News

Early this morning, we organised another inspiring breakfast session at Golfclub Capelle. With a large turnout and while enjoying a delicious breakfast buffet, colleagues Dennis Oud and Elke Hofman-Bijvank updated our clients on Labour Law. 

Besides looking back at the first weeks of ZZP since 1 January 2025, they also gave our clients insight into what is on the legislative agenda. A number of key topics were discussed, such as: 

• Law on more security for flex workers 
• Law on retaining staff in times of crisis 
• Competitive Trading (Modernisation) Act 
• Reintegration Obligations Second Year of Illness Act 
• More security for flexworkers Act 
• Paid bereavement leave act

It was an interactive session, where many questions were asked and insights shared. Good to see how engaged everyone was. 

Thanks to all attendees for coming and also our thanks to Restaurant Mulligan for taking such good care of us!

Many activities are subject to a permit requirement. This means that as a citizen or company, you must first submit a permit application to the administrative body and get the permit granted before you can carry out the activity in question. Normally, a permit is applied for by filling in an (electronic) application form. However, it sometimes happens that citizens or companies take a different approach. 

Such was the case in the Limburg District Court's ruling of 17 January 2025. Here, the plaintiff had submitted a permit application by e-mail. In the e-mail, he indicated that he would like to hear if anything was missing from his application, and that he would otherwise like to come and bring the form to the municipality. According to the college, this was not a permit application. The court does not follow this view. After all, this was a request by an interested party to make a decision. The fact that the permit application was flawed does not alter this. 

The board should therefore have made a decision on the application within eight weeks, ruling that the application did not meet the submission requirements and giving the claimant the opportunity to rectify the defect (as yet). Since the college failed to do so and did not decide on the plaintiff's permit application within the decision period, the plaintiff's appeal for failure to decide on time was upheld. 

The board is ordered to still take a decision, under penalty of forfeiting penalties. 

We can conclude from this ruling that it is possible to submit a permit application in a less common way, or at least that such a permit application must be considered by the administrative body. So always be aware of your rights and act accordingly. 

Do you have a question about a permit application you need to submit, or are you wondering whether you should submit a permit application at all? If so, please contact Gerard van der Wende or Fleur Huisman. 

You can read the ruling here.

A number of preliminary questions were raised by the Court of Appeal in the Uber case. On Friday 21 February 2025, the Supreme Court issued an important ruling in which the Supreme Court answered these questions. 

What did the Supreme Court consider? 

The Supreme Court had to assess whether the entrepreneurship of a self-employed person could be decisive in determining whether an employment contract existed. The Supreme Court also wanted an answer to the question whether two people, doing the same work for the same client, could still be judged differently if one person is clearly an entrepreneur and the other is not.

What does the Supreme Court say? 

• External entrepreneurship counts as heavily as all other Deliveroo viewpoints. So there is no ranking.
• Two people doing the same work can still be judged differently: one can be self-employed and the other employee.
• Entrepreneurship is not only considered within the job, but must also be viewed more broadly (for example, whether someone has multiple clients or runs their own business). Circumstances outside the working relationship are thus also relevant. 

What does this mean for client? 

Clients should pay close attention to how they work with self-employed workers. It is not enough to put in a contract that someone is a self-employed person, all the circumstances of the case count. If someone clearly behaves as an entrepreneur (multiple clients, own business operations, entrepreneurial risk), he or she is more likely to be considered self-employed as well.

What can a client do? 

✔ Check your contracts: Make sure agreements with self-employed workers match the way work is done in practice.
✔ Make clear agreements: Lay down clearly how the self-employed person behaves as an entrepreneur. Consider own advertising, registration with the Chamber of Commerce and soliciting clients independently.
✔ Keep up to date: Legislation and case-law on labour relations change quickly. Keep an eye on this to avoid unpleasant surprises.

By properly recording agreements, you limit the risk that a ‘zzp'er’ will be classified as an employee after all - with all the associated obligations.

Do you have any questions? If so, please contact Dennis Oud, Tessa Sipkema, Elke Hofman-Bijvank of met Tim van Riel. 

You can read the ruling here. 

In a recent court case, the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal decided that an employee of a car company was not liable for fraud committed by a colleague. The case involved a claims centre, which is part of employer, which was the victim of fraud by its finance director. Employer then tried to hold another employee, who was head of administration, responsible for the loss.
 
Intent or conscious recklessness required

Under the law, an employee can only be held liable for damage he or she causes to the employer if there is intent or conscious recklessness. This means that the employee deliberately caused the damage or knowingly took a great risk.
 
The court ruled that there was insufficient evidence in this case to show that the head of administration acted intentionally or knowingly recklessly. While she may not have always been alert as head of administration, that is not enough to hold her responsible for the finance director's fraud. The judge also looked at the fact that she was not criminally charged and that the finance director herself stated that she had nothing to do with the fraud.

Internal procedures and controls

A key issue in this case was the way internal procedures and controls were set up at employer. The court found that these were not good enough, increasing the likelihood of fraud. For example, the finance director was the only person authorised to make payments, and there was no proper system of control.
 
Conclusion: high demands for employee liability

This ruling shows the high requirements for an employee's liability for damage caused by a colleague. There must be intent or deliberate recklessness, and the employer must prove this. How internal procedures and controls are set up also plays an important role. If these are not good, this can hinder the employee's liability.

What can employers learn from this ruling?

Employers can learn a number of important lessons from this ruling:

1. Provide clear job descriptions: Make it clear what employees' duties and responsibilities are, especially in managerial positions.
2. Good internal controls: Invest in a good system of checks and balances to prevent fraud.
3. Write procedures: Put procedures for payments and other important financial processes in writing.
4. Look at risks: Regularly evaluate risks within the company and adjust procedures and controls accordingly.
5. Be careful about holding employees liable: Recognise that it is difficult to hold an employee liable and that it is more important to prevent losses by taking proper internal measures. 

