UG and Pro Facto jointly investigate satisfaction with handling of earthquake cases by District Court North Netherlands

What can the courts do to increase the quality of dispute resolution in mining claim proceedings? That is the question that Prof. Heinrich Winter, Prof. Bert Marseille, Dr Marc Wever, Joachim Bekkering (LL.M.) (UG), Christian Boxum (LL.M.) (Pro Facto), Prof. Elbert de Jong (Utrecht University) and Dr Michiel Tjepkema (Open University) set out to answer. Together they examined satisfaction with the handling of earthquake cases by the North Netherlands District Court.

Going to the administrative court

Since 2018, victims of earthquake damage can go to the administrative court if they disagree with a decision of the Institute for Mining Damage Groningen. This usually involves damage caused by earthquakes. The court handles earthquake cases differently from other administrative law cases. Cases are heard in court as quickly as possible, taking more time to discuss the case.

Varying satisfaction despite accessible procedure

The research by Pro Facto, the UG, the UU and the Open University shows that litigants are variably satisfied with the handling of earthquake cases by the North Netherlands District Court. On average, litigants scored the procedure at the court as a whole a 5 on a scale of 1-10. However, it was concluded that the procedure is relatively accessible (no financial risk, no compulsory legal representation, low court fees).

Handling cases faster

The researchers involved believe that the court can exert the most influence on the speed with which cases are handled and thus indirectly on other aspects that affect the quality of dispute resolution. One promising means here is for the court to contact the parties as soon as possible after the appeal is filed to learn their wishes about how the case will be handled.

The report of this study (in Dutch) can be viewed by clicking the link below.