Dineke de Groot (president van de Hoge Raad): 'Ik zeg tegenwoordig vaak dat het niet zozeer alleen een scheiding is, maar ook een spreiding van macht'

There he is, with his tonne on the bank. Gauvert, sold the tech start-up and has cashed it out. Directly, his blood pressure went up. Invest in seabirds or AI. He still gets a lot of money from it. What now? Invest in Bridgefund. Your money is spread over more than 95 hundred mkb's. Super defensive, for those who love insurance. With a fixed annual rent of up to 5.75% per month. So go to Bridgefund. Do you want to know what's going on? And why? In the B&R app. Listen live to our programs. Download the B&R app. And on the screen. B&R News Radio. The Big Five. Diana Matrose. The law has changed. There's more openness, but also more criticism. And there are more risks. And the question is how to navigate rights between transparency and security. What kind of dilemmas are they facing in their own rights? This week, I'm all talking with five heads in B&R's Big Five of the Lawyers. Today, a very special guest, Dineke de Groot. She's the president of the High Council of the Netherlands. Or the highest lawyer in the Netherlands. She's about civil matters, criminal matters, tax matters. And she's also doing that for Aruba, Curacao, Sim Maarten, Bonaire, Saba. And she's from the Stages, with other words. Caribbean Netherlands. Welcome. Thank you. We have agreed that we will also talk about this. So people know that, and we're going to talk about it later. Well, how you and you look at the law that would be under pressure. But first, a personal question. It seems to me that the highest lawyer is also quite a big responsibility... ...that is raised on your shoulders. Is that so? Yes, that's right. There is only one president of the High Council of the Netherlands. And yes, the president is a kind of example of the law as a whole. Even so, the High Council is an independent legal organization. So, the Law of the Law for the Law and the Law of the Bank, the Head of the College of profession... ...for the business life and the Central Law of the profession. Yes, and you say that I also feel that way. That pressure on your shoulders is quite high. Well, you feel it, for example, when you talk to presidents of the High Council... ...in the countries of the European Union, where you notice that some countries... ...the pressure on the law is visible. And well, then we actually have dilemmas that we can share with each other. For example, about transparency and safety. Where we can tell each other how we deal with it. Take, for example, lawyers who are active on social media. And if they have made a statement, they get hate messages on their social media account. Well, that does something with lawyers, and that also does something with presidents of the High Council. Because they feel responsible for the independence in which the lawyers should be able to work... ...and the individual safety of a lawyer. Yes, so the responsibility that you feel when that happens, that really touches you deeply. Yes, you just want to keep in touch with each other the legal language in Europe. And of course I do that in the Netherlands with a lot of other people. But in Europe we also feel that strongly as the value of the European Union... ...which we also really want to serve as independent legal language, to keep in touch with each other. Yes, what do you think is the most beautiful thing about your job? The most beautiful thing is to be able to be busy with that independent legal language every day. Or it is in matters that I take part in the treatment myself... ...or that I talk to other people about what legal language can mean in your life. Legal language is such an important part of society. I think that it's good to talk to each other about what the High Council does exactly. Because we all have a picture, but I notice that people don't know exactly how it is in each other. And the three R's are very important to you. Shall we take those first? Yes, the three R's are for the advantage of the legal unit... ...and the advantage of the legal form and the offer of legal protection... ...to individual people and individual organisations. But also on matters that increase the level. And I will give some examples of that to make it clearer. But the high council does that in civil cases, criminal cases and tax cases. And you have to imagine, if someone is not agree with the decision of an execution system... ...or if it is not agree with what a citizen does, the behavior of a citizen... ...then you can go to the judge. No, the judge then lays the rule of law that the lawmaker has made... ...and that the government may have executed if it is a criminal case or a legal case. And with the exception and adjustment of the rule of law, everything comes into view. That happens in the individual circumstances of your case. And if you are not agree with the decision of the judge, then you can still go to high office. And then the judge can completely look at the case again in high office. And if you are not agree with that decision again, then you can go to the high council. And the high council is a different kind of judge. Then we come to the three R's, then the court and the judge. Because they are not going to look at what exactly has happened. But it's mainly about whether the previous judge has done the work well. And in that sense, whether the statements or procedures that have led to the statements... ...have been fair and according to the rules, or whether the statement has been understood and motivated... ...and whether the judge has done the right thing. So you can't say at that moment that you have not done it and that you get a whole thing out of it. The court is just looking at whether the judge has followed the rules well, if it's very easy. Yes, and you can actually say, I haven't done it. Even if you need an attorney in a criminal case, which says that for you. But then the high council will look at that, whether the previous judge... ...in the procedures in which the judgment has failed, has done the procedure well. Or whether the rules have been adjusted well. And whether it has been understood and motivated that you have made the decision. Yes, it is also called a "cassation court". Yes, and "cassation" is actually an old French word and it actually means break. So the judge of the high council can assume that the statement of the previous judge is denied, is broken. And then the high council also often doesn't look at what has happened again. But that has to go out of what the previous judge has said about it. And that evidence, even if it's denied, the case goes back to a court or a court bench... ...that will then look at the case again. In the end, the high council is set up in 1834, I think. 