Open Competitie MAGW/Open MAGW Program Application Form 2007 Registration form 1a. Details of applicant -Name, title(s): mr. dr. E. Gritter -Male/female: male -University, Department (or Institute): University of Groningen, Faculty of Law, Department of Criminal Law and Criminology -Address for correspondence: Postbus 716, 9700 AS Groningen -Telephone: (050) 363 7030 -E-mail:
[email protected] Co-applicant(s) -Name, title(s): prof. mr. dr. B.F. Keulen -Male/female: male -University, Department (or Institute): University of Groningen, Faculty of Law, Department of Criminal Law and Criminology -Name, title(s): prof. mr. dr. H.E. Bröring -Male/female: male -University, Department (or Institute): University of Groningen, Faculty of Law, Department of Administrative Law and Public Administration Does the local authority support your application? (did you inform your superior and accepts your institute/university the conditions for support by NWO?) Yes Relevant authority Name: Prof. mr. L.C.A. Verstappen Position: Dean of the Faculty of Law, University of Goningen 1b. Title of research proposal (NL and UK) NL: De bodem in zicht? Op zoek naar de ondergrens van het schuldbeginsel UK: Who is to blame? A research into the limits of the guilt principle 1c. Abstract In Dutch criminal law the guilt principle is interpreted broadly, but in administrative traffic law it plays scarcely any role. If a vehicle violates a traffic regulation the person in whose name the vehicle is registered can be fined, even if he or she has not committed the offence. The law provides very few ways of avoiding liability. The European Court of Human Rights considers that this regulation of liability is justified in the interests of effective law enforcement. This leads to the question of where the lower limit of the guilt principle lies. Ultimately this project may clarify within what limits society can enforce standards by means of penalties. 1d. MAGW discipline(s) and max. 5 keywords 32 Staats- en Bestuursrecht 35 Strafrecht en criminologie 50601 Criminal law 52116 Strafrecht 52121 Bestuursrecht Keywords: criminal liability, aansprakelijkheid, schuldbeginsel, guilt principle, bestuurlijke boete
1
Open Competitie MAGW/Open MAGW Program Application Form 2007 1e. Application to other bodies. Has the same idea been submitted no elsewhere? 1f. Renewed application Has the application been submitted previously? no yes previous year(s) MaGW filenumber(s) X
Title(s):
Has the application been revised in comparison to last years application? yes / no 1g. Doctorate (date) main applicant: June 5, 2003 1h. Funding requested for: Postdoc
No yes
PhD
1h-1. Complete name dissertation supervisor (“promotor or co-promotor”) Prof. mr. dr. B.F. Keulen 1h-2. Past performance on PhD's (as dissertation supervisor ("promotor or co-promotor") Main applicant
Dissertation supervisor Mw. Mr. S. Zwarts
Foreseen year of promotion: 2009
Type of grant 2a. (choose one) PhD, (maximum 4 years, 1,0 fte or 5 years 0,8 fte) Postdoc, (maximum 3 years, 1,0 fte)
Number of years and fte 1,0
Research proposal 3. Description of the proposed research 3a. Research topic Introduction One of the core concepts of criminal law is ‘guilt’. An individual cannot be convicted of a punishable offence if he or she is not culpable under criminal law (De Hullu 2006, p. 196). In addition to the presence of an ‘act’ which is ‘unlawful’, culpability (verwijtbaarheid) can be regarded as a universal criterion of punishability. Culpability exists if the perpetrator had a realistic opportunity to act differently (Van Bemmelen/Van Veen 2003, p. 44). If the perpetrator could in fact have acted differently, then the action which took place was avoidable and therefore culpable. In Dutch criminal law the recognition of culpability as a universal criterion of punishability can be traced back to the Milk and Water Ruling (HR 14 February 1916, NJ 1916, p. 681). In this ruling the Dutch Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) states that in Dutch criminal law the principle applies that there is ‘no punishment without guilt’. If there is no guilt in the sense of culpability, the perpetrator cannot be punished. As a rule culpability may be assumed to exist. If it has been proved that a suspect has committed a punishable offence, then it may be surmised that the suspect is culpable of the offence. It is
2
Open Competitie MAGW/Open MAGW Program Application Form 2007 then mainly up to the suspect to put forward any special circumstances which may negate this assumption of culpability. Dutch criminal law offers a suspect many ways of asserting the absence of culpability in a criminal court. In the first place a suspect can invoke a number of statutory defences such as force majeure (Article 40 Dutch Penal Code) or excessive self-defence (noodweerexces, Article 41(2) Dutch Penal Code). In the second place the suspect can invoke the unwritten ground of exculpation recognized in case law as ‘the absence of any guilt’. This ground of exculpation covers various special cases; for example it gives a suspect a chance to assert that he or she has done everything required to prevent an infringement of the law (for a detailed discussion of this ground of exculpation see Vellinga 1982). If the court accepts the defence, it may acquit the suspect on a point of law, even though the offence has taken place. In some other criminal law systems, including British and German criminal law, a plea of such wide application is lacking (for further detail see Gritter 