Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Civil Litigation in China and Europe pp 259–280Cite as

The Netherlands: A No-Nonsense Approach to Civil Procedure Reform

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 983 Accesses

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 31))

Abstract

In the Netherlands, significant changes to the procedural regulations and other policy reforms have thoroughly reshaped the legal system over the past decades. Much more attention than before is directed to gathering data and to conducting empirical research in order to assess some of these changes. The role of the judge regarding case management seems to be of greater significance today than in the early 1990s. Judges have the authority to control the progress of lawsuits. It is now common for judges to schedule oral hearings at an early point in time at which the judge will order the parties themselves to appear in court in order to discuss the case. In the Dutch legal system, some preliminary steps have also been taken to promote mediation.

Section 13.8 on mediation was written by R. Jagtenberg.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Bellot 1877 (first edition 1821).

  2. 2.

    See Van Rhee 2005, pp. 9–10. See also the contribution of A.W. Jongbloed (Jongbloed 2005) in the same volume, which contains an overview of developments in Dutch civil procedural law from 1838 until 2005.

  3. 3.

    Hartogh and Cosman 1897. See also Jongbloed 2005, pp. 69–95.

  4. 4.

    Van Nispen 1993.

  5. 5.

    Art. 111 Dutch Code of Civil Procedure.

  6. 6.

    Art. 128 Dutch Code of Civil Procedure.

  7. 7.

    Arts. 87, 88 and 131 Dutch Code of Civil Procedure.

  8. 8.

    Handleiding Regie vanaf de Conclusie van Antwoord, 2008, para. 16, available at: www.rechtspraak.nl (consulted in March 2013).

  9. 9.

    Art. 88 Dutch Code of Civil Procedure.

  10. 10.

    Art. 87 Dutch Code of Civil Procedure.

  11. 11.

    Art. 168 Dutch Code of Civil Procedure.

  12. 12.

    Art. 134 Dutch Code of Civil Procedure.

  13. 13.

    It should be noted that ‘discovery’ is not used here in an Anglo-American legal meaning.

  14. 14.

    See extensively Eshuis 2007.

  15. 15.

    Eshuis 2007, p. 13.

  16. 16.

    Parliamentary Papers 27,181, 27,182, 26,855, 27,748 and 27,824. See Van Mierlo and Bart 2002.

  17. 17.

    See also in this regard Tromp et al. 2006.

  18. 18.

    Civil litigation costs the taxpayer €10 per capita in 1995 and €19 per capita in 2004. See Van Erp 2006, Chapter 5.

  19. 19.

    See Andersson Elffers Felix 2006, available in Dutch at: http://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie/Publicaties-En-Brochures/Documents/5_Bekostiging_doelmatigheid_kwaliteit_rechtspraak.pdf (consulted in March 2013).

  20. 20.

    These are 2002 figures. See Official Journal (Stb.) 2002, 390.

  21. 21.

    Groeneveld and Klijn 2002, para. 1.1.

  22. 22.

    Also see Eshuis 2007, p. 125, on differences between courts in 1994–1996 and 2003. See also Duin et al. 1990, pp. 401–407.

  23. 23.

    Groeneveld and Klijn 2002, para. 1.1.

  24. 24.

    Van der Linden 2008, para. 1.5.

  25. 25.

    Art. 20(1) Dutch Code of Civil Procedure.

  26. 26.

    Parliamentary Papers, Lower House (TK) 1999–2000, 26 855, Nos. 3 and 5.

  27. 27.

    Art. 337 Dutch Code of Civil Procedure.

  28. 28.

    Art. 843a Dutch Code of Civil Procedure.

  29. 29.

    See http://www.internetconsultatie.nl/informatieverschaffing (consulted in March 2013). A legislative proposal is currently being debated in Parliament (Parliamentary Papers, Lower House (TK) 2011/2012, No. 33,079).

  30. 30.

    See, e.g., Court of Cassation, 16 January 1928, W. 11786, NJ 1928, 329.

  31. 31.

    Act of 18 July 1951, Official Journal (Stb.), 302.

  32. 32.

    See, for an overview of this case law, Thoe Schwartzenberg 2011, para. 44. Also see HR 16 December 2011, LJN BU3922 (Cyrte Investments).

  33. 33.

    Official Journal (Stb.) 2010, 221; in force since 1 July 2010.

  34. 34.

    Arts. 1019w-1019cc Dutch Code of Civil Procedure.

