An irrevocable judgement does not mean that the facts are also irrevocably established

On 26 June 2026, the Gelderland District Court issued an interim ruling on the status of the facts in a final judgement. 

What was the issue? A married couple had built an extension to their home in Arnhem. This consisted of a conservatory, a canopy, an extension to the garage and a lean-to. The extension had been in place since 2008. However, it later transpired that part of it was situated on land zoned as ‘Green’, which was not permitted under the local plan. An environmental permit had never been applied for. 

In February 2023, a local resident submitted an enforcement request, following which an order subject to a penalty payment was imposed. An objection and appeal procedure ensued. In its ruling at the end of 2025, the court upheld the couple’s appeal, as the council’s calculation of the extension’s surface area was incorrect. The local authority did not appeal against this court ruling. However, in March 2026, a new decision was taken, upholding the order subject to a penalty payment. The couple then lodged a further appeal, partly because, in the new decision, the local authority had suddenly assumed that the extension encroached by 1.31 metres into the green belt. 

In the 2025 ruling, the court had in fact held that ‘it was not in dispute between the parties’ that the extension encroached 30 centimetres into the green belt. As the local authority had not appealed against the ruling, the couple believed that the local authority was bound by that 30-centimetre figure and had therefore wrongly assumed, in the new decision of March 2026, that the encroachment was 1.31 metres. 

The court did not agree with this and ruled as follows. It is true that an administrative body which does not lodge an appeal (or a further appeal) against a judgment is bound by the legal findings in that judgment. This means, therefore, that the administrative body accepts the judgment, concurs with the court’s assessment and must also comply with it. 

However, contrary to the couple’s assertion, this does not apply to the ‘mere statement of facts’. This means that the court’s statement of the facts – in which it was held that ‘it was not in dispute between the parties’ that the extension encroached 30 centimetres into the green belt – could not be binding on the local authority. The council was therefore entitled to base its decision on a depth of 1.31 metres within the green zone. 

Incidentally, this did not result in the couple’s appeal being dismissed as unfounded. The court ruled that the local authority had failed to provide sufficient justification as to why enforcement in this case was proportionate. Whilst the court acknowledged that the 1.31-metre encroachment was more than a minor one, it found that there was no serious encroachment on the green space, as only 1.31 metres of the 15-metre-deep green strip was occupied by the extension. The local authority had therefore failed to demonstrate sufficiently what interests were served by the enforcement, whilst it was clear that the couple had a significant interest in preventing the costly demolition of the extension. 

This ruling thus emphasises two important legal principles. Firstly, the court makes it clear that an irrevocable ruling does not mean that the facts have also become irrevocable and indisputable. Secondly, the court reiterates that enforcement must always be proportionate. 

Do you have any questions about enforcement proceedings? Please contact Gerard van der Wende or myself. 

You can read the ruling here.