Please note: even ‘voluntary’ training courses cannot always be recovered from employees

Employers like clarity. Study cost clauses too. But on 5 February 2026, the subdistrict court in East Brabant showed that this clarity quickly disappears when training is classified as “necessary” within the meaning of the law. In this case, the study cost clauses were simply declared null and void. As a result, the employee did not have to repay any study costs, even though she had resigned of her own accord and had even requested one of the courses.

The case involved Teamzorg, a home care organisation. An employee was hired as a trainee care assistant and followed the Care Assistant training programme (followed by the Plus certificate) at the Zorgcollege in Nijmegen. She then started the follow-up course to become a Care Assistant, but did not complete it. When she left the company, the employer wanted to recover an amount for both courses on the basis of the study cost clauses. The employee defended herself with an argument that is now well known but still underestimated in practice: if training is necessary for the job, the employer must offer that training free of charge and cannot recover the costs. The court ruled in her favour.

What made the judge classify these courses under Section 7:611a of the Civil Code? In the case of the Care Assistant course, it was actually quite clear. The judge considered it particularly important that this course was necessary in order to perform the job at Teamzorg. Teamzorg itself stated that every employee must have “a basic qualification in care on paper”. The job advertisement literally stated: a Care Assistant diploma is required (or you must be willing to obtain one). So if, as an employer, you effectively say, “without this diploma, you cannot do your job here”, then it quickly falls under the category of necessary training.

The Plus certificate was rejected for the same reason. It was not seen as a nice bonus, but as something that is necessary in order to be able to perform certain skills independently within the job. The judge saw it as a logical extension of the training programme.

The biggest discussion was about the follow-up training for IG Caregivers. Here too, the court ruled that it was necessary training. The context was particularly decisive. The parties entered into a training/employment contract for the position of IG Caregiver apprentice, which, according to the court, shows that Teamzorg wanted to employ her in that role (in the long term). In addition, there were structural vacancies for nursing assistants and Teamzorg confirmed that the employee was performing well and had opportunities for advancement. The judge linked this to a clear employer interest: retaining a good employee and broader employability.

Salient detail: Teamzorg actively directed where the training had to be followed. The employee wanted the cheaper ROC, but the employer wanted the Zorgcollege because the training could be completed more quickly there and Teamzorg was facing a staff shortage. That direction actually worked against Teamzorg. The court ruled that if the employer has a say in the choice of training provider and pace of training because it suits them, this shows that it is not just a matter of “personal development”, but also serves a direct business interest.

The judge did not consider the fact that the initiative came from the employee to be decisive. “Voluntary” is therefore not a free pass if, in practice, the training is (also) in the employer's interest and is linked to employability.

What does this mean for employers who do want to work with study cost clauses? Take a good look at the actual context. If the training is necessary for the job, if the employer requires the diploma as a basis, if you enter into a training/employment contract for a (different) job, if there is a structural need for that commitment, and certainly if you, as an employer, dictate the training provider and pace because you want to make use of the employee's new skills more quickly, it will soon become difficult to reclaim the costs later.

Do you have any questions about study cost arrangements? Please feel free to contact Dennis Oud, Tessa Sipkema or Elke Hofman-Bijvank. 

You can read the ruling here.