  35. 35.

    Van Hooijdonk and Eijsvoogel 2009, pp. 84–87.

  36. 36.

    Parliamentary Papers, Lower House (TK) 2011–2012, No. 33,126.

  37. 37.

    Von Schmidt auf Altenstadt 2010, pp. 73–76.

  38. 38.

    Available in Dutch at: http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-en-publicaties/regelingen/2011/04/04/wetsvoorstel-invoering-van-kostendekkende-griffierechten.html (consulted in March 2012).

  39. 39.

    See pp. 1–2; Available in Dutch at: http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-en-publicaties/regelingen/2011/04/04/memorie-van-toelichting-invoering-van-kostendekkende-griffierechten.html (consulted in March 2013).

  40. 40.

    Available in Dutch at: http://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie/Hoge-Raad/OverDeHogeRaad/publicaties/Documents/Griffierechten.pdf (consulted in March 2013).

  41. 41.

    Verkerk 2005, pp. 281–290.

  42. 42.

    See Van Rhee 2011, pp. 2031–2051.

  43. 43.

    Verkerk 2005, pp. 281–290; Hugenholtz and Heemskerk 2009, Section 5(5).

  44. 44.

    Art. 21 Dutch Code of Civil Procedure.

  45. 45.

    Art. 23 Dutch Code of Civil Procedure.

  46. 46.

    Art. 24 Dutch Code of Civil Procedure.

  47. 47.

    Art. 149(1) Dutch Code of Civil Procedure.

  48. 48.

    Art. 20(1) Dutch Code of Civil Procedure.

  49. 49.

    Art. 133 Dutch Code of Civil Procedure.

  50. 50.

    Art. 22 Dutch Code of Civil Procedure.

  51. 51.

    Art. 25 Dutch Code of Civil Procedure.

  52. 52.

    Asser et al. 2006, Chapter 5.

  53. 53.

    Eshuis 1998, p. 92.

  54. 54.

    Van der Linden 2008, para. 3.7.

  55. 55.

    Eshuis 2007, pp. 214–216.

  56. 56.

    Van Erp et al. 2007, p. 50.

  57. 57.

    Eshuis 2007, Table 41, p. 211.

  58. 58.

    Rechtbanken: afgehandelde civiele en bestuurszaken, 2000–2010, available at: http://www.rechtspraak.nl/Actualiteiten/Persinformatie/Documents/Rechtbanken-%20afgehandelde%20civiele%20en%20bestuurszaken.pdf (consulted in March 2013), and Appelcolleges: afgehandelde zaken, 2000–2010, available at: http://www.rechtspraak.nl/Actualiteiten/Persinformatie/Documents/Appelcolleges-%20afgehandelde%20zaken.pdf (consulted in March 2013). See also Eshuis et al. 2011, Chapter 5.

  59. 59.

    Hoe lang duurde de afhandeling van zaken in de afgelopen jaren?, available at: http://www.rechtspraak.nl/Actualiteiten/Persinformatie/Documents/Rechtspraak-%20doorlooptijden%202005–2010.pdf (consulted in March 2013).

  60. 60.

    Wat kostte de Rechtspraak in de jaren 2000–2010?, available at: http://www.rechtspraak.nl/Actualiteiten/Persinformatie/Documents/Rechtspraak-%20kosten%202000-2010.pdf (consulted in March 2013).

  61. 61.

    Boone et al. 2007, Chapter 5. On the cost efficiency of the justice system, see also Van der Torre et al. 2007.

  62. 62.

    Boone et al. 2007, Chapter 5, p. 172.

  63. 63.

    Rutten-van Deurzen 2010, available online with an English summary at: http://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=113027 (consulted in April 2013).

  64. 64.

    Weimar 2008.

  65. 65.

    Ahsmann 2010, pp. 13–27 and 23.

  66. 66.

    De Bock 2011, p. 240.

  67. 67.

    Asser et al. 2003, 2006.

  68. 68.

    Asser et al. 2003, p. 80, 2006, p. 46.

  69. 69.

    Asser et al. 2006, p. 73: ‘… dat partijen informatieplichten jegens elkaar hebben die verder gaan dan het onderbouwen en bewijzen van de eigen stellingen’.

  70. 70.

    Ibidem, Section 6.5.3.2.

  71. 71.

    Ibidem, p. 74.

  72. 72.

