News

A physical therapist had been bringing his dog to work every day since he started in 2019. No complaints, no incidents. But in 2024, the employer decided to change course: as of May 1, 2025, bringing dogs to work would be prohibited. The employee did not accept this and took the matter to court.

The subdistrict court ruled in his favor. Allowing the dog to be brought to work for years, without objection and with acceptance, had become a condition of employment that the employer could not simply change unilaterally. Certainly not without a change clause in the employment contract.

What was the deciding factor?

• The dog had been brought to work for six years;
• other colleagues did the same;
• there were no structural complaints;
• the ban was not sufficiently substantiated by compelling interests.

The judge therefore suspended the ban, pending proceedings on the merits.

What does this mean for employers?

Have you allowed certain behavior for years? Then this can (unintentionally) become a condition of employment, but do you want to deviate from this? Then make sure you:

• have a clear (written) policy,
• can provide good and compelling reasons, and
• enforce the policy consistently.

Without this, you run the risk of the court intervening, even if it concerns a four-legged friend.

You can read the ruling here.

If you have any questions about the ruling, please contact Tessa Sipkema, Elke Hofman-Bijvank, or Dennis Oud.

When an administrative body takes too long to make a decision, thereby exceeding the so-called decision period, interested parties may claim a penalty payment from that administrative body. However, in the case before the Administrative Law Division of the Council of State, which is discussed in this blog, a debate arose as to whether the administrative body is still liable for the penalty if it no longer needs to take a decision. 

The situation was as follows: an interested party had submitted an enforcement request. The administrative body did not decide on this request in time. The interested party therefore submitted a notice of default and requested payment of a penalty. The interested party then withdrew the enforcement request, but requested that the administrative body take a decision on the notice of default and the penalty. The administrative body was of the opinion that the penalty was no longer payable because the enforcement request had been withdrawn. 

The Division disagreed. It ruled that the administrative body had to pay the penalty for the period between the expiry of the notice of default and the withdrawal of the enforcement request. The reason for this is that the withdrawal of the enforcement request does not mean that the interested party cannot be retroactively regarded as an interested party in the decision on the enforcement request. In other words, the interested party was an interested party both before and after the withdrawal of the enforcement request. 

In practice, you may be entitled to payment of a penalty by an administrative body more often than you might think. Do you have questions about claiming a penalty after the decision period has expired? Please contact Gerard van der Wende or Fleur Huisman. 

You can read the ruling here.

This morning, our breakfast session “Contracting in the modern age” took place at the beautiful location of Golfclub Capelle, and what a successful morning it was!

At around 7:20 a.m., we welcomed our customers with a warm welcome, a cup of coffee and/or tea, and of course a delicious, extensive fresh breakfast.

The session started at 8:00 a.m. Lennart Hordijk opened the morning, after which Erwin den Hartog and Iris Keemink took over. Together, they discussed developments surrounding the conclusion of agreements in this digital age. Topics covered included the evidential value in court, dealing with digital sources, and the question of whether the use of AI in contracts is smart or risky.

The atmosphere was open and a few questions were asked. Time flew by and the session ran a little over time, which just goes to show how relevant and interesting the topic was.

This morning, our breakfast session “Contracting in the modern age” took place at the beautiful location of Golfclub Capelle, and what a successful morning it was!

At around 7:20 a.m., we welcomed various clients from different industries with a warm welcome, a cup of coffee and/or tea, and of course a delicious, extensive fresh breakfast.

The session started at 8:00 a.m. Lennart Hordijk opened the morning, after which Erwin den Hartog and Iris Keemink took over. Together, they discussed developments surrounding the conclusion of agreements in this digital age. Topics covered included the evidential value in court, dealing with digital sources, and the question of whether the use of AI in contracts is smart or risky.

The atmosphere was open and a few questions were asked. Time flew by and the session ran a little over time, which only served to highlight how relevant and interesting the topic was.

We look back on an inspiring and well-attended morning with a tasty breakfast and enthusiastic participants.

Thanks to everyone who attended and, of course, to Golfclub Capelle and restaurant Mulligan for the warm welcome! 

If you have any questions, please contact our corporate law specialists. 

Thanks to everyone who attended and, of course, to Golfclub Capelle for the warm welcome! 

The Rotterdam District Court recently ruled that a hospitality employer was fined heavily for failing to keep proper records of working hours. The minister had initially imposed fines totaling € 51,250, but the court ultimately reduced this to € 30,000 (€ 22,500 for the Minimum Wage and Minimum Holiday Allowance Act and € 7,500 for the Working Hours Act).

