Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Fundamental Rights in Digital Welfare States: The Case of SyRI in the Netherlands

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 2019

Part of the book series: Netherlands Yearbook of International Law ((NYIL,volume 50))

Abstract

Public authorities are increasingly using new technologies to perform public services. Worldwide, there are many examples of what the United Nations calls ‘digital welfare states’. Although governments argue that new technologies make their services more efficient and cost-effective, many however express concern about the ‘surveillance’ of citizens. Given the widespread emergence of digital welfare states, universal guidelines are needed to explore the opportunities they offer but also their legitimate boundaries. A Dutch court case on the System Risk Indication (SyRI) is one of the first to use human rights as a basis to assess the use of new technologies for fighting social security fraud. The court case may serve as an example of how human rights may offer relevant guidance to public authorities using new technologies in a responsible manner and making sure that these contribute to the economic and social wellbeing of all citizens.

Sonja Bekker holds the Jean Monnet Chair European Social Policy and is Associate Professor at Utrecht University and Tilburg University, both in the Netherlands. S.Bekker@uu.nl.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    UN ‘Report of the Special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights’ Seventy-fourth session, Item 72(b) on the provisional agenda, A/74/48,037, 11 October 2019.

  2. 2.

    Id, p. 1.

  3. 3.

    Decision on SyRI (Besluit SyRI), Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment the Netherlands, 17 April 2014, number 0056263.

  4. 4.

    UN ‘Landmark ruling by Dutch court stops government attempts to spy on the poor—UN expert’, Press release, 5 February 2020.

  5. 5.

    Ibid., at 1.

  6. 6.

    Gerards 2019; Yeung and Lodge 2019; Jak and Bastiaans 2018; Mantelero 2018.

  7. 7.

    Gantchev 2019; Mantelero 2018; Rathenau Instituut (2018) Doelgericht digitaliseren – Hoe Nederland werkt aan een digitale transitie waarin mensen en waarden centraal staan. Rathenau Instituut, The Hague; Allen 2016.

  8. 8.

    Rathenau Instituut (2018) Doelgericht digitaliseren – Hoe Nederland werkt aan een digitale transitie waarin mensen en waarden centraal staan. Rathenau Instituut, The Hague.

  9. 9.

    Bertelsmann Stiftung and Algorithm Watch (2019) Automating Society; Taking Stock of Automated Decision Making in the EU, Bertelsmann Stiftung and Algorithm Watch, Berlin. Bertelsmann Stiftung and Algorithm Watch 2019:9.

  10. 10.

    Bertelsmann Stiftung and Algorithm Watch 2019:9.

  11. 11.

    Ibid., at 10.

  12. 12.

    Ibid., at 4.

  13. 13.

    FNV 2019. Press release, FNV en bewoners Rotterdamse wijken Hillesluis en Bloemhof vieren intrekking SyRI-project Rotterdam, 16 July 2019, https://www.fnv.nl/nieuwsbericht/sectornieuws/uitkeringsgerechtigden/2019/07/fnv-en-bewoners-rotterdamse-wijken-hillesluis-en-b(last accessed 9 July 2020).

  14. 14.

    Ibid., at 1. Van der Sloot and Van Schendel 2019.

  15. 15.

    Gantchev 2019; Olsthoorn 2016; Brief by the United Nation Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights as Amicus Curiae in the case of NJCM c.s./De Staat der Nederlanden (SyRI) before the District Court of The Hague (case number: C/09/550,982/HA ZA 18/388).

  16. 16.

    Gantchev 2019, at; Brief by the United Nation Special Rapporteur, at 15.

  17. 17.

    Gantchev 2019; Brief by the United Nation Special Rapporteur, at 15.

  18. 18.

    Act SUWI of 29 November 2001: Wet structuur uitvoeringsorganisatie werk en inkomen.

  19. 19.

    Kamerstukken II 2012–2013, 33 579 nr. 7, 25 June 2013.

  20. 20.

    Bekker 2020.

  21. 21.

    Ibid., at 19.

  22. 22.