1838. - Yes, 1838. And if we hadn't had that, what would we have missed in the Netherlands? So how crucial is that high council? When the high council was set up in 1838, the reason was that there were a number of provincial courts. And of course they often didn't come in line, because that wasn't their job at all. They just had to judge, like I just said, in the matters of the people or the organizations. And then you didn't have the right to justice. And then you could, for example, have in one half of the country... ...a very different punishment than in the other half of the country. And of course that wasn't desirable, or that the rule of law was explained in a very different way. And then, in the King's Court, he said that we should have one judge... ...who ultimately explains and adjusts the rule of law. And there the high council is specifically called for in life. So that you don't get a different punishment in the Netherlands than, for example... That's not the meaning, if it's exactly the same situation. And later on, in the course of the century, because there... ...first of all, you could only be judged by the law, but later you could also be judged by the law as a whole. And so it also happened that when you explain to the judge the legal decisions... ...that you were also going to do a right-wing formation. Because you actually have to imagine, when the judge has made a decision... ...then he comes to life in the situation in which he gets the money. And then he gets the job. And then you're going to better understand the situation in the hands of the judge. And if the judge then explains it, and for example sometimes has to judge... ...well, this may not be under this situation, but if the judge had also thought about this situation... ...would he then have wanted that the legal decision would also be paid for this situation? We call that right-wing formation. That you ensure that the legal rules also get real work in society. And with that you could also say that there is a certain extent to our legal power... ...that the right-wing formation is being developed in the right way. Yes, and you actually do legal development with all of them in society. So it is also the legal giver who can react to that. You can see that in the right-wing formation, in the highest instance... ...a legal rule in the right-wing formation has been laid out. And the law giver says, "Yes, but we really want it on the other side." Then the law giver often starts to react very quickly to that and adjust the law. Yes, in the end, the High Council is actually the last resort for everyone, huh? And you treat about 5,000 cases, so they are really complex cases too, huh? There will come up later. Is there still someone who can criticize the High Council? Or is there no one who looks at how you actually do your work? Well, we live in a very open society, fortunately not in the Netherlands. And we do it as institutions, too, with each other. So the law giver, the outstanding power government, the parliament and the right-wing formation... ...they actually reflect constantly in a dialogue and they are on the same foundation. Because we are all there to ensure that in the lives of people, the right can work. That is actually what the institutions do. And that also means that you can also react to each other. And not in the sense that you say, "Well, I'm not even with you." I just want you to be able to hang over that expression, as I just said. And that you can say as a law giver, but now the law is going to the right... ...that we as law givers are not going to wish for, and then we are going to adapt. And so the outstanding power with legal statements can also go in policy, for example. While at the same time the Trias politicians also have, so precisely the distinction... ...the power of the outstanding power, the law giver power and the right-wing power. Yes, but I often say that it is not only the distinction, but also a distinction of power. Because we are all on the same foundation of the values of the democratic law. Which have also been established in Article 2 of the Declaration of the European Union. It is very clear that we, as institutions, have to ensure that in the lives of people the right can work. So that's actually a bit screwed up, isn't it? Spreading of powers instead of discrimination of powers? Yes, it's a bit screwed up, and that's because the human rights after the Second World War... ...have taken such a big leap in their work, in the lives of people. After the Second World War, there was a very clear perception that this really should never happen again. And how can we prevent that? And then, for example, the European Union for the Rights of the People was established in 1950. And that is an international law, where you can also complain about a statement by the Supreme Council. If you think that the Supreme Council has signed the European Court of Justice for the Rights of the People. Yes, you can do that. If the European Court of Justice for the Rights of the People says, "Yes, that's right, that didn't go well." Then there is also a Council of Europe that keeps an eye on whether the Dutch state experiences that statement. What