Dutch Supreme Court often gives no reasons for rejected appeals, data show
Most people who lose cases before the Dutch Supreme Court, the Hoge Raad, are not told why, according to new figures from the court, prompting criticism from legal experts.
In 2025, the court rejected 976 appeals and did not provide a substantive explanation in 571 of those rulings. The cases involve cassation proceedings, in which the court reviews whether the law was correctly applied, not the underlying facts.
Under Dutch law, the Hoge Raad may issue decisions without detailed reasoning. Still, some lawyers argue the practice undermines transparency and fairness, particularly in serious criminal cases.
"The Hoge Raad seems unaware that these people face severe penalties." If you then receive a ruling without reasoning in cassation, you know nothing. You are sent into the woods. That is extremely unsatisfactory,” criminal defense lawyer Gerard Spong said.
Criticism also extends to civil cases. Cassation lawyer Sjef van Swaaij pointed to the dispute between travel company Oad and Rabobank. Oad argued the bank should pay damages after withdrawing credit support. The Hoge Raad upheld a lower court’s ruling that Rabobank was not liable and did not provide reasons for its decision.
“It was a fundamental case in which a decision should not be made without reasoning. I think the Hoge Raad does this type of ruling too often,” Van Swaaij said.
Other legal experts acknowledge the concerns but note practical constraints. Cassation lawyer Laura van Gardingen said, “Reasoning helps in accepting the outcome. At the same time, the highest court has limited capacity.”
She added that in some countries, supreme courts limit their caseload to high-value disputes or cases with broader legal significance. “I believe that the Hoge Raad in the Netherlands looks carefully at everything. In a sense, that is quite a luxury,” she said.
The Hoge Raad's spokesperson stated that they only omit explanations when there are "no important or new legal questions" that require clarification. Even in those cases, the court has “substantively reviewed and assessed” the matter, the spokesperson said.
