No Compensation for Losses Following the Mayor's Order to Close a Hospitality Business

The operator of a hospitality business in Amsterdam is not entitled to compensation for the damages she suffered during the temporary closure of her business premises ordered by the mayor. The Amsterdam District Court ruled as such in its decision of June 10, 2026.

The building housing the hospitality business was temporarily closed by the mayor after an explosive device detonated in front of the building in August 2022. The mayor closed the building due to a threat to public order and also based the decision on previous incidents involving the hospitality business and similar establishments.

The closure was lifted several months later at the request of the hospitality business’s operator, but by then the operator had already suffered significant damages as a result of the closure. The operator sought to recover the damages from the mayor. She therefore filed a claim for compensation for losses. The mayor rejected this claim, arguing that the damages fell within the scope of the operator’s normal business risk. The operator disagreed and filed an appeal with the Amsterdam District Court. She contended that the closure was unforeseeable and therefore could not be considered part of normal business risk. Furthermore, she could not be held responsible for the explosion, as, in her view, no connection could be established between the explosion and the business.

The court did not agree with the operator’s arguments. According to the court, a temporary closure of a hospitality business (or its premises) due to disturbances of public order is part of the normal business risk. A key factor in this was that the hospitality business is located in an area with residential properties and a hotel, and the explosion therefore caused a serious disturbance of public order. The mayor’s subsequent decision to close the premises was a normal and expected response, making the measure foreseeable. 

The fact that the catering business was not at fault for the explosion did not alter this conclusion. Even when a business owner has not personally done anything wrong, the business owner may still be liable for damages if those damages result from risks associated with the operation of the business. Operating a hospitality business, especially in an area where residential properties are also located, entails certain safety and public order risks. 

It follows from this ruling by the Amsterdam District Court that damages resulting from the lawful closure of a (hospitality) business due to a disturbance of public order are, in principle, not eligible for compensation if such damages fall within the scope of normal business risk. In this regard, the foreseeability of the closure is of particular importance. If closure is a normal and foreseeable response, the resulting damages will normally remain the responsibility of the hospitality business. 

You can read the ruling here.