A report by a civil servant should not lead to enforcement 📢

Many municipalities have a reactive enforcement policy. This means that, in general, enforcement only takes place in response to a report or enforcement request from a third party (interested party). This is because municipalities often simply do not have the capacity to actively ‘search’ for violations. But what if the report is not made by a third party (interested party), but by a civil servant?

That was the question that the Overijssel District Court had to answer in its ruling of January 12, 2026. This case concerned a house in the municipality of Hengelo, where several air conditioners had been installed on the outside of the house. Following a report from a municipal employee, a municipal inspector carried out an inspection and found that an environmental permit should have been applied for two of the air conditioners. This had not been done. A penalty was then imposed. The owner of the house disagreed with this. He believed that this was contrary to the principle of equality, because the municipality had deviated from its own reactive enforcement policy by enforcing the law in response to a report from a civil servant.

The court first of all states that, based on the principle of equality, a consistent and well-considered administrative policy must be pursued. The administration must follow a general course of action with regard to its actions in individual similar cases. It is established case law of the Division that it is permissible to set priorities in the context of enforcement policy with a view to effective enforcement. For example, prioritization may mean that certain violations are only enforced in response to a complaint or an enforcement request from an interested party.

In this case, the decisive factor is that the report was made by a municipal employee who could not be regarded as an interested party. The court did not agree with the board's assertion that it does not matter who makes the report, even if it is a municipal employee. The court ruled that the council's policy can only be interpreted as meaning that enforcement requests or reports must come from third parties with an interest. Municipal employees should not be included in this, because this would still give the council control over whether and when it takes enforcement action. This could create the appearance of arbitrariness.

The conclusion that can be drawn from this ruling is that, in principle, the municipality only acts on the basis of reports and requests from third parties. A report from a civil servant may not lead to an inspection, because the municipal executive can still decide for itself when to enforce the law. 

Do you have any questions about an enforcement request or enforcement procedure? Please contact Gerard van der Wende or Fleur Huisman. 

You can read the ruling here.