation, the government is kept to nothing by law or that this is still under discussion. It is also relevant here to what extent it is possible for the government to shape an appropriate response, taking into account the following considerations.Considerations when recognizing LEEDIf the government, exceptionally, takes action on a certain situation without obligation, the main goal is to recognize the suffering and experiences of a group of citizens.. In many cases, those involved attach more value to being able to share their story than receiving financial compensation or otherwise. Emotional recovery should therefore come first. Only in very special cases can an uncompulsory payment to individuals involved be part of a wider recognition. Although the why question is distinguished from the how question here, both questions are linked. When we look at these questions in conjunction, the decision to do something involuntary in a given situation, and its implementation, can be more convincingly motivated. Careful decision-making is essential because the government goes outside the legal framework, while nevertheless setting limits. An integrated approach also facilitates the enforceability of any decision to acknowledge citizens' suffering.The main point is that the choice for a recognition measure is only made when it is clear what the advantages and disadvantages are.. A rough approach often does not provide the intended recognition. Seemingly simple solutions can also lead to unexpected problems in demarcation and implementation. It is therefore misleading to rely on simple, unilaterally determined solutions, such as payment of a sum of money.4. Careful definition and involvement of the target group is crucial.When making decisions about recognizing the suffering of a specific group of citizens, it is first and foremost important to properly define the target group.. Only when it is clear whose situation the government wants to care about will there be better insight into the opportunities for recognition, the relevant considerations, and the associated risks.A clear and definitive definition is crucial to prevent unwanted extensions to the scheme.. Undesirable, because this quickly comes at the expense of quality and practicality. This can also undermine the goal - offering recognition and restoring trust. With due regard to the principle of equality, the government is free to determine whose situation is or is not recognized. However, in order to avoid discussions and setting precedents, it is advisable to base this choice as much as possible on objective criteria that are easy to determine.A good assessment of the composition and size of the target group is important. Otherwise, there is a risk that the target group will eventually turn out to be much larger or smaller than initially thought. This requires that, based on research, there is a good insight into the background and extent of the problem. Insight into the degree of organization of the target group is also important.An example of the importance of properly assessing the size of the target group is the Temporary Financial Compensation Scheme for Victims of Violence in Youth Welfare 2020. (see note 2) This allowance scheme came about as a result of the report of the Committee on Research into Violence in Youth Welfare. (see note 3) The Commission stated that it was not able to rule on the exact extent of the violence in youth care. The number of applications made under the allowance scheme (more than 27,000) ultimately appears to be many times higher than the estimate that was made in advance (2,000). (see note 4) Due to this unexpectedly large number of applications, the executing agency (the Violent Crimes Compensation Fund) has recruited additional staff and has adapted work processes. (see note 5)Ultimately, the composition and size of the target group determine how recognition and implementation can be designed within a reasonable period of time. After all, there are limits to what the government can and can achieve.The Advisory Committee on the Implementation of Benefits advised on an appropriate solution for the so-called CAF 11 parents, who were confronted with the sudden cessation of the 2014 childcare allowance advance in the summer of 2014. An interim opinion also recommended offering some form of compensation to the most affected parents. Because the perspective then changed to the institutionally biased approach of the Dienst Toeslagen and the cabinet chose to “help all vulnerable parents”, the numbers also changed: from approximately 300 CAF 11 parents via around 9,400 parents in CAF files to approximately 91,000 beneficiaries from whom more than €10,000 has been recovered to 1.2 million allowance recipients from whom any amount has ever been recovered. (see note 6) Because an appropriate solution would depend on the chosen target group, the committee did not come up with concrete proposals in its final opinion.By investing time and effort in a good process, the different motives and needs of the target group can be clearly identified.Within the target group, there will usually be different views and images about the need for recognition and what the government can do. In the course of the process, the diversity of the target group can also increase, possibly resulting in conflicts.It can be a challenge to get in touch with representative representation, especially if the target group is not sufficiently organized. In such cases, more time can be obtained, for example, by distinguishing between acute situations that require an immediate approach and situations where the request for help or target group is still unclear.The Compensation Policy Act 1985-2014 illustrates how contact with those involved can take shape. (see note 7) There has been contact with the Transgender and Intersex Collective several times from the government. This led to the then cabinet acknowledging and apologizing