2003, p. 157 and p. 184 ff.). ‘No punishment without guilt’ in punitive administrative law In the Netherlands, the imposition of punitive sanctions on perpetrators of violations of the law is no longer the exclusive domain of criminal law. In several legal sectors administrative bodies have been given the power to impose administrative fines. In the future administrative fines will have their own general regulation, separate from criminal law, in the General Administrative Law Act (Algemene wet bestuursrecht). In spite of the fact that administrative fines do not come under criminal law, the imposition of an administrative fine is subject to more or less the same general criteria as the imposition of a sanction under criminal law. The proposed Article 5.4.1.2 of the General Administrative Law Act states that no fine will be imposed if the offender cannot be ‘blamed’ for the offence. This seems to imply that the criminal law principle of ‘no punishment without guilt’ has an administrative counterpart: ‘no administrative fine without guilt’. The explanatory notes to Article 5.4.1.2 make it clear that nonculpability can be based on the grounds of exculpation recognized by criminal law, namely the statutory grounds of exculpation and the unwritten ground of ‘absence of any guilt’. In taxation law – to be distinguished from general administrative law – in which the tax inspector may impose tax fines in certain cases, the ‘no punishment without guilt’ principle already applies. The tax inspector may not impose a fine if it turns out that there is no culpability (HR 15 July 1988, BNB 1988, 270). It may be concluded that administrative law and taxation law also provide offenders with plenty of opportunities to exculpate themselves. It is striking that in fines based on the Dutch act on the administrative enforcement of traffic regulations (Wet Administratiefrechtelijke Handhaving Verkeersvoorschriften (WAHV)), guilt in the sense of culpability, as outlined above, plays scarcely any role. The WAHV provides a regulation for dealing with non-serious traffic offences by means of punitive ‘administrative sanctions’. Article 5 of the WAHV states that if an offence is committed with a motor vehicle and it is not immediately possible to establish the identity of the driver the fine is to be imposed on the person in whose name the vehicle is registered. This is what happens with most fines imposed by virtue of the WAHV; for example, the person in whose name the vehicle is registered may be fined if the offence has been detected by a camera (Barels 2006, p. 18 ff.). The person in whose name the vehicle is registered must pay the fine, even if he or she was not the driver who committed the offence. Article 8 of the WAHV lists a very limited number of cases in which the person in whose name the vehicle was registered but who was not the driver does not have to pay the fine. According to the WAHV the person in whose name the vehicle is registered can be exempted from liability only (1) if he can show that another individual used the vehicle against his will (joyriding cases), (2) if he can show that at the time the offence was committed the vehicle had been rented out on a commercial basis or (3) if he can show (for example by means of a warranty against liability) that at the time the offence was committed he no longer owned the vehicle. No other circumstances than those referred to in Article 8 of the WAHV – not even the fact that the person in question provides the name and address of the actual driver – will result in exemption from liability. This immediately raises the question of whether the regulation in the WAHV is consistent with the ‘no punishment without guilt’ principle. It seems possible that liability can be established even though the offender ‘could not have acted differently’. Liability based on vehicle registration in the light of Article 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights (presumption of innocence) Article 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights states that ‘Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law’. This provision does not only apply to criminal law. Case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) shows that administrative fines also come under Article 6(2). In the Salabiaku judgment (ECHR 7 October 1988, NJ 1991, 351) the ECHR took into consideration that the principle formulated in Article 6(2) extends to the establishment of punitive liability. This judgment already indicates that the ECHR has a different attitude to the guilt principle than Dutch criminal law has had to date. The Court assumes that presumptions of fact or of law operate in
3
Open Competitie MAGW/Open MAGW Program Application Form 2007 every legal system. Presumptions of this kind are not prohibited by the European Convention, but, in criminal law, they must be kept within certain limits. The Court states that presumptions of fact or of law must be confined within reasonable limits which take into account the importance of what is at stake and maintain the rights of the defence. This is a different position from that of the Hoge Raad in the Milk and Water ruling; since that ruling the basic principle that there should be no punishment without guilt has applied in Dutch law. Partly as a result of ECHR case law, a discussion has broken out in the Netherlands as to whether the liability based on vehicle registration discussed above, which is laid down in Article 5 of the WAHV, is consistent with the European