By applying these lessons, employers can reduce the risk of fraud and protect the position of employees.
 
Do you have any questions? If so, please contact Dennis Oud, Tessa Sipkema, Elke Hofman or Tim van Riel. 

On 1 January 2024, the Environment Act entered into force. At the same time, four AMvBs came into force, including the Living Environment Activities Decree (Bal). Especially in the beginning, this new legislation was not yet, or not fully, known to citizens and companies. At the time, there was also a lot of confusion about the rules it contained and how they differed from previous legislation. This lack of clarity caused many citizens and companies to commit violations without being aware of it.

Such was the case with the plaintiff in the North Holland District Court ruling of 22 January 2025. The plaintiff operated a car dismantling company and metal trade and violated the applicable environmental rules in the Bal with this business. An order for periodic penalty payments was therefore imposed on him on 30 August 2024.

The plaintiff disagreed with the imposed order. Namely, he argued that in August 2024, the Ball had only just come into force and he did not yet know the provisions of the Ball. The court did not follow this position of the plaintiff. It ruled that the plaintiff is expected to know the laws and regulations applicable to him. This applies in particular to the environmental rules that apply to his car dismantling company.

It is therefore important that as a citizen or business, you are aware of the applicable laws and regulations. Especially if, as a business, you fall under environmental regulations, vigilance is required. Do you have questions about the applicable laws and regulations, or are you facing enforcement because you violated the laws and regulations? If so, please contact Gerard van der Wende or Fleur Huisman.

The reads the ruling here.

On 10 October 2024, a case was at the centre of the Amsterdam District Court in which the Basic Fit had to answer to a consumer. The consumer felt that the Basic Fit was engaging in unfair commercial practices and that its general terms and conditions contained several unfair provisions in the context of consumer protection. The court ultimately ruled that the consumer was right.

Basic Fit advertised with a misleading slogan. You may have seen the slogan yourself saying ‘Sports from € 19.99 per four weeks’. Initially, it seems like a good deal for a year, until one finds out that after a month, the term fee suddenly goes up to € 24.99. Basic Fit referred to their terms and conditions which stated this increase. The consumer disagreed and felt that the advertising was misleading. The hearing also centred on four provisions of the general terms and conditions which the consumer claimed were unfair in the interest of the consumer.

For your information, as a consumer you are extra protected by the law. The law stipulates that some provisions may not simply be included in general terms and conditions to prevent you as a consumer from being powerless against large companies, such as Basic Fit in this case. There are two lists included in the law with all kinds of provisions that are ‘unreasonably onerous’ or ‘presumably unreasonably onerous’, also called the ‘black’ and the ‘grey’ list. Is a provision on one of these lists? If so, then they should not have been in the general terms and conditions.

The court addressed, first, whether Basic Fit's four provisions were on these lists and therefore unreasonably onerous for consumers and, second, whether the advertising was misleading. These will be dealt with in order, as how the court dealt with them at the hearing.

Choice of forum clause

Choice of forum means that a contract can specify which court has jurisdiction. According to the main rule of law, the court that has jurisdiction is the court where the consumer is domiciled. So if you live in Rotterdam, you will usually also go to the Rotterdam District Court. The general terms and conditions stated that disputes would be settled by the court where the consumer had designated Basic Fit as his or her home club. Usually, this will often be the place of residence because people exercise close to home. But suppose you live in Rotterdam but work in Amsterdam and exercise at Basic Fit after work there, so you would have to go to the Amsterdam court. However, such a deviation from the main rule is blacklisted. Even though this provision is not too bad, it was still considered unreasonably onerous and therefore unfair by the court. Thus, the provision was no longer allowed to be included in the general terms and conditions. 

Exclusion clause

If a party includes a clause stating that it is not liable and that the consumer cannot get compensation, this is also considered unreasonable. An exception to this is if the other party can state that the clause is justified. In this case, the Basic Fit excluded all forms of liability for e.g. personal injury suffered in the gym. Basic Fit tried to argue why the clause was included in the general terms and conditions, but could not substantiate why it was justified to include the clause in the general terms and conditions. Thus, the exception did not apply. As a result, the clause was again deemed unreasonably onerous and unfair. 

Termination clause

There was a provision in the general terms and conditions that Basic Fit was authorised to cancel memberships and refuse members access to the clubs. How was this determined? Exclusively by Basic Fit itself. Of course, this is a big disadvantage for consumers, as in principle they can't object to this, while Basic Fit has a lot of power. The legislator thinks so too, which is why this rule has also been blacklisted.  In the general terms and conditions, everything was at Basic Fit's discretion, as a result of which the court ruled that this provision too was unreasonably onerous and unfair.

Price enhancement clause

Finally, the general conditions included a clause stating that Basic Fit was unilaterally entitled to increase the price every year, without notice. However, this has no legal basis. This provision deviates from what is allowed by law to the detriment of the consumer. The court therefore ruled again that the provision was unreasonably onerous and unfair. 

Unfair tagline?

The court lastly addressed the question of whether the slogan ‘Sports from € 19.99 every four weeks’ could be considered unfair. Consumers felt they were misled as the price went up a month later. The court agreed. The court found that Basic Fit had given incorrect and incomplete information about the conclusion of the subscription and thus misled the consumer.

The provisions were annulled and should no longer be in Basic Fit's general terms and conditions. All in all, as a consumer you can still reasonably compete against a big gym!
 
Would you like to know what your rights are with regard to general terms and conditions? Or would you like to have general terms and conditions drawn up for your company? Then contact one of our corporate law lawyers!