|
Reseña:
|
Reseña:Judicial independence is generally seen as a fundamental value of the rule of law. Likewise, in the Dutch constitutional order, independence of the judiciary is regarded as an essential principle. In the Dutch Constitution, however, which dates from 1814 and was substantially revised for the last time in 1983, independence of the judiciary is not explicitly mentioned. The Constitution deals with the judiciary and its organization, but in this context does not explicitly mention judicial independence as an organizational principle to be respected in the arrangements for the judicial system – and therefore does not mention it as a fundamental right for citizens. The guarantees for the independence of the judiciary are to be found in statute law, in particular in the Judiciary Organization Act (Wet op de rechterlijke organisatie) and the Judicial Officers (Legal Status) Act (Wet rechtspositie rechterlijke ambtenaren). These guarantees are also partly based on European norms. The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 (ECHR), in particular, has been highly influential regarding both the theory and practice of judicial independence. In addition, guarantees may be found in unwritten constitutional law. All in all, it can be said that the Dutch constitutional order considers the independence of the judiciary to be a central principle. This is true both for the judicial system as a whole in relation to other branches of government, and for the individual members in relation to the judicial system, in particular in relation to the judicial body within which they function. The extent to which the independence ofindividual judges or courts also applies to their relations with other judges or courts will be discussed further on in this article.In every list of the characteristics of the rule of law, there is at least some mention of the independence of the judiciary. The right of access to a court is generally also mentioned as an essential characteristic. In this context, there is an assumption that adequate dispute settlement can best be carried out by courts, and not by administrative bodies. The ECHR gives expression to this idea in Article 6. For the determination of civil rights and obligations, and for judgment on a criminal charge brought against someone, the ECHR requires – and grants a right to – a judgment by an independent and impartial judicial authority. Similarly, the legal protection of citizens against the government should preferably be carried out by independent courts and not by administrative authorities. Precisely because of this independent position, judicial dispute settlement – and the review of government actions and rules inherent therein – is to be preferred over forms of control by administrative bodies. From the point of view of protection of citizens’ rights, in particular the fundamental rights mentioned in treaties and in the Constitution, adjudication and settlement of disputes by the independent judiciary is preferable.Judicial independence has a number of aspects, some relating to the organization of the judiciary and some relating to the legal position of members of the judiciary. Different views exist regarding the relationship between these aspects. Some characteristics of the legal position of judicial officers can be considered essential for the independence of the judiciary, while there are differences of opinion regarding other characteristics. These issues will be discussed in the present report. In the course of this discussion, we will first examine the constitutional framework of judicial independence. Subsequently, some of the most important statutory provisions for the independence of the judiciary will be addressed.individual judges or courts also applies to their relations with other judges or courts will be discussed further on in this article.In every list of the characteristics of the rule of law, there is at least some mention of the independence of the judiciary. The right of access to a court is generally also mentioned as an essential characteristic. In this context, there is an assumption that adequate dispute settlement can best be carried out by courts, and not by administrative bodies. The ECHR gives expression to this idea in Article 6. For the determination of civil rights and obligations, and for judgment on a criminal charge brought against someone, the ECHR requires – and grants a right to – a judgment by an independent and impartial judicial authority. Similarly, the legal protection of citizens against the government should preferably be carried out by independent courts and not by administrative authorities. Precisely because of this independent position, judicial dispute settlement – and the review of government actions and rules inherent therein – is to be preferred over forms of control by administrative bodies. From the point of view of protection of citizens’ rights, in particular the fundamental rights mentioned in treaties and in the Constitution, adjudication and settlement of disputes by the independent judiciary is preferable.Judicial independence has a number of aspects, some relating to the organization of the judiciary and some relating to the legal position of members of the judiciary. Different views exist regarding the relationship between these aspects. Some characteristics of the legal position of judicial officers can be considered essential for the independence of the judiciary, while there are differences of opinion regarding other characteristics. These issues will be discussed in the present report. In the course of this discussion, we will first examine the constitutional framework of judicial independence. Subsequently, some of the most important statutory provisions for the independence of the judiciary will be addressed. |
