Fast screening of appeal cases is good for everyone

One of the examples that has already allowed us to gain a lot in court cases is the use of ‘proactive screening’. What is it and how does it help us to work even more smartly and efficiently?

‘It is nice for all process parties that court hearings can take place as planned, especially for applicants who are looking forward to a hearing because if it doesn’t take place, it means an even longer wait for clarity about the outcome of the procedure.’ But of course also for the IND, district courts and the Bar.
This is according to IND staff member Janke. She has been there since the start of the pilot ‘proactive screening’. By now, this method of the IND has become the standard for court cases in Groningen, Zwolle and Arnhem. ‘It happens a lot less than before that applicants are confronted with cancelled hearings.’

District court staff and asylum lawyers are also positive about the approach, Janke knows. ‘District courts in the north give us the feedback that there are a lot less gaps in the hearing agenda: no agendas where out of six cases, one or two were cancelled because the IND withdrew a decision at the last minute. And we contact lawyers sooner, for example, so that we can discuss in good time which supplementary information is needed.’

Removing sore points earlier

Lawyers of the IND now detect earlier whether files of people who appeal against a decision contain sore points or deficiencies, well before a hearing date is scheduled for a case. In Janke’s words: ‘solve problems in advance and make sure that the district court can rule on the essence of the case.’
This prevents that lawyers, judges and court registrars, among others, do work that will later turn out to have been ‘for nothing’ and that gaps arise in the agenda of process parties. A great additional advantage is that applicants no longer have to wait or go ‘back to the start’ if the file has deficiencies. ‘If we only discover a deficiency just before the hearing, we must often ask to suspend the case for that reason or withdraw the decision. And if suspension is unsuccessful, it often results in an appeal being declared unfounded.’

Taken off the schedule shortly before the hearing

In the ‘old’ situation, it was common to analyse a file shortly before a hearing and to write a defence. When there was an invitation for a hearing, the case was picked up. ‘Consequently, it was only detected shortly before the hearing that supplementary decision-making or supplementary investigation was necessary,’ according to Janke. The result was that the IND colleagues involved had to work under great time pressure to complete such a file. And sometimes, cases were taken off the schedule altogether and such a case had to be sent back to the start of the appeal proceedings. 

Solving deficiencies

Janke, ‘Now, decisions are already checked for deficiencies upon receipt of the reasons for appeal, and if there are any, whether these can be solved.’ In addition, new investigation or supplementary decision-making can also be necessary for a complete and up-to-date file as a result of case law. By looking at a case sooner, this can be picked up on in time and often also solved.

Standard method

Two years ago, a number of senior staff members started the pilot in Zwolle. That very same year, ‘proactive screening’ became a standard method for hearings at the district courts of Zwolle, Groningen and Arnhem. In April 2023, this method was also adopted by colleagues in The Hague for cases screened for hearings in the district courts in the west of the country. By now, seven people are screening files in Zwolle. They do this in addition to their ‘regular’ activities.

Hundreds of cases

Last year, 658 cases were checked this way in Zwolle for the northern district courts (Zwolle, Groningen and Arnhem). In around 12 percent, the IND was able to take action in advance so that a case could still be supplemented, adapted, or settled out of court in time. In 2 percent of the screened cases, the IND decided to withdraw the decision proactively. ‘This means that the whole case had to be processed over again because we could neither repair nor defend the decision as it was at the time. The applicant now also knew this sooner than before.’ Up to the end of March this year, over two hundred cases had already been scrutinised earlier than before.

Every little step helps

Janke states that ‘ “screening proactively” demonstrates that the efforts of one process party, the IND in this case, can have a positive influence on the process and on all other parties. Because the applicant should be able to assume that the hearing will take place; the district court and the Bar do not prepare a case for nothing and should be allowed to assume that cases will go through. This way, a relatively small change of approach has a meaningful influence. Sometimes, you just have to start somewhere.’