Jurgen de Poorter – författare

This book examines the uncertainties which arise when courts have to deal with complex empirical data and contested scientific evidence in public interest cases, but lack the necessary knowledge and training to do so. Expert contributors explore the strategies, methods and techniques applied by the courts to inform their decisions, reduce uncertainty and assist proportionality assessments.Moving beyond mainstream legal thinking, which evaluates whether courts should engage with policy making, the contributors investigate the ways in which courts are actively interacting with this process. Chapters explore how courts are often hesitant to collect empirical data or scientific evidence and yet sometimes rely on this kind of evidence too easily when it is brought by self-interested litigants. The contributors present solutions to make courts less dependent on the adversarial system, revealing how courts are eager to avoid a battle of the sciences. They analyse the dependence of courts on legal principles, the procedural rules which distribute the burden of proof and ways of outsourcing complex factual issues to third party experts.Judicial Policy Making, Empirical Data and Scientific Evidence is a vital resource for scholars and students of constitutional and administrative law, research methods and law and politics. It is also beneficial for practitioners dealing with cases involving empirical data and scientific evidence.

The preliminary reference procedure has long been envisaged as a judicial dialogue between the European Court of Justice and national courts. However, in reality the relationship appears to be closer to one of growing separation rather than to a happy marriage between equal partners. This book tries to find out: what is behind this? A study of the existing literature, combined with a case law analysis and interviews with judges, has shown that there are a number of important stumble blocks hindering the communication between these courts, such as language barriers, time constraints, and a failing digital infrastructure. However, on a deeper level there also appears to be a lack of mutual trust that prevents Supreme Administrative Courts from using the possibilities the procedure provides, such as the opportunity to offer provisional answers to the Court of Justice and the use of requests for clarification by the latter.

This book deals with one of the greatest challenges for the judiciary in the 21st century. It reflects on the judiciary’s role in reviewing administrative discretion in the administrative state; a role that can no longer solely be understood from the traditional doctrine of the Trias Politica.Traditionally, courts review acts of administrative bodies implying a degree of discretion with quite some restraint. Typically it is reviewed whether the decision is non-arbitrary or whether there is no manifest error of assessment. The question arises though as to whether the concern regarding ensuring the non-arbitrary character of the exercise of administrative power, which is frequently performed at a distance from political bodies, goes far enough to guarantee that the administration exercises its powers in a legitimate way.This publication searches for new modes of judicial review of administrative discretion exercised in the administrative state. It links state-of-the-art academic research on the role of courts in the administrative state with the daily practice of the higher and lower administrative courts struggling with their position in the evolving administrative state.The book concludes that with the changing role and forms of the administrative state, administrative courts across the world and across sectors are in the process of reconsidering their roles and the appropriate models of judicial review. Learning from the experiences in different sectors and jurisdictions, it provides theoretical and empirical foundations for reflecting on the advantages and disadvantages of different models of review, the constitutional consequences and the main questions that deserve further research and debate.Jurgen de Poorter is professor of administrative law at Tilburg University and deputy judge in the District Court of The Hague.Ernst Hirsch Ballin is distinguished university professor at Tilburg University, professor in human rights law at the University of Amsterdam, and president of the T.M.C. Asser Institute for International and European Law. He is also a member of the Scientific Council for Government policy (WRR).Saskia Lavrijssen is professor of Economic Regulation and Market Governance of Network Industries at Tilburg University.

