Sending versus receiving: a recurring point of discussion

It is a well-known point of discussion in administrative law: the sending and receiving of decisions by administrative bodies. Normally, a decision is deemed to have been sent correctly if the administrative body can demonstrate that it was sent to the correct address by a recognised postal service provider. 

Does this always mean that a citizen or company claiming that a decision has not been received is left empty-handed? In its ruling of 20 August 2025, the Division ruled that this is not the case. The case revolved around the appellant's appeal against a ruling by the District Court of The Hague. The court had declared the appellant's appeal inadmissible because it had been lodged outside the appeal period. The appellant argued that she had received the decision on the objection too late, which meant that she was unable to lodge an appeal within the time limit. According to the court, the decision on the objection was correctly addressed and dated, and there was also proper dispatch documentation, which made it sufficiently plausible that the decision on the objection had been sent. The appellant disagreed with this ruling and lodged an appeal with the Division. 

The Division agreed with the court's ruling that it had been made sufficiently plausible that the decision had been sent. However, the Division also ruled that the appellant had not sufficiently rebutted the presumption of receipt, partly because the appellant had demonstrated that she had inquired several times with the council about the status of the objection procedure, but also because, after she had finally received the decision on the objection, she had quickly lodged an appeal shortly after the appeal period had expired. 

In concrete terms, this meant that, despite the board having demonstrated that the decision had been sent, the appellant had sufficiently demonstrated that she had not received the decision. The appellant's appeal to the Division was therefore declared well-founded and she should have been declared admissible by the court.

You can read the ruling here.