    Ibidem, p. 49: ‘… in dit verband hebben wij afstand genomen van het begrip “partij-autonomie” en geconcludeerd dat dit niet meer als richtinggevend beginsel kan dienen’.

  73. 73.

    Ibidem, Section 7.1.2.

  74. 74.

    Ibidem, p. 46 and Asser et al. 2003, p. 81.

  75. 75.

    Visie op het civiele proces: reactie fundamentele herbezinning burgerlijk procesrecht, available at: http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-en-publicaties/kamerstukken/2007/02/05/reactie-fundamentele-herbezinning-burgerlijk-procesrecht-7026.html (consulted in March 2013), p. 11 et seq.

  76. 76.

    Prisma 2004, 2006. See also Prisma 2002.

  77. 77.

    Klantwaarderingsonderzoek (KWO), available at: http://www.rechtspraak.nl/Actualiteiten/Persinformatie/Documents/Rechtspraak-%20klantwaarderingsonderzoek.pdf (consulted in March 2013).

  78. 78.

    Van der Linden 2010; Eshuis 2009, Section 7.1, Tables 20, 84 and 88, and Verkerk 2010, Chapter 6.2.

  79. 79.

    The court is allowed to order a personal appearance of the parties to obtain further particulars and/or to attempt reconciling them after the statement of defence has been submitted (comparitie na antwoord); research findings suggest that in approximately 70 % of all procedures, courts of first instance will order such a comparitie, though not always exclusively to attempt a settlement. Moreover, there are as yet no set judicial approaches towards reconciliation, though patterns have been charted out through recent research: Van der Linden 2008.

  80. 80.

    Jagtenberg et al. 2009, available at: www.rechtspraak.nl/English/publications (consulted in June 2013).

  81. 81.

    The most recent versions of the NMI in-house rules and models can be consulted online at: www.nmi-mediation.nl/english (consulted in June 2013).

  82. 82.

    Hoge Raad, 10 April 2009, LJN BG9470.

  83. 83.

    Act of 15 November 2012 implementing the EU Mediation Directive, Stbl. 2012/570. This ‘thin’ piece of implementing legislation has been followed, however, by an initiative for a private member Bill (MP Mr. Ard van der Steur) that seeks to regulate mediation, and notably the profession of mediator, in far greater detail. This Bill is currently being discussed in Parliament.

  84. 84.

    All data are based on the CEPEJ report 2010, 2008 data, http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/cepej/evaluation/2010/2010_Netherlands.pdf. (consulted in July 2013), unless stated otherwise

  85. 85.

    Rechtbanken: afgehandelde civiele en bestuurszaken, 2000–2010, available at http://www.rechtspraak.nl/Actualiteiten/Persinformatie/Documents/Rechtbanken-%20afgehandelde%20civiele%20en%20bestuurszaken.pdf (consulted in March 2013). See also Eshuis et al. 2011, Chapter 5.

  86. 86.

    Ibidem.

  87. 87.

    Ibidem.

  88. 88.

    Ibidem.

References

  • Ahsmann MJAM (2010) Bewijs: verschuiving van “bewijzen” naar “stellen’. In: Ahsmann MJAM et al (eds) Bewijs. Boom Juridische uitgevers, Den Haag, pp 13–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Asser WDH, Groen HA, Vranken JBM, (in co-operation with Tzankova IN) (2003) Een nieuwe balans. Interimrapport Fundamentele herbezinning Nederlands burgerlijk procesrecht. Den Haag, Boom Juridische uitgevers

    Google Scholar 

  • Asser WDH, Groen HA, Vranken JBM, (in co-operation with Tzankova IN) (2006) Uitgebalanceerd. Eindrapport Fundamentele herbezinning Nederlands burgerlijk procesrecht. Den Haag, Boom Juridische uitgevers

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellot PF (ed) (1877) Loi sur la procédure civile du canton de Genève avec l’exposé des motifs par feu P.F. Bellot, 4th edn. A. Cherbuliez et Cie/Sandoz et Fischbacher, Geneva/Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Boone M et al (2007) Financieren en verantwoorden. Boom Juridische uitgevers, Den Haag

    Google Scholar 

  • De Bock RH (2011) Tussen waarheid en onzekerheid. Over het vaststellen van feiten in de civiele procedure. Deventer, Kluwer

    Google Scholar 

  • Eshuis RJJ (1998) Een kwestie van tijd, Onderzoek en Beleid 171. WODC, Den Haag