a good arrangement, isn't it? Yes, that's a very special mechanism in the world, and it really works relatively well. The Big Five. Diana Matroos. My guest is Dineke de Groot, President of the Supreme Council, or the highest judge of the Netherlands. And you just explained how the construction of the law works in the Netherlands. And how crucial it is that the Supreme Council is there. Because it ensures that we all get fair rights, among other things, with so many other points. By the way, you are now the highest judge for five years now. And also the first female judge. It's also been a while, when you look at when the Supreme Council is established. Yes, we were relatively late in the Netherlands with the first female president of the Supreme Council. Because in a country like ours, that was actually very simple. Yes, yes, yes. So that might feel extra special for you. Yes, it was of course also a special experience for a lot of people. Especially a lot of women, they noticed that they really thought it was important that that happened once. At the Supreme Council itself it wasn't actually such an issue, because it could have been a good diamond. So now we have over 40% of women at the Supreme Council, and we are just happy with that. Yes, and the best thing has happened, right? That's how it works. Yes, yes, that's what you're saying, but it's a bit different. We make a profile about what we expect that we will need in the coming years. About what the president has to say. And then there is a commission in the Supreme Council that looks at who has the important role. And in the end, that's one candidate for the legal issue. Those are all members of the Supreme Council. And they make a recommendation, and that goes to the minister. Okay, and what was the important assignment that actually chose you for that position? What do you do with it? Well, actually, I already said that the president of the Supreme Council really has to fulfill a role in the legal field. And that's actually more of an ambassador role than you have to sit in the open on the television every day. Because there are a lot of things that are very interesting in the media. That are the running things. And I can't talk about that in detail, because the judges have to judge them on those things. So that's not really the case. But the case is mainly to ensure that you put the connection in the institutions, in what the law in society does. That you can talk to as many people as possible about what law can mean, and what you expect from the law, and how law can keep up with it as well as possible. Did you get a good distinction? We'll get to that later, because we'll also take a look at where it all comes into the future with the law and the judges. But let's first talk about those important things that are already behind you. We are very aware that you are with us today. Because you just said, I'm not going to sit at a talk show table. And it is very important that you give an interview. So it's really nice that we can do that with you. A few important things are, for example, the agenda arrest. In 2019, you have decided that the government has to keep up with climate goals. And that was also the case with human rights. Where you just mentioned that that's why the case also shifts a bit, because you are more and more looking at those human rights. Yes, and that speech is also an example to show that you can sometimes talk about themes that are very important in the right speech. And also at a talk show table, which is quite conceivable that you do that. If it's not about the past, or about things that can still happen in the right way. In that agenda issue, that speech was actually done not so long before I became president. And I noticed inside and outside that there was a lot of need to get clarity about what exactly was going on. And that can be done by the president of the House of Representatives, to just tell and explain what's going on there. And then you stay at the text of the speech. And for that, it is also important that I do not take part in the treatment of that matter. Because that would make it more difficult, because I have done that with four colleagues. But if you can give an explanation about the speech as president of the House of Representatives, then you just do that very much. And one of the things that I have often been asked about, to explain, is how can that matter in the Netherlands at the judge? So that a lot of judges can come. And another question was how can it be said that you are against the state in such a matter? And both questions are actually very easy to answer. Because we have a happy system in the Netherlands, where you have more influence on the open life than just in the voice chat. There are all kinds of situations where you can talk to me as a citizen, in your neighborhood, in your environment, in your work, participation in entrepreneurship. We are really open to that in the Netherlands. Well, all of a sudden, there is also the right option to form an important group. And there are also strict rules set. You can't just do that. That means that you have to be independent. There are really strict rules for that. But you can as a group to the judge, if you make some kind of care, such as the closeness to the agenda about the climate. Well, on the other hand, the story is that you can also ask whether the government has taken care of its own legal duties. And that can be done for a very long time in the Netherlands, for more than 100 years. And I think we should also be very grateful that that can be done. Because the government must also be corrected. Yes, it would be very rare if the government would be able to decide on their own views, whether or not to keep the legal rules. That is not something that fits in a democratic law. And what was important in the case of the Stichting Argentina against the state, was that the minister himself was invited to write a letter to the second chamber. That was also written in the