    Besluit [Decision] SyRI Article 2 on the preconditions for the use of SyRI.

  23. 23.

    Article 3 Besluit [Decision] SyRI.

  24. 24.

    Explanatory note (Nota van Toelichting), p. 7.)

  25. 25.

    At that time still called SARI (System Anonymous Risk Indication), CPB, Advice for the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, 4 June 2012, number z2012-00237.

  26. 26.

    CPB, Advice to the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, 18 February 2014, number z2013-00969.

  27. 27.

    Ibid., at 23.

  28. 28.

    Ibid., at 23.

  29. 29.

    The Council of State (Raad van State) advises the government and Parliament on legislation and governance. Its advice is Raad van State ‘Ontwerpbesluit houdende regels voor fraudeaanpak door gegevensuitwisselingen en het effectief gebruik van binnen de overheid bekend zijnde gegevens (Besluit SyRI), met nota van toelichting’, W12.14.0102/III, 15 May 2014, Staatscourant 2014, number 26306.

  30. 30.

    Gantchev 2019.

  31. 31.

    See Parliamentary documents Kamerstukken II 2012–2013, 3357, nr. 7; Olsthoorn 2016, who interprets the limited Parliamentary discussion as the Act getting unanimous support.

  32. 32.

    Olsthoorn 2016.

  33. 33.

    Gantchev 2019.

  34. 34.

    Gantchev 2019.

  35. 35.

    Brief by the United Nation Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights as Amicus Curiae in the case of NJCM c.s./De Staat der Nederlanden (SyRI) before the District Court of The Hague (case number: C/09/550,982/HA ZA 18/388.

  36. 36.

    RTL Nieuws, ‘Blijf met je klauwen van m'n wijkie af’: vier vragen over fraudedetector SyRI, 29 October 2019; see also data on use, number of households surveilled and evaluation on effectiveness in the document: Ministry Social Affairs and Employment, wob-verzoek over Systeem Risico Indicatie, 26–06-2019, 2018–0,000,185,252, notably the annex. Last accessed 03–02-2020, https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/wob-verzoeken/2019/06/26/besluit-op-wob-verzoek-over-systeem-risico-indicatie; Olsthoorn 2016 gives some numbers for uncovering fraud before 2014 (thus before SyRI yet using data linkage), taken into account a wider range of fraud detecting activities than welfare fraud only.

  37. 37.

    In December 2019, the Dutch DPA published a list that further details when a Data Protection Impact Assessment should be made, before the processing of personal data may start. This list includes the large-scale processing and/or structural monitoring of (sensitive) personal data for the purpose of fighting fraud. It gives as an example fighting fraud by social services or by insurance companies.

  38. 38.

    The coalition of plaintiffs exists of: Platform for the Protection of Civil Rights (Stichting Platform Bescherming Burgerrechten), Dutch Committee of human rights lawyers (Nederlands Juristen Comité voor de Mensenrechten (NJCM), Privacy First Foundation (Stichting Privacy First), Foundation Psychotherapists and Psychologists (Stichting Koepel van DBC-vrije Praktijken van Psychotherapeuten en Psychiaters (KDVP), and the National Board of clients (representing associations of e.g. pensioners and people who have a chronic disease - Landelijke Cliëntenraad), supported by authors Tommy Wieringa and Maxim Februari. In July 2018, the national trade union FNV (Federatie Nederlandse Vakbonden) joined the coalition.

  39. 39.

    Brief by the United Nation Special Rapporteur at 15.

  40. 40.

    Case number C/09/550,982/HA ZA 18/388, the Netherlands.

  41. 41.

    Gerards 2019; Rathenau Instituut (2018) Doelgericht digitaliseren – Hoe Nederland werkt aan een digitale transitie waarin mensen en waarden centraal staan. Rathenau Instituut, The Hague.

  42. 42.

    The set of questions is asked by Allen 2019: 1.

  43. 43.

    Allen 2019: 1.

  44. 44.

    Allen 2016.

  45. 45.

