Rechtvaardigheid

Onrechtvaardigheid

Illustraties

From the parliamentary history of the Dutch Civil Code it becomes clear that it was the intention that the court only should move away from contract or relevant statutory provisions by means of a last resort, thus only when its result was indeed unacceptable.

The assumption was that de court, in each case, first would determine which legal rules apply in conformity with the legal system as codified in the Dutch Civil Code. After that, the court should base its judgment on these rules.

Only when the outcome was more than proportionally disadvantageous for one of the parties, the court could examine if the standards of reasonableness and fairness perhaps would prescribe another result.

But the legislator had forgotten that even before the court reaches this point, it has to make a lot of decisions at random.

Because many statutory provisions of the Civil Code are to open and vague, the courts have clang to the idea that the outcome of each specific case must, above all, be fair and just.

This has led more then occasionally to a reversed working method of courts.

Although not in line with legal methods, the judge simply looks at the presented facts as a whole and, overlooking the entire picture, decides for himself which outcome he considers to be the most fair in this case, without considering any legal rules.

​After that, he works explicitly towards that outcome, ignoring all contractual and legal rules standing in his way. 

Why is this so terribly wrong? Because it breaks down the entire legal system of civil law, particularly the legal method of how to approach and solve a legal problem on which lawyers and also the people may depend.

What remains is an overall uncertainty concerning the outcome of a dispute, since this is totally depending on the sense of justice of the judge who coincidentally is in session.

​In fact, this would mean that there’s not just one civil law, applying to everyone, but there are as many civil law systems as there are judges.

So a decision based purely on what the ruling judge himself finds reasonable and fair, isn’t more reasonable and fair then a decision made by flipping a coin.

Overweging

Vergelijking

Statenvertaling:

Opdat wij zouden zijn tot prijs Zijner heerlijkheid, wij, die eerst in Christus gehoopt hebben. In Welken ook gij zijt, (...)

King James Bijbel:

That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also trusted,

Hetzelfde? Nee!

Vergelijking

Statenvertaling:

Tot een betoning van Zijn rechtvaardigheid in dezen tegenwoordigen tijd; opdat Hij rechtvaardig zij, en rechtvaardigende dengene, die uit het geloof van Jezus is.

King James Bijbel: 

To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Hetzelfde? Nee! 

“Tomorrow is going to be wonderful, since today I don’t understand anything”

“Also, that the soul be without knowledge, it is not good“