statement. With less than 25% return, we really can't do that. And well, that was a relevant fact, which was also reported in that statement. And where, according to your explanation, the application of legal rules is said. Yes, but then you have taken a legal duty. Yes, and then you can also be kept there. And that is in the note on what is in the statement. Yes, and I hear Christo Kleeer, actually, how you explain it. And then the reactions were also very critical. And the cabinet also said that the judges did not have to bother with policy. How do you look at such a remark? Yes, and then it's nice if you're asked to talk about it, to be able to explain that it is just an argument that gives room to make the policy itself. And to explain in the statement where that is. But to say at the same time, you can't demand from the judge that we call the Dutch judges, who want an independent legal term. That they do say to citizens, you have to keep a legal duty. But that they would not say that to the government. That would not be the society that is based on the values ​​of the democratic right. No, but we see this kind of remarking, of course, more and more often. And Mrs. Wilders has a hand, she also wrote in May 2022 on X. That was then still Twitter. Totally destroyed, these 60 judges want to keep women in the Netherlands. They found legal rights to be stolen. And as you can see, that pressure is still being raised more and more that politicians are going to speak out about this far, how careful is that? Yes, it is, it is very important for the judges that people who also publicize responsibility, such as politicians or ministers, that they themselves also experience or that we can talk about that. That you can sometimes have a double pet. You have your own opinion and that can be a political opinion. That is him, that is of course nothing wrong with it. But if you are a lawyer, a public lawyer, then you have the responsibility to ensure from the institution that the right in the life of people can work on those fundamentals of human dignity and human freedom. And there you also have to be able to talk about it with each other. And it can sometimes also be very difficult to feel what those double pets contribute to responsibility. And in fact, with those double pets, we have already talked about it with me. I can talk about it as the president of the High Council, but not about the past. Well, it can be difficult for the minister, if it is shown in the unequivocally, in a situation where there is a state party, to experience it as a minister, that you do have to work with each other, the institutions, in the lives of people, together. And they can fight those responsibilities. And that is also human and understandable, and the most important thing is that you can talk to each other and reflect on it. Okay, but just reflect on your reflection, because we are here now together. Do you think that politicians do this kind of statements more and more and actually do not handle these two pets very well if I make the conclusion myself? Because of the responsibility they also have, you also see polarization in society, which means that the trust in institutions, in the right-wing sector, is still coming up with such a thing, to be more and more under pressure. It is really carefree, not as much as that happens, but if it is no longer taken for granted, or if it is normalized. As long as we can make this conversation about it, to signal what actually happens, it is less worrying than when we would no longer talk about it, to feel that we are already normal. So it is very important that we realize what actually happens there, and that we can also talk to people about it, and say, "Have you seen what you are doing?" And it is true that this is increasingly more necessary. For example, if you compare it to earlier, when someone in the TBS direction understood, then the Minister of Justice said, "We are going to look for him, we are going to escort him as quickly as possible, we are going to come up for the safety of the people in the Netherlands, but we are not going to talk about the question of whether this has to do with the legal negotiations, that someone understands us." Well, and that has changed. You see that it has become easier to play the ball back to the right-wing, if that policy comes out well. And not all politicians do that, it is not completely normal at all. And for me, when I look at it, when I listen to it, I always pay attention, for example, or in the media, on the radio, on the television, whether that is recognized and whether something is said about it. And as long as that still happens... But do we really do that? Because we are also critical of ourselves. Do we really stand in the width of that, because it is not just BNR, to measure this well? Yes, I do think that in the media, it is really very critical, to look at how the institutions work and that things are really being reported when things just don't work out. For example, there was a situation where it started to become more unsafe in a country, if it is more difficult for ministers to put out migrants faster. For example, if they didn't get permission to go to a country. And there was a European level, where the ministers had put themselves out there, that the right of the European people, or the right of the people, what they have to do is to leave room. Well, there was not only a discussion in the media about it, but there was also a newspaper that received two surveys. They said it was not right at all. It is not at all true that there is more crime in a country. And there is research done, it is just proven that it is not so, if there are more migrants. Well, as long as there is some kind of independent investigation, when it is presented to the public, we are still in a very strong democratic rule. There they are, with her tongue on the bench. Karen just sold her house with a nice envelope, and the panic immediately hit her. Her personal trainer swears at Crypto. German state obligations, says the neighbor. What now? Get a good look at Bridgefund. There your money is spread over more than 95 hundred mkb's. Super defensive, for those who keep it safe. With a fixed annual rent of up to 5.75%, this monthly is deducted. So go to Bridgefund. 