News

Last weekend was all about the 47th British Open & 15th Cup of Europe for Dave Kientz, a highly competitive and beautifully organized international tournament.

Our sponsored karateka Dave Kientz was back in action here. He had a bye in the preliminary round, which meant his first match was immediately against a Polish opponent. He managed to end this match early and convincingly qualified for the semi-finals.

There, Dave once again faced the current world champion. Although he has faced him many times before, victory proved just out of reach this time too. After an intense 3.5-minute fight, he had to acknowledge his superiority to his strong British opponent.

The weekend ended with a fine third place in this European Cup, a result to be proud of!

We congratulate Dave on this achievement and wish him every success in his preparations for the World Championships in Japan on November 22 and 23. We are proud to sponsor him and support his sporting ambitions.

Bad news for employers: processing times at the UWV are increasing even further. The good news is that if the 104-week waiting period is (almost) over and recovery is not expected within 26 weeks, you can submit the application for dismissal due to long-term incapacity for work without first waiting for the RIV test or the WIA decision. The UWV's Implementation Rules allow this in the event of a delay, as long as the WIA application has been submitted on time.

When is this possible?

After two years of incapacity for work, the prohibition on termination due to illness expires in principle (unless extended, for example due to a wage penalty). You can then request permission from the UWV to terminate the employment contract, provided that:

• No recovery is expected within 26 weeks, and
• Reassignment (possibly with training, within a reasonable period of time) is not possible.

When submitting your application, you must provide:

• a recent statement from the company doctor with the prognosis and work capacity. This is also referred to as the 26-week statement or current assessment;
• information about the first day of illness and the course of the illness/employability;
• an overview of reintegration activities (track 1 and/or track 2);
• a chronological report (employer or company doctor). This can be evidenced by the reintegration report (RIV), occupational expert reports, or expert opinions; and furthermore;
• a copy of the employment contract, the job description, and documents supporting the redeployment efforts.

Pitfalls (and how to avoid them)

• Submitting too early: permission can only be granted once the notice period has expired (or will expire within four weeks of the decision). So plan to submit your application just before the end of the 104 weeks, e.g. in week 99.  
• Forgetting the notice period: the UWV's processing time is deducted from the notice period, but at least one month must remain. The obligation to continue paying wages expires after 104 weeks, so in principle no wages need to be paid during the notice period.
• Late WIA application by employee: the obligation to continue paying wages and the prohibition on termination are extended by the number of days late (and the UWV may refuse the application for dismissal).

What if reintegration was insufficient after all?

Even then, the dismissal application is still possible if the WIA application was submitted on time and there was only a delay at the UWV. The prohibition on termination will not be extended and you do not have to wait for the decision on the WIA. After the waiting period has expired, no wage penalty can be imposed. Please note: an employee can claim administrative damages from the UWV if it subsequently transpires that a wage penalty was wrongly not imposed. This does not affect the dismissal permit that has been granted, but it does underline the importance of a complete and carefully compiled file.

Conclusion

As you can see, the best option is still to conclude a settlement agreement with your employee, because the route via the UWV clearly takes time and therefore money. However, if that is not possible, you do not have to wait for the dismissal application in the event of a UWV delay, provided your file is in order. Do you have any questions or would you like a quick file check (26-week forecast, redeployment, notice period)? Please contact Dennis Oud, Tessa Sipkema, or Elke Hofman-Bijvank; we will be happy to assist you in a practical and timely manner. 

In its ruling of October 8, 2025, the Administrative Law Division of the Council of State was confronted with a remarkable situation: a municipality and municipal council that appealed against a remedial decision taken by the council itself.

What was at stake in this case? In an interim ruling, the Division had instructed the council of the municipality of Oss to remedy deficiencies in a zoning plan. Following the interim ruling, the council took a remedial decision and thereby amended the zoning plan. Subsequently, both the council and the municipality of Oss lodged an appeal against that remedial decision and refused to withdraw it.

The question that the Division now had to answer was whether the council could appeal against its own remedial decision and whether the municipality could lodge an appeal against the remedial decision of its own municipal council. The Division ruled that it could not. The purpose of allowing appeals is to offer interested parties legal remedies against government actions, not to give the council the opportunity to undo its own corrective decision. In addition, the Division ruled that the municipality could not appeal against the corrective decision either, because it had not been demonstrated that the municipality's interests were directly affected by the corrective decision.

This is an important ruling, because the Division has emphasized that the judiciary cannot be burdened with tasks, in this case the annulment of a recovery decision, that should be carried out by administrative bodies themselves.

You can read the ruling here.

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!