News

It is a well-known point of discussion in administrative law: the sending and receiving of decisions by administrative bodies. Normally, a decision is deemed to have been sent correctly if the administrative body can demonstrate that it was sent to the correct address by a recognised postal service provider. 

Does this always mean that a citizen or company claiming that a decision has not been received is left empty-handed? In its ruling of 20 August 2025, the Division ruled that this is not the case. The case revolved around the appellant's appeal against a ruling by the District Court of The Hague. The court had declared the appellant's appeal inadmissible because it had been lodged outside the appeal period. The appellant argued that she had received the decision on the objection too late, which meant that she was unable to lodge an appeal within the time limit. According to the court, the decision on the objection was correctly addressed and dated, and there was also proper dispatch documentation, which made it sufficiently plausible that the decision on the objection had been sent. The appellant disagreed with this ruling and lodged an appeal with the Division. 

The Division agreed with the court's ruling that it had been made sufficiently plausible that the decision had been sent. However, the Division also ruled that the appellant had not sufficiently rebutted the presumption of receipt, partly because the appellant had demonstrated that she had inquired several times with the council about the status of the objection procedure, but also because, after she had finally received the decision on the objection, she had quickly lodged an appeal shortly after the appeal period had expired. 

In concrete terms, this meant that, despite the board having demonstrated that the decision had been sent, the appellant had sufficiently demonstrated that she had not received the decision. The appellant's appeal to the Division was therefore declared well-founded and she should have been declared admissible by the court.

You can read the ruling here.

If an administrative body imposes a penalty decision, such as an order subject to a penalty or an order subject to administrative coercion, this must be based on a verifiable determination of relevant facts and circumstances. After all, enforcement action is only possible if there has been a violation.
 
In the ruling of the Administrative Law Division of the Council of State of 13 August 2025, it had to be determined how and by whom these facts and circumstances should be gathered. In this case, the council had decided not to take enforcement action on the basis of checks carried out by an expert, but had disregarded photographs from third parties that were relevant.

The Division ruled that the facts and circumstances must be established by an expert, on the instructions of the competent authority. The established facts and circumstances must then be recorded in a clear manner. This can be done in a written report, for example, but also with photographs. The relevant facts and circumstances do not have to be observed (only) by the expert himself. Facts and circumstances can also be established by inferring them from documents found by the expert. These may include photographs taken by third parties or other types of information and documents. In some cases, it is therefore not sufficient to base a decision on whether or not to take enforcement action solely on checks carried out by the expert if other relevant information is also available that needs to be considered. 

Read the ruling here. 

Once again, it has been demonstrated that employment law is never dull. On 29 July 2025, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled in a case in which an employee, after almost 37 years of service, took a bag of liver sausages with him at the end of his shift. The meat producer dismissed the employee with immediate effect. The Court ruled that the summary dismissal was not legally valid. This ruling shows once again that summary dismissal can still lead to considerable disputes.

What happened:

At this meat producer, it was not unusual to place a “staff crate” with sausages at the exit so that colleagues could take them home. The sausages in question were no longer saleable for various reasons. The employee in question had taken a bag to put some sausages in and taken them home. The receptionist saw the bag and – although this is not clear from the ruling – (probably) reported it. According to the employer, this was theft, but according to the employee, it was simply part of a long-standing practice: unsaleable sausages could be taken home by employees.

Judgment of the Court:

The summary dismissal was not upheld. Although the employer had included in its Internal Regulations that it was not permitted to take products, goods or property without paying for them, the Court ruled that this was contrary to the “crate custom” in that department. There was therefore no clear and comprehensible policy. In addition, the employer did not sufficiently take into account the personal circumstances of the employee in its decision to dismiss him with immediate effect. A 59-year-old employee with almost 37 years of service at a sausage manufacturer who is dismissed with immediate effect does not, in the words of the Court, have a “particularly rosy” position on the labour market.
  
The employee not only received his transition payment, but also fixed compensation and fair compensation of € 150,000 gross. People say, “you pay for what you get”, but in this case, the sausage also proved to be an expensive affair.

Advice to entrepreneurs:

• Ensure clear and consistent policies. A rule in the internal regulations is not worth the paper it is written on if daily practice shows something completely different.
• Be alert to habits that undermine policy – Informal practices can be tolerated for years, but make it difficult to take sudden action.
• Take personal circumstances into account. Years of loyal service carry considerable weight in the assessment of summary dismissal.
• Document and communicate. Ensure that employees know in black and white what is and is not allowed, and repeat this regularly.
• Act carefully when dismissing someone with immediate effect. One wrong step can lead to high compensation payments and damage to your reputation.

Do you have any questions about dismissal with immediate effect or about drawing up clear policy? Please contact Dennis Oud, Tim van Riel, Tessa Sipkema or Elke Hofman-Bijvank.

You can read the ruling here.

Preparations are once again in full swing and the countdown has begun for the village festival of the year: the Harvest Festival in Zevenhuizen on Saturday 6 September!