Many employers believe that employment contracts, pay slips, and a fixed work schedule are sufficient. This ruling shows that this is not enough. The Working Hours Act requires that the actual start and end times and breaks for each employee be recorded so that, in the event of an inspection by the Inspectorate, it can be checked whether, for example, the rules on working hours and rest periods are being complied with and whether the minimum wage is being paid. Even when staff work according to a fixed schedule, this obligation remains in place. The case was complicated by the fact that employees told the Inspectorate that they sometimes worked longer or shorter hours than their fixed schedule. As a result, the Labor Inspectorate was unable to verify the actual working hours or whether the minimum wage and vacation allowance had been paid correctly. The lack of registration is entirely at the employer's expense and risk. Exceptions only apply in special cases, for example for employees aged 18 and over who earn at least three times the minimum wage.

This is an important signal for employers: accurate and verifiable time registration is essential to avoid penalties. This applies in particular to employers in the hospitality industry or other sectors where wages (with or without a collective labor agreement) do not differ greatly from the minimum wage and where the Labor Inspectorate conducts more frequent checks than in other sectors. An employment contract or schedule is not sufficient evidence; what matters is that it can be demonstrated in practice how many hours were actually worked and when breaks were taken. Consider time registration apps, special software, or (digital) time clocks.  

Have you had a visit from the Inspectorate and are you afraid of a fine? Then call one of our employment lawyers, Dennis Oud, Elke Hofman, or Tessa Sipkema for advice. 

You can read the ruling here. 

A zoning plan determines what use is permitted on those plots by assigning zoning designations. In some cases, the council may change the zoning of a plot, for example because a particular use has not been carried out for years, or because a new use is desirable. The fact that such zoning changes do not always go as hoped is evident from the ruling of the Administrative Law Division of the Council of State of 17 September 2025.

The case concerned the change of zoning of a plot of land, whereby the company house was converted into a private residence (with an adjusted plot). When purchasing the property, the seller and the buyer had agreed that the seller would take care of a zoning plan revision. The plot had an agricultural zoning, which meant that the company house could only be occupied for business purposes. 

The seller entered into a prior agreement with the municipality to effect the zoning change. The buyers shared the building plan with the municipality, including the dimensions. However, when the zoning plan was adopted, it appeared that the council had not taken the buyers' building plan into account and had allocated too small an area for both the house and the garden. Both the seller and the buyers therefore lodged an appeal.

The council initially argued that no permit application or request for preliminary consultation had been submitted by the buyers and that a smaller area for the house and garden was therefore permissible. During the hearing, however, it also argued that the building plan was sufficiently concrete and had been communicated by the buyers in good time. The Division ultimately ruled that the zoning plan had been adopted without taking the buyers' building plan into account and that their interests had not been taken into consideration in the weighing of interests. The zoning plan should therefore not have been adopted in this manner.

The essence of this ruling is that if a building plan is sufficiently concrete and has been shared with the municipality in a timely manner, it must in principle be taken into account when adopting a zoning plan. 

You can read the ruling of the Council of State here.
 

With the introduction of the Environment Act on 1 January 2024, there is currently often confusion about which legislation exactly applies to a decision: the old or the new?

The main rule is that the Environment Act applies to decisions taken from 1 January 2024 onwards. However, there are exceptions to this main rule. There are cases where the procedure has already started before the Environment Act came into force, but the decision will only be taken after 1 January 2024. In such cases, transitional law ensures that the old regulations apply. For example, a permit application is submitted on 31 December 2023, but a decision is not made until 12 March 2024. The procedure started before 1 January 2024, so the old law applies.

The ruling of the District Court of The Hague of 25 August 2025 shows that mistakes are often made in this regard. In this case, the municipal executive of Noordwijk had wrongly declared the Environment Act applicable to an order subject to a penalty. The intention to impose the order subject to a penalty had already been announced before 1 January 2024. The procedure had therefore started before the Environment Act came into force, which meant that the old legislation had to remain applicable.

Normally, this would be a reason to overturn a decision, but the court ruled otherwise in this case. In this case, the old and new legislation contained the same rules for this specific case, which meant that the plaintiffs and third parties were not disadvantaged by the council's error. The court therefore ruled that this error could be disregarded under Article 6:22 of the General Administrative Law Act. In short, this means that the court ignores the error and treats the case as if the error had not been made, because no one has been harmed by the error.

Do you have any questions about the applicable legislation to a decision you have received or an adopted zoning plan? Please contact Gerard van der Wende or Fleur Huisman.

You can read the ruling here.