for the suffering caused by the conditions set out in the Transgender Act on November 30, 2021. The structure of the allowance scheme announced at the same time was also discussed several times with the collective, as a representative of the target group. (see note 8)A carefully chosen involvement of the target group also means that everyone's role is clear and distinct. Ultimately, it is up to the government, represented by the minister, to decide independently whether and how the suffering will be acknowledged. As far as possible, it is necessary to prevent unrealistic expectations from being raised among the target group. After all, talking together is different than deciding together.5. Take advantage of the opportunities available to offer recognition of suffering.Careful preparation also examines which measures may be appropriate, effective and effective to recognize the suffering of the specific group of citizens. The size and composition of the target group play an essential role here. In addition, it is necessary to understand the needs of those involved, without these needs having to fully determine the design of the recognition.In government and political practice, there often seems to be a tendency to offer recognition through financial compensation alone. But is this the right approach? For the government, an unmandatory payment to individuals involved is often simple at first glance and therefore quick to implement, but the question is whether this is really the case and whether this achieves the intended goal. (see note 9) Often, an unmandatory payment seems to cause more problems than it solves.It is therefore important that the government makes use of the many opportunities that exist to offer recognition of suffering., so that this is done appropriately in the specific situation. In addition, attention is needed to the extent to which the situations within the target group differ. Because an unmandatory payment often has different effects than expected, this form is not (the first) appropriate.Acknowledgment of sufferingIn many cases, citizens want to be heard first and foremost.. A conversation with the target group, whether or not as part of the investigation into exactly what happened, can already provide (partial) recognition of their suffering and experiences. When the government has a certain negative involvement in the origin or persistence of the situation, apologies and/or apologies can be particularly valuable in acknowledging that suffering. (see note 10) Apologies cannot be forced.Acknowledging suffering is different than acknowledging wrongfulness. A benevolent attitude, such as an apology, is a prerequisite for starting the conversation, but does not mean that wrongdoing is also acknowledged. (see note 11) When the government makes it clear that (in retrospect) could also have been acted in a different way, this should primarily be seen as an acknowledgment of the suffering experienced by a citizen.Regrets and/or apologies generally cannot be construed as an admission of wrongful conduct. This is only different when a citizen can reasonably deduce from the statements and actions of an administrative body that the government body acknowledges the wrongfulness of his actions. (see note 12) Then there may be an admission of wrongfulness, which may lead to liability. It is important that the government chooses its words carefully.For citizens, acknowledging their suffering is often an important step towards recovery. In general, a court of law offers no solution, precisely because the government is not obliged to act favourably. Moreover, the way in which the outcome of a certain process is achieved is often just as important as the outcome itself. Personal contact and an energetic approach are crucial for the satisfaction of the citizens involved. (see note 13) In the absence of recognition, those affected may be stuck in a victim role, which hampers their recovery. (see note 14) In short, care and openness are required to take appropriate measures to provide recognition.Opportunities for recognitionRecognition can be designed in various ways. In addition, in light of international policy theories about “Transitional Justice” and “Dealing with the Past”, a distinction can be made between different principles associated with recognition: knowledge, justice, recovery and prevention. (see note 15) Various recognition measures can be distinguished along these lines.Researching the facts and causes that underlie the suffering experienced is part of “knowing”. For example, a website, a documentary or an exhibition can make the results of this research more widely known. In addition to knowledge about what happened, being able to tell 'the story' can also contribute to processing this.For the relatives of the victims of flight MH17, Slachtofferhulp Nederland has created a special website (www.vliegrampukraine.nl). This Information and Advice Center (IAC) offers relatives and loved ones a central place for information and advice. On a private section of the website, which is only accessible to immediate relatives, questions can be asked and experiences shared with others.