This article on the usefulness of a general codification of administrative law forms the closing contribution of a NALL-special. In this special, various authors have reflected on the successfulness of a broad codification process in 1998, which introduced rules on the notification of decisions, policy rules, subsidies, enforcement and supervision of administrative authorities in the Dutch General Administrative Law Act (GALA). The editors asked the contributors whether the objectives of the rules introduced were met and how the rules turned out to function in practice. In this overarching article, the NALL-editors reflect on the general lessons to be learned for the GALA-legislator. In these lessons they also take into consideration the initiatives for a law of administrative procedure of the European Union.

In judicial review of decisions of administrative authorities courts generally aim towards grounding a judgment on substantively true facts. Such a substantive truth is usually understood as meaning ’that which happened’. But how can true facts be established if the facts have not yet occurred and what implications does this have for judicial review in administrative procedures? In this article this question will be analysed by taking the Dutch Administrative Court’s review of merger decisions of the Dutch Competition Authority - using a substantively close copy of the European merger control assessment framework - as subject of analysis. Judicial review of the substantive assessment in merger control, including the prospective analysis involved and taking into account complexities of economic evidence, will be analyzed and set against the general aim of establishing substantive truth of facts.

The legislator deliberately created a more restrained compensation duty for the legal costs made in the objection procedure, than for the costs made in the appeal procedure. According to article 7:15 of the Dutch General Administrative Law Act, solely the legal costs made in the objection procedure are reimbursed at the request of the stakeholder, as far as the contested decision is revoked by reason of the tort due to the administration. The administration decides on this request when deciding on the objection. There are several disadvantages to this. That is particularly the case, when the stakeholder has lost his interest in the revocation of the contested decision during the procedure, and he solely wants his costs, made in the objection procedure, reimbursed. This raises the question of whether it would be better to regulate the legal costs made in the objection procedure in the same way as the legal costs made in the appeal procedure.

In this contribution the history of Dutch administrative law and the General Administrative Law Act (GALA) has been described, with a strong focus on administrative procedures. It sets out the the scope and structure of the act and highlights the main debates on codification of administrative procedure. Finally, it describes the impact of international and European law on Dutch administrative procedures. In conclusion the authors appreciate the uniformity and systematization that the GALA has brought, but place some critical remarks on the strong focus on the procedural side of decision-making, which may be at the expense of the substantive review of orders.

This publication discusses all aspects of causal connection between damages and unlawful governmental decisions.