Merely days after the US Department of Justice disclosed subpoenas to fourteen of America’s largest law firms, the European Commission published its 2026 Rule of Law Report. A notable juxtaposition. While the US judicial system struggles to maintain the independence of lawyers and judges, the European Commission publicly audits its member states and scrutinises the checks and balances within each of them.
From my perspective as a PR professional who advises law firms, government institutions, corporates and non-profit organisations on reputation management during disputes, the EC’s report is a valuable resource. I have therefore eagerly dissected the chapters on the Netherlands and Luxembourg, which, of course, tell two very different stories.
The Netherlands > a strong jurisdiction with some cracks
Statistically, the Dutch legal system had an exceptional year. 85% of companies now rate the independence of Dutch courts as good, representing a ten-point jump in twelve months, up from 75% in 2025. Civil and commercial cases are resolved at first instance in 124 days. 71% of companies are confident their investments are protected by law and the courts. For a jurisdiction competing for international disputes work, these are excellent data points.
Turning to the report’s critical points, there are serious concerns. A law that took effect in November 2025 placed camera surveillance on all lawyer/client conversations in high-security prisons; numerous lawyers suspended their work in those institutions in protest, resuming only after the regime was softened. The Dutch Bar remains unsatisfied. The Bar and the Council for the Judiciary warn that procedural safeguards are being eroded across several legislative initiatives, including the abolition of a level of appeal in administrative proceedings.
The Commission has also dutifully reminded the Dutch executive and legislature that they “should avoid criticism that undermines the independence or public confidence in the judiciary”, which is a warning that carries extra weight given the developments on the other side of the Atlantic.
Luxembourg > corporate confidence slips
Luxembourg received just two recommendations (among the lightest in the EU) and its perception scores remain enviable. Yet there is evidence that corporate confidence in the judicial system has fallen. The share of companies confident that their investments are protected by law and the courts fell from 89% to 79% in a single year. The report itself describes the decrease as significant.
The likely drivers are visible elsewhere in the chapter. Court delays are lengthening: appeals in civil and commercial matters now take 527 days on average, and administrative cases at first instance ballooned from 479 to 720 days. Fifty of the fifty-one vacant civil judicial posts sit at the Court of Appeal. Digitalisation, which is the subject of a repeated recommendation, keeps slipping. And the report notes, in a line that will travel, that “corruption schemes in the high-risk financial sector are becoming increasingly sophisticated.”
Media pluralism
In the context of a dispute, reputations are impacted most not by the courtroom decisions themselves, but by how they are framed in the media. To that end, the report reveals constructive data about the media landscapes.
In the Netherlands, the story is one of concentration. The Media Pluralism Monitor 2026 now rates the transparency of Dutch media ownership as “very high risk”, an increase from “high risk” a year earlier. With the merger of DPG Media and RTL Nederland, finalised in September 2025, the market is anticipating fewer and larger newsrooms. Editorial independence, it should be said, remains rated “very low risk”, and journalists reported 262 incidents to the PersVeilig safety initiative in 2025, up from 249 the year before. One of the Commission’s two recommendations to the Netherlands concerns the upholding of journalistic standards by public service media.
For anyone managing a dispute in the Dutch market, the practical consequence of consolidation is that the set of gatekeepers who decide how a story is told is shrinking. Fewer editorial desks mean fewer chances to place context and correct a frame; the relationships, and the preparation, matter more than ever.
Luxembourg’s media findings run in a more encouraging direction, and one of them deserves particular attention from litigants. Stakeholders report an increase in strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) in recent years, and the Government adopted a draft law in January 2026 transposing the EU Anti-SLAPP Directive which notably covers domestic as well as cross-border cases. A party tempted to use litigation to silence critical coverage will soon find that tactic carrying a statutory label; being identified as a SLAPP litigant is a reputational injury no favourable judgment repairs. Alongside this, a pending reform would transform the media regulator into a broader authority covering the press, online media, platforms and content creators, a recognition that reputational contests have long since moved beyond the traditional outlets.
Ultimately, every dispute is decided both in the court of law, and in the court of public opinion. What makes the Commission’s report genuinely useful is that it audits both. The independence and speed of the courts, and the health of the media environment in which reputations are made and defended.
Byfield advises law firms and parties to disputes on reputation management from its offices in London and Amsterdam.