18+, be aware. When you play with the Postcode lottery, you support 147 good goals. From a red cross in KWF, to a fixed annual rent and food bank. Thank you, together we make the world a little more beautiful. I'm talking this week with five heads of the world of the judges. Earlier this week I spoke with President of the Bank of Rotterdam, Julia Mendlich, about how important it is that the judges explain their work better, but at the same time it is a dilemma from the independent role that the judges have and also about their safety. Listen to it all back through our legs. Today I am speaking with Dineke de Groot. She is president of the High Council of the Netherlands. And that means that she is the highest judge in the Netherlands. In the next half hour, I would like to discuss two more topics with you. We have discussed how the legal power can stay connected to society, also well know what is playing out, while at the same time all kinds of pressure is also on that legal language. And how you remain as the highest judge, while everyone has a opinion. We had just a little bit about the opinions of politicians that make certain statements, but of course that plays out widely in society. And then you actually come to the trust around the law, where the legal language is also part of how you judge that trust at the moment. Are you well tuned about how we look at the legal language? Or do you say, well, I just have a little bit of concern. With trust in the legal language, the Netherlands has been very well set up for decades. It is really very high in comparison with other countries. About 2/3 to 70% of people trust in the legal language during the years, in the police, in health care. And that doesn't really change that much either. When you see differences, they will never be very large. And it's also not like you can say that these differences are being caused by something. It's even like you can see that dissatisfaction about the legal language can also go very well together with that high trust in the legal language. For example, in all countries where it is being investigated, people find that the punishments are always too low. And that doesn't change either. In the Netherlands, there has been a trend where the punishments are only higher. But the sentiment of the lower punishment remains and that is not only in the Netherlands. And there is also no association with the differences in trust in the legal language. So that's actually very interesting. And what is very important to keep the trust in the legal language high, is that people can also continue to see that the legal language is independent. That is really the core. That independence, you really have to stand very high in the court. Yes, and there are of course happy legal politicians, but a number of politicians who are more and more in discussion, that there is no independence. And now Ivo Burma says, who, despite being released as a councilman here, at the High Council, we are sitting on a side point. There has been a fight between political and social forces that want to keep the law, and forces that want to break off. Every time the political law makes them in battle with the High Council, that is a minus on the law. And so it goes on for a while. Do you have the feeling that we are sitting on a side point? Or do you not share that concern with him? It's always hard to say whether you were sitting on a side point. It's very difficult to feel that in time. What we do see is that in the past 20, 30 years, all major social situations have occurred, where we don't really know each other very well. And then things come about, in the end, at the High Council. An example of that is the flexibilisation of the labor market. At first, people were just in service, in loan service, and then you get the situation that people liked to be turned into payers. And then you get all kinds of questions about how it is in your right position. Do you build pressure? And if you don't do that, what does that mean in the end for all of us? Solidarity in the Netherlands. So you get all kinds of big questions. And they ultimately culminate in asking the High Council when does someone have a labor contract? And then the High Council goes in the direction of the flexibilisation of the labor market to explain legislation that comes for a part of the Netherlands, for a part of the European Union. And that is really directed, not only at the fact that there has to be solidarity, but also at the individual rights protection of people. Imagine you're in the ZZP, you're not guaranteed, you get a job at some point. How is it with your social costs, how is it with your own costs of living without money? Those are all very big questions, very big situations. Well, similar situations are of course there on the housing market. Everyone knows that. So it's a big social... Just like Urgenna, where you were in 2019, we are in all kinds of big transitions. So there are more things coming up, also about Schiphol, which does not have to crimp what you have done as a statement at the end of the day. But anyway, when we look at the countries around us, we see, well, anyway, that the trend is becoming increasingly nationalistic. And that we are also breaking down the rule of law. Look at what is happening in the United States. We are, fortunately, a different country, but we are also often denied to follow what is happening in America. So I try to just tell you, I hear you talk about a lot of trust, about where we are now. Because you only know from behind whether there has been a counterpoint, as Ivo Burma says. But where do we have to look at it? Because sometimes I also feel that we are all a bit looking at each other, how