The Human Rights Institute is “of the opinion that the state has discriminated against women on the grounds of gender”, the opinion states that was published this Thursday. That woman is criminal judge Marlies Spooren. When she became a trainee judge in 2019, she earned 2,000 euros gross per month less than male colleagues. An extreme case, but definitely not the only one. Last March, she, together with two other female judges and all female judges, stood before the Board, an independent body that monitors compliance with human rights in the Netherlands, to address the judicial pay gap. With success.
“We as judges do equal work and that is why we should be rewarded equally,” Spooren says by telephone. “That is important in society anyway, but it is extra important with judges. We must administer justice independently. We are the third state power.” The European Commission for Democracy through Law has indicated that the salaries of judges must be transparent. “Then you cannot distinguish between men and women.”
Judge Marlies Spooren
Photo private archive
The inequality in pay between men and women in the judiciary (quite apart from the inequality that anyway exists between men and women, the pay gap in general will still be 10.5 to 13 percent per hour in 2025) has its origins in 1994. That year, a system comes into effect whereby judges in training receive a salary that is based on their last earned salary. Because, the idea is, people can earn much more in business than if they work as a judge. And how else do we entice them to become judges? The effect turned out to be unruly.
She hands in a salary
Spooren studies law and philosophy at the University of Amsterdam. After graduating, she worked as a senior criminal justice secretary, first at the Den Bosch Court of Appeal and then in Amsterdam, but she soon knew that she wanted to work in the judiciary. “The condition for being allowed to take the training is ‘outside experience’ in the legal profession. For that reason, I first switched to a criminal lawyer, the social legal profession.” She gives up a significant salary for that outdoor experience. That salary will then be taken as the basis for her salary as a trainee judge in 2019.
During a conversation with fellow students at the course, the subject of salary comes up. “That’s how I discovered that the differences are very big. It took me a while to realize how strange that difference is.” Women are more likely to have social professions, she says. “That often comes with a different salary tag.” It is very different with men. A large number of those who want to enter the judiciary come from commercial offices, have been consultants or corporate lawyers. “It pays differently.”
In practice, this means that male judges earn between 3.5 and 10 percent more than women. Since 2018, female – and a few male – judges have been protesting against that system. This led to a new system coming into effect on July 1, 2023, in which judges are classified based on “unweighted work experience”.
But this new arrangement does not affect women who previously worked as judges. They receive no compensation for the underpaid years. That means, said judge Linde Dolfing against RTLthat “thousands of women go to work every day, even today, knowing they are paid less than the man sitting next to them.”
At the end of January 2026, the outgoing Minister of Justice and Security, at that time Foort van Oosten (VVD), will present a proposal to allocate five million euros for a compensation scheme for judges and officers trained between 2015 and 2023. “It is good to hear that the subject is on the political agenda,” says Spooren. But that’s not the end of the discussion.
Because, a colleague of Spooren calculated, that five million would mean that the disadvantaged women would receive an extra monthly salary. “Female judges must be financially compensated. If you look at my situation, it is clear that that amount does not get you very far.”
State: ‘no structural inequality’
During the hearing at the Human Rights Council in March 2025 – long before the idea of the compensation scheme – the state indicated that they see “no structural inequality” in the judiciary, but that they of course “do not deny the subjective experience of the female judges”. That hurts, says Spooren. “I am so proud of the work we do in the judiciary. It is sad that the state then makes such a statement.”
The state has made prohibited discrimination against women on the grounds of gender
The Board therefore disagrees with this and has ruled that it is not a subjective experience. The three female judges have ruled in their favor on almost every point. Women who trained as judges until 2023 have indeed been discriminated against. “The state has made unlawful discrimination against women on the grounds of gender.”
A decision by the Board is not binding and says nothing about whether compensation should be provided. “But it is certainly a good first step.” The defendants, the Minister of Justice and the Council for the Judiciary, have until mid-April to respond and indicate whether they want to take appropriate measures, Spooren says. “That is not mandatory, but I understand that they are thinking about it. It remains to be seen whether they will do that and whether it will be sufficient.”
Then there is the option to start civil proceedings and go to court. But that’s getting ahead of ourselves. She hopes that the Council for the Judiciary will take it seriously and set a good example. “I have done this for female judges and all women and minorities who experience pay discrimination. Things must be better in the future.”
Also read
Dutch women’s emancipation is stalling, with a global wait of at least 134 years for gender equality
