Category: The Courts Academic

The European Court of Human Rights ’ case law on judicial review in asylum cases is not
entirely consistent. However, it can be interpreted as consistent if two presumptions are
accepted. First, that, as the Court’s role should be subsidiary to that of domestic courts,
domestic judicial review should at least be of the same quality and substance as the European
Court of Human Rights ’ review. Secondly, that the Court distinguishes between arguable
and non-arguable cases not just in the context of Article 13 ECHR and of the
admissibility of applications, but that this distinction is central to its entire case law about
the asylum procedure. This analysis results in a coherent doctrine on deadlines for submitting
evidence, the burden of proof, the intensity of judicial review, and suspensive effect. If
the Court understands its case law in this way, it can prevent it from becoming, in some
respects, a court of first instance.

Subsidiarity and ‘Arguability’: The European Court of Human Rights Case Law on Judicial Review in Asylum Cases, in International Journal of Refugee Law 2009, p. 48-74

In this article, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on children’s family reunion is examined. The argument is that the Court’s case law is necessarily inconsistent. This is so in part as a consequence of the structure of international legal argument, and partly as a consequence of the seeming normative conflict about the legitimacy of migration control. On both points, the Court is torn between two equally legitimate and equally untenable extremes, which forces the Court to take a centrist position and to acknowledge both the legitimacy and the untenable nature of any position. The main part of the article analyses how this takes shape in the legal technicalities in the judgements under review.

Structural Instability: Strasbourg Case Law on Children’s Family Reunion, in European Journal of Migration and Law 11 (2009), p. 271-293

This article is a critical analysis of Dutch immigration case law in the period 1945-1967, i.e. before the introduction of modern legislation.

Freedom and Constraint in Adjudication. Dutch courts on aliens law, in Anita Böcker et al (eds): Migration Law and Sociology of Law. Collected Essays in honour of Cees Groenendijk, Wolf Legal Publishers, Nijmegen 2008, p. 345-354.

In dit artikel wordt het Salah Sheekh-arrest van het Europese Hof voor de Rechten van de Mens genalayseerd. Daarbij wordt met name gekeken naar de gevolgen voor de Nederlandse rechtspraktijk.

Straatsburg en het Nederlandse vluchtelingenrecht, Nederlands Juristenblad 2007, p. 380-387

Dit boek bevat het onderzoek dat ten grondslag lag aan mijn oratie aan de VU op 21 november 2002. Het bevat een weergave en analyse van de jurisprudentie van de Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State over de Vreemdelingenwet 2000 tot eind augustus 2002.

Het hoger beroep in vreemdelingenzaken (2002)

Artikel met de tekst van mijn oratie op 21 November 2002. Hierin zijn de belangrijkste bevindingen uit het boek ‘Het hoger beroep in vreemdelingenzaken’ (2002) te vinden.

De Afdeling en de rechtsstaat. Het hoger beroep in vreemdelingenzaken, in Nederlands Juristenblad 2002, p. 2082-2088.

In this book, which contains the material on which I based my inaugural lecture, I have analysed the case law of the Judicial Department of the Dutch Council of State between 1 April 2001 (when the Council became competent to hear immigration appeals) and late August 2002.

Het hoger beroep in vreemdelingenzaken, Sdu uitgevers, ‘s-Gravenhage 2002