    Google Scholar 

  • Eshuis RJJ (2007) Het recht in betere tijden, Onderzoek en Beleid 254. Boom Juridische uitgevers, Meppel

    Google Scholar 

  • Eshuis RJJ (2009) De daad bij het woord. Het naleven van rechterlijke uitspraken en schikkingsafspraken, Research Memoranda 1. Raad voor de Rechtspraak, Den Haag

    Google Scholar 

  • Eshuis RJJ et al (2011) Rechtspleging civiel en bestuur 2010: ontwikkelingen en samenhangen. Boom Juridische uitgevers, Den Haag

    Google Scholar 

  • Felix AE (2006) Bekostiging, doelmatigheid, kwaliteit rechtspraak. Verslag symposium bekostiging Commissie Deetman. Available at: http://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie/Publicaties-En-Brochures/Documents/5_Bekostiging_doelmatigheid_kwaliteit_rechtspraak.pdf

  • Groeneveld JP, Klijn A (2002) Nieuwe Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering. NIPO, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartogh AFK, Cosman CA (1897) De wet van 7 juli 1896 (Staatsblad Nº 103) tot wijziging van het Wetboek van Burgerlijke Regtsvordering, toegelicht door …. Gebroeders Belinfante, Den Haag

    Google Scholar 

  • Hugenholtz W, Heemskerk WH (2009) Hoofdlijnen van Nederlands Burgerlijk Proces-recht. Elsevier Juridisch, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Jagtenberg R, de Roo R, Pel M, Combrink L. (2009) Customized conflict resolution: court-connected mediation in the Netherlands 1999–2009. Available at: www.rechtspraak.nl/English/publications

  • Jongbloed AW (2005) The Netherlands 1838–2005. In: Van Rhee CH (ed) European traditions in civil procedure. Intersentia, Antwerp, pp 69–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Prisma (2002) Open voor publiek. Klantwaarderingsonderzoek in zes rechtbanken. Prisma, Amersfoort

    Google Scholar 

  • Prisma (2004) Een ogenblik geduld alstublieft … Analyse van klantwaarderingsonderzoeken bij de gerechten, 2001–2004. Prisma, Amersfoort

    Google Scholar 

  • Prisma (2006) De zaken op orde. Klantwaarderingsonderzoek in tien rechtbanken. Prisma, Amersfoort

    Google Scholar 

  • Rutten-van Deurzen WMCJ (2010) Kwaliteit van rechtspleging. Wolf Legal Publishers, Nijmegen

    Google Scholar 

  • Thoe Schwartzenberg HWB (2011) Civiel bewijsrecht voor de rechtspraktijk. Maklu, Apeldoorn

    Google Scholar 

  • Tromp JWM et al (eds) (2006) Concentratie en specialisatie van rechtspraak: noodzaak of overbodig? Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Linden J (2008) Zitten, luisteren en schikken, Research Memoranda 5(4). Raad voor de Rechtspraak, Den Haag

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Linden J (2010) De civiele zitting centraal: informeren, afstemmen en schikken. Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Torre A et al (2007) Rechtspraak: productiviteit in perspectief. SCP/Raad voor de Rechtspraak, Den Haag

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Erp JG (2006) Kwantitatieve ontwikkelingen rechtspraak 2000–2005, WODC Cahier 2006–10. WODC, Den Haag

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Erp JG et al (2007) Geschilprocedures en rechtspraak in cijfers 2005, WODC Cahier 2007–8. WODC, Den Haag

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Hooijdonk M, Eijsvoogel P (2009) Litigation in the Netherlands. Wolters Kluwer, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Mierlo AIM, Bart FM (2002) Parlementaire Geschiedenis Herziening van het Burgerlijk Procesrecht voor Burgerlijke Zaken, in het bijzonder de Wijze van Procederen in Eerste Aanleg. Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Nispen CJJC (1993) De terloopse hercodificatie van ons burgerlijk procesrecht. Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Rhee CH (2005) Introduction. In: Van Rhee CH (ed) European traditions in civil procedure. Intersentia, Antwerp/Oxford, pp 3–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Rhee CH (2011) An unsuccessful attempt to modernise civil procedure in the Netherlands in the early twentieth century. In: Aurea Praxis, Aurea Theoria, FS T. Ereciński. LexisNexis, Warsaw, pp 2031–2051

    Google Scholar 

  • Verkerk RR (2005) Powers of the judge: the Netherlands. In: Van Rhee CH (ed) European traditions in civil procedure. Intersentia, Antwerp/Oxford, pp 281–290

