Invoking the principle of trust? Then be careful who’s speaking!

How far does the principle of legitimate expectations extend? It is a question that has often been debated in case law, but one that still raises many questions.

This was also the case in the ruling of the Administrative Law Division of the Council of State on 1 April 2026. This case concerns a care provider who has been running a care farm for a long time and wishes to expand his activities to include a 24-hour care facility. Over a period of four years, the council had explicitly adopted a positive position in principle on three occasions regarding a residential care centre on the site, following which the care provider submitted an application. Subsequently, the council suddenly indicated that it no longer wished to cooperate and also proposed to the council that the required declaration of no objection should not be issued. The council ultimately did not issue this declaration, partly because it believed that an acceptable living environment could not be guaranteed at the location. The planning application was therefore rejected.

The entrepreneur did not agree with this decision and invoked the principle of legitimate expectations. After all, he had received positive signals from the council for years and felt that he should have been able to rely on them.

The Division acknowledges that the healthcare provider could reasonably have expected the council to cooperate with the project. However, this does not mean that the reliance on the principle of legitimate expectations was successful. The crucial factor is, in fact, who raised those expectations. For a successful appeal to the principle of legitimate expectations, the trust must have been raised by, or be attributable to, the competent administrative body. That is where the problem lies here.

The statements were made by the council. The council is not bound by the council’s statements, unless the council endorses those statements. That was not the case here. This means that whilst the entrepreneur was entitled to rely on a positive attitude from the council, this did not automatically mean that the council would also take a positive decision. The reliance on the principle of legitimate expectations therefore failed.

This ruling once again highlights how important it is to be clear about who is making a commitment, whether that person is authorised to make a commitment on behalf of the competent administrative body, and whether, as a citizen or business, you can reasonably expect, on the basis of that commitment, that something will or will not happen.

Do you have any questions about the scope of the principle of legitimate expectations? Please contact Gerard van der Wende or Fleur Huisman.

You can read the ruling here.