presumption of innocence as laid down in Article 6(2) ECHR (cf. Den Hartog 1992, pp. 292-297; Van Russen Groen 1998, pp. 210-211; Keulen 1996, p. 114). The Hoge Raad does not consider that Article 5 of the WAHV is at variance with Article 6(2) ECHR. In HR 15 July 1993, NJ 1994, 177 the court included in its considerations that the liability of the person in whose name the vehicle is registered is not based on an ‘act’ for which that person is blamed, but on the idea that ‘the person in whose name the vehicle is registered is only burdened with paying the sum of the imposed administrative sanction for the driver as the person who has committed the offence in question, and can then recover the sum from that person if so desired’. In his commentary on this case Corstens writes ‘(…) that the Hoge Raad, following the legislation, approves the deviation from the guilt principle in this sector of criminal law (…). Thus according to the Hoge Raad the “no punishment without guilt” principle does not apply in this case’. Here Corstens uses the term ‘criminal law’ as it is used in European law, i.e. including punitive administrative sanctions; according to Dutch law the WAHV is not part of national criminal law. The ECHR has now also ruled that the liability regulation in Article 5 WAHV is compatible with Article 6(2) ECHR (Falk vs. the Netherlands, ECHR 19 October 2004, VR 2005, 1, NJ 2005, 429). In its judgment the Court allocates a decisive role to the interests of effective enforcement of the traffic regulations. Some of the court’s considerations were “(…) that the impugned liability rule was introduced in order to secure effective road safety by ensuring that traffic offences, detected by technical or other means and committed by a driver whose identity could not be established at the material time, would not go unpunished whilst having due regard to the need to ensure that the prosecution and punishment of such offences would not entail an unacceptable burden on the domestic judicial authorities. It further notes that a person fined under Article 5 of the Act can challenge the fine before a trial court with full competence in the matter and that, in any such proceedings, the person concerned is not left without any means of defence in that he or she can raise arguments based on Article 8 of the Act and/or claim that at the material time the police had a realistic opportunity of stopping the car and establishing the identity of the driver. In these circumstances (…) the Court cannot find that Article 5 of the Act – which obliges a registered car owner to assume the responsibility for his or her decision to allow another person to use his or her car – is incompatible with Article 6 § 2 of the Convention.” This judgment shows plainly that the liability regulation in Article 5 of the WAHV is justified partly by the interests of effective law enforcement. Limitation of the guilt principle: finding the boundary The PhD thesis defended by Gritter in 2003 (Gritter 2003) examines the significance of the interests of effective law enforcement in the assessment of liability under criminal law. On the basis of an internal and external comparation of Dutch, English and German administrative and criminal law this thesis concludes that both the method of dealing with violations of the law and the establishment of liability for violations of the law under criminal law are influenced by ‘considerations of effectiveness’ and that this is permissible. In this thesis the phrase ‘considerations of effectiveness’ refers to considerations aimed at structuring the law in a way that facilitates or achieves compliance with the provisions laid down by the legislators as much as possible (Gritter 2003, p. 9.). The thesis also establishes that considerations of effectiveness may influence the operation of the guilt principle; the interests of effective law enforcement may mean that in certain cases there is relatively little scope for admitting a defence of absence of any guilt (Gritter 2003, p. 147 and 148). The conclusion that the operation of the guilt principle is partially influenced by the pursuit of effective enforcement of statutory provisions raises another question, namely: to what extent can the interests of effective law enforcement limit the operation of the guilt principle? What other factors determine the allocation of liability? This brings us to the core question of this research proposal. Taking into account the interests of effective law enforcement, where does the lower limit of the guilt principle lie? This question can be split into the following sub-questions: (1) What views are expressed in the literature with regard to the guilt principle? (2) According to case law (both national and European) and national legislation, what factors influence the operation of the guilt principle and may justify limitation of that operation? (3) Does current doctrine do sufficient justice to these factors or are there grounds to reconsider the position of the guilt principle in criminal law? (4) Can a universal theory of the doctrine of culpability which cuts across all branches of law be
4
Open Competitie MAGW/Open MAGW Program Application Form 2007 developed for punitive law as a whole? Demarcation of the research project As we have seen, the guilt principle applies to all of Dutch criminal law and much of punitive administrative law. The presumption of innocence formulated in Article 6 ECHR has an even broader application. It is therefore necessary to delineate the areas in which national legislation and case law will be examined. A number of areas have been selected which are likely to yield insights regarding the guilt principle and factors which may influence its operation. The first and foremost of these is traffic law. Not only in the Netherlands but also in other countries legislators have tried to create enforcement systems which do justice both to the guilt principle and to considerations of effectiveness (Bleichrodt 2005). External comparative law may provide insights into the range of considerations involved and into doctrinal constructions which provide a framework for these considerations. For example, there are interesting similarities but also differences in the enforcement of English traffic law. To a large extent the enforcement of traffic regulations takes place by means of a ‘fixed penalty system’ whereby police officials may impose fines in various ways including affixing them to the vehicle. In certain cases if a parking ticket is not paid within twenty-eight days the owner of the vehicle is assumed to have been the driver (see the Road Traffic Act 1991, Section 66 in combination with Schedule 6 (Parking penalties)). The grounds which can be invoked in order to avoid a fine are – just as in Article 8 of the Dutch WAHV – limited. However, unlike in the Netherlands joyriding is not included in this list of grounds of exculpation (see Section 2 of Schedule 6 of the Road Traffic Act 1991). A second area is the possibility of making parents liable under criminal law for the actions of their children. This possibility is a frequently recurring theme in politics. For example, according to its most recent election programme the CDA wants to make parents punishable if their children buy alcohol, tobacco or drugs (CDA election programme 2006-2011, Vertrouwen in Nederland. Vertrouwen in elkaar [Confidence in the Netherlands, Confidence in Each Other], p. 35, 1.4.2). A remedy recommended for truancy is a parenting course for the parents of the children who play truant. The usual interpretation in the Netherlands of the guilt principle does not leave much room for constructions like this. But can the same be said of the ECHR’s interpretation of the presumption of innocence? Penalization of parents for their children’s misbehaviour may be conducive to effective law enforcement. Have other countries tried to take advantage of this and if so how? The third area concerns administrative sanctions, in the first place tax fines. It has already been explained that many administrative fines in the Netherlands are already or will be made subject to the guilt principle and also to the presumption of innocence referred to in Article 6 ECHR. Therefore in the Netherlands as things now stand the purely administrative character of a fine does not raise any specific questions. But in other countries tax fines do come under a different regime. For example, the French Customs Code regards individuals involved in fraud as liable except in the case of necessity or error (see Article 399 of the Code). Other possible grounds of exculpation are apparently not admitted (see also the judgments in Salabiaku vs. France, referred to above, and Pham Hoang vs. France (ECHR 25 September 1992, NJ 1995, 593), in which this provision was mentioned). The project will also entail examination of administrative sanctions which are not strictly punitive in character but are of a similar nature, such as the withdrawal of a permit or a default fine (dwangsom). According to Dutch law the guilt principle does not play any role in this context. But is this digital doctrine in which the operation of the guilt principle is limited solely to punishment satisfactory? Is it appropriate given the current state of law, in which the government tries to attain numerous objectives with the help of a wide range of sanctions, which often have more than one purpose? Is it consistent with the position taken by the ECHR or is the ECHR also concerned with presumptions of fact or of law outside the domain of criminal law? It may be necessary to arrive at a closer demarcation of the administrative sanctions to be examined. 3b. Approach The project is concerned with legal doctrine and will focus on the examination and analysis of the classic sources of law: literature, legislation and case law. The main research questions will be discussed on the basis of both external and internal comparative law (criminal law/administrative law). As has already been stated, the external comparisons will involve French and English law. With regard to English law Gritter’s PhD thesis has shown that there is a clear connection between the doctrine of strict liability and the interests of effective law enforcement (Gritter 2003, p. 428). In English criminal law the interests of effective law enforcement may mean that a claim for liability is interpreted in such a way that no defence can be brought on the grounds of the absence of culpability. This is the case with ‘offences of strict liability’. For the English civil penalty (the English equivalent of the administrative fine) there is no general doctrinal framework such as that provided by the German Ordnungswidrigkeitenrecht (German law governing administrative fines). For the current project we deliberately chose not to involve German law in our comparisons; for the purposes of this project the consequences of having a general doctrinal framework are much less interesting than the consequences of not having such a doctrinal framework.
5
Open Competitie MAGW/Open MAGW Program Application Form 2007 3c. Literature references Barels 2006 M. Barels, Hoofdlijnen van de Wet Mulder, Deventer: Kluwer 2006 Bleichrodt C.J.G. Bleichrodt, De kentekenhouder. Zijn strafrechtelijke aansprakelijkheid en zijn mensenrechten, Verkeersrecht 2005, p. 365-373 Gritter 2003 E. Gritter, Effectiviteit en aansprakelijkheid in het economisch ordeningsrecht, dissertatie RUG, Den Haag: Boom Juridische uitgevers 2003 Den Hartog 1992 A. Den Hartog, Artikel 6 EVRM: grenzen aan het streven de straf eerder op de daad te doen volgen, dissertatie RUG, Antwerpen/Apeldoorn: MAKLU Uitgevers 1992 De Hullu 2006 J. de Hullu, Materieel strafrecht. Over algemene leerstukken van strafrechtelijke aansprakelijkheid naar Nederlands recht (derde druk), Deventer: Kluwer 2006 Keulen 1996 B.F. Keulen, Artikel 6. Een eerlijk proces, in: Het EVRM en het Nederlandse strafprocesrecht, A.E. Harteveld e.a. (red.), tweede druk, Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff 1996 Van Bemmelen/Van Veen 2003 J.M. van Bemmelen en Th. W. van Veen, Ons strafrecht deel 1: Het materiële strafrecht, bewerkt door D.H. de Jong en G. Knigge (veertiende druk), Deventer: Kluwer 2003 Van Russen Groen 1998 P.M. van Russen Groen, Rechtsbescherming in het bestuursstrafrecht, zonder plaats: Gouda Quint (Sanders Instituut) 1998 Vellinga 1982 W.H. Vellinga, Schuld in spiegelbeeld, afwezigheid van alle schuld, dissertatie RUG, Arnhem: Gouda Quint, 1982. 3d. Time Plan Year 1: Research into the views expressed in the literature with regard to the guilt principle; study of the ECHR case law on the presumption of innocence; writing of a survey of the findings. Year 2: Study and analysis of parts of Dutch, English and French punitive law with regard to the guilt principle and the presumption of innocence (traffic law, liability of parents, tax law); this part of the research project focuses on the substance of the regulations in these fields of law, and the back-ground of these regulations. Year 3: Comparison with Dutch, English and French administrative sanctions that lie close to the criminal law, and that are therefore of interest with regard to the guilt principle and the presumption of innocence (such as the withdrawal of a permit or the imposition of a default fine (dwangsom)). Year 4: Rounding off the comparison; drawing of conclusions from the material with regard to the repositioning of the guilt principle; formulation of clues for a universal theory of the doctrine of culpability. 3e. Scientific setting E. Gritter (main applicant): E. Gritter, De nieuwe Mededingingswet: scherpe tanden?, TVVS 1998, p. 166 - 170 E. Gritter, Toerekening van opzet of schuld in het fiscale boeterecht: legitimatie en achtergronden, DD 2001, p. 353 - 372
6
Open Competitie MAGW/Open MAGW Program Application Form 2007 E. Gritter, Gecombineerde berechting van rechtbankfeiten en economische delicten, rubriek Rechtspraak, DD 2001, p. 776 - 783. E. Gritter, Verboden verstrekking?, Rechtsvraag (303) Straf(proces)recht, AA 51 (2002) 9, p. 707 - 708 and Verboden verstrekking? Beantwoording rechtsvraag (303) Straf(proces)recht, AA 52 (2003), p. 75 80 E. Gritter, Effectiviteit en aansprakelijkheid in het economisch ordeningsrecht, dissertatie RUG, Den Haag: Boom Juridische Uitgevers 2003 E. Gritter, Duidelijkheid omtrent corporatief daderschap – Enige beschouwingen naar aanleiding van het Drijfmest-arrest, Tijdschrift voor Onderneming en Strafrecht 2004, p. 31 - 38 E. Gritter, Cluysenaers definitie van daderschap: een niet-operationeel begrip, in: A.E. Harteveld, D.H. de Jong en E.F. Stamhuis (red.), Systeem in ontwikkeling. Liber amicorum G. Knigge, Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers 2005, p. 151 – 169 E. Gritter, G. Knigge en N.J.M. Kwakman, De WED op de helling. Een onderzoek naar de wenselijkheid de Wet op de Economische Delicten te herzien, Den Haag: Boom Juridische Uitgevers 2005 E. Gritter en N.J.M. Kwakman, Het bestaansrecht van de WED, Strafblad 2005, p. 422 - 431 E. Gritter en E. Sikkema, Bestemming onbekend - Strafbare voorbereiding (artikel 46 Sr) en wetsvoorstel 30164, DD 2006, p. 277 - 302
B.F. Keulen (co-applicant): B.F. Keulen en W. Wedzinga, Discriminatie op grond van ras, geslacht of seksuele gerichtheid: enkele kanttekeningen bij wetsontwerp 20329, NJB 1988, p. 1223 - 1230 B.F. Keulen, Korte metten in cassatie? Kanttekeningen bij wetsontwerp 19 953, NJB 1988, p. 358 - 360 B.F. Keulen en J.L. van der Neut, Voorwetenschap en strafrecht, Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff 1989 B.F. Keulen, Bankbreuk, ons strafrechtelijk faillissementsrecht, dissertatie RUG, Arnhem: Gouda Quint 1990 B.F. Keulen, Misbruik van goederen van een rechtspersoon, TVVS 1991, p. 6 - 10 A.E. Harteveld, B.F. Keulen en H.G.M. Krabbe, Het EVRM en het Nederlandse strafprocesrecht, eerste druk, Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff 1992 B.F. Keulen, J. Remmelink en W.Wedzinga, Project wetgeving verdovende middelen Suriname, o.l.v. J. Remmelink, Den Haag: Ministerie van Justitie 1993 B.F. Keulen, MOT met de strafrechter: enige opmerkingen over de strafrechtelijke positie van financiële dienstverleners, TVVS 1993, p. 281 - 285 B.F. Keulen, Economisch strafrecht, Arnhem: Gouda Quint 1995 B.F. Keulen en J.L. van der Neut, Berechting HCS-zaak na cassatie nog geen gelopen koers, TVVS 1995, p. 210 - 214 A.E. Harteveld, B.F. Keulen en H.G.M. Krabbe, Het EVRM en het Nederlandse strafprocesrecht, tweede druk, Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff 1996 B.F. Keulen, Ademanalyse en contra-expertise, in: J. Remmelink e.a., Mens en recht: kanttekeningen bij conclusies van Leo Meijers, Deventer: Tjeenk Willink 1996, p. 133 - 155 B.F. Keulen, Van verdovende middelen, vliegtuigen, vervoerdersaansprakelijkheid, NJCM-bulletin 1996, p. 307 - 328
verdedigingsrechten
B.F. Keulen, H.G.M. Krabbe en W. Wedzinga, Schipperen met Haak, Trema 1997, p. 147 - 152
7
en
Open Competitie MAGW/Open MAGW Program Application Form 2007 B.F. Keulen, Crimineel vermogen en strafrecht: een commentaar op de ontnemingswetgeving, Deventer: Gouda Quint 1999 B.F. Keulen en M. Otte, Opzet en schuld, Nijmegen: Ars Aequi 1999 B.F. Keulen, Herziening van het sanctiestelsel, NJB 2002, p. 1094 - 1101 B.F. Keulen, Ne bis in de revisie?, in: M.S. Groenhuijsen en J.B.H.M. Simmelink (red.), Glijdende schalen. Liber amicorum J. de Hullu, Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers 2003, p. 267 - 290 A.E. Harteveld, J. Hielkema, B.F. Keulen en H.G.M. Krabbe (red.), Het EVRM en het Nederlandse strafprocesrecht, derde druk, Deventer: Kluwer 2004 B.F. Keulen, Het anticipatiegebod bij voorlopige hechtenis: houden of wegdoen?, in: A.H.E.C Jordaans e.a. (red.), Praktisch strafrecht. Liber amicorum J.M. Reijntjes, Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers 2005, p. 329 - 338 B.F. Keulen, Per amvb naar een nieuwe strafvordering?, in: A.E. Harteveld, D.H. de Jong en E.F. Stamhuis (red.), Systeem in ontwikkeling. Liber amicorum G. Knigge, Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers 2005, p. 313 - 330 B.F. Keulen, Straffen in Europa, oratie RUG, Deventer: Kluwer 2006 C.P.M. Cleiren en J.F. Nijboer (red.), Tekst en Commentaar Wetboek van Strafrecht, eerste tot en met vierde druk, commentaar titels X, XI, XII en XXVI B.F. Keulen, Boekbesprekingen in RM-Themis: dissertaties van P.J. van den Hout (1994, p. 404 e.v.), M.J.H.J. de Vries-Leemans (1997, p. 341 e.v.), M.I. Veldt (1999, p. 57 e.v.), G.G.J. Knoops (p. 368 e.v.), C.D. Schaap (2001, p. 23 e.v.) en M.J. Borgers (2002, p. 364 e.v.). B.F. Keulen, Boekbesprekingen in TVVS: dissertaties van D.R. Doorenbos (1995, p. 315 e.v.) en A.L.J. van Strien (1997, p. 125 e.v.).
H.E. Bröring (co-applicant) H.E. Bröring, Richtlijnen. Over de juridische betekenis van circulaires, leidraden, aanbevelingen, brochures, plannen, diss. RUG, Deventer: Kluwer 1993 H.E. Bröring en J.J. Lambers-Hacquebard, Geen weg terug. Milieu en overheidsterugtred: wenselijkheden en werkelijkheid, in: N.J.M. Nelissen, H.E. Bröring en J.J. Lambers-Hacquebard, De terugtredende overheid (preadvies), Publicaties VMR 1994-3, Zwolle: W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink 1994 M.S. Beerten, J.J.A. Bosch, H.E. Bröring, M. Herweijer, A.J.G.M. van Montfort, F.M. Noordam, F.W. Verbaas, Aspecten van financiële beschikkingverlening. Een eerste evaluatie van de Awb, Reeks Ervaringen met de Awb, nr. 1, Zwolle: W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink 1996 H.E. Bröring, R.A. van de Peppel, E. Hardenberg, C. Lambers, Afstemmingsregelingen in de Wet milieubeheer, Publicatie ECW, Achtergrondstudie nr. 27, Den Haag: ECW/VROM 1996 H.E. Bröring, De school van Scheltema: het functionalisme in de rechtswetenschap, in: M. Herweijer, K.F. Schuiling en H.B. Winter (red.), In wederkerigheid. Opstellen voor Prof.mr. M. Scheltema, Deventer: Kluwer 1997, p. 25-34 H.E. Bröring, Beleidsregels, Monografieën Algemene wet bestuursrecht, A-serie, nr. 5 (Mon. Awb A5), Deventer: Kluwer 1998 H.E. Bröring, Het gelijkheidsbeginsel en de bestuursbevoegdheid (van bedrijfsverenigingen naar het Lisv: het gelijkheidsbeginsel beter gewaarborgd?), in: L.J.A. Damen e.a. (red.), Rechtspraak Bestuursrecht 1996-1997: de annotaties, ’s-Gravenhage: VUGA 1998, p. 123-151 J.J.A. Bosch, m.m.v. H.E. Bröring, A.J.G.M. van Montfort, M. Scheltema, Buitengerechtelijke geschilbeslechting in het bestuursrecht en privaatrecht, Serie uitgaven van de vakgroep Bestuursrecht en Bestuurskunde nr. 13, Groningen: Universiteitsdrukkerij Rijksuniversiteit Groningen 1999
8
Open Competitie MAGW/Open MAGW Program Application Form 2007 H.E. Bröring, A.J.G.M. van Montfort, H.B. Winter, Bezwaar en administratief beroep, in: D. Allewijn e.a. (red.), Bestuursprocesrecht, boek (ook op cd-rom) bij Praktijkpakket Bestuursprocesrecht, deel B2, Deventer: Kluwer 1999 H.E. Bröring en J.E. Valenteijn, Algemeen bestuursrecht 2001: beleidsregels, Den Haag: Boom Juridische uitgevers 2001 H.E. Bröring, Inleiding, in: L.J.A. Damen e.a., Bestuursrecht 2 - Rechtsbescherming tegen de overheid, Bestuursprocesrecht, Den Haag: Boom Juridische uitgevers 2002 (Bew. 2006) H.E. Bröring en A.T. Marseille, De ongekende vrijheden en beperkingen van art. 4:6 Awb, Jurisprudentie Bestuursrecht Plus 2002/2, p. 54-71 H.E. Bröring en A.T. Marseille (red.), Begrensde bestuursrechtspraak, CRBS-reeks deel 6, Den Haag: Boom Juridische uitgevers 2003 H.E. Bröring en F.R. Vermeer, De functionele dader in het bestuurlijk sanctierecht, Jurisprudentie Bestuursrecht Plus 2003/3, p. 124-139 H.E. Bröring, Over grenzen en gradiënten in ons bestuursprocesrecht, in: A.F.M. Brenninkmeijer e.a. (red.), De taakopvatting van de rechter, Den Haag: Boom Juridische uitgevers 2003, p. 111-120 H.E. Bröring, Mandaat en delegatie in de gemeentelijke praktijk, De Gemeentestem 2003, 7190, p. 421431 H.E. Bröring, De bestuurlijke boete, Studiepockets staats- en bestuursrecht, nr. 43, Deventer: Kluwer 2005 H.E. Bröring. Burgerlijke (Bopz-)rechter en bestuursrecht, in: R.J.C. Flach, L.M. Klap-de Nooijer, J.W. Rutgers, E.M. Wesseling-van Gent (red.), Amice. Opstellen aangeboden aan prof.mr. G.R. Rutgers, Deventer: Kluwer 2005, p. 85-93 H.E. Bröring en A. Tollenaar, Juridische factoren van juridische kwaliteit, in: M. Herweijer, A.T. Marseille, F.M. Noordam, H.B. Winter (red.), Alles in één keer goed. Juridische kwaliteit van bestuurlijke besluitvorming, Deventer: Kluwer 2005, p. 91-112 Herman E. Bröring, On the New Field of Lawyer’s Profession in the EU States: An Example of the Netherlands (translated in Japanese by Fukui Kota), Osaka Law Review 2006, 5, p. 163-186 H.E. Bröring, G.T.J.M. Jurgens. De bestuurlijke boete is zo gek nog niet! Bespiegelingen over buitengerechtelijke beboeting in het bestuursrecht en het strafrecht naar aanleiding van de Wet OMafdoening, Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Bestuursrecht 2006/10, p. 340-348 H.E. Bröring, Een verknipt stelsel. Over de Wet BOPZ, de civiele verzoekschriftprocedure en bestuursrechtelijk (Awb-)besluitvormingsrecht, Jurisprudentie Bestuursrecht Plus 2007/1, p. 14-33 H.E. Bröring, Titel 10.1 Mandaat en delegatie, in: N.S.J. Koeman e.a. (red.), Handboek Algemene wet bestuursrecht, Alphen aan den Rijn: Samsom H.D. Tjeenk Willink (losbl. Handboek); Hoofdstuk 10, III Artikelsgewijs Commentaar; Suppl. 21 (juni 1997); Suppl. 22 (augustus 1997) (Bew.: Suppl. 30 (november 1999); Suppl. 