things change, and that we may also be too tame. And then you have to choose, consciously choose where you are speaking from. And where do you look at, or others who have more natural role to speak out, also do that. And not just go to the forefront, but if others fill their natural role, you have to ask yourself if you still have to add something. Take, for example, the president of the Supreme Court in America, who then, President Trump, made a real attack on a legal deal. Actually, there are two things. He said, if you don't agree with a legal deal, you have to go to high court, and you don't have to go to court individually. So he took the empathic side, you don't have to go to court individually, and the legal side. We have a legal system, in which the president of the United States can also go to high court if he doesn't agree with a legal deal. And he chooses to do that at that moment. My colleague in France has a sort of similar situation. At The Handgat, he also chose to give an interview in Le Monde, an important newspaper in France, and after that, Marine de Pen was sentenced to three judges in the first case for women with EU subsidies. And then, especially about the chairman of the House, who had made the deal, he was released in a way that wasn't appropriate for a politician. And then he also chose to sign these two things. So you don't go to court with our judges, and if you don't agree with a deal, you go to high court, even if you're a politician. And those are the moments where you have to choose whether to go out there or not. Yes, because what is the danger to talk about in that way? Because you actually talked about that at the beginning of the broadcast, and there are really dilemmas attached. Yes, there are definitely dilemmas attached, but there are also dilemmas that don't talk about you. What you don't want in such a role as that of me, is that you say to yourself, "There I had to say something, I didn't do it." And that has brought the side point further along. So it's true that I noticed that in comparison with the first years, when I filled this function, that I developed more awareness over the past three years to see how things are reacted to, things that make up for themselves, which would potentially hurt the responsibility of the legal language. Yes, and that's also a bit what you all see, that you're looking for something more in the foreground, well, in all kinds of different ways, by doing an interview now, but also on social media. For example, on Instagram. Also an account to communicate more about what you're doing and what explanation is behind it. Yes, we've been doing that for a very long time at De Hoogeraat. Because we find it very important from the outside at De Hoogeraat to explain to people in such a understandable language what we do, what our explanations mean. So we also have news reports every week about important statements that are sociable and relevant, and there is really a lot of work to be done to formulate our own explanations in such a understandable way. But sometimes they are very legal, and then you want to be able to explain in detail in the news report what happens there. Okay, so you all did that, what are you going to do more about? Or where are you thinking about doing more in the difficult balance that you have? You can never give opinions about things. You always have to remain independent, but you also say, are we on the other side or not? I don't know that, but we do have to talk more about things, right? Yes, yes, and that also has two sides. Because it's not just about signaling when you think something bad is going on here. It's also about explaining what we actually have good for in the Netherlands. For example, in comparison with a lot of other countries in Europe, it's still more special in the Netherlands that there is no political influence on our legal language. That's not the case for a long time. And a lot of people don't know that. And we actually have three things that are very important in the Netherlands. We have very good procedures to ensure that we are independent, that we are able to openly operate in the law firm. We have very high motivation rates in the legal language. And we really appreciate the openness of the legal language. And those three things, and we can always work on that further, transparency is never over. You always have to think about how you can achieve society as well as possible. But those three things together are very strong in the Netherlands. And I also hear that when I talk to colleagues in other countries, that they look at the Dutch legal language as innovative, innovative, always looking for it, it can be even better. And that's something you also have to mention. So actually explain how good it is and how crucial it is that we have this system and that we have to work on it. That's actually the way you explain it. There was also a recent issue about the delivery of F-35 fighter planes to Israel. Of course, that was also all around Israel. And Gaza was very sensitive here in the Netherlands, a lot of patrioticism. That's why we have decided that this is a decision for the government and not for the high council. Does that mean that it is too politically charged? And that you say, here we have to take care of it and don't talk about it? The high council has not exactly said that it is a decision not for the judge, but for the government. But the high council has said, look, this is about foreign policy. This is about foreign policy and security policies, that they highlight a domain of policy in the government, in which the judge does not take part. So the government really has a lot of room to come up for the safety of the country and foreign relations. What happened here was that the minister had made a deal with the government and that the high council asked whether that deal was according to the rules. And then the high council went to see what rules there were all, both international and national, and