A Comparative Analysis of Pre-Trial Procedure in Europe: The Search for an Ideal Model

EnglishTürkçe

CHAPTER


DOI :10.26650/B/SS26.2020.014.03   IUP :10.26650/B/SS26.2020.014.03    Full Text (PDF)

The Dutch Pre-trial Procedure

Dave Van Toor

This chapter focuses on the Dutch pre-trial model, and explains the characteristics of the Dutch pre-trial phase. Succesively, the following topics are described: (i) the aim of the pre-trial phase under national law; (ii) which State organs perform which function in the system; (iii) the structure and use of investigatory methods in this phase; (iv) the role of the case-file in the Dutch preliminary proceedings and the trial and; (v) the major rights the suspect can exercise during the pre-trial phase. A lot of attention is given to point (iv) because the case-file fulfills a predominant role in the Dutch pre-trial procedure, and this is a fundamental character of the system that differs from many other criminal procedural systems. The public prosecutor is responsible for putting together the case-file, but the Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure obliges him to only submit findings which could reasonably be relevant to the decisions to be taken by the court. From his point of view – and keep in mind that Dutch public prosecutors only prosecute a case when a conviction is feasible and appropriate –, only incriminating evidence is relevant, and therefore the casefile is unbalanced in Dutch cases. After receiving the case-file in the weeks before the trial, trial judges prepare the trial on the basis of the (unbalanced) case-file. This practice has probably an (huge) psychological impact on judicial decision-making.


Keywords: Dutch pre-trial procedure, principle of immediacy, case-file

References

  • Literature google scholar
  • Matthias Borgers, ‘Processtukken’, 2014 DD 1. google scholar
  • Henk van de Bunt & Jean-Louis van Gelder, ‘The Dutch Prosecution Service’, 2012 Crime and Justice 1, 117-140. google scholar
  • Tineke Cleiren, De openheid van de wet, de geslotenheid van het recht, (Gouda Quint 1992). google scholar
  • Geert Corstens, ’25 years of criminal procedure in the Netherlands’, in Marc Groenhuijsen & Tijs Kooijmans,The Reform of the Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure in Comparative Perspective, (Leiden 2012), 3-8. google scholar
  • Geert Corsters, Matthias Borgers & Tijs Kooijmans, Het Nederlandse strafprocesrecht (Kluwer 2018). google scholar
  • Jan Crijns, Bas Leeuw & Hilde Wermink, Pre-trial detention in the Netherlands: legal principles versus practical reality, (Leiden University 2016). google scholar
  • Nina Holvast, In the Shadow of the Judge: The Involvement of Judicial Assistants in Dutch District Courts (Eleven International Publishing 2017). google scholar
  • Marc S. Groenhuijsen & Hatice Selçuk, ‘The Principle of Immediacy in Dutch Criminal Procedure in the Perspective of European Human Rights Law’, 2014 ZSTW 126. google scholar
  • Petra van Kampen & David Hein, ‘Strijd om stukken: de Wet processtukken’, 2013 NJB 2, 73. google scholar
  • Piet Hein van Kempen, Maartje Krabbe & Sven Brinkhoff (eds.), The Criminal Justice System of the Netherlands (Intersentia 2019). google scholar
  • Irene van Oorschot, Ways of Case-Making (Ipskamp 2018). google scholar
  • Dave van Toor, ‘Vooringenomen rechter? Voorbereiding als gevaar voor de waarheidsvinding in strafzaken’, [2007] 3 Expertise en Recht 85-92. google scholar
  • Dave van Toor, ‘Het dossier als fundament voor de rechterlijke beslissing’, [2018] Platform Modernisering Wetboek van Strafvordering 10. google scholar
  • Pieter Verrest, Raison d’être. Een onderzoek naar de rol van de rechter-commissaris in ons strafproces (Kluwer 2011). google scholar
  • Case law google scholar
  • ECtHR 17 December 1996, ECLI:CE:ECHR:1996:1217JUD001918791 (Saunders v. the United Kingdom). google scholar
  • ECtHR 27 November 2008, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2008:1127JUD003639102 (Salduz v. Turkey). google scholar
  • HR 20 December 1926, NJ 1927. google scholar
  • HR 18 October 1983, NJ 1984, 97. google scholar
  • HR 29 October 1996, NJ 1997, 232 google scholar
  • HR 19 September 2006, ECLI:NL:HR:2006:AV1141. google scholar
  • HR 5 October 2010, ECLI:NL:HR:2010:BL5629. google scholar
  • HR 1 July 2014, ECLI:NL:HR:2014:1562. google scholar
  • HR 6 November 2018, ECLI:NL:HR:2018:2050. google scholar


SHARE




Istanbul University Press aims to contribute to the dissemination of ever growing scientific knowledge through publication of high quality scientific journals and books in accordance with the international publishing standards and ethics. Istanbul University Press follows an open access, non-commercial, scholarly publishing.