Short Reads

KEI: Digitization of the justice system

KEI: Digitization of the justice system

KEI: Digitization of the justice system

16.10.2015 NL law

The Ministry of Security and Justice and the Council for the Judiciary have jointly set up a programme with the aim of digitizing, improving and also simplifying civil and administrative procedures (KEI). In the context of KEI, four legislative proposals have been prepared to:

  1. amend the Code of Civil Procedure and the General Administrative Law Act relating to simplification and digitization of procedural law (wijziging van het Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering en de Algemene wet bestuursrecht in verband met vereenvoudiging en digitalisering van het procesrecht, Kamerstukken II 2014/15, 34 059);
  2. amend the Code of Civil Procedure relating to simplification and digitization of procedural appeal and cassation (wijziging van het Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering in verband met vereenvoudiging en digitalisering van het procesrecht in hoger beroep en cassatie, Kamerstukken II 2014/15, 34 138);
  3. implement procedural simplification and digitization (invoeringswet vereenvoudiging en digitalisering procesrecht, Kamerstukken II, 2014/15, 34 212);
  4. adjust laws in connection with the implementation of  procedural simplification and digitization and expansion of preliminary questions (invoeringsrijkswet vereenvoudiging en digitalisering procesrecht en uitbreiding prejudiciële vragen, Kamerstukken II, 2014/15, 34 237).

In broad terms, the KEI-bills introduce a new digital basic procedure that will replace both the existing summons proceedings and the application proceedings and which can be extended to include other procedural actions if necessary. The separate summons and applications will be merged into one in order to create a new single application, the so-called process introduction. Professional parties will be obliged to litigate using the digital system. The process introduction, contrary to the original summons, no longer requires the involvement of a bailiff  (possibility of informal service).

The KEI-bills also introduce additional legal deadlines for the performance of specific procedural actions for both parties and the court, and the existing deadlines will be tightened. For example, the defendant has four weeks in district court cases and six weeks in other cases (excluding summary proceedings) to lodge a defence, starting from the moment the defendant acknowledges the process introduction.

Furthermore, the judge will be able to deliver more control and customization during a case.

KEI-I and KEI-II were adopted by the House of Representatives on 26 May 2015 (KEI-I) and on 11 June 2015  (KEI-II) respectively. The bills will be considered together in the Senate. KEI-III and KEI-IV were submitted to the House of Representatives on 27 May 2015 (KEI-III) and on 24 June 2015 (KEI IV) respectively.

The obligation to litigate in digital form will not be introduced for each court at once. There will be a phased roll-out. For the roll-out plan see the schedule introduction digital litigation on the website of the Dutch Bar Association. Since it is now clear that the original date (1 January 2016) for entry into force of the KEI-bills will not be achieved, the planning of the roll-out will be delayed.

According to an overview of the list of urgent bills, it appears that 1 May 2016 is the desired start date for KEI-I, KEI-II  and KEI-III to come into effect.  With respect to  professionals like lawyers and the Public Prosecutor an adjustment period of half a year has been agreed to ensure they can get used to the changes. Although there is broad support for the bills in the Senate, there are critical questions about the speed and manner of introduction. The Dutch Bar Association and the Royal Professional Association of bailiffs are critical about the lack of system to system links and the short time given to software companies in the industry to develop and implement these links. It therefore seems unlikely that the implementation of KEI will take place earlier than 1 July 2016.

Following the implementation of KEI, law firms have two choices in terms of digital communications with the courts . They can obtain access to the digital file through a free web portal provided by the Judiciary. In addition, they can choose the system2system terminal which offers a direct link between the systems of the Judiciary and law firms; this option requires an upfront investment, but is not mandatory.

For the development of the system2system terminal the Judicary will cooperate with Silex; a consortium of law firms, including Stibbe, to ensure they are prepared for KEI.

See also the Dutch post Modernisering en Digitalisering van het (bestuurs)procesrecht: wie draait op voor ‘bugs’? on Stibbeblog.nl

The post KEI: Digitization of the justice system is a post of Stibbeblog.nl.

Related news

01.05.2019 NL law
Arbitral award obligating Ecuador to prevent enforcement of USD 8.6 billion order does not violate public order

Short Reads - Due to environmental damage as a result of oil extraction in the Ecuadorian Amazon, oil company Chevron was ordered to pay USD 8.6 billion to Ecuadorian citizens. In order to claim release of liability, Chevron and Texaco initiated arbitration proceedings against Ecuador. Arbitral awards ordered Ecuador to prevent enforcement of the Ecuadorian judgment, leaving the Ecuadorian plaintiffs temporarily unable to enforce their judgment. According to the Supreme Court (12 April 2019, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:565), these arbitral awards did however not violate public order.

Read more

10.04.2019 NL law
Damage due to a defective driveway and the Dutch twenty year limitation period: When does limitation start in case of a continuous event that causes damage?

Short Reads - On 22 March 2019, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled (ECLI:NL:HR:2019:412) that the strict liability for buildings (opstalaansprakelijkheid) is not linked to a specific damaging act but to a damaging condition, as referred to in section 6:174 DCC. Therefore, there is no reason to regard a damaging act as an 'event that caused damage' as referred to in section 3:310 DCC concerning the limitation period for claims for damages.

Read more

01.05.2019 NL law
Termination of an agreement: compelling grounds?

Short Reads - When does a reason given for termination of an agreement qualify as a compelling ground? That was the central question in the Dutch Supreme Court's decision of 29 March 2019 (ECLI:NL:HR:2019:446). Depending on the nature of the agreement and the circumstances of the case, termination may only take place under certain conditions, e.g. only on compelling grounds. 

Read more

04.04.2019 NL law
European Court of Justice: actio pauliana is covered by jurisdiction rule of forum of contract. A judgment with foreseeable consequences?

Short Reads - Imagine that a debtor voluntarily concludes a transaction with a third party where he knows (or should know) that it hinders the creditor's possibilities of collecting the debt. In civil law countries, a creditor can invoke the nullification of that legal act by means of a so-called actio pauliana. This raises the question of which court has jurisdiction in the case of an international dispute, regarding an actio pauliana, that is instituted by a creditor against a third party?

Read more

11.04.2019 NL law
Double roles in attributing knowledge

Short Reads - The knowledge of a person who in fact runs a company can be attributed to the company if the sole director and shareholder is a 'straw man', the Supreme Court confirmed in a judgment of 29 March 2019. The rules by the Supreme Court are not revolutionary or even new. But circumstances essential for the attribution of knowledge are ignored. The double role played by the 'man in charge' raises questions about how to apply the rules as identified by the Supreme Court to the facts

Read more

28.03.2019 NL law
European Parliament votes in favour of representative actions for consumers

Short Reads - On 26 March 2019 the European Parliament approved an amended version of the European Commission's proposal for a Directive on representative actions for the protection of collective interests of consumers, following a debate on 25 March 2019. The Directive will become law once the Council and the European Parliament reach an agreement on the European Commission's proposal. The Council has not yet been able to adopt a position on the Directive, meaning that the Directive will most likely be considered again after the ­­­European elections in May 2019 by a different European Parliament

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring