The acceptance of court judgments:Explaining a citizen’s choice to appeal in administrative legal procedures

Dutch litigants in administrative law cases appeal quite often – appeal rates are significantly higher than in most civil law cases and criminal law cases. This research aims to explain this by analysing which factors influence the decision to appeal for review. Why does one citizen appeal a negative judgment by the court of first instance, while another chooses to end the conflict? Do citizens make this choice in a ‘rational’ fashion, weighing costs and benefits, or does this choice depend on normative considerations?In order to answer these questions, a survey was held among more than 300 citizens who had recently received a court judgment in an administrative law case. From the results, it follows that citizens who choose not to appeal do so mainly for financial reasons. Those who do appeal, on the other hand, do so primarily because they are dissatisfied with the grounds stated in the judgment. Financial reasons do not play an important part for these litigants, who mainly want the court of appeal to finally do justice to them.Moreover, the findings show that the conduct of the judge at the court session significantly influences the acceptance of the judgment. If citizens are satisfied with the manner in which the judge conducted the proceedings, they are less likely to appeal. In addition, citizens who are represented by a lawyer are more likely to appeal for review. This is remarkable, as legal representation does not improve citizens’ chances of success at the court of appeal