News item | 01-07-2022 | 20:12
Today, Minister Bruins Slot (BZK) and Minister Weerwind (Legal Protection), also on behalf of the Minister of Justice and Security, sent the outline letter about constitutional review to the House of Representatives and the Senate. Taking up the constitutional review is an important point in the Coalition Agreement. On the basis of this outline letter, the ministers want to enter into a debate with both Houses about constitutional review.
Minister Hanke Bruins Slot: “Fundamental rights are essential for our democratic legal order. The fundamental rights from our Constitution deserve a stronger impact in order to strengthen the position of citizens vis-à-vis the government”.
Minister Weerwind: “We want to guarantee this optimally with the constitutional review by the courts”.
Constitutional review by the court means that when applying laws, it is checked whether they do not conflict with the Constitution. Constitutional review by the courts already exists in some countries (such as the US, Germany and Finland), but the Dutch Constitution prohibits the courts from reviewing laws against the Constitution (art. 120). The idea behind this is that it is solely up to the legislator (and not also to the courts) to ensure that new laws do not contradict the fundamental rights of the Constitution. If it is up to this government, that will change.
The government believes that the legal protection of citizens, especially when it comes to the most fundamental rights of citizens vis-à-vis the government, can be improved. In the eyes of the cabinet, the introduction of constitutional review contributes to this and is the result of the advice of the state committee for the Parliamentary system. However, there is still discussion about how the constitutional review will be structured. This must be a design that best matches the Dutch legal system.
The cabinet has explained its preference, and its alternatives, in detail in the outline letter. The government is considering the variant of staggered testing against the aforementioned constitutional provisions on freedom rights, whereby the judge can, in a binding judicial decision, disapply a law or statutory provision in a specific case before it because it is contrary to the Constitution.