News

On 21 March 2025, the Supreme Court issued an important judgment on the limitation period for claims for payment of pension contributions by industry pension funds. This ruling provides clarity on a point that regularly leads to disputes in practice: when does a pension fund's claim against an employer lapse?

In this ruling, Booking.com was sued by an industry pension fund for failing to pay its employees' pension contributions on time. Booking.com took the position that the claims were time-barred.

According to Section 3:308 of the Civil Code, a claim for payment of periodic amounts (such as pension contributions) is time-barred after five years from the time they become due. This provision was created partly to ensure legal certainty and prevent creditors from sitting idle for too long. But when exactly is such a premium payable?

That was the key legal question in this case. Is that the moment when the premium should theoretically have been paid (according to the regulations)? Or only when the pension fund discovers that the employer should have paid premium and therefore brings a claim?

The Supreme Court considered that, in principle, the moment of claimability is determined by what is stipulated about it in the fund's pension regulations. For example, if the fund has stipulated that contributions are due quarterly or monthly, then the contribution is claimable from that moment and the limitation period also starts to run.

However, the Supreme Court gives two exceptions to deviate from the rule of claimability. The first exception relates to when the employer deliberately withholds information regarding the payment of premium. This also applies when the employer knowingly communicates incorrect facts. In the event that the employer knowingly takes these actions, the limitation period only starts to run if the pension fund is aware of the correct facts. Another exception relates to when invoking the limitation period is unacceptable according to standards of reasonableness and fairness.

All in all, this judgment teaches us that pension funds should carefully formulate their regulations and remain active in collecting contributions. Employers would also do well to keep their records in order and be transparent towards the fund. Statute of limitations can be a powerful defence, but is certainly not a licence to remain silent or mislead.

If you have any questions, please contact Erwin den Hartog and Iris Keemink.

An employer can show trust in staff in many ways, this can be through the provision of a lease car or a laptop for example. But what if this trust is betrayed?

This was precisely what recently played out in a case at the Central Netherlands court. A temporary worker was given a lease car by the company where he worked, which he was also allowed to use privately. During working hours, however, he was involved in a traffic accident. Annoying in itself, but there was more to it here: he was on a driving ban at the time. As a result, the damages (€ 16,000,00+) were not insured.

This meant that the company itself paid for the damage. Naturally, they were not happy about this and therefore tried to recover the damages from the temporary worker himself. The latter thought this was unjustified. According to him, the employment agency, his formal employer, should then pay the damages. However, the court thought otherwise. It ruled that the case involved deliberately reckless behaviour. And in that case, an employee can be held personally liable for the damage caused.

Why is this interesting?

This ruling essentially deals with a broader issue than just an employee causing a traffic accident. It touches on the question: when is an employee personally liable for damage he or she causes while at work? The answer is that, in principle, employees are not personally liable for damage caused. But in cases of intent or conscious recklessness, as the court found present here, it is different. Then an employee can be held personally liable. And whether the person works through an employment agency or not need not make any difference in such a case.

Three lessons for business owners

1.    Trust is fine - but control is (sometimes) better
Are you giving someone a car, laptop or other valuable items? Then make sure you know who you are dealing with. Check for instance whether someone has a valid driving licence and whether there have been previous incidents. Prevention really is better than cure.

2.    Hiring? Still your responsibility
Even if you work with temporary workers, you may be liable for what happens. Make sure you have clear agreements with the agency and the temporary workers and take a critical look at your insurance policies.

3.    Reckless behaviour? Then you may intervene
If an employee consciously behaves irresponsibly, such as driving while disqualified, you as an employer do not have to stand idly by. So in such cases, it may be possible to recover damages from the employee personally, even if the employee is a temporary worker. 

Questions about the provision of lease cars, other company assets or damage caused by workers? If so, please contact Dennis Oud, Tim van Riel, Elke Hofman-Bijvank, or Tessa Sipkema.

We are proud to announce that we have extended our main sponsorship of Golf Club Capelle until the end of 2026!🥂

In recent years, we have worked with the club with great pleasure and commitment. Therefore, we are delighted to continue this cooperation - and that enthusiasm is mutual! Both we and Golfclub Capelle look forward to continuing to build together on beautiful sporting and business moments on and around the course.

Here's to more joint beautiful golf days!🎉

As discussed many times before, the government has a duty of principle to enforce. In short, this means that the government must enforce against violations if it has the authority to do so, unless there are special circumstances that allow the government to refrain from enforcement. Special circumstances may exist if there is a concrete prospect of legalisation, or if enforcement is so disproportionate in relation to the interests to be served that enforcement would not be justified.