whether they were well explained and adapted. And then the high council came to the conclusion that this deal was not exactly according to the rules, and then the minister said, you have to do that again, but then according to the rules. Okay, so it is absolutely not that something is too politically charged, that you then want to give it back. This is the procedure that you have followed here. No, it is not about the charge, it is about being able to see very clearly that some decisions are really political, the judge will not take part in it, but that if there are legal rules and the government has a certain right, then the judge, the both parties in this matter, will go straight ahead and see if the government, if that party asks that, has kept their legal duties. And that was exactly the question here too. There she is, with her tongue on the bench. Karen, just sold the house with a nice envelope and the panic immediately hit her. Her personal trainer swears at Crypto. German state obligation, says the neighbor. What now? Check at Bridgefund. There your money is spread over more than 95 hundred mkbers. Super defensive, for whoever keeps it safe. With a fixed year's rent, up to 5,75 percent, that monthly is allocated. So go to Bridgefund. How would you like to start your day without glasses or contact lenses? FIEO makes it possible. FIEO, the specialist in eye-readers and lens implantation. Make a decision quickly at one of our clinics. FIEO. Live without glasses.nl. Plan your free eye-reader at FIEO. Live without glasses.nl. B&R News Radio. The Big Five. Diana Matrose. You still listen to B&R's Big Five of the Rechters. And hopefully you'll do that all week. Today I'm talking to Dineke de Groot, president of the High Council of the Netherlands, our highest judge in the Netherlands. I'm still a bit puzzled what you're actually saying. Because I hear a lot of trust in you, where we are now, but we also know that trust is about the only thing we have around this law. Well, the only thing is very crucial, that it stays high. Then you see other countries where that goes. We have a lot of conversations with each other, that the law breaks off and is in danger, and that we have to wake up for that. I still don't hear you say that. And I'm sitting next to Pussel, what do you think of that? Do you think it breaks off the law or not? In the world, the law is breaking off. The democratic law. The majority get less eye for the importance that minorities are protected. That's worldwide, you can see that on all fronts. You have to distinguish that, that's just the way it is. So why do we have to be very careful? To make sure that, for example, minorities are able to keep their rights protected. And that's what we need to do, to keep explaining that that's not something that belongs to the law, but that it's based on the fundamentals of human dignity and human freedom. They want to carry everything, and the law breaks off with each other. Yes, and if you go to other countries, we can be happy to be where we are, but we also see that there are more laws here. That's what I'd like to see, we've seen it with corona. There was an exceptional situation, but also with the asylum emergency laws. So you do see things in our country, of course. Certainly, you also see that there are advices from the Council of State about that something is not lawful. Yes, it's not taken too hard, and that a law is implemented. And that's new, that's something we haven't experienced before. And it's really important that we continue to learn, and that we continue to react from the quality of the law. So, for example, sometimes we are also asked at the High Council to think in advance about legislation. And if it's about process law or about fundamental rights, then we are also prepared to give an advice in advance, in which everyone in the international consultation can leave out. And then we will also learn such things when it comes to the order. But it's not like that, as a judge, then the choice can be made in the other institutions, which are made entirely out of their superiority. Yes, in terms of politics, or in terms of distribution. Yes, and in the end, it's up to all of us, as voters, to choose which side we want to go with the country. And the judge has the authority to explain and solve the rules of law. And it's also important to get there for the return of the human rights of all of us. And what is your biggest dilemma now, if I can talk about the safety of the law, about the rule of law that we must always keep in mind? But what is the biggest dilemma, also what you discuss with your colleague as a resident? Well, one of the big dilemmas we regularly have about it is that it is increasingly more difficult to ensure that in the form of the image of people, truth is trusted and informed. Then we just talked about how the media does that. Well, in the Netherlands, there are certainly media that do that very well. But we also know that it is very easy on social media to agree with each other about things that are very easy to emphasize, that they are simply not trustworthy. Well, and if you now, if that now takes a big flight, that actually leads to disinformation, and that as a deep fake also plays a very big role in the history of... Can I briefly interrupt for a moment, because we have a beautiful chain question from Julia Mendelik, who I spoke to yesterday, president of the court of law, Rotterdam. This is her chain question. She is a very large representative of openness and the importance of her very much and the free news coverage. That's why we are here together. And I would like to ask her, how do you think that the influence of AI, where we of course also get deep fakes and so on, will be on the openness of the legal language? Is that positive or negative or both? And could they say something about that? Yes, well, I'm certainly going to do that right now, but then let's take a look at what I was just about to tell you. If it is getting more difficult