    E.g. Van der Sloot and Van Schendel 2019; Bertelsmann Stiftung and Algorithm Watch 2019:9, Automating Society; Taking Stock of Automated Decision-Making in the EU; ibid., at 1.

  46. 46.

    Broeders et al. 2017; Gerards 2019.

  47. 47.

    Kamerstukken II 2012–2013, 33 579 nr. 7, 25 June 2013.

  48. 48.

    Olsthoorn 2016.

  49. 49.

    Pleitnotities NJCM c.s. Solv. and Ekker, for Court hearing of 29 October 2019, Case number C/09/550,982/HA ZA 18/388. Reference is also made to Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, determining that: 17(1) no one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation. 17 (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. See Dagvaarding bodemprocedure SyRi, Deikwijs advocaten, 27 March 2018. See Gantchev 2019 for outlining related EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) such as Article 5 on the principle of lawful, transparent and fair data processing, as well as purpose limitation and Article 6 on proportionality.

  50. 50.

    Article 8.2 EHCR.

  51. 51.

    Kamerstukken II, 2012–2013, 33,579 nr.3 The government argues in its explanations to Parliament that it has weighed the aims of the protection of economic welfare fighting fraud against the protection of privacy, and finds the former to have a larger weight, section 3a.

  52. 52.

    See Dagvaarding bodemprocedure SyRi, Deikwijs advocaten, 27 March 2018.

  53. 53.

    Pleitnotities NJCM c.s. Solv. and Ekker, for Court hearing of 29 October 2019, Case number C/09/550,982/HA ZA 18/388, section 7.1 to 7.3.

  54. 54.

    Dagvaarding bodemprocedure SyRi, Deikwijs advocaten, 27 March 2018, section 4.7.

  55. 55.

    Kool et al. 2015; Rathenau Instituut 2018. The explanation of Article 5a.1 explicitly mentions that data collected by public services in order to establish the legitimacy of benefit receipt, may be used also for SyRI projects, based on Article 64 Act SUWI. See Nota van Toelichting, Staatsblad 2014, 320; 11–09-2014.

  56. 56.

    Pleitnotities NJCM c.s. Solv. and Ekker, for Court hearing of 29 October 2019, Case number C/09/550,982/HA ZA 18/388, sections 6.4 and 6.5.

  57. 57.

    Kamerstukken II, 2012–2013, 33,579 nr.3 https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-33579-3.html

  58. 58.

    Dagvaarding bodemprocedure SyRi, Deikwijs advocaten, 27 March 2018, 5.11.

  59. 59.

    Dagvaarding bodemprocedure SyRi, Deikwijs advocaten, 27 March 2018, section 1.7.

  60. 60.

    See Article 13 ECHR.

  61. 61.

    E.g. Municipalities collect personal data to establish residence of people, including names, gender, date and place of birth, home address, family constellation and social security number. Public employment services might have data on work history and, depending on a person’s situation, re-integration activities, extent to which someone is found fit to work, benefit receipt, etc. Such sources are linked.

  62. 62.

    Brief by the United Nation Special Rapporteur at 15; and Pleitnotities NJCM c.s. Solv. and Ekker, for Court hearing of 29 October 2019, Case number C/09/550,982/HA ZA 18/388.

  63. 63.

    Pleitnotities NJCM c.s. Solv. and Ekker, for Court hearing of 29 October 2019, Case number C/09/550,982/HA ZA 18/388, section 6.5. See also similar remarks of the Council of State on the draft legislation in 2014, which the Council of State repeated in its unsolicited advice in 2018.

  64. 64.

    Article 22 GDPR ‘The data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her.’.

  65. 65.

    Letter to Dutch Parliament of 8 June 2018: Kamerstukken II, 2017–2018, 32 761, nr. 122; repeated in a government reaction to the unsolicited advice of the Council of State, Ongevraagd advies over de effecten van de digitalisering voor de rechtsstatelijke verhoudingen, Number W04.18.0230/I, 31 August 2018.

  66. 66.

