Complacency in the judiciary always appears to be a notch too great, which stands in the way of self-cleaning.

Bart Jan van Ettekoven

Complacency in the judiciary always appears to be a notch too great, which stands in the way of self-cleaning. Another example.Read: Submitted letter in NRC:Not contradicted by journalists Jannetje Koelewijn and Wafa Al Ali, Bart Jan van Ettekoven, outgoing Chief Justice of the Council of State, may be in a interview with NRC debiteren: “The relationships have changed and that is also a result of the childcare allowance cases. The laws were so strict that they left no room for a weighing of interests. In the end, we were no longer able to account for the results.” Derk Venema in Wijchen then writes to NRC: “Not only legal nonsense, but also ethically reprehensible. The outgoing chairman of the Administrative Law Department of the Council of State, Bart Jan van Ettekoven, expresses his concerns about the future government's handling of the rule of law in an interview in NRC (“Politics sets course less sharply”, 30/12). But the way he talks about the Benefits scandal also seriously concerns me as a lawyer and lecturer in judicial professional ethics. He repeats his repeatedly refuted accusation to the legislator once again: “The law was tough” and left “no room for weighing interests”. This is demonstrably wrong: the law did not specify the circumstances under which circumstances how much allowance should be recovered. The tax authorities could therefore decide that for themselves: in case of all types of accountability deficiencies, fraud or not, all allowance was recovered. By definition, this is disproportionate and foreseeably disastrous for the parents. The Department of Administrative Justice, the Supreme Administrative Court, then made its rulings as if the tax authorities had no other legal option, while the judges knew that was untrue. Later, the Department tried to cover this in every possible way. And why — to let the tax authorities do its unreasonable business unhindered? This is not only legal nonsense, but also ethically reprehensible. The judges' code of conduct emphasizes the judge's task “to make a just decision even when strict application of the law seems to prevent it”. There was no law in the way of this. Lower judges had issued an insistent warning. Only when all the misery came out into the open and there was a threat of image damage, did the Department slowly and partially reverse its steps. That is the opposite of courage. In addition, a judge who goes to such lengths to cover up unjust government policy lacks an independent, unbiased attitude. If these views of the former chairman are representative of the Department, I hold my heart. Or are they just the reason for his early departure?”

Peter Olsthoorn | 05-01-24 17:14