Introduction
On 23 September 2026, the European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber, issued its decision in the case of Kuijt v. the Netherlands (Application no. 19365/19, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2026:0923DEC001936519). The case concerns a Dutch national, Ms Johanna Kuijt, who challenged a specific institutional practice of the Supreme Court of the Netherlands in the context of her criminal cassation appeal.
The central question before the Grand Chamber was whether the possible participation of so-called reservisten — judges from the relevant division of the Supreme Court who are not formally assigned to a case panel but who may take part in deliberations — was compatible with the right to a fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal established by law, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
This article provides an educational overview of the background, procedure, and key issues raised in the decision, drawing exclusively on the text of the official judgment as published by the Court.
Background and factual context
The applicant, born in 1964 and resident in Krommenie in the Netherlands, lodged her application with the Court on 4 April 2019. Her case had passed through proceedings at first instance, before the Court of Appeal, and ultimately before the Supreme Court of the Netherlands, where it was examined as a cassation appeal.
At the Supreme Court level, cassation appeals are assigned to panels of three or five judges drawn from the relevant division — in this case, the Criminal Division. The practice at issue is that, when such a panel deliberates, other judges within the same division, referred to in Dutch as reservisten, may participate in the discussion. According to the document, the stated purpose of this participation is to ensure the uniform interpretation and application of the law and the consistency of the Supreme Court's case-law.
The applicant challenged this practice, arguing that the involvement of reservisten in the deliberations of her case meant that her appeal was not determined by a tribunal established by law within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. She also raised related concerns touching on the independence and impartiality of the tribunal.
Procedural history before the European Court of Human Rights
The application was initially allocated to the Fourth Section of the Court. On 15 April 2020, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands were given notice of the complaint under Article 6 § 1, while the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court.
On 26 August 2025, a Chamber of the Fourth Section decided to relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, in accordance with Article 30 of the Convention. The Grand Chamber was composed of seventeen judges, presided over by Mattias Guyomar as President, with John Darcy serving as Deputy Grand Chamber Registrar.
Both the applicant and the Government filed observations on admissibility and the merits. The President invited the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) and the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) to intervene in the written procedure. The French Government was also granted leave to intervene under Article 36 § 2 of the Convention. The Venice Commission and the CCJE each made written submissions in response to questions posed by the Court, and both published those submissions on their respective websites.
A public hearing took place at the Human Rights Building in Strasbourg on 21 January 2026. The Grand Chamber deliberated in private on 21 January and again on 1 July 2026. Following the hearing, the President permitted the Government to submit additional elements to supplement their oral replies, and the applicant was allowed to respond.
The domestic legal framework
The decision identifies several layers of the relevant Dutch legal framework. These include the Constitution, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Judiciary Organisation Act. The document also refers to the Supreme Court's own Regulations on internal organisation and a Protocol that were in force at the material time, as well as developments that took place after the applicant's case was examined by the Supreme Court.
The domestic case-law section of the decision addresses procedural aspects of proceedings before the Supreme Court, examples of case-law concerning complaints about whether a court was 'established by law', and the scope of the challenge procedure available to litigants who wish to contest the composition of a judicial panel.
The challenge proceedings before the Supreme Court in the applicant's own case involved several stages: the applicant's arguments, an advisory opinion from the Procurator-General, and a decision by the challenge panel. The Supreme Court subsequently issued its judgment in the cassation proceedings themselves. These domestic steps form the procedural backdrop against which the Court assessed the admissibility of the application.
Key legal issues: admissibility and the substance of the complaint
The Grand Chamber's assessment of the case was structured around two principal admissibility questions. The first concerned whether the applicant had exhausted domestic remedies, as required under the Convention. The Court examined the relevant principles governing exhaustion and then applied them to the specific circumstances of the case, considering in particular the scope of the challenge procedure available under Dutch law and other aspects of the applicant's Article 6 complaint.
The second admissibility question addressed whether the remainder of the application was manifestly ill-founded. The document sets out the parties' respective submissions on admissibility: the Government advanced arguments in favour of inadmissibility, while the applicant contested those arguments.
The core substantive complaint — that the participation of reservisten in deliberations meant the applicant's case was not heard by a tribunal established by law — engages one of the fundamental guarantees of Article 6 § 1. The 'established by law' requirement is understood to protect litigants against arbitrary interference with the composition of courts and to ensure that judicial organisation is governed by law rather than executive or judicial discretion alone. The document reflects that this question was considered sufficiently serious to warrant Grand Chamber examination and the involvement of third-party interveners.
Significance of the Grand Chamber referral and third-party interventions
The decision by the Fourth Section Chamber to relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber under Article 30 of the Convention signals that the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation of the Convention or a question of general importance. The involvement of the Venice Commission and the CCJE as third-party interveners further underscores the broader institutional relevance of the issues at stake, which extend beyond the individual circumstances of the applicant to questions about how supreme courts across Council of Europe member states organise their internal deliberative processes.
The French Government's participation as a third-party intervener also suggests that the practice under scrutiny — or analogous practices — may exist in other jurisdictions, and that the outcome of the case could have implications for judicial organisation more widely within the Council of Europe system.
The Court's decision is described as final, though it may be subject to editorial revision. As a Grand Chamber decision, it carries significant authority within the Convention system.
Conclusion
The Grand Chamber decision in Kuijt v. the Netherlands addresses a nuanced but important question about the internal organisation of supreme courts and the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The case focuses specifically on whether the participation of reserve judges — reservisten — in the deliberations of a cassation panel is consistent with the right to a tribunal established by law.
The decision reflects the Court's careful approach to admissibility, including the exhaustion of domestic remedies, before reaching the substance of Convention complaints. The relinquishment of jurisdiction to the Grand Chamber, combined with the participation of the Venice Commission, the CCJE, and the French Government as interveners, illustrates the systemic importance of the questions raised.
Readers seeking to understand the full reasoning and operative conclusions of the Court should consult the official text of the decision, available at the HUDOC database of the European Court of Human Rights (https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-252706). This article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Legal notice
This article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Sources consulted
- KUIJT v. THE NETHERLANDS - European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe
Published by Synojus International
Back to English publications