The limits of objection: not every choice made by an administrative body is a decision

It is a common misconception that citizens or companies can object to and/or appeal against every decision made by an administrative body. In practice, this often leads to confusion and misunderstanding.

In its ruling of January 12, 2026, the Midden-Nederland District Court clarified why objections and appeals are not always possible. The ruling concerned the following. The municipal council of Zeist approved a decision in principle to redevelop an office location into a residential area. At the same time, the council adopted an amendment setting out the level of participation for the further elaboration of the plan.

The Better Zeist Foundation disagreed with the amendment because it considered the level of participation to be too low, which would limit its influence on the planning process. The foundation therefore lodged an objection to the amendment. The municipal council declared the objection inadmissible because, in its view, no objection could be lodged against the amendment. The foundation then lodged an appeal.

The ruling first explains the concept of a decision as defined in the General Administrative Law Act (Awb). A decision is a written decision by an administrative body that constitutes a legal act under public law. The latter point is particularly important. A legal act must be aimed at a legal effect: it must create, change, or terminate rights, obligations, or powers, or determine the legal status of a person or matter.

Not every choice made by an administrative body is therefore a decision within the meaning of the Awb. If the choice has no legal effect, it cannot be qualified as a decision.

The court ruled that the amendment was not a decision. This is because the amendment does not change the rights or obligations of citizens, does not grant or withdraw powers, and only contains a political-administrative choice about how participation in a preliminary phase is organized. The actual legal consequences will only arise later, when the environmental plan is adopted, which is open to appeal. The appeal was therefore declared unfounded.

Value was therefore attached to the phase of the process to which the amendment related. As this concerned a choice for the preliminary phase, there were no legal consequences as yet. According to the court, these would only arise at a later stage, when the environmental plan was adopted.

What does this mean in practice? Citizens and businesses cannot seek legal remedies at any stage of the decision-making process. In most cases, they must wait for the “final decision.” 

Are you wondering at which stage of a decision-making process an objection or appeal is possible? Or do you encounter similar questions in practice? Please contact Gerard van der Wende or Fleur Huisman for advice. 

You can read the ruling here.