The rules of evidence form the foundation of every civil proceeding: he who alleges must prove. The Law on the Simplification and Modernisation of Evidence Law has been in force since 1 January 2025. This law introduces various amendments designed to make civil evidence law more accessible, efficient and clear. For parties to proceedings, this primarily means that proceedings now place even greater demands on thorough preparation, a complete case file and a well-considered litigation strategy. This article provides insight into the most important legislative changes and their practical implications.<\/p>\n
The Act on the Simplification and Modernisation of the Law of Evidence<\/strong><\/p>\n The Act on the Simplification and Modernisation of the Law of Evidence streamlines and clarifies the options available to parties for accessing relevant information and evidence both prior to and during civil proceedings. The legislative changes form part of the broader trend towards civil proceedings in which the judge can ideally deliver a judgment immediately at the conclusion of the oral hearing.<\/p>\n The procedural law takes effect immediately: the new rules apply to procedural steps taken after 1 January 2025. This means that ongoing proceedings may also fall under the new law, depending on when a procedural step is taken.<\/p>\n The law will be evaluated five years after its entry into force. It will then become clearer to what extent these amendments actually contribute to a more efficient and effective application of the law of evidence.<\/p>\n A number of important changes<\/strong><\/p>\n Preliminary evidence-gathering measures For such situations, various preliminary evidential measures exist, such as the preliminary examination of witnesses, the preliminary expert report and the order for disclosure under Article 843a of the Code of Civil Procedure. These allow evidence to be gathered or information to be obtained even before the oral hearing.<\/p>\n Since the legislative amendment, the rules governing this have become clearer. It is possible to combine multiple evidentiary measures in a single application. However, this does not mean that the application will always be granted in full: the court may split the requests, reject them in part, or assess them separately.<\/p>\n In making this assessment, the judge exercises discretion. Factors considered include the existence of sufficient interest, proportionality, potential conflict with the proper conduct of proceedings, and the prevention of so-called \u2018fishing expeditions\u2019. Only after this substantive assessment does the judge decide whether and to what extent the request is granted. This is not an entirely new obligation, but a reinforcement and clarification of existing obligations under procedural law. Anyone initiating proceedings must, from the outset, present the relevant facts, evidence and legal arguments as fully as possible, within reasonable limits.<\/p>\n This means, for example, that an employee who claims their dismissal was unfair must immediately provide an overview of the available evidence. This includes supporting emails, colleagues who can act as witnesses, and known or reasonably foreseeable defences by the employer. The same naturally applies to the employer as well.<\/p>\n Litigating without sufficient substantiation, in the hope that this can be supplemented later, will therefore become considerably more difficult. In doing so, the judge may take a more active role by asking questions and contributing ideas, but remains bound by the limits of the legal dispute. Articles 24 and 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure remain the guiding principles: the judge may not introduce an entirely new factual basis outside the parties\u2019 arguments and must decide on the basis of what the parties have put forward in support of their claim or defence.<\/p>\n This legislative amendment therefore primarily confirms what was already common practice, but provides greater clarity regarding the judge\u2019s role.<\/p>\n Hearing witnesses during the oral hearing In practice, this is not always straightforward: it takes a great deal of time and witnesses are not always immediately available. Nevertheless, this approach can yield significant benefits.<\/p>\n Consider, for example, an employment case concerning summary dismissal. The employee and employer often have completely different accounts of what happened. By hearing the key parties directly as witnesses, it becomes clearer more quickly what actually took place. The legislative amendment primarily clarifies matters regarding statements by the parties. It is emphasised more explicitly that statements by the parties themselves may carry independent weight under the law of evidence.<\/p>\n In making this assessment, the court takes into account factors such as the position of the person making the statement, their interest in the outcome of the case, the credibility of the statement and its consistency with the other facts and evidence.<\/p>\n Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n The legislative changes are not revolutionary, but they do compel the parties to adopt a different approach to litigation. Parties must have their case files in order at an early stage, gather relevant evidence and think strategically about the substantiation of their positions.<\/p>\n In practice, this means that both claimants and defendants must anticipate the opposing party\u2019s positions at an earlier stage. They must determine in good time what evidence is required and how they can present their position in a legally consistent and convincing manner. A well-structured case file and a carefully considered litigation strategy prior to commencing proceedings are therefore more important than ever.<\/p>\n The core principle, however, remains unchanged: the law of evidence must contribute to a decision that does as much justice to the facts as possible. The legislature has primarily refined the tools to achieve that goal more quickly and effectively.<\/p>\n The experienced lawyers at SPEE advocaten & mediation will, of course, be happy to assist you in choosing the right litigation strategy and in utilising evidence as effectively as possible.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" De bewijsregels vormen het fundament van iedere civiele procedure: wie stelt, moet bewijzen. Sinds 1 januari 2025 is de Wet vereenvoudiging en modernisering bewijsrecht in werking. Deze wet brengt diverse aanpassingen met zich mee die het civiele bewijsrecht toegankelijker, effici\u00ebnter en duidelijker moeten maken. Voor procespartijen betekent dit vooral dat een procedure nog sterker vraagt […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":5955,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5954","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-actualiteiten"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/spee-advocaten.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5954","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/spee-advocaten.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/spee-advocaten.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/spee-advocaten.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/spee-advocaten.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5954"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/spee-advocaten.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5954\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5957,"href":"https:\/\/spee-advocaten.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5954\/revisions\/5957"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/spee-advocaten.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5955"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/spee-advocaten.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5954"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/spee-advocaten.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5954"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/spee-advocaten.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5954"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n<\/em>In practice, a party may find itself in a dispute where there is a presumption that it has a strong legal case, but it is uncertain whether this can be sufficiently proven. Proceeding directly to litigation can then be a major and risky step.<\/p>\n
\n
\nStricter duty to substantiate
\n<\/em>Another important development is that judges increasingly want to see the full picture from the outset. Whereas proceedings used to develop step by step and information was provided gradually, the emphasis is now more strongly on a complete and timely presentation of the dispute.<\/p>\n
\n
\nThe judge\u2019s power to make suggestions
\n<\/em>Since 1 January 2025, the law has explicitly provided that the judge may discuss with the parties whether the basis of their claim or defence is correct or may need to be adjusted.<\/p>\n
\n<\/em>The judge\u2019s active role is further strengthened by the fact that the judge may, of their own motion, issue a direction for evidence and may order that witnesses be heard during the oral hearing. In doing so, the judge may also specify which persons are relevant for the provision of evidence.<\/p>\n
\n
\nValuation of evidence
\n<\/em>The court already had discretion in assessing evidence under Article 152(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. This means that, in principle, the court is free to assess the available evidence as it sees fit, unless the law provides otherwise.<\/p>\n