This book deals with one of the greatest challenges for the judiciary in the 21st century. It reflects on the judiciary’s role in reviewing administrative discretion in the administrative state; a role that can no longer solely be understood from the traditional doctrine of the Trias Politica.Traditionally, courts review acts of administrative bodies implying a degree of discretion with quite some restraint. Typically it is reviewed whether the decision is non-arbitrary or whether there is no manifest error of assessment. The question arises though as to whether the concern regarding ensuring the non-arbitrary character of the exercise of administrative power, which is frequently performed at a distance from political bodies, goes far enough to guarantee that the administration exercises its powers in a legitimate way.This publication searches for new modes of judicial review of administrative discretion exercised in the administrative state. It links state-of-the-art academic research on the role of courts in the administrative state with the daily practice of the higher and lower administrative courts struggling with their position in the evolving administrative state.The book concludes that with the changing role and forms of the administrative state, administrative courts across the world and across sectors are in the process of reconsidering their roles and the appropriate models of judicial review. Learning from the experiences in different sectors and jurisdictions, it provides theoretical and empirical foundations for reflecting on the advantages and disadvantages of different models of review, the constitutional consequences and the main questions that deserve further research and debate.Jurgen de Poorter is professor of administrative law at Tilburg University and deputy judge in the District Court of The Hague.Ernst Hirsch Ballin is distinguished university professor at Tilburg University, professor in human rights law at the University of Amsterdam, and president of the T.M.C. Asser Institute for International and European Law. He is also a member of the Scientific Council for Government policy (WRR).Saskia Lavrijssen is professor of Economic Regulation and Market Governance of Network Industries at Tilburg University.

The European Yearbook of Constitutional Law (EYCL) is an annual publication devoted to the study of constitutional law.

The European Yearbook of Constitutional Law (EYCL) is an annual publication devoted to the study of constitutional law.

The European Yearbook of Constitutional Law (EYCL) is an annual publication devoted to the study of constitutional law. It aims to provide a forum for in-depth analysis and discussion of new developments in the field, both in Europe and beyond. This fourth volume of the EYCL addresses the underexplored and contentious topic of whether the EU possesses a constitutional identity of its own. To date, the main focus of scholarship and case law concerns the constitutional identities of the Member States of the EU. This is because the EU has to respect such identities according to article 4(2) TEU.The attention for Member States’ constitutional identities stands in stark contrast to the notion of an EU constitutional identity. Such an identity features very little in the literature and debate on constitutional identity and the legal architecture of the EU. Consequently, this edition of the EYCL addresses the gap in legal research by studying constitutional identity with a focus on the EU itself. The book explores various views on whether the EU possesses such an identity and what any possible identity might entail. In this way, a fuller and more inclusive picture can be formed of constitutional identity as it relates to the multilevel constitutional order inhabited by the EU and its Member States.This volume will be of special interest to constitutional and legal scholars who are interested in EU and national constitutional law, as well as to political scientists. In addition, the book is relevant for judges, government officials, judges and policy-makers who work with EU (constitutional) law and its relationship with national (constitutional) law.Jurgen de Poorter is State Councillor at the Dutch Council of State and professor at Tilburg Law School, Department of Public Law and Governance. Gerhard van der Schyff is associate professor at Tilburg Law School, Department of Public Lawand Governance. Maarten Stremler is assistant professor at Maastricht University, Faculty of Law, Department of Public Law. Maartje De Visser is associate professor at SMU School of Law, Singapore. Ingrid Leijten is professor at Tilburg Law School, Department of Public Law and Governance. Charlotte van Oirsouw is PhD researcher at Utrecht University, Department of Constitutional and Administrative Law.

The European Yearbook of Constitutional Law (EYCL) is an annual publication devoted to the study of constitutional law. It aims to provide a forum for in-depth analysis and discussion of new developments in the field, both in Europe and beyond. This fourth volume of the EYCL addresses the underexplored and contentious topic of whether the EU possesses a constitutional identity of its own. To date, the main focus of scholarship and case law concerns the constitutional identities of the Member States of the EU. This is because the EU has to respect such identities according to article 4(2) TEU.The attention for Member States’ constitutional identities stands in stark contrast to the notion of an EU constitutional identity. Such an identity features very little in the literature and debate on constitutional identity and the legal architecture of the EU. Consequently, this edition of the EYCL addresses the gap in legal research by studying constitutional identity with a focus on the EU itself. The book explores various views on whether the EU possesses such an identity and what any possible identity might entail. In this way, a fuller and more inclusive picture can be formed of constitutional identity as it relates to the multilevel constitutional order inhabited by the EU and its Member States.This volume will be of special interest to constitutional and legal scholars who are interested in EU and national constitutional law, as well as to political scientists. In addition, the book is relevant for judges, government officials, judges and policy-makers who work with EU (constitutional) law and its relationship with national (constitutional) law.Jurgen de Poorter is State Councillor at the Dutch Council of State and professor at Tilburg Law School, Department of Public Law and Governance. Gerhard van der Schyff is associate professor at Tilburg Law School, Department of Public Lawand Governance. Maarten Stremler is assistant professor at Maastricht University, Faculty of Law, Department of Public Law. Maartje De Visser is associate professor at SMU School of Law, Singapore. Ingrid Leijten is professor at Tilburg Law School, Department of Public Law and Governance. Charlotte van Oirsouw is PhD researcher at Utrecht University, Department of Constitutional and Administrative Law.

