About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

10 IJCA [i] (2019)

handle is hein.journals/ijca10 and id is 1 raw text is: 



In this Issue:'

From   the Executive   Editor.

Financing   the  Judiciary  in the
Netherlands: between work overload
in the courts  and  government control
of the Judicial  Budget.
By Philip Langbroek

Professional   Articles:

Ten  Questions for   Dory   Reiling -
Developing IT for Courts
(Interviewed by Professor Anne Wallace)
.........................1
Judges   and  Courts   Respond to
Opioid   Litigation Engulfing   U.S.
Court  Systems
Markus B. Zimmer, Executive Editor
...............                  .......... 5

Academic Articles
Italian Perspectives on the Judiciary
By Giuseppe Franco Ferrari
.............             ..... ......... 13
Funding   the  Judiciary:  How
Budgeting System Shapes Justice.
A  Comparative Analysis of Three
Case   Studies.
By Federica Viapiana
.............             ..... ......... 23
An  Examination of How District
Attorneys   Perceive   Justice
Jackie Chavez, PhD
.............             ..... ......... 35
Effective  Court  Administration
and  Professionalism of Judges as
Necessary Factors Safeguarding the
Mother   of Justice  - The  Right  to a
Fair Trial
By Mindaugas Simonis
.............             ..... ......... 47
What   Judges   Think  About   the
Meaning of Their Work
Ricardo Augusto Ferreira e Silva,
Tomas  de Aquino Guimaraes,
Marcos de Moraes Sousa
.............             ..... ......... 59
Organizational and Process
Improvements of Investment
Processes Administered by Courts in
the  Czech  Republic
Viktora Martin, Spa6ek Miroslav
.............             ..... ......... 67


Volume 10, Issue 1, Winter 2019
ISSN 2156-7964
URL  http://www.iacajournal.org
Cite this as: DO: 10. 1 8352/IJCA.292
Copyright:


From the Managing Editor:

Financing   the Judiciary  in the Netherlands:  between  work  overload
in the courts and government control ofthe Judicial Budget.
By Philip Langbroek, Managing Editor

In terms of legal regulations, the Netherlands has a well-balanced but complicated
system for financing the judicial functions of government. Judicial appropriations are
determined by the collective production of the ordinary courts, the Central Appeal
Board, and the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal. Different formula rates are
applied to each jurisdiction. For example, Plural Judge Panel cases deliver far
more  money than cases that are decided by a single judge. Below, I argue why,
from a constitutional perspective, the appropriations process for funding the Dutch
judiciary has undesirable consequences for the functioning of judges and courts.
Those consequences flow from the manner in which the appropriations process has
been developed and applied in practice by these players: the Ministry of Justice
and Security, the Council for the Judiciary, the courts administration and the judges
themselves. The financing system essentially functions as a business model rather
than as a judicial and court-services model based on the effective administration of
justice. It is striking that the judicial organization is treated by the government and
parliament as any other government department.

For the judicial organization, the production of the previous year determines budgets
for the succeeding year. In the ministerial appropriations process, court production
projections for the coming year drive budgetary allocations. For more work than
planned, the judicial organization gets 70% of the amount set per case; 30% will be
reduced for work levels that do not meet projections. This system also applies in
the relationship between the Council for the Judiciary and the courts, as set forth in
the Decree on Financing of the Courts, an Order in Council based on the Judicial
Organization Act. The production of the courts is measured in minutes of working
time. By type of case (for example, criminal case, plural judge panel, administrative
law, provisional injunction; family case, etc., together 70 categories), surveys on
time spent per category are carried out every few years. In this way, the average
amount of minutes spent on a specific case type is determined. And the Minister of
Justice determines the compensation per minute once every three years. Within
this system, the more cases the courts dispose of, the more money they receive the
following year. However, the total amount of money cannot grow larger than the total
budget for the judiciary as it has been allocated by the budget bill as it was approved
of by Parliament.

The inventors of this system had also anticipated that this business model might
yield some perverse incentives. That is why they proposed that the Council for the
Judiciary and the court boards should monitor the quality of the court work. This
involves measures such as consistency of judicial decision-making, timeliness,
impartiality, permanent education, and so on. A separate system was devised for this
quality control originally known as RechtspraaQ (JudiQuiary), a term no longer in
use. The intention was that the results of the measurement system would be factored
into the budget negotiations between the Council for the Judiciary and the Minister
of Justice. With an annual budget of one billion Euro's and 1.9 million lawsuits, an
average court case yields about 525 Euros. These cases are handled by some
9,000 FTE staff, of which some 2,300 FTE are judges; the rest comprise legal and
administrative support staff.

There are two major problems in this system. In the first place, the budget for the
judiciary is determined by parliament as part of the Ministry of Justice and Security's
budget, on the proposal prepared and submitted by the Minister of Justice. This is
bound to the budget agreements in the Cabinet, based on the Government Accounts
Act and the European Semester (an European Union oversight mechanism for Euro
member  states). So the Minister of Finance has a big finger in that porridge. That

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing nearly 3,000 academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most