Deadlock in digitisation Dutch judiciary
Jos Hoevenaars was interviewed for the Dutch magazine for the legal profession ‘Het Advocatenblad’ about his insight into the experiences of lawyers who find themselves litigating before the European Court of Justice after their case is referred though a reference for a preliminary ruling. In the interview (freely translated: ‘Court of Justice? Experience Needed!’) he discusses his empirical research among Dutch lawyers and paints a picture of generally overwhelmed professionals scrambling for assistance among EU law scholars, while making the best of their opportunity to plead before the ECJ, often in opposition to a group of well-trained EU law experts appearing on behalf of intervening Member States. His work on the reference procedure highlight the inequality in representation before the ECJ and its potential negative impact on the Court’s caselaw and its national consequences.
Published: April 25, 2018
A few weeks ago, alarming messages appeared in the Dutch media, stating that the digitisation of justice project in the Netherlands had failed, and that the project would be discontinued. Concerns about the QAI digitisation project have been in evidence over a longer period, mainly regarding delays in the implementation and the costs. The Minister of Legal Protection adjusted the decision of the Council for the Judiciary to reset QAI, stating that the QAI was frozen. Further discussions with the Council to ensure that certain basic safeguards are in place have to be awaited. In this blogpost, Emma van Gelder and Xandra Kramer highlight key issues underlying what seems to be a crisis in the digitisation of justice in the Netherlands, and discuss the way forward.