External complaint cases

The inflow of complaints is increasing. In 2024, the Procurator General received 136 complaints. By comparison, 121 complaints were filed in 2023, 108 in 2022 and 106 in 2021.

All but sixteen of the 136 complaints were settled in 2024. Eleven of those were settled at the start of 2025. In addition, another nine complaints from 2023 were settled in 2024.

Complaint categories

Complaints regarding a judicial decision

As in recent years, a large share of the complaints handled in 2024 concerned a judicial decision. In 73 of the complaint cases settled in the reporting period it was argued, among other things, that the complainant did not agree with a judicial decision.

The term "judicial decision" does not pertain solely to the final decision in a case. Other types of decisions by a court cannot be complained about in the complaints regulation either. This also applies to complaints about members of the Bailiffs Division. One such complaint was that the Bailiffs Division refused to handle the complainant's notice of objection and that the complainant had been informed that she could lodge an appeal with the Court of Appeal. The deputy Procurator General wrote that the complaint regarded a procedural decision. This means that the complaint was directed against a judicial decision. The (deputy) Procurator General therefore cannot take up the complaint.

Another complaint related to a finding in a decision of the Preliminary Relief Court to the effect that there were insufficient grounds for an order to pay the costs of proceedings at that time. Citing this finding, one party to the proceedings complained that they felt demonised by the court and effectively publicly shamed. The Procurator General notes that the complaint concerns the substance of a court decision. Such complaints are excluded from the statutory complaints regulation.

The same happened with a complaint  entailing that the court had dismissed a complainant's challenge request by copying another, earlier decision on a challenge request, except for the case details and a few sentences. The deputy Procurator General noted that the complaint concerns the manner in which a court decision was structured. Thus, the complaint concerns a judicial decision, which means that it cannot be handled by the Procurator General at the Supreme Court. The court that must assess (in this case) a challenge request is free to decide how this decision is recorded in writing. The deputy Procurator General notes in general terms that it is possible to structure certain types of decisions according to a certain pattern, such as one that first outlines the legal framework and then goes into the details of the case to be assessed.

One case involved a complaint about decisions allegedly rendered in the context of a request for a pardon by the justices who had rendered the judgment imposing the sentence or non-punitive order for which a pardon has now been requested. The deputy Procurator General held that this complaint is related to the statutory input of the court that imposed the sentence or non-punitive order to which the request for a pardon pertained. The court that imposed the sentence or non-punitive order is free to independently determine the purport of this opinion to the Minister. Based on a reasonable interpretation of the law, the opinion must be equated with a court decision as referred to in Article 13a(1) of the Judiciary Organisation Act. This is, after all, a substantive opinion of the court on an issue that affects the convicted person to whom the request for a pardon retains and in respect of which the law requires the court to issue an opinion. The right to complain is not intended to bring up court decisions for discussion or to have them reassessed.

Complaints about a judge's behaviour

If no court decision is involved, it is possible to file a complaint about how a judge behaved towards the complainant. The issue is whether the judge behaved properly in the matter to which the complaint relates.

The following situation is an example. The complainant had complained to the District Court's administration about the judge who had handled a case of his. During the hearing, the judge allegedly asked the complainant, referring to the defendant, if he was afraid to appeal to the courts. The court administration had written to the complainant that enquiries had been made with the relevant judge. The latter had stated that she could not remember asking the complainant if he was afraid. The court clerk could not recall such a question either. The court record of the hearing did not show that such a question had been asked. The court administration deemed the complaint ill-founded. The Procurator General referred to the investigation conducted, from which no evidence emerged that such a question had been asked. The Procurator General was of the opinion that the complaint was handled diligently and did not find the assessment of the complaint to be incorrect. The Procurator General notified the complainant that he would not file a claim for an investigation because the complainant did not have sufficient interest in doing so.

Another case involved a complaint about a comment in the letter from the court administration in response to a complaint the complainant had about a subdistrict court judge. It concerned the last sentence of the following passage in the court administration's letter: "I can, however, inform you that when handling such requests, the subdistrict court judge must carefully weigh the property-law interests (in the context of the administration) and the non-property-law interests (in the context of mentorship). In doing so, the chairman of the Subdistrict team informs that you, or at least the family (...), could have already started providing what you consider to be the required care pending a decision by the subdistrict court judge on the possible financial compensation." The deputy Procurator General held that he interpreted this passage to mean that the administration had wanted to inform the complainant in a general sense about the considerations a subdistrict court judge has to make in certain cases. The comment that is the subject of the complaint means that the decision of the subdistrict court judge was not a condition for the exercise of the required care. The deputy Procurator General noted that he could imagine that the complainant had found the way that sentence was worded unpleasant, but assumes that it was meant to be purely informative. While he finds the comment unfortunate, he does not consider the tone as being presumptuous or otherwise inappropriate. Accordingly, the deputy Procurator General is of the opinion that the administration has handled the complaint in a diligent manner and that the complainant does not have sufficient interest in an investigation by the Supreme Court.

In one case, the complainant felt the judge had treated her unkindly. The judge had looked at her in a "catty" way and had shown "hostile" behaviour towards her. The court administration had written to the complainant that a judge must have enough leeway in their formulations at the hearing to allow them to put forward what is considered relevant to the assessment and resolution of the dispute at hand. After all, that is one of the most important duties of a judge, and it may cause judges to ask critical follow-up questions. The Procurator General wrote that insofar as the complainant complained about the way the judge had behaved towards her, this had all been investigated by the court administration. In doing so, the court administration consulted the key sources. The conclusion was that it had not become sufficiently plausible that the judge had behaved towards the complainant in a discourteous manner. The Procurator General found that the complaint had been handled diligently and that the assessment of the complaint had not been incorrect. The Procurator General cannot find any grounds for further investigation in the general wording of the complainant's complaint about the judge's behaviour. Therefore, the Procurator General finds that the complainant does not have sufficient interest in an investigation by the Supreme Court regarding her complaint.

Other complaints

One case involved a complaint about the handling of a complainant's complaint by the court administration. The complainant had filed a complaint against the subdistrict court judge because they had rejected his request for the preliminary relief proceedings to take place in writing. The complainant had perceived this rejection as discrimination on grounds of disability/chronic illness. The court administration pointed out that the law requires preliminary relief proceedings to be oral. In addition, the court administration wrote that it understood that the complainant himself had chosen to institute the preliminary relief proceedings and was thus bound by due process of law. The complainant could also have chosen to authorise someone to come to the hearing in the preliminary relief proceedings in his place. The court administration held that there was no discrimination of any kind. The deputy Procurator General was of the opinion that the complaint had been handled diligently by the court administration and found the assessment of the complaint to be correct. Therefore, his conclusion is that the complainant does not have sufficient interest in an investigation by the Supreme Court.

Claim

In the reporting period, the Procurator General submitted a claim with the Supreme Court for conducting a further investigation into the conduct of a judge. The claim concerned the question of law on whether a complaint about the failure to publish a court decision (on time) in a tax case in which the applicant is a party to the proceedings or in which the applicant cannot be regarded as a party to the proceedings but has a legally respectable interest in publication, falls within the scope of the complaints regulation as referred to in Articles 13a to 13g of the Judiciary Organisation Act (claim of 12 July 2024, ECLI:NL:PHR:2024:976). The Procurator General arrives at the opinion that the complaint relates to a judicial decision and therefore cannot be substantively examined in the context of Article 13a of the Judiciary Organisation Act. The Supreme Court followed this advisory opinion (ECLI:NL:HR:2024:1549).