No written notice, but an objection nonetheless: are there any legal remedies available against an oral order?

Normally, an enforcement decision by an administrative body is sent to the offender by letter. The offender may then lodge an objection and/or appeal against that written decision. In exceptional cases, there is no written decision and the administrative body merely informs the offender orally that enforcement is to take place. In its judgment of 5 August 2026, the Administrative Law Division of the Council of State had to rule on the scope of the rights to lodge an objection and/or appeal in such cases.

The case discussed in the ruling concerned a scaffold in Groningen. The owner of a property had a permit to leave the scaffold on the pavement temporarily, from 8 November to 3 December 2021. However, during an inspection on 22 December 2021, it transpired that the scaffold had not been removed. Enforcement officers then informed the property owner by telephone that the scaffolding had to be removed by 24 December at the latest.

During an inspection on 24 December, it became apparent that the owner had not yet done so. He was then told that the scaffolding had to be removed by 3.00 pm that afternoon, otherwise the council would have it removed at the owner’s expense. The owner did not let it come to that. He had the scaffolding dismantled and removed by his own scaffolder. He subsequently asked the municipal executive to put in writing what he considered to be the administrative order that had been imposed on him. The council refused, as it took the view that no decision had been taken at all that needed to be set out in writing.

The owner lodged an objection against the refusal to put the (alleged) administrative enforcement order in writing. The municipal executive declared that objection unfounded, whereupon the owner took the matter to court.

The court ruled in favour of the municipal executive. According to the court, there was no question of (extremely) urgent administrative enforcement, as the owner ultimately had the scaffolding removed himself. The council therefore did not actually proceed to impose an administrative order. According to the court, there was also no question of an ordinary administrative order, as this is only possible if a written decision is issued, which was precisely what was missing in this case.

The owner did not accept this and lodged an appeal with the Division. The Division ruled as follows. According to Article 5:21 of the General Administrative Law Act (Awb), an order subject to administrative coercion consists of two elements: an obligation to remedy a contravention and the administrative body’s power to carry out that remedy itself if necessary. In view of that wording, the Division held that it is not decisive whether the administrative body actually enforced the order. After all, a standard order subject to administrative coercion is specifically intended to ensure that the offender remedies the breach themselves, so that actual administrative coercion (the council remedying the breach) is not necessary. 

Although the owner ultimately removed the scaffolding himself, an administrative order had indeed been issued. The remedial measure was clear, there was a specific deadline by which the situation had to be rectified, and the notice was addressed to the offender. Furthermore, it was clear that this was not a non-binding request to remove the scaffolding.

It then remained to be assessed what legal remedies were available against a decision not issued in writing. The Division equates the oral administrative enforcement order with a (written) decision, meaning that the same legal remedies are available against it. The reason for this is that, by refusing to put the administrative enforcement order in writing, the municipal executive was able to prevent the administrative court from assessing the lawfulness of the order. According to the Division, this is not the intention.

The Division’s final ruling was therefore that an administrative enforcement order had been issued and that the council was required to assess the substance of the objections raised by the owner against it. This not only gives the owner the opportunity to obtain a ruling on the lawfulness of the enforcement action, but also – should the enforcement indeed prove to be unlawful – to claim compensation.

Do you have any questions about (proposed) enforcement by an administrative body? Please contact Gerard van der Wende or myself.

You can read the judgment here.