“Justice” refers to holding those responsible accountable, whether symbolic or not. In this context, consideration can be given to whether the (or having) apologised by those involved is appropriate or necessary. Apologies can be made both publicly and personally, for example via a letter. Another possible measure under this principle is the provision of mediation.In the context of 'recovery', both material and symbolic remedial measures can be taken. These can be focused on the individual or the collective. Think of offering practical help or support, such as appointing contacts or arranging accessible access to certain care. A memorial or a monument can provide a collective form of restoration. (see note 16)“Prevention” focuses on learning from the past for the future, so that a repetition of what has happened can be prevented. This can be implemented, for example, by investing in adequate supervision and recognizing signals in time. Adequate action in the event of violations is also important to prevent a situation from recurring. If the needs within the target group vary, this can be responded to by opting for measures that affect different principles. In general, a collective form of recognition is preferred when the target group cannot be clearly defined beforehand. This also applies to situations where the immaterial aspect of suffering is central due to the nature of the event or the passage of time.It is crucial that recognition measures contribute to the processing of suffering and experiences, and that, depending on the situation, contact with the government or between citizens will be restored.Deployment of existing instrumentsExisting resources can also be used to provide recognition. There are already various social support and social security regulations that offer help, (financial) assistance or another type of support. But finding their way there can be a challenge for affected citizens. The government can offer them a helping hand in this regard.The Westhaven Kolenketen Mobility Center (MCKW) resulted from a consultation between the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, UWV, FNV and VNO-NCW. In the MCKW, UWV, FNV and employers' organization AWVN worked together. The MCKW provided services to employees who were at risk of unemployment due to the early closure of the Hemweg plant. The service consisted of guidance to other work, support and, if necessary, training. (see note 17)A recognition measure may also include providing a subsidy.. This can be done, for example, to a foundation that represents the interests of or contacts with peers and provides information. It is possible that, in the interest of a broader objective, a foundation also takes legal action against the liable person. Subsidies can also be used, for example, to stimulate the insurability of certain damages, such as damage to crops as a result of heavy rainfall. (see note 18)As part of recognizing the relatives of the victims of flight MH17, for example, subsidies were provided to the MH17 Air Disaster Foundation for, among other things, organizing the memorial meetings. The maintenance of the park near the MH17 National Monument is also reimbursed to the Spaarnwoude Recreation Board. On 17 November 2022, the trial against four suspects in the downing of flight MH17 ended with the court sentencing three suspects to life imprisonment and paying compensation to the victims' relatives. The government paid the compensation to the relatives as an advance payment. (see note 19) No quick fixA quick, unilaterally determined solution is usually not desirable. Such approaches have the risks that certain stakeholders will be missed or that the measure will not be understood as a recognition of suffering, but as an administrative act, which will not achieve the goal. Another risk is that, in an attempt to help all citizens at once, the government misses relevant differences within the target group, or is so generous that much more is being done than is desirable. The organizational perspective (top-down) should be prevented from prevailing.Considerations in the event of an unmandatory payment6. An unmandatory payment is preferably a limited, fixed amount.In exceptional situations, consideration may be given to making an uncompulsory payment to individuals involved as part of recognition. First of all, this measure gains importance when combined with one or more other forms of recognition. An unmandatory payment will therefore often be the last step in a broader recognition approach.DesignIn general, this is a fixed and limited amount, which is nevertheless meaningful. If there is no legal obligation or certainty to pay a sum of money, an involuntary payment is in the nature of a gesture intended to acknowledge suffering. Financial compensation that does not contribute to acknowledging the suffering is tantamount to an empty gesture and can then be counterproductive.In several recent regulations that provided for the provision of an uncompulsory payment as a gesture or token of recognition, an amount of €5,000 has been chosen. See, for example, the Temporary Financial Compensation Scheme for Victims of Violence in Youth Welfare (2020), the Temporary Scheme for Dutchbat-III Veterans One-time Benefit (2021) and the Policy Rule on Compensation for the Registered Gender Act (2021). In view of the long-term impact on health, the Q Fever Allowance Policy (2019) opted for an amount of €15,000.This approach is better suited to acknowledging suffering than customization based on individual assessments. The same amount for everyone involved prevents suffering from being compared to suffering and feeling like a victim again. But when the group of affected citizens is not sufficiently homogeneous, uniform treatment can actually evoke feelings of injustice. (see note 20) A differentiated payment in that case requires objective criteria that are easy to determine.A limited but meaningful amount also makes it clear that it is about acknowledging the suffering or disadvantage that people have experienced. When determining the amount or the conditions for award, the connection with liability law should be avoided. The more the amount suggests that there is compensation or compensation, the greater the chance that the non-mandatory payment (which is intended as a gesture) will be misunderstood.Careful communication about this measure to the target group is crucial. With a focus on preventing or eliminating false expectations. Any meaningful financial compensation is' generous' in itself, because it is optional. However, because an unmandatory payment is a gesture and therefore not compensation or compensation, the use of this qualification can in practice unintentionally