Attribution of a commitment to an administrative body: when is it actually allowed?

A frequently heard statement from citizens and businesses is that ‘the municipality has said that...’. This often refers to a statement made by an official, or an administrative body. The question that often arises in such cases is whether a certain promise by a civil servant or an administrative body can be attributed to a (different) administrative body. 

In the Supreme Court ruling of 28 March 2025, this question again came up. More specifically, this ruling concerned a promise made by aldermen and case managers, as representatives of the college, which could be imputed to the municipal council. 

The Supreme Court ruled that ‘in order to answer the question of whether there is an undertaking to be fulfilled by the municipality, the yardstick developed by the Division must be used’. According to this yardstick, a promise made can be imputed to the competent administrative body if the person concerned had good reason to assume that the persons who made the promise thereby interpreted the opinion of the administrative body. 

If the municipal council is the competent administrative body, actions by (members of) the municipal executive and municipal officials are only attributable to the municipal council if the municipal council has made it clear that it agreed to those actions. Only then can a citizen or company assume on good grounds that these persons represented the opinion of the municipal council. The main reason for this is that the municipal council, unlike the college, is a democratically elected administrative body and its scope to weigh up its own interests should not be impaired. 

What does this mean for practice? Do not always assume that every municipal employee speaks on behalf of a governing body. Especially in the case of promises allegedly made on behalf of the municipal council, you may be deceived. Even promises made by an alderman cannot be attributed to the council, if the council is the competent governing body.

You can read the ruling here.