Rowie Stolk wins VAR-Lex Michiels prize
On 16 May, Rowie Stolk was awarded the VAR-Lex Michiels prize for her dissertation 'Litigation interest groups in the polder: An interdisciplinary perspective on access to justice'.
In her dissertation, Rowie investigated the legitimacy and effectiveness of the right of appeal for interest groups that represent general or collective interests. The VAR-Lex Michiels Prize is awarded once every four years by the Dutch Administrative Law Association (VAR) to an author (under the age of 35) of an original work who, in the opinion of the jury, has made a particularly valuable and innovative contribution to the development of Dutch administrative law.
At the end of the VAR annual meeting, Rowie was presented with the prize by jury chairman Adrienne de Moor-van Vugt. In addition to jury chair Adrienne de Moor-van Vught (Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State), the jury consisted of Anoeska Buijze (Utrecht University), Bernard de Leest (Zumpolle Advocaten) and Marc Wever (University of Groningen, the winner in 2021). The jury was assisted by secretary Tom Kobes, (master's student of constitutional and administrative law, University of Groningen).
Rowie's dissertation focuses on the access to justice of interest groups. In the jury report, the jury writes about this topic:
'It is topical because in recent years various general/collective interest actions have been filed against the government [in the Netherlands]. It discusses both the administrative and civil law options for interest groups. This conceptually clear research combines internal comparative law between civil law and administrative law with external comparative law with the US. In addition, Stolk also investigates the role of interest groups in the political process from a social science perspective. Methodological resources, therefore, and a comprehensive framework. It provides that right of appeal with a clear dogmatic basis when it comes to the legitimacy of such a right of appeal and the representativeness of the organisation. Where such organisations are sometimes seen as troublemakers, it is nicely argued that this is about exposing structural injustice and about equal opportunities to get justice for the socially vulnerable compared to the socially strong. The synthesis is convincing. The research opens the door to further study, in the sense that the developed framework lends itself to application and analysis of sub-areas, such as social security and data protection. Stolk also offers a welcome alternative for protecting weak interests in the democratic rule of law, now that much of the administrative law discourse is dominated by solutions tailored to the individual, and therefore not always feasible.'
Rowie defended her PhD dissertation in 2024, and has since been an assistant professor at the Department of Constitutional and Administrative Law. She is conducting follow-up research into, among other things, judicial remedies in public interest actions, and the size, nature and strategies of strategically litigating interest groups.