News

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.

Article 1:2 Awb defines an interested party as: “the person whose interest is directly affected by a decision”. This definition is relevant because only interested parties can object to (or appeal against) a government decision.

Despite the fact that the concept of interested party has been included in the Awb since 1994, and that law is still in force, the interim relief judge of the district court of Oost-Brabant saw reason to test whether the concept of interested party still has the same meaning since the Omgevingswet came into force. He did so in his ruling of 20 March 2025.

In this case, a local resident had objected to an environmental permit for the construction of four padel courts and the relocation of a tennis court at a sports complex. Her objection was declared inadmissible as the college considered that she was not an interested party. The local resident appealed against this and filed an application for injunctive relief with the court. She believed that she was an interested party because the plan would have a disproportionate impact on her living environment.

In order to assess whether this was actually the case, it was necessary to test Article 1:2 Awb. Before getting to this, the interim relief judge first pointed out that the environmental permit had been granted under the Environment Act. Under the old law (the Wabo), the Division developed a lot of case law on the concept of interested party. The question now is whether that case-law and the operation of the stakeholder concept also apply under the Environment Act. The interim relief judge ruled that it does. After all, Article 1:2 Awb has not changed with the entry into force of the Environment Act, nor have the consequences of an environmental permit for the construction of padel and tennis courts changed.

For the neighbouring resident in this case, this meant that she was not an interested party, as she had no view of the padel and tennis courts and she lived at too great a distance from the courts, so she would not experience nuisance of any significance.

It can be concluded that the stakeholder concept remains applicable under the Environment Act as well. For the sake of completeness, please note that this is a court ruling. The Division has yet to rule on this issue.

You can read the ruling here.

It is often a point of debate: the date of notification and the date of publication of a decision. Which of the two is now leading for the start of an objection or appeal period? This is essential information, because if the wrong date is chosen, a citizen or company may simply be too late to file an objection or appeal because the deadline has already passed. 

Such a situation was discussed in the decision of the Administrative Law Division of the Council of State on 9 April 2025. A third party had objected to an environmental permit granted to Vodafone Libertel B.V. to erect an antenna set-up point. However, the college of the municipality of Emmen had declared that objection inadmissible because the objection period had already expired before the objection was submitted. In fact, the decision to grant the licence was already dated 18 October 2022, which meant that the objection period had started on 19 October 2022. The third party did not file an objection until 8 December 2022. By then, the objection period had already expired, making the objection too late and declared inadmissible. The third party could not agree with the inadmissibility declaration, as it believed that the publication in the Municipal Gazette was incorrect. Indeed, the publication stated that ‘the date of publication was mentioned first’. According to the third party, that first mentioned date is 1 November 2022 and not 18 October 2022. This lack of clarity in the publication could not be blamed on the third party. 

The Division ruled that it is clear that the decision to grant the permit was published to the applicant on 18 October 2022, after which the objection period began. The notice was then published in the Municipal Gazette. According to the Division, there is no reason to rule that there is an unclear publication in the Municipal Gazette, as it clearly states that the environmental permit was announced on 18 October 2022. The fact that the top right of the page shows the date 1 November 2022, the date of issue of the Municipal Gazette, does not mean that this is the publication of the decision. After all, this is the date of publication. The Division also took into account that the third party was assisted by a professional legal adviser and therefore more could be expected of him. 

In short, this means that it is very important to keep an eye on when the objection or appeal period actually starts to run. After all, filing a notice of objection or appeal too late can have major consequences. 

Do you need help objecting to or appealing a government decision? Then contact Gerard van der Wende or with Fleur Huisman. We will be happy to help you. 

Read the ruling here.

A recent judgment of the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal dealt with an interesting case that reminds us of the complexity of fraud in the workplace. In it, it was found that an employee was not liable for fraud committed by her supervisor. This raises an important question for employers, namely how do you deal with suspicions of fraud within the organisation? 

Steps to take

If an employer suspects that an employee is involved in fraudulent activities, it is important to go through a number of steps. First, start by gathering evidence. There is no point in accusing an employee of fraud if, as an employer, you cannot substantiate it. Next, it is important to have a conversation with the employee in question to confront them with the suspicion. This conversation should be open and honest and preferably the employee should be invited to the office.

Depending on the outcome of this conversation, an employer may consider various measures. These can range from an official warning to, in the worst case, summary dismissal. Here, it is important to make the right consideration as a wrong decision can have significant adverse financial consequences.

The damages

If an employer then wishes to hold the employee liable, it is important to remember that intent or deliberate recklessness is necessary to do so. Proving either can be quite a difficult task for an employer. 

Prevention

It is always, but even more so in the case of fraud, best to prevent rather than cure. This starts with strengthening the integrity culture within the company where clear guidelines and control systems are essential. For example, also consider checking references with new employees or requesting a Certificate of Good Conduct (VOG) as standard.

Finally, every situation is unique. What works for one company may not be as effective for another. Stay alert and prepared, and remember: in the fight against fraud, knowledge of the law is indispensable. If an employee suspects fraud, it is important to seek timely legal advice.

Do you have questions about this or are you dealing with (suspected) fraud? If so, please contact Dennis Oud, Tessa Sipkema, Elke Hofman or Tim van Riel.

You can read the ruling here.