lead to disappointment. (see note 21)RequirementsA non-mandatory payment is provided at the individual level. This requires that the target group is clearly identified and can be well defined. As this is less possible, there will be more discussions, and even legal proceedings, about who exactly belongs to the target group and about the allowance itself. This applies regardless of whether there is a legal regulation or a non-law-based beneficiary policy. If the target group cannot be clearly defined, there is also a risk that an additional arrangement will be needed later for a group that was not initially in the picture. Successive schemes can undermine the initial recognition and even lead to reassessments.In most cases, an unmandatory payment will be made upon request. It is important that, in view of their ability to do so, those involved are not questioned. The application process should be easy, short and understandable, and based on trust. Complex procedures can result in victims feeling like victims again or that the most vulnerable ultimately do not file an application. (see note 22) Objective, easily determined criteria also improve implementation. For example, careful consideration is also needed about how to deal with the situation where the victim dies before the compulsory payment has been received. This includes possible interference with compulsory payment with national or local income support schemes that the recipient is entitled to.Other purposeIn exceptional situations, the government's involuntary actions may focus on: offering compensation for (material) damage that occurred entirely outside the government's actions. In such a case, the conditions and the amount of the non-mandatory payment may be different, but this must be properly motivated. Working with lump sums is also recommended in that case. After all, full compensation or compensation is not appropriate. In this regard, the Disaster Compensation Act offers the possibility to adjust the compensation for the damage and recover the overpayment if it turns out afterwards that the compensation was too high. Such a provision fits well within a scheme that is aimed at providing a certain amount of compensation for certain damages completely without obligation. This contributes to the fairness and legality of the arrangement.According to the General Court of Auditors, generosity prevails in the recovery operation on Allowances over precision and efficiency. With the €30,000 scheme and the debt arrangements, many victims were helped quickly. But generous awards can also lead to people receiving too much, and sometimes unfairly, compensation. In 2023, therefore, €113.5 million in compensation paid out was assessed as wrong or uncertain. This is 13% of the total €862.1 million paid out in 2023. The errors and uncertainties are mainly due to the generosity in the comprehensive assessment of files and the inadequate controls of the bank accounts where the money is distributed. (see note 23)7. For an uncompulsory payment, a separate basis in a law in a formal sense is preferred.Providing an uncompulsory payment requires a public law authority or task.. After all, this measure involves public funds, which must be used lawfully. This requires that a generally binding provision be laid down on the basis of which, to whom and under what conditions a payment can be made. Because an unmandatory payment is very exceptional, it is preferable to to regulate this authority on a case-by-case basis in a formal law, but not a framework law.With a separate legal basis in a formal sense, compulsory payment is fully democratically legitimized and a careful and transparent procedure is guaranteed.. This underlines, as it were, the national importance of a government response. In addition, parliamentary consent can contribute to the recognition that is requested and to the associated possible restoration of trust.Establishing jurisdiction in a law in a formal sense does not preclude further developing the compensation scheme at a lower level for implementation.. A general administrative measure or ministerial regulation based on this law can often be drawn up and come into force within a short period of time. In the past, it was therefore decided to arrange an optional payment only at this lower level. But wanting to act (too) quickly can lead to undesirable results.It is not desirable to suffice with a policy or a regulation based on a subsidy law.. An uncompulsory payment to individual citizens cannot be regarded as a subsidy. Indeed, this payment is not intended to stimulate certain activities. It is undesirable to create new powers through a policy. Without adequate legal authority, unmandatory payment may be unlawful.The granting or refusal of compulsory compensation can - even if there is no legal basis - be submitted to the (administrative) court. If, in defining the target group or designing the allowance, speed has prevailed over due care, for example, as a result of which similar cases are treated profoundly unevenly, or the motive for recognition is not clearly formulated, this may require adjustment. That is also why embedding in a law in a formal sense is preferred.Other considerations8. Recognition measures are carried out by an organization equipped for this purpose.It is important that the recognition measures are effective and implemented efficiently., both for those involved and for the government. It is imperative to prevent new disappointments or disadvantages for those involved due to poor or slow implementation. Otherwise, they will feel let down again. The intended implementing organization must therefore be involved at an early stage in decision-making about and elaboration of the recognition.Equipped implementing organizationThe practice of implementation plays a major role in the meaning of recognition. An implementing organization equipped for this purpose recognizes the special