Share it
We were intrigued by the commentary on the Dutch legal blog, “Publiekrecht en politiek” blog – on a UKSC Blog post by Conor Gearty. We have now had the translation from our Amsterdam correspondent, Dr M, which is set out below along with the original Dutch. The blog from which it is taken – “Publiekrech en politiek”, law and public policy – is devoted to legal comment on political events.
Our English translation makes clear that issues about the power to be exercised by supreme courts is a live issue in Holland as well in the UK. In order to make the position a little clearer (we hope) we should say that De Hoge Raad (pictured right) is the Supreme Court of the Netherlands – its website can be found here. We look forward to further insight into the Dutch legal system from Amsterdam.
‘Arrive at a US system by stealth’
De start van een nieuw Supreme Court of the United Kingdom leverde ook de start op van een nieuw Supreme Court of the United Kingdomblog. Vooralsnog ziet die er net iets minder gelikt uit dan zijn Amerikaanse tegenhanger, maar de inhoud is zeer interessant.
The opening of a new UKSC also produced the opening of a SCUK blog. Thus far it’s not quite as fancy as its American counterpart, but the content is very interesting.
Zo filosofeerde Conor Gearty er onlangs over de vraag of nieuwe rechters zich in een nieuw pand ook een nieuwe constitutionele rol aanmeten.
For example, Conor Gearty recently philosophized there about whether the new judges in their new building will also take on a new constitutional role.
Organisations draw strength from where they are as much as from what they are empowered to do. In the United States, the era of judicial activism (of first a reactionary and then a progressive nature) coincided with the decision to build and then the move in 1935 into what the Oxford Companion to the US Court describes as ‘a grandiose temple of white marble, with a central portico and matching wings’. Such a workplace seemed positively to demand case-law commensurate to its greatness. Perhaps the grandiloquently mock Gothic Middlesex Guildhall will have the same effect?
Strikt genomen heeft [de] het Supreme Court of the United Kingdom namelijk de ruimte om het constitutioneel toetsingsrecht langzaam te gaan invoeren. De Sovereignty of Parliament is uiteindelijk een construct van Common Law en kan dus ook als zodanig worden aangepast. In het verleden is daar door sommige Law Lords al theoretische munitie voor aangedragen. Niet iedereen achtte het ondenkbaar dat op enig moment zulke fundament[al]e constitutionele waarden in het geding zouden komen, dat de rechter zich de bescherming ervan zou aantrekken, ook tegen de wetgever.
Formally UKSC does indeed have the space to slowly introduce constitutional tests. The ‘Sovereignty of Parliament’ is ultimately a common-law construct, and as such can be modified. Some Law Lords have already provided theoretical ammunition for such a development. Not everyone considered it unthinkable that at some point basic constitutional principles might come into play, and that judges might apply these, even to the legislature.
Zo is er een nieuw element in de studie van de rol van de rechter ontstaan: het verband tussen de behuizing, het zelfvertrouwen en de constitutionele bevoegdheden die een rechter zich aantrekt. Leggen we dit element naast de geschiedenis van de huisvesting van de Hoge Raad dan valt op dat ze heel negatief doen over de periode tot 1988 (‘bedompt’, ‘hondenhok’) maar dat ze sindsdien gehuisvest zijn in een ‘prachtige stadspaleisje’. Maar is dat niet ook ongeveer het moment waarop de Hoge Raad tot ergernis van Kortmann over zijn ‘rechtsvormende taak’ is begonnen? Wie weet komt de Hoge Raad bij de volgende verbouwing (ideetje daarvoor staat op het plaatje) terug op het Harmonisatiewetarrest. Mocht het wetsvoorstel Halsema falen, dan starten we hier de inzameling.
Here we have a new dimension in studying the role of judges: the relation between the physical theatre [‘housing’] of their activity and the authority [‘self-confidence’] and constitutional role they assume. Applying this consideration to the history of location of De Hoge Raad, it’s striking how badly they were served until 1988 (‘cramped’, ‘dog-kennel’), when they moved to a ‘beautiful town-palace’. But wasn’t that roughly the point at which the Hoge Raad, to Kortmann’s [Note 1] dismay, set off on their ‘lawmaking function’? Perhaps with their next move (one possibility in the accompanying photo [Note 2]) they’ll get round to the *Harmonisatiewetarrest” [Harmonization Law Decree] [Note 3]. If *Halsema’s bill fails, we’ll start the fundraising [sc: for the new building] here.
Note 1: Constantijn A.J.M. Kortmann – a leading Dutch Constitutional Lawyer
Note 2: A photograph of a palace
Note 3 Harmonisatiewetarrest (1989): A self-denying ordinance by the Hoge Raad, saying judges could not test laws againsts the constitution:http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonisatiewetarrest (Dutch)
Note 3: Femke Halsema, leader of the Dutch Green Left party, sponsoring a bill for constitutional review by the courts.
1 comment