The European Yearbook of Constitutional Law (EYCL) is an annual publication devoted to the study of constitutional law. It aims to provide a forum for in-depth analysis and discussion of new developments in the field, both in Europe and beyond.This book addresses the theme Constitutional Law in the Digital Era. Societies are increasingly affected by the use of digital technologies by both public and private actors. This has resulted in a range of normative questions that require a constitutional response. The book explores a number of issues concerning the relationship between the impact of digitalisation and constitutional values by examining the constitutional challenges arising from the increasing use of digital technologies and develops potential constitutional responses and remedies to these challenges.This volume will be of special interest to constitutional and legal scholars who are interested in EU and national constitutional law, as well as to social scientists more generally (e.g. governance, sociology, science and technology, as well as computer and data scientists). In addition, the book is relevant for judges, government officials and policy-makers who work on the intersection of digitalisation and (EU) constitutional law.Charlotte van Oirsouw is a PhD researcher at Utrecht University School of Law, Department of Constitutional and Administrative Law. Jurgen de Poorter is State Councillor at the Dutch Council of State and Professor at Tilburg Law School, Department of Public Law and Governance. Ingrid Leijten is Professor at Tilburg Law School, Department of Public Law and Governance. Gerhard van der Schyff is Associate Professor at Tilburg Law School, Department of Public Law and Governance. Maarten Stremler is Assistant Professor at Maastricht University, Faculty of Law, Department of Public Law. Maartje De Visser is Professor at Yong Pung How School of Law, Singapore Management University.Chapter 10 is available open access under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License via link.springer.com.

The European Yearbook of Constitutional Law (EYCL) is an annual publication devoted to the study of constitutional law. It aims to provide a forum for in-depth analysis and discussion of new developments in the field, both in Europe and beyond.This book addresses the theme Constitutional Law in the Digital Era. Societies are increasingly affected by the use of digital technologies by both public and private actors. This has resulted in a range of normative questions that require a constitutional response. The book explores a number of issues concerning the relationship between the impact of digitalisation and constitutional values by examining the constitutional challenges arising from the increasing use of digital technologies and develops potential constitutional responses and remedies to these challenges.This volume will be of special interest to constitutional and legal scholars who are interested in EU and national constitutional law, as well as to social scientists more generally (e.g. governance, sociology, science and technology, as well as computer and data scientists). In addition, the book is relevant for judges, government officials and policy-makers who work on the intersection of digitalisation and (EU) constitutional law.Charlotte van Oirsouw is a PhD researcher at Utrecht University School of Law, Department of Constitutional and Administrative Law. Jurgen de Poorter is State Councillor at the Dutch Council of State and Professor at Tilburg Law School, Department of Public Law and Governance. Ingrid Leijten is Professor at Tilburg Law School, Department of Public Law and Governance. Gerhard van der Schyff is Associate Professor at Tilburg Law School, Department of Public Law and Governance. Maarten Stremler is Assistant Professor at Maastricht University, Faculty of Law, Department of Public Law. Maartje De Visser is Professor at Yong Pung How School of Law, Singapore Management University.Chapter 10 is available open access under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License via link.springer.com.