News

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.

In its ruling of 25 August 2025, the District Court of North Holland had to assess whether the appellant could invoke the principle of legitimate expectations on the basis of statements made by the Municipal Executive of Alkmaar.

First, a brief explanation of the principle of legitimate expectations, more specifically when the principle applies. Three conditions must be met. First, there must be a concrete and unambiguous commitment from which the citizen could derive a legitimate expectation. Secondly, the promise must be attributable to the administrative body. This prevents every statement made by a civil servant from falling under the principle of legitimate expectations. Thirdly, it must be considered whether, in the specific case, it is reasonable to require the administrative body to act on the confidence that has been created. In other words, a balance must be struck between the interests of the citizen in whom the legitimate expectation has been created and (among other things) the public interest. 

Now to the case. The appellant had submitted a permit application for the conversion of an office space into nine flats. The environmental permit applied for was initially granted, but was subsequently withdrawn following an objection by a third party, on the grounds that the new flats would disproportionately increase parking pressure in the area. The appellant then lodged an appeal. Among other things, she argued that this was contrary to the principle of legitimate expectations. She claimed that the council had given her legitimate expectations that her plan could be realised.

The situation is as follows: before submitting the permit application, the appellant submitted a request for advice to the council. The council responded positively to this request for advice, concluding, among other things, that parking pressure in the area would not increase. However, the council did make the reservation that other aspects and interests still had to be assessed and weighed up and that it was therefore not yet certain that the environmental permit would be granted.

According to the appellant, the council's comment that parking pressure would not increase gave the appellant a legitimate expectation that the environmental permit would be granted and therefore the environmental permit could not be withdrawn on that basis. The court agrees with the appellant's position. The fact that the response to the request for advice indicated that it was not certain that the environmental permit would be granted does not alter this, because this reservation only concerned the “other aspects and interests” and not the traffic pressure. After all, that had already been established.

In concrete terms, there was a violation of the principle of legitimate expectations, because the council had given the appellant the legitimate expectation that traffic pressure would not prevent the granting of the environmental permit, but the council nevertheless revoked the environmental permit on that ground.

If you have any questions about the principle of legitimate expectations, please contact Gerard van der Wende or Fleur Huisman.

You can read the ruling here.

When an interested party submits an enforcement request, the competent authority must, in principle, always take enforcement action. This is known as the principle of mandatory enforcement. There are two exceptions to this rule. The first is the principle of proportionality. If enforcement action in a specific case is disproportionate to the objectives to be achieved, the administrative body must refrain from enforcement. The second is a concrete prospect of legalisation. In short, this means that the violation will be legalised in the short term.

Concrete prospect of legalisation exists if an environmental permit is granted that legalises the violation. However, the ruling of the Division of 27 August 2025 shows that not all environmental permits granted provide a concrete prospect of legalisation. The ruling concerns an enforcement request submitted by a local resident against a nearby livestock farm, which is causing him nuisance. The council takes the position that there is indeed a violation, because the livestock farm is located too close to the local resident's home. Nevertheless, the enforcement request is rejected because of concrete prospects of legalisation. This is because an environmental permit has been granted for the construction of a new barn at a different location on the plot, to replace part of the existing barns. The council believes that this will remedy the violation and that enforcement was therefore unnecessary.

The Division disagrees. It ruled that there was no concrete prospect of legalisation, because the granting of the permit for the new barn did not legalise the existing situation. It merely permitted a new situation with the aim of complying with the relevant legislation and regulations.

This ruling limits the application of the exception of a concrete prospect of legalisation to situations in which the violation is actually legalised. The exception therefore does not apply to situations in which only a new, legal situation is created in a different location.

You can read the ruling here.

This case concerned an employee who had been employed as a welder since 1995. Following a motorbike accident in 2019, he became completely incapacitated for work. The employer's obligation to continue paying wages, including wage sanctions, ultimately ended on 1 March 2024. As a return to work was no longer possible, the employee requested the employer to terminate the employment contract by means of a settlement agreement, with the award of a transition payment. However, the employer refused to cooperate.

Xella ruling

The subdistrict court judge put an end to this attitude and explicitly referred to the Xella ruling of the Supreme Court (2019). In that ruling, it was decided that, on the basis of good employment practices (Section 7:611 of the Dutch Civil Code), an employer is obliged to cooperate in the termination of a dormant employment contract, with payment of the transition allowance.

In line with this, the court terminated the employment contract and awarded a transition payment of more than € 37.500,00. In addition, the employer had to pay more than € 13.000,00 for unused holiday days. Why? Because even after 104 weeks of incapacity for work, the accrual of statutory holiday days continues.

Accrual of holiday entitlement after 104 weeks

Last year, another judge at the Gelderland District Court ruled that no holiday entitlement is accrued during the period in which there is no longer any entitlement to wages. This follows from Dutch legislation (Section 7:634(1) of the Dutch Civil Code). Although that judge also indicated last year that our regulations are contrary to European law and case law, he did not want to risk ruling against the law.

In this case, the subdistrict court in Arnhem came to a different conclusion: there is indeed a power to rule against national law. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union provides a solution for this.

For the lawyers among us, the subdistrict court explained this as follows: Article 31(2) of the Charter also enshrines the right to holidays. In the Max Planck judgment, the Court of Justice of the European Union clarified that Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union can be invoked in a dispute between private individuals. Furthermore, the Court ruled that, if a national regulation cannot be interpreted in such a way that it is compatible with Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, it is up to the national court to ensure, within the framework of its powers, the legal protection resulting from that provision and to guarantee its full effect by, if necessary, disapplying the national legislation that conflicts with it. In the literature, it is argued that, similarly, a Dutch employer cannot invoke the restriction in Article 7:634(1) of the Dutch Civil Code, which stipulates that an employee only accrues holiday entitlement if he is entitled to wages.

In other words, the fact that an employee only accrues holiday hours for the period during which he is entitled to wages is contrary to European law.

Important information for all employers and non-lawyers: Sick employees accrue full (statutory) holiday hours for the entire period of illness, and not just for the first two years, regardless of whether they perform work and regardless of whether they are entitled to wages.

Our advice: assess in good time whether the employment contract of an employee who is still incapacitated for work after 104 weeks should be terminated and do so in the correct manner. This will prevent unnecessary proceedings and additional (holiday) costs.

It is unlikely that this ruling will lead to a large number of additional tax assessments. This is because most settlement agreements include a final discharge clause.

If you have any questions, please contact Dennis Oud, Tessa Sipkema and Elke Hofman.

You can read the ruling here.