nature and complexity of the situation and offers space to share or share experiences in confidence. It is quite conceivable that those involved are afraid to tell their story. This means that conversation skills, among other things, are important for good execution. Sufficient people and resources must also be available for this purpose.Choosing an implementing organization requires careful consideration. The size and composition of the target group, the character of the recognition measures and the desired form and progress of the implementation play a role in this choice. If the government is involved in the situation in question, an independent organization may be at fault. If a recognition scheme is broad or allows many interpretations, the importance of substantive expertise increases.Limiting implementation costsImplementation costs, both in people and resources, are often underestimated. With a simple regulation, (relatively) high implementation costs can be prevented. A clear definition of the target group also contributes to this. A fixed amount can accommodate complex discussions about, for example, determining the extent of suffering. Implementation of the recognition measures by a body equipped for this purpose can also help to ensure that the implementation costs remain acceptable to society as a whole. Human power is increasingly becoming a scarce resource. It also often does not make a good impression on the citizens concerned if the implementation costs are relatively high. This may affect recognition and reinstatement.Despite thorough preliminary research, it may happen in practice that the number of applications is different than expected.. Creating different scenarios in the preparation makes it possible to adapt the implementation to reality, if necessary. This can be done, for example, by distinguishing between types of requests.CommunicationDuring the implementation of the recognition measures, regular and clear communication with those involved is essential.. A fixed point of contact may be desirable here. Being kept informed about progress helps to advance recognition. By keeping in touch with those involved, whether or not through interest or peer organizations, any problems can also be resolved quickly. This also deepens and enriches the implementing agency's psychological insights into what is important for affected citizens.In 2023, the National Ombudsman investigated ten recovery processes. (see note 24) According to this study, promises were regularly made in these processes that are not feasible. It was often not clearly communicated what those promises meant exactly. As a result, victims created expectations that could not be met. In addition, it appears that government agencies did not learn enough from experiences from previous recovery processes and that they reinvented the wheel over and over again. Existing knowledge and experience of experts was hardly consulted. Victims or their interest groups were also consulted only to a limited extent.9. If the government is not obliged to take issue with a situation, the recognition is one-off and definitive.The government's involuntary action in response to the suffering of a specific group of citizens is one-off and definitive. In other words, the point is that all the careful considerations in the preparation mean that government recognition cannot be offered in a better way. This also prevents additional or new measures from having to be taken afterwards, which in turn has many burdensome consequences. Changes made during the implementation of the recognition measures can not only be very burdensome for the implementing authority concerned. They can also cause frustration for those who have already received something. In addition, this means that the chapter cannot (yet) be closed for those involved, even though that is the main purpose of recognition. This means that no rash decisions have to be made due to external pressure. Slowing down in the beginning can eventually lead to acceleration.Finality is also important if the government meets those involved on an individual basis, for example in the form of an optional payment.. The less there is a fixed and limited amount, a settlement agreement is more likely. Especially if the government's legal obligations have not been established, this can also prevent people from demanding compensation via another route. For fixed, limited amounts, consider whether a settlement agreement should be concluded with each person concerned in such a case. If the government responds to situations where a third party is or may be liable, the condition for receiving an uncompulsory payment may be that the person concerned transfers any claim against that third party to the State. This was done, for example, in the Stint Owners and Users Compensation Policy. (see note 25) The Violent Crimes Compensation Act also states that this condition can be placed on benefits. 10. Monitor and evaluate the recognition measures and do something with them.Acknowledging suffering works both ways. The people involved feel seen and heard, while the government shows its commitment and responsibility. It is often about restoring trust - in oneself, the government or politics. This recovery may come under pressure if the recognition measures elicit both positive and negative reactions. By monitoring, the government can be ahead of certain criticisms.After implementing the recognition measures, it is important to conduct evaluative research into the effect of these measures on the target group.. This enables the government to learn from its own actions, so that situations that may be difficult for the future can be prevented. This is often a great wish of those involved when it comes to recognition resulting from previous government actions. By means of a knowledge network, for example, it can be ensured that information and expertise about recognition measures is and remains