    Google Scholar 

  • Verkerk RR (2010) Fact-finding in civil litigation. Intersentia, Antwerp

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Schmidt auf Altenstadt PJM (2010) Heffing aan de poort. In: Tijdschrift voor Civiele Rechtspleging, pp 73–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Weimar AM (2008) Rechters, Raadsheren en prestatiegerichte bekostiging. In: Trema, pp 384–389

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands

    C. H. (Remco) van Rhee

  2. Houthoff Buruma, Rotterdam, Netherlands

    Remme Verkerk

Authors
  1. C. H. (Remco) van Rhee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Remme Verkerk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. H. (Remco) van Rhee .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    C.H. (Remco) van Rhee

  2. Peking University Law School, Beijing, Hai Dian District, People's Republic of China

    Fu Yulin

Appendix: Facts and Figures Relevant for the Powers of the Judge and the Parties in Civil Litigation

Appendix: Facts and Figures Relevant for the Powers of the Judge and the Parties in Civil Litigation

Netherlands

Year of Reference: 2008

Part I: General Data on the National Civil Justice System

  1. 1.

    Inhabitants, GDP and average gross annual salary

    Number of inhabitants

    16,405,399Footnote 84

    Per capita GDP (gross domestic product)

    €36,322

    Average gross annual salary

    €49,200

  1. 2.

    Total annual budget allocated to all courts   €889,208,000

  2. 3.

    Does the budget of the courts include the following items?

     

    Yes

    Amount

    Annual public budget allocated to salaries

    ☒

    €620,748,000

    Annual public budget allocated to computerisation

    ☒

    €69,185,000

    Annual public budget allocated to court buildings

    ☒

    €104,933,000

    Annual public budget allocated to training and education

    ☒

    €40,535,000

    Annual public budget allocated to legal aid

    ☒

    €419,248,000

    Other (please specify)

    ☒

    €37,251,000

  1. 4.

    Is the budget allocated to the public prosecution included in the court budget?

  • □ Yes

  • ☒ No

  1. (a)

    If yes, give the amount of the annual public budget allocated to the prosecution services

  • Legal Aid (Access to Justice)

  1. 5.

    Annual number of legal aid cases and annual public budget allocated to legal aid

     

    Number

    Amount

    Civil cases

    Other than Criminal: 249,182

    Other than Criminal: €262,204,000

    Other than civil cases

    Criminal cases: 158,054

    Criminal: €157,044,000

    Total of legal aid cases

    407,236

    €419,248,000

  • Organisation of the court system and the public prosecution

  1. 6.

    Judges, non-judge staff and Rechtspfleger

     

    Total number

    Sitting in civil cases

    Professional judges (full time equivalent and permanent posts)

    2,153

    N/A

    Professional judges sitting in courts on an occasional basis and paid as such

    900

    N/A

    Non-professional judges (including lay-judges) who are not remunerated but who can possibly receive a defrayal of costs

    0

    N/A

    Non-judge staff working in the courts (full time equivalent and permanent posts)

    5,129

    N/A

    Rechtspfleger

    0

    0

  • The performance and workload of the courts

  1. 7.

    Total number of civil cases in the courts (litigious and non-litigious): ca. 1,300,000

  1. 8.

    Litigious civil cases and administrative law cases in the courts

     

    Litigious civil cases in general

    Civil cases by category (e.g. small claims, family, etc.)

    Total number of first-instance cases

    Pending cases by 1 January of the year of reference

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    Pending cases by 31 December of the year of reference

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    Incoming cases

    N/A

    Small claims division: 930,000Footnote 85

    Civil/Commercial division: 260,000Footnote 86

    N/A

    Decisions on the merits

    Litigious cases resolved: 230,000

    N/A

    N/A

    N/A

    Non-litigious cases resolved: 943,000

    Average length of first-instance proceedings

    N/A

    Small claims division, undefended cases: 6 weeks

    Commercial division, undefended cases: 6 weeks

    N/A

    Defended cases: 17 weeks.Footnote 87

    Defended cases: 59 weeks.Footnote 88

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

van Rhee, C.H.(., Verkerk, R. (2014). The Netherlands: A No-Nonsense Approach to Civil Procedure Reform. In: van Rhee, C., Yulin, F. (eds) Civil Litigation in China and Europe. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 31. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7666-1_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation