Can a new tenant take over ongoing appeal proceedings? No, says the Council of State

Due to the increasing workload in the courts, it is becoming more common for proceedings to take years. Sometimes the proceedings take so long that the original objector has already moved away. What happens to the ongoing proceedings in that case? That depends on the position of the objector. Different rules apply to the owner of a house/building than to a tenant. 

The Administrative Law Division of the Council of State clarified this distinction in its ruling of December 3, 2025. This case centered on the construction of a hostel. The municipal council of Rotterdam had granted an environmental permit for this project. The tenant of a neighboring house disagreed and lodged an objection. The municipal executive declared this objection unfounded, after which an appeal procedure was initiated in court. During the appeal proceedings, the tenant moved out. He was replaced by a new tenant, who also disagreed with the arrival of the hostel. The new tenant therefore wanted to take over the appeal. The court ruled that this was possible, but also ruled that the appeal was unfounded. The new tenant lodged an appeal with the Division.

The Division first ruled on the admissibility of the appeal. Unlike the court, the Division ruled that the new tenant could not take over the (higher) appeal from the previous tenant. As is apparent from established case law of the Division, the takeover of proceedings is only possible in the event of legal succession under a special title, provided that the interest in involvement in the proceedings has been transferred in its entirety. Legal succession under a special title could, for example, be the sale of a house. In that case, the owner's interest is transferred in full from the old owner to the new owner. 

Because this case concerned the transfer of the lease – and not the transfer of ownership – there was no question of legal succession under special title. The (higher) appeal proceedings could therefore not be taken over by the new tenant and the appeal was declared inadmissible. 

This ruling highlights an important difference between owners and tenants. That difference lies in their interests. Tenants mainly have residents' interests (noise pollution, parking problems, etc.). For owners, other interests may also play a role, such as a decrease in the value of the property. Owners therefore have a ‘greater’ interest in taking over the proceedings than tenants. Because new tenants can find out about ongoing proceedings in advance and still choose to rent a property, the Division does not consider legal protection to be necessary for them. 

You can read the ruling here.