Need a lawyer immediately? Call: +31 10 220 44 00

After two years of illness, it sometimes seems as if a case has been closed. However, in the case of a dormant employment contract, this turns out to be different in practice.
In a recent case in Rotterdam, the employee had been incapacitated for work for two years as of July 27, 2025. From that moment on, she received WIA benefits. The employer then attempted to terminate the employment contract retroactively by letter dated August 21, 2025. This is not legally possible. The termination therefore only took effect when the letter reached the employee: August 21, 2025.
Between July 27, 2025, and August 21, 2025, there was therefore a dormant employment relationship: the employment contract continued to run, but without pay and without reintegration obligations. The employee then argued that she had accrued vacation days during that period and that these should therefore be paid out.
Opinions on this question currently differ. There have been rulings by subdistrict courts in Nijmegen, Arnhem, Groningen, Dordrecht, and Rotterdam, and there is no clear line in the literature either. The subdistrict court therefore wishes to refer a question to the Supreme Court for a preliminary ruling. In plain language: the highest court is being asked to clarify whether an employee who is unable to work still accrues paid vacation days during a dormant employment contract.
Why is this relevant? A dormant employment relationship often arises automatically, simply because dismissal proceedings via the Employee Insurance Agency (UWV) take time and are followed by a notice period. In addition, some employment relationships continue for longer, for example until an employee requests termination.
In this case, the parties may first comment on the intention to submit this question to the Supreme Court. There is therefore a real chance that national clarity will finally be provided on this issue in due course.
We will keep an eye on developments and notify you when there is more news.
You can read the ruling here.
Please note that the content of our website (including any legal submissions) is for non-binding informational purposes only and does not serve as legal advice in the strict sense. The content of this site cannot and should not serve as a substitute for individual and binding legal advice relating to your specific situation. All information is therefore provided without guarantee of accuracy, completeness and timeliness.