Internal complaint cases

Reporting period

In 2023, the President handled four complaints pursuant to the complaints regulation.

The first complaint concerned the actions of an employee of the administrative department of the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division. The complainant wrote that the employee refused to tell him which members of the Supreme Court would pass judgment on his appeal in cassation.
This complaint was found justified. Pursuant to the Protocol on Participation in the Handling and Deliberations of the Supreme Court of the Netherlands, the complainant was allowed to request a statement of the names of the members charged with handling his case. If the manner in which the complainant made the request was incorrect, then the complainant should have been informed of this and of the proper manner to make such request. If the manner in which the request was made was correct, then the requested information should have been provided to the complainant.

The second complaint was directed against an employee of the Registry of the Supreme Court. The complainant had submitted a missing page in addition to a notice of appeal in cassation he had filed earlier. The employee subsequently informed him that the addition had been designated as additional substantiation and had been received after the appeal period had expired. The complainant disagreed. As this complaint pertained to a pending judicial decision, the complaint was not heard further.

The third case concerned a complainant who wrote various messages to the President and the acting clerk and repeatedly used the replies to his messages as an excuse to submit a complaint against whoever devoted attention to his messages. In compliance with Article 7.2 of the complaints regulation, these complaints were not heard because the weight of the conduct complained of – devoting attention to and answering the complainant’s messages – was clearly insufficient.

The fourth complaint pertained to a letter from an acting clerk. In this letter, the complainant was informed on behalf of the chairman of the Tax Division about a decision of the Tax Division on the complainant’s application for review. This complaint pertained to a judicial decision. The complaint was declared to be manifestly ill-founded.

Other correspondence

The Supreme Court and the President of the Supreme Court also received letters and e-mails covering a wide range of topics in 2023. For example, some complained to the Supreme Court or the President because they were displeased about a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court or decisions rendered by other judicial bodies. Complaints were also received about a decision or a response from the Procurator General at the Supreme Court in the context of one of his special duties. These letters and e-mails do not fall within the scope of the complaints regulation and are generally answered by the clerk of the Supreme Court to that effect.

Others drew the attention of the Supreme Court and/or the President to more general societal issues and their dissatisfaction with those issues, or to their own personal problems and issues. The clerk of the Supreme Court also handles this correspondence. In most cases, there was nothing the Supreme Court and/or the President could do for these individuals. Where possible, they were referred to other authorities or sources of legal assistance.

In 2023, a statement was posted on the Supreme Court’s website (on the page: Contact en bezoek) in response to the circumstance that some people are sending forms to the Supreme Court to inform it that they wish to decide for themselves whether to accept obligations to the government. As these documents are not sent in connection with cases pending before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court cannot do anything with these documents. It is administratively impossible to inform the senders of this individually. These documents will not be considered or responded to.