46 (oktober 2003)) H.E. Bröring, Bevoegdheid; het besluit als voorwerp van beroep, in: H. Bolt e.a. (red.), Bestuursprocesrecht, Deventer: Kluwer (losbl. Handboek); hoofdstuk B.1.2; Suppl. 2 (mei 1994); Suppl. 4 (mei 1995); Suppl. 5 (oktober 1995) (Bew.: Suppl. 8 (oktober 1996)). Per 1999 voortgezet als: D. Allewijn e.a. (red.), Bestuursprocesrecht, boek (ook op cd-rom) bij Praktijkpakket Bestuursprocesrecht (Bew. 1999) H.E. Bröring, Bevoegdheid; algemene, absolute en relatieve competentie, in: H. Bolt e.a. (red.), Bestuursprocesrecht, Deventer: Kluwer (losbl. Handboek); hoofdstuk B.1.1; Suppl. 1 (december 1993) (Bew.: Suppl. 8 (oktober 1996)). Per 1999 voortgezet als: D. Allewijn e.a. (red.), Bestuursprocesrecht, boek (ook op cd-rom) bij Praktijkpakket Bestuursprocesrecht (Bew. 1999)
3f. Setting within Research Group
9
Open Competitie MAGW/Open MAGW Program Application Form 2007 The research of the Department of Criminal Law of the University of Groningen focuses on three themes: (1) substantive criminal law, (2) criminal procedure and (3) the law of sanctions. In each of these themes the Groningen Department of Criminal Law has a long tradition of highly qualified research that has resulted in many thesis, papers, books and research reports. In the field of substantive criminal law the research program takes the viewpoint that the reach of the criminal law is gradually getting bigger. Noteworthy developments in this respect are the recent extension of offences like the preparation of crimes (‘strafbare voorbereiding’, art. 46 Dutch Penal Code) and conspiracy (see the Dutch Act on Terrorist Crimes). Another development is that the ways in which criminal liability is limited are getting more vage. These developments call for research that focuses on the legal basis of the different forms of criminal liablity and the setting of limits for the assesment of criminal liability. This research proposal fits into the research program.
Recent thesis in the field of substantive criminal law include: M. Kessler, Subjectieve bestanddelen in bijzondere wetten, Deventer: Gouda Quint 2001 (promotor: D.H. de Jong) M.I. Francisco Francisco, Aspects of Implementing the culpability principle both under International and national criminal law, Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers 2003 (promotores: G.A.M. Strijards and D.H. de Jong); E. Gritter, Effectiviteit en aansprakelijkheid in het economisch ordeningsrecht, Den Haag: Boom Juridische Uitgevers 2003 (promotor: G. Knigge); P. Smith, Strafbare voorbereiding – Een rechtsvergelijkend onderzoek, Den Haag: Boom Juridische Uitgevers 2003 (promotor: D.H. de Jong) E. Sikkema, Ambtelijke corruptie in het strafrecht, Den Haag: Boom Juridische Uitgevers 2005 (promotor: D.H. de Jong ; co-promotor: H.D. Wolswijk) 3g. Output Expected scientific output and dissemination of results The research should result in a thesis. 3h. Societal & Scientific Relevance The predominant role allocated to the guilt principle in the criminal law doctrine currently accepted in the Netherlands has important consequences for the scope and effectiveness of criminal law. This is certainly true with regard to traffic law; before the WAHV was introduced, with far-reaching liability for the person in whose name a vehicle is registered, traffic regulations were much less effectively enforced. But the significance attached to the guilt principle also has a considerable impact on the possibilities of tackling children’s misbehaviour through their parents. A relevant area which falls outside the scope of this project is corporate crime. To what extent can an executive’s position, quite apart from any actual involvement in and knowledge of a criminal act that executive may have, be regarded as a ground for criminal liability? The analysis of the guilt principle which this project will provide may make it clear within what limits – taking both the guilt principle and considerations of effectiveness into account – society can enforce standards by means of penalties.
Reviewers List of non-referees A list of non-referees ( maximum of three names) can be sent to the address below on the same day the application is submitted. Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Reasearch Social Sciences Open Programme MaGW P.O. Box 93461 2509 AL The Hague The Netherlands
10
Open Competitie MAGW/Open MAGW Program Application Form 2007 Have you sent a list of non-referees? no
Signature
I hereby declare that I have completed this form truthfully: Name: E. Gritter Place: Groningen Date: April 20, 2007
Please submit the application to NWO in electronic form (pdf format is required!) using the IRIS system, which can be accessed via the NWO website (www.nwo.nl/magwopencompetitie).
11
