This article discusses the roles fulfilled by Dutch court clerks within problem-solving administrative justice. Furthermore, it describes how clerk and judge work together on cases and how much influence the clerk has on the procedure and/or the outcome. It has become clear that the clerk’s contribution to conflict- and problem-solving is not insignificant but rather influential, and that intensive collaboration with the judge takes place from behind the scenes.

Article 12 of the Dutch Criminal Code of Procedure allows citizens to complain against non-prosecution. Originally, this procedure had been intended as a correction mechanism against the monopoly position of the Public Prosecution Service and its discretionary power. Later, the private interests of complainants became more central, so that the procedure gained an important societal function. This paper examines a new societal function of the complaint procedure in socially sensitive cases. Through interviews with complainants and their lawyers in four case studies – the Wilders-case, the Martijn-case, the Libor-case and the case Henriquez – it argues that a new democratic function of the article 12 Sv procedure emerges from within a traditionally liberal criminal justice system.

The childcare benefits scandal in the Netherlands has led to numerous initiatives, including strengthening the Safeguard Function of the Administrative Law Act. One notable aspect of this law is the requirement to include informal resolution of in the appeal procedure, which is based on the concept of psychological procedural justice (PPJ). This theory inspired the project ‘Pleasant Contact with the Government’ (PCMO). While there is nothing wrong with a friendly demeanor, embedding this in law is risky because the justification used by the legislators is scientifically unfounded.
In this article, the author refers to this informality as ‘informalism’: an overly extreme and irresponsible belief in the informal approach, lacking the counterbalance of rule-of-law values. Due to enthusiasm, no research was conducted on the potential side effects and problems of the informal approach, despite their prevalence and explicit warnings to the government. These side effects include unintended arbitrariness and potential integrity issues, which have been extensively studied in sociology of law, public administration, and forensic science. At the end, an alternative is suggested: revaluing quality and objective law.