The duty of principle to enforce is a much debated topic in case law, simply because many citizens and companies believe that enforcement should have been waived in their specific case. This was also the case in the decision of the Administrative Law Division of the Council of State on 30 April 2025. In this case, a citizen had built a garden shed in his front garden without the necessary permits. The municipal council had therefore imposed an order under penalty to remove the garden house and keep it removed. The citizen disagreed with this, as although he had been allowed to build the gazebo 3 metres away in his garden without permits, it would be disproportionate to require him to move the gazebo. He therefore believes there is a special case where the college should have refrained from enforcement. The court agreed with the citizen, ruling that the order under penalty should not have been imposed. The college then appealed to the Division, where the question was whether there was actually a special case in which enforcement should have been waived.

The Division ruled that this was not the case because the interest invoked by the citizen, namely that it would be very costly to move the gazebo, does not make for a special case that should have dispensed with enforcement, as building without the required planning permission is at the citizen's own risk. Thus, this cannot be held against the college.

From this ruling, we can conclude that high costs for removing or moving a structure built without an environmental permit does not create a special case that should have led to a waiver of enforcement, simply because it is at the citizen's or company's own risk.

Read the ruling here.

In previous blogs, I have already discussed the principle of reliance and how difficult it is to successfully invoke it. To refresh the mind, I will give a brief explanation of what exactly the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations means. The principle of confidence means that citizens and companies must be able to trust that a promise made by an administrative body or a legal provision will actually be fulfilled or complied with. There are quite a few snags with this principle. The main stumbling block is that it must be a commitment by an administrative body. In many cases, reliance on the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations runs aground on this, because a promise cannot be attributed to the administrative body.

Nevertheless, there are also cases where reliance on the principle of reliance does succeed. This was the case in the 20 March 2025 ruling of the Central Netherlands District Court. This case centred on an environmental permit for the realisation of a harbour in Oud-Loosdrecht. The initiator had made agreements with the municipality on the arrival of the port. In order to obtain the environmental permit, sufficient parking spaces had to be available. To help the initiator, the council had agreed to provide those parking spaces so that this would not be an obstacle to granting the environmental permit. No sooner said than done. The single permit was granted, partly on the basis that the municipality would realise the parking spaces. Subsequently, local residents objected, after which the council decided not to realise the parking spaces after all and revoked and refused the permit. The initiator appealed against the decision on objection, invoking (among other things) the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.

The judge ruled that there was a clear commitment by an administrative body because the commitment was made in a consultation, a decision and a letter. The college itself was present at the consultation about the parking spaces, it is a decision of the college itself and the letter was signed on behalf of the college. This means that the initiator's reliance on the principle of legitimate expectations succeeds. 

This ruling shows that there are indeed situations where reliance on the principle of legitimate expectations succeeds. However, the strict standards set for this must be met.

You can read the ruling here.

On Tuesday 15 April, the House of Representatives gave its assent to the Law on the Admission for the Posting of Workers (Wtta). A loyal reader of our blogs is already aware of the key points of this as we have previously explained what this law entails and why it is important to be on time.

A quick refresher: what does the Wtta regulate?

The Wtta introduces an admission system for employment agencies and other companies that lend workers. Only those officially authorised will soon be allowed to operate in this market.

And that includes clear requirements. As a lender, you must, among other things:

• provide a Certificate of Good Conduct (VOG); 
• deposit a security deposit of €100,000;
• prove that you pay the right wages to your employees; 
• and neatly pay your taxes.

The Labour Inspectorate monitors - not only upon admission, but also afterwards with regular checks.

Not only lenders, also hirers beware!

Companies that hire staff - so-called hirers - also face new obligations. From 2026, they will only be allowed to work with employment agencies that have been admitted to the market. Are you not doing so? Then, as a hirer, you yourself can be sued for violations, with all the financial consequences that entails.

Preparing for 2026: what can you do now?

For hirers:

• Check your collaborations. Do you work with a temporary employment agency? Then check whether they apply for approval on time or already have SNA certification.
• Map your hiring chain. Make sure you know who you are doing business with and under what conditions - this can prevent a lot of hassle later on.

For employment agencies:

• Start on time. Do you not yet meet the conditions? Do not wait until the end of 2025, but take steps towards admission now.
• Get voluntary certification. Until 1 July 2025, you can already get certified via the Stichting Normering Arbeid (SNA) - this will make the real admission process a lot smoother soon.

Questions about staffing agreements or the posting of workers? If so, please contact Dennis Oud, Elke Hofman-Bijvank, Tim van Riel or Tessa Sipkema.