accessible to all government agencies. This way, this can also be used in the future. (see note 26)In response to the National Ombudsman's report “Providing recovery: a profession in its own right”, the cabinet has promised to work jointly to learn lessons from recovery (operations) and make them structurally and widely accessible. This should strengthen the government's learning capacity and ensure it structurally. In that context, investments will be made in a learning network, recognition and recovery. The aim is to bring back what has been learned and what has been seen in practice of recovery tasks in the direction of politics, policy and implementation. (see note 27)Finally, it is important to realize that, no matter how careful decision-making has been, not everyone will consider the recognition measures taken as sufficient, while for others, government recognition may not have been necessary.Footnotes(1) See E. Engelhard et al., “Future-proofing and scope of the Disaster Compensation Act (Wts)” (commissioned by the Scientific Research and Documentation Center), December 1, 2024. (2) Official Gazette 2020, 61740. (3) Committee on Research into Violence in Youth Welfare, “Inadequately protected. Violence in Dutch youth care from 1945 to the present”, June 2019 (appendix to Parliamentary Documents II 2018/19, 31015 and 31839, No. 174). (4) Violent Crimes Compensation Fund, Annual Report 2023. (5) Parliamentary Documents II 2022/23, 33552, No. 110. See also Schadefonds Geweldsmisdrijven, Annual Report 2022. (6) Advisory Committee on Implementation of Surcharges, “Omzien in Verwonderment 2. Final advice”, 12 March 2020, p. 82 (annex to Parliamentary Documents II 2019/20, 31066, No. 608). (7) Official Gazette 2021, 39392. (8) Parliamentary Documents II 2020/21, 30420, No. 361. (9) Recognition of suffering is considered more important than financial compensation. (Committee on Disaster and Crisis Response, “Solidarity with Policy. Recommendations on financial compensation in the event of disasters and emergencies”, 2004). (10) See, for example, National Ombudsman, “Dealing properly with claims” (report no. 2009/135), 24 June 2009, p. 37, 51, and National Ombudsman, “Excuse Card. In five steps to a good excuse from the government', February 2011. (11) See, for example, L.A.B.M. Wijntjes. If I say sorry now, am I confessing guilt? About apologizing in the civil and medical disciplinary proceedings (diss. Tilburg University), The Hague: Boom legal 2020. (12) HR June 18, 1993, NJ 1993, 504 (St. Oedenrode-Van Aarle), section 3.2. (13) See, for example, J.D.W.E. Mulder, Compensation. The Victim's Perspective (diss. Tilburg University), Oisterwijk: Wolf Legal Publishers 2013. (14) National Ombudsman, “Q fever, a matter of recognition. An investigation into the lessons that the government has learned from the Q fever epidemic” (report no. 2017/030), March 7, 2017, p. 14. (15) See N. Huygen, “Development and implementation of recognition measures. Tools for (executors within) the government”. (16) In this context, see, for example, Social and Cultural Planning Bureau, “Government action during and after crises. Four points of attention for good government action in crisis situations. “Knowledge Note”, The Hague, July 2024. (17) Parliamentary Documents II 2019/20, 35167, No. 7 and 27. (18) See New Agricultural Non-Life Insurance Subsidy Scheme 2003 (Stcrt. 2003, No. 203). (19) See the letter from the General Court of Auditors concerning “Understanding Government Costs MH17 - Update” (Parliamentary Documents II 2024/25, 33997, No. 186). (20) See, for example, CeE Beon, “Recognition, redress or hit again. Experiences with the financial regulations “Sexual abuse in institutions and foster families” (commissioned by the Scientific Research and Documentation Center), April 18, 2017, p. 86. (21) See, for example, AEF, “Final Report on Process Evaluation of Water Damage Treatment in Southern Netherlands” (commissioned by the Scientific Research and Documentation Center), January 31, 2023, p. 6. (22) See, for example, Cebeon, “Recognition, enough hurt or hit again. Experiences with the financial regulations “Sexual abuse in institutions and foster families” (commissioned by the Scientific Research and Documentation Center), April 18, 2017, p. 90-91. (23) General Court of Auditors, “Results of the Accountability Survey 2023 Ministry of Finance and National Debt”, The Hague, May 2024, p. 20, 72-73. See also the message “Half of the parents are still waiting, but recovery operation Allowances underway”, www.rekenkamer.nl. (24) National Ombudsman, “Providing recovery: a profession in its own right. A comparative study into ten recovery trajectories' (report no. 2023/157), October 24, 2023. (25) Official Gazette 2023, 27085. (26) See also National Ombudsman, “Providing recovery: a profession in its own right. A comparative study into ten recovery trajectories' (report no. 2023/157), October 24, 2023, p. 14. (27) “Cabinet response to the NO report Providing recovery: a profession apart” (annex to Parliamentary Documents II 2024/25, 33047, No. 28).

Council of State

The Council of State is an independent advisor to the government and parliament on legislation and administration and the country's highest general administrative judge.

• More about us
• Vacancies

Contact

The Council of State is located in the center of The Hague. Would you like to get in touch with us or would you like to visit us for a session?

• Telephone
• Location and route
• Mail and e-mail
• Digital litigation
• Open Government Act
• Starting a new business

Always up to date

Receive our news via the subscription service in your mailbox. Want to be kept informed about statements made in certain cases? Then sign up for the email service. Or check the progress of a particular procedure before the Department of Administrative Jurisdiction.

• E-mail service statements
• Procedure progress
• Requesting old statements