    Letter to Dutch Parliament of 8 June 2018: Kamerstukken II, 2017–2018, 32 761, nr. 122; repeated in a government reaction to the unsolicited advice of the Council of State, Ongevraagd advies over de effecten van de digitalisering voor de rechtsstatelijke verhoudingen, Number W04.18.0230/I, 31 August 2018.

  67. 67.

    E.g. Jak and Bastiaans 2018; Rathenau Instituut (2018) Doelgericht digitaliseren – Hoe Nederland werkt aan een digitale transitie waarin mensen en waarden centraal staan. Rathenau Instituut, The Hague. Such questions may also include what the minimum role of humans should be at which stage of decision-making.

  68. 68.

    Jak and Bastiaans 2018; Guidelines on Automated individual decision-making and Profiling for the purposes of Regulation 2016/679, p.21.

  69. 69.

    Article 22 GDPR.

  70. 70.

    Vetzo et al. 2018.

  71. 71.

    Brief by the United Nation Special Rapporteur at 15: 9.

  72. 72.

    As explained above as an argument by the Council of State 2014.

  73. 73.

    Article 6 Decision on SyRI.

  74. 74.

    Brief by the United Nation Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights as Amicus Curiae in the case of NJCM c.s./De Staat der Nederlanden (SyRI) before the District Court of The Hague (case number: C/09/550,982/HA ZA 18/388): 9.

  75. 75.

    Ibid., pleading note, section 6.1. Plaintiffs refer to the case of S. AND MARPER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM, ECHR 4 December 2008, no. 30562/04 and 30,566/04. See also Jak and Bastiaans 2018 arguing that automated decision-making should be based preferably on specific legal bases.

  76. 76.

    See also Brief by the United Nation Special Rapporteur at 15.

  77. 77.

    Pleitnotities NJCM c.s. Solv. and Ekker, for Court hearing of 29 October 2019, Case number C/09/550,982/HA ZA 18/388, section 4.7.

  78. 78.

    Ibid., section 4.7. See also Zwenne et al. 2016.

  79. 79.

    Gerards 2019, p. 205.

  80. 80.

    Gerards 2019.

  81. 81.

    Kamerstukken II, 2012–2013, 33,579; The letter of the United Nations Special Rapporteur, p. 7. This refers also to Article 22 of the UDHR 1948 and Article 25 on the right to an adequate standard of living; Article 9 of the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

  82. 82.

    Ibid., p. 7.

  83. 83.

    Ibid., p.8.

  84. 84.

    Brief by United Nations Special Rapporteur. Refers to Article 22 of the UDHR 1948 and Article 25 on the right to an adequate standard of living; Article 9 of the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

  85. 85.

    As well as Article 47 of the Charter, on Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial.

  86. 86.

    See also Brief by the United Nation Special Rapporteur at 15.

  87. 87.

    See also Brief by the United Nation Special Rapporteur at 15.

  88. 88.

    Gerards 2019.

  89. 89.

    Court The Hague, SyRI-wetgeving in strijd met het Europees Verdrag voor de Rechten voor de Mens, Press release, 5 February 2020. See court ruling number ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2020:865.

  90. 90.

    UN ‘Landmark ruling by Dutch court stops government attempts to spy on the poor – UN expert’, Press release, 5 February 2020.

  91. 91.

    Ruling District Court The Hague ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2020:865, section 6.4.

  92. 92.

    Ruling District Court The Hague ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2020:865, section 6.5.

  93. 93.

    Ruling District Court The Hague ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2020:865, section 6.6.

  94. 94.

    Ruling District Court The Hague ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2020:865, section 6.7.

  95. 95.

    Ruling District Court The Hague ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2020:865, section 6.49.

  96. 96.

    Ruling District Court The Hague ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2020:865, section 6.50.

  97. 97.

    Ruling District Court The Hague ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2020:865, section 6.59; Guidelines on Automated individual decision-making and Profiling for the purposes of Regulation 2016/679.

  98. 98.

    Ruling District Court The Hague ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2020:865, section 6.60.

  99. 99.

    Referring to S. AND MARPER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM, ECHR 4 December 2008, no. 30562/04 and 30,566/04; Ruling District Court The Hague ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2020:865, section 6.72.

