When must a justice withdraw if impartiality is doubted?
In the media image: Freysteinn G. Jonsson via Unsplash
The saga surrounding Dutch football club Vitesse continues since the presiding justice in the appeals case appears to have a supporter’s card. Arie-Jan Kwak, assistant professor, spoke to ‘NRC’ newspaper: ‘The question’s not whether the justice was in fact impartial or not.’
Last week, in expedited proceedings, the Court of Appeals Arnhem-Leeuwarden ruled that Vitesse should have its professional licence reinstated. The Court stated that the decision of the Licensing Committee and Appeals Committee had not been taken with the utmost care. So, it seemed the saga surrounding Vitesse had come to an end, but the case has now taken an unexpected twist: it seems that the presiding justice had held a supporter’s card of the Arnhem football club for many years. A spokesperson for the Court of Appeals has said that his fact was known and had been taken into account in the ruling.
Kwak points out that this issue is not necessarily about the independence and impartiality of the justice: ‘The question’s not whether the justice was in fact impartial or not. It may well be that the justices actually ruled impartially. But we can’t assess this from the outside.’
According to the assistant professor, outsides are indeed capable of assessing whether there are circumstances that give rise to the appearance of partiality. ‘The appearance of partiality can be caused by subjective factors: The justice has given the impression in their actions or by their rulings that they will not look at the case without prejudice', he says. ‘In this case, the justice is supposed to be able to judge without prejudice in a conflict in which Vitesse is involved. It’s not a problem if the justice loves football, but it’s clearly a problem if he’s a Vitesse supporter.’
More information?
Read the full NRC article (in Dutch)