for people to distinguish what is true and what is not, then at some point you don't know where you have to believe in. And that is a very big danger in our society. We talk about that a lot in Europe. Yes, then you won't believe the legal language either. Because for trust you actually need three things. You have to have the feeling that the other, what he says to you and about you, that he does that with the understanding of things. And you have to have the feeling that he does that with good will, that he looks at you with good will. And that he has a good intention, that he wants to treat you honestly. Well, with those three things together, if there is all that information about you, and you can't judge it well anymore, or that person wants to do those three things for you, then it becomes more difficult to have trust in what someone says. For example, if he is right, he makes a statement about you. Well, and when it comes to artificial intelligence, we are now lucky to have regulations from the European Union, which tries to organize what you can do with artificial intelligence, and how to deal with it. And they make, for example, a difference between low risk, middle risk and high risk. And the judge will certainly be able to do that. And that is happening now, because there are already all kinds of changes in artificial intelligence. And one of the beautiful rules in the European Union is that the person who makes such a system of artificial intelligence, or who uses it, has to tell you how that is done together. So he has to explain whether it is possible that no one knows when something comes out, whether it is reliable, because you actually no longer know what he has learned in the system. And whether it is inclusive, because that is of course also the things we hear, that unfortunately also disappeared in that technology discrimination. Yes, so what we are going to learn with each other is how you are going to give the form to that information obligation, to explain whether your system is not reliable, and can contribute to the trust in the law, whether it can really break down. And the judge will then ask questions about that in matters to the users of that system. And we haven't talked about that many times yet, but then you see that actually also happen. Because it is the only logical possibility to work with it. And can you draw out a certain conclusion from the things that have already passed? Is it a careful development? Are there going to be many things wrong? Well, one of the things you can already see is that it is difficult to get behind it, that there is a system being used, which for example profiles on knowledge that you are not allowed to profil. You just have to imagine that if you are an advocate, and you sometimes have a case about such a system, that you don't just see that there are all kinds of other people who also worry about why they are suddenly picked up. Well, and it takes a while before something like that comes together. And I actually hope that that arrangement will also bring us more consciousness of that we are already going to ask it in the early stages, but you just have to figure out how the system is in each other, what information has you introduced, why is it reliable. So we are actually going to get a kind of extra lighting obligation for the people who use those systems. So it really means something for the company, right? Yes, we have a lot of companies, people who listen to us afterwards. Yes, and on the other hand, that arrangement also tries to give very good space for the people who can offer artificial intelligence to us. So we are looking for that balance. But there is also attention in the regulations for the development of the legal language to be able to continue to work well. This is your answer to the question of the chain, but the question of the chain goes on, of course. Tomorrow I have guest Peter Björn Martens. Strafrechter, what would you like to ask him? Yes, Peter Björn Martens is indeed a Strafrechter. And I am curious if he can tell you something about the changed role of the lawyer, especially in the sitting room in the criminal process. Because in a slightly longer past, was that a process with a suspect and an officer of justice? In the meantime, it is a lot of things, a process with a suspect, an officer of justice and a victim. That gives a different dynamic in the sitting room and also gives a changing role for the lawyer. And I am very curious if he can tell you what his experiences are with it. Nice question. And do you notice that somewhere back at Strafsaker, that you were treated as an influence? Yes, we also notice that. Because of the regulation, the role of the victim is empowered, you could say, with an English word. And that was one of the very good reasons. And for example, there is now in the Strafrecht, in the rights of the victim in Schadevergoed, there is a lot of civil rights. And that means that we, at the High Court, we work in three rights, civil, criminal and law, that it occurs that we receive an independent advice from an attorney general in the Strafrecht and an attorney general in the civil rights and that we make a deal with members of the civil room in the criminal case and the criminal room to ensure that we also ensure that the right, the victims, be careful, explain and adjust. Yes, so it really has got a whole extra layer. An incredibly interesting question. And I thought it was a very interesting conversation. Actually, it's a shame that the clock is ticking, because I still had a lot of questions, but who knows, we'll talk to you later. Thank you very much for the attention, the officials, Dineke de Groot, president of the High Court. Well done. And of course, if you want to listen to all the other episodes, go to our B&R app. And stay live on this channel. So you can do B&R business right away with Thomas van Zijl. I wish you a nice day and see you tomorrow. 75% of the monthly income is deducted. So go to BridgeFund.