A day full of fun, music, stalls, delicious food and activities for young and old. Everyone is welcome to come and enjoy this atmospheric tradition! 🎉

Even Kareltje is already standing by the road to Zevenhuizen, beaming with joy to remind everyone that it's almost time.

We are really looking forward to it and are proud to be able to contribute to this wonderful festival again this year!🙌

All information about this fun festival can be found on the website of the Harvest Festival Zevenhuizen.

A recent ruling by the subdistrict court in Overijssel once again highlights the importance of not treating a settlement agreement as a mere formality. In this case, a former employee of the University of Twente had concluded a settlement agreement with his employer, which included a confidentiality clause. The parties agreed not to make any statements about the reasons for and the settlement of the employment relationship.

However, things went wrong. In a radio interview, the rector magnificus of the university spoke about scientific integrity. During that interview, the employee's departure was also discussed. His name was mentioned, the reason for his departure was discussed and reference was made to “a lot of emotion” and poor communication.

The employee believed that this constituted a breach of the confidentiality clause and took the matter to court. The court ruled in his favour. The subdistrict court ruled that there had indeed been a breach of the confidentiality clause. However, the court found that this was a single breach and took into account that the university had taken immediate measures to have the interview taken offline. Ultimately, the subdistrict court awarded a fine of €22,000.

Although this amount is lower than the millions claimed by the employee, the case clearly shows how seriously such agreements must be taken. A settlement agreement is intended to bring peace and put an end to the employment relationship. This can only be achieved if both parties adhere to the agreements laid down in the agreement.

Our advice to entrepreneurs:

Be careful with the agreements in a settlement agreement, especially when it comes to confidentiality. What is agreed in the consultation room should not be disclosed in an interview or on social media. Keep in mind that statements, even unintentional ones, can have legal and financial consequences.

Do you have questions about confidentiality clauses or would you like to enter into a legally binding settlement agreement with an employee? Please contact Dennis Oud, Tim van Riel, Tessa Sipkema or Elke Hofman-Bijvank.

You can read the ruling here.

Anyone who sits on the board of an association, foundation or company will recognise this: organising the general meeting can be quite an operation. Finding a suitable venue, ensuring that everyone can physically attend, distributing documents on time, counting votes. It's all easier said than done, especially when board members or shareholders are spread across the country (or the world).

During the coronavirus pandemic, we were suddenly presented with an alternative: digital meetings. Out of necessity and on a temporary basis, organisations were allowed to hold their general meetings via video conferencing. And what did we discover? In many cases, it worked very well. People logged in from home, voted digitally and were able to ask questions as usual. It was faster, more efficient and required less organisation. However, it was not legally permitted on a permanent basis; it was only allowed under temporary emergency legislation.

This may be about to change. With the ‘Bill on digital general meetings of private legal entities’, digital meetings will become a possibility. This law amends the Civil Code so that fully digital meetings are legally valid.

What exactly will change? First of all, it is important to note that digital meetings will not be allowed automatically. The law provides the option, but it is up to the legal entity to explicitly choose it. Only if the articles of association of the legal entity state that a general meeting may be held digitally will this be legally permitted. Ironically, in most cases, adding this provision still requires a physical meeting, in which the change must first be approved.

The digital meeting must then meet a number of requirements. It is not sufficient to offer participants a live stream and then have them confirm the decisions by email. The meeting must be truly live and participants must have the opportunity to make comments and ask questions. It is not mandatory for a member to have their camera on for the entire meeting or to ask questions via the microphone. If there is a live chat function, this may also suffice.

The chair of the meeting plays an important role in this. He or she must ensure that the meeting runs smoothly, that participants are heard, and that voting takes place in a secure and reliable manner. The technology used must therefore function properly and participants must be able to identify themselves. If the connection fails or some of the members cannot access the meeting, this may affect the legal validity of the decisions taken.

The law applies to all legal entities under private law, such as associations, cooperatives, mutual insurance companies, foundations, private limited companies and public limited companies. The measure is not only intended for large companies or listed companies. Small associations or foundations in particular can also benefit from this flexibility. Think of sports clubs with members living abroad, or foundations with an international board.

However, the transition to digital meetings will not be straightforward for everyone. Some organisations value physical meetings because they facilitate communication. There are also concerns about accessibility; not everyone is equally digitally literate, and online meetings require different preparation and support.

Nevertheless, the law is responding to a social movement. Digitalisation is now an integral part of our daily lives. Organisations are being given more freedom to choose how they want to organise their meetings. Those who prefer physical meetings can continue to do so. But those who want to switch to digital will finally have the opportunity to do so.

The coming period is a good time for many boards to review their articles of association. Do any changes or additions need to be made? And what resources will be needed to meet the new requirements? The law will soon give us the opportunity to do so, but there is still work to be done.

If you need help organising a shareholders' meeting or have any other questions, our corporate lawyers will be happy to assist you!