  100. 100.

    Ruling District Court The Hague ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2020:865, section 6.77.

  101. 101.

    Ruling District Court The Hague ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2020:865, section 6.79.

  102. 102.

    UN ‘Landmark ruling by Dutch court stops government attempts to spy on the poor—UN expert’, Press release, 5 February 2020.

  103. 103.

    Blauw 2020.

  104. 104.

    Ibid., at 1.

  105. 105.

    Ibid., at 1.

  106. 106.

    Allen 2016.

  107. 107.

    Bertelsmann Stiftung and Algorithm Watch 2019:9; Wolfswinkel 2020.

  108. 108.

    Van der Sloot and Van Schendel 2019.

References

  • Allen AL (2016) Protecting one’s own privacy in a big data economy. Harvard Law Review 130:F.71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen AL (2019) Imagine an unimaginable future, Speech for Dies Natalis, given at Tilburg University, 5 December 2019. https://www.tilburguniversity.edu/sites/tiu/files/download/Speech%20Anita%20Allen.pdf Last accessed 14 January 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bekker S (2020) Towards an inclusive labour market: ambitions of the Dutch Public Employment Service. Peer Review paper on “Employer service delivery”. Amsterdam, 26–27 March 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blauw S (2020) An algorithm was taken to court – and it lost (which is great news for the welfare state). The Correspondent 10 February 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broeders D, Schrijvers E, Hirsch Ballin E (2017) Big Data and Security Policies: Serving Security, Protecting Freedom. WRR-Policy Brief 6. WRR, The Hague.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gantchev V (2019) Data protection in the age of welfare conditionality: Respect for basic human rights or race to the bottom? European Journal of Social Security, 21(1):3-22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerards J (2019) The fundamental rights challenges of algorithms. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 37(3):205–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jak N, Bastiaans S (2018) De betekenis van de AVG voor geautomatiseerde besluitvorming door de overheid. Een black box voor een black box? NJB 40:3018–3024.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kool L, Timmer J, van Est R (2015) De datagedreven samenleving. Achtergrondstudie, Rathenau Instituut, The Hague.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mantelero A (2018) AI and Big Data: A blueprint for a human rights, social and ethical impact assessment. Computer Law & Security Review 34(4):754–772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olsthoorn P (2016) Big Data voor fraudebestrijding. Working Paper nr. 21. WRR, The Hague.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Sloot B, Van Schendel S (2019) De modernisering van het Nederlands procesrecht in het licht van big data. Procedurele waarborgen en een goede toegang tot het recht als randvoorwaarden voor een data-gedreven samenleving. TILT/WODC, Tilburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vetzo M, Gerards J, Nehmelman R (2018) Algoritmes en grondrechten, Boom Juridisch, The Hague.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfswinkel CJ (2020) Willekeur of algoritme? Laveren tussen analoog en digitaal bestuursrecht. Oratie Tilburg University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeung K, Lodge M (2019) Algorithmic Regulation. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zwenne GJ, Steenbruggen W, Reker M (2016) Rechtsbescherming bij het gebruik van big data door toezichthouders: een verkenning. Tijdschrift voor Toezicht (7)4:29–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge the inspiring input of Arjen Kamphuis, teacher in data protection. His introduction into the GDPR was excellent. He never ceased to address the wider context and implications of privacy, underlining the importance of privacy to safeguard human rights, freedom and democracy.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands

    Sonja Bekker

Authors
  1. Sonja Bekker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sonja Bekker .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. China Institute of Boundary and Ocean Studies (CIBOS), Wuhan University, Wuhan, China

    Otto Spijkers

  2. Faculty of Law, Transnational Legal Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Wouter G. Werner

  3. Department of European and Economic Law, Groningen University, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Ramses A. Wessel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Bekker, S. (2021). Fundamental Rights in Digital Welfare States: The Case of SyRI in the Netherlands. In: Spijkers, O., Werner, W.G., Wessel, R.A. (eds) Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 2019. Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, vol 50. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-403-7_24

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-403-7_24

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-402-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-403-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation