News

The operator of a hospitality business in Amsterdam is not entitled to compensation for the damages she suffered during the temporary closure of her business premises ordered by the mayor. The Amsterdam District Court ruled as such in its decision of June 10, 2026.

The building housing the hospitality business was temporarily closed by the mayor after an explosive device detonated in front of the building in August 2022. The mayor closed the building due to a threat to public order and also based the decision on previous incidents involving the hospitality business and similar establishments.

The closure was lifted several months later at the request of the hospitality business’s operator, but by then the operator had already suffered significant damages as a result of the closure. The operator sought to recover the damages from the mayor. She therefore filed a claim for compensation for losses. The mayor rejected this claim, arguing that the damages fell within the scope of the operator’s normal business risk. The operator disagreed and filed an appeal with the Amsterdam District Court. She contended that the closure was unforeseeable and therefore could not be considered part of normal business risk. Furthermore, she could not be held responsible for the explosion, as, in her view, no connection could be established between the explosion and the business.

The court did not agree with the operator’s arguments. According to the court, a temporary closure of a hospitality business (or its premises) due to disturbances of public order is part of the normal business risk. A key factor in this was that the hospitality business is located in an area with residential properties and a hotel, and the explosion therefore caused a serious disturbance of public order. The mayor’s subsequent decision to close the premises was a normal and expected response, making the measure foreseeable. 

The fact that the catering business was not at fault for the explosion did not alter this conclusion. Even when a business owner has not personally done anything wrong, the business owner may still be liable for damages if those damages result from risks associated with the operation of the business. Operating a hospitality business, especially in an area where residential properties are also located, entails certain safety and public order risks. 

It follows from this ruling by the Amsterdam District Court that damages resulting from the lawful closure of a (hospitality) business due to a disturbance of public order are, in principle, not eligible for compensation if such damages fall within the scope of normal business risk. In this regard, the foreseeability of the closure is of particular importance. If closure is a normal and foreseeable response, the resulting damages will normally remain the responsibility of the hospitality business. 

You can read the ruling here.

In most cases, the municipal executive is the competent authority responsible for deciding on building permit applications. However, there are also cases in which it lacks the authority to make such decisions.

This was the case in the ruling by the Administrative Law Division of the Council of State on June 3, 2026. The ruling concerned a home expansion in Middelburg. The municipal executive had granted an environmental permit for that expansion in 2022. An objection was filed against that permit without success, and the objector subsequently appealed to the district court. Ultimately, the case reached the Council of State. While those proceedings were still ongoing, the homeowner applied for a permit for a minor modification to the building plan, as it turned out that a part of the home had been built in deviation from the permit. That modification permit was granted in 2024. An objection was filed against the amendment permit. That objection was handled by the municipal executive in the usual manner and ultimately declared unfounded. The court reviewed the decision on the objection (also) on its merits and subsequently ruled that the decision on the objection was insufficiently substantiated.

Subsequently, the person who had objected to the amendment permit appealed to the Council of State. The Council of State heard the appeals against both the original permit and the amendment permit simultaneously at a hearing.

Regarding the amendment permit, the Council of State ruled that the municipal executive should not have made any decision on the objection at all. The amendment to the building plan (to which the amendment permit related) was of a minor nature. Because an appeal was still pending against the original permit, the municipal executive should have forwarded the objection to the Council of State pursuant to Article 6:109 of the General Administrative Law Act (Awb) to be assessed in the ongoing proceedings. Because the municipal executive nevertheless decided on the merits of the objection itself, it acted without authority. The Council of State therefore annulled the decision on the objection.

The Council of State also issued an important ruling regarding the applicable legislation. The original permit from 2022 logically still fell under the old legislation. Although the amendment permit was granted in 2024 and therefore after the Environmental Act came into effect, because the permit is considered part of or an amendment to the original permit, the proceedings against the amendment permit must also be handled under the old legislation.

In a permit procedure, it is therefore important to know the difference between a substantial and a minor amendment and to always verify which legislation applies.

Do you have questions about a (amendment) permit procedure? Please contact Gerard van der Wende or me.

You can read the ruling here.

In principle, an employee who is sick is entitled to continued pay. However, in return, certain obligations are expected of a sick employee. He or she must cooperate with medical examination requirements, be available to the company doctor, and make an effort toward recovery and reintegration.

A recent ruling by the Amsterdam District Court clearly illustrates how important these obligations are, especially when an employee is staying abroad while on sick leave.

This case involved an employee who reported sick while staying in Israel. The employer, D-Pers, had an absence protocol that clearly outlined what an employee must do in the event of illness while abroad. Among other things, the employee was required to provide her address of residence, submit medical information, and clarify whether she was able to travel or perform suitable work.

According to the employer, this was not done sufficiently. The employee remained in Israel for an extended period, while the company physician deemed that an examination and further guidance were necessary to assess her work capacity and reintegration options. Due to her stay abroad, these examinations were delayed or did not get off the ground (properly).

The employee claimed that she could not return to the Netherlands, but she failed to provide sufficient evidence to support this claim. In addition, she indicated that she had a social safety net in Israel. The court did not consider this a circumstance for which D-Pers should be held responsible. The employee could have been expected to remain readily available, to seek adequate treatment for her symptoms, and to make active efforts to facilitate her reintegration. According to the court, she had failed to do so sufficiently.

Furthermore, the employer had first issued a warning to the employee and only then suspended her wages. The UWV had also concluded in a Medical Expert Opinion that the employee’s reintegration efforts had been insufficient. All things considered, the judge therefore found it plausible that the wage suspension had been applied correctly.

This ruling demonstrates that a proper absence protocol is not merely a paper formality. Especially in cases of illness abroad, it is important to have clear rules in place beforehand and to follow them properly. What must the employee report? What medical information is required? When is the employee expected to return? And how can the employee remain reachable for the company doctor and other experts?

Questions about reintegration or your absence protocol? Please contact Dennis Oud, Elke Hofman-Bijvank, Noa Bilogrevic or with me.

You can read the ruling here

On May 12, 2026, the House of Representatives approved the “Greater Security for Flexible Workers” bill. This marks an important step toward stricter regulations for flexible work.

These are the key changes for employers:

• Zero-hour contracts are being phased out: a fixed minimum and maximum number of hours will be established, with the maximum not exceeding 130% of the minimum. If an employee consistently works more hours, you must offer an employment contract with a higher number of hours. However, individuals eligible for the State Pension (AOW), as well as young people, high school students, and college students with part-time jobs, may continue to work under a zero-hour contract. 
• Interval in the chain provision extended: After three temporary employment contracts, there will soon be a three-year interval before you can offer another temporary employment contract. This is a significant tightening of the rules; currently, that period is still six months. Incidentally, the original proposal was five years, so the period has already been reduced. 
• Temporary workers will receive equivalent terms and conditions of employment: Temporary workers will be entitled to terms and conditions of employment that are at least equivalent to those of employees in comparable positions at the client company - and this applies to all terms and conditions of employment, not just compensation. For many staffing agencies, this is not an entirely new requirement. The Collective Labor Agreement for Temporary Workers 2026–2028 already anticipates this and includes a provision for equivalent terms and conditions of employment effective January 1, 2026. Furthermore, the temporary employment phases will be shortened from one and a half years to one year.

What now?

The bill is currently before the Senate. The Social Affairs and Employment Committee is discussing the next steps today. If the Senate also approves it, the law will largely take effect on January 1, 2028. The rules regarding equivalent employment conditions for temporary workers may take effect as early as January 1, 2027.

That may seem far off, but experience shows that adjusting contract structures and temporary staffing arrangements often takes longer than expected. That is precisely why now is a good time to critically review existing on-call contracts, temporary contracts, and temporary staffing arrangements. Are you unsure whether your contracts and working methods are future-proof? Then now is the time to have them reviewed. 

Do you have any questions about this? Please feel free to contact Dennis Oud, Tessa Sipkema, Noa Bilogrevic, or me.

In a previous blog post, I discussed a case in which a sick employee was observed driving, carrying bags, and even working elsewhere while on sick leave. The judge ruled that he had not been honest about his ability to work and upheld the summary dismissal: trust had been irreparably damaged.

In a recent ruling involving a sick warehouse worker who spent one evening pouring beers at a friend’s bar, the outcome was different. The employer reacted with outrage: no energy for his own work, but plenty for a lively party. The employee was summarily dismissed. The subdistrict court understood the employer’s indignation but found summary dismissal excessive in this case. The employee had since accepted the dismissal, so the employment contract was not reinstated. However, the labor court judge ruled that there was no urgent cause for dismissal and awarded fair compensation of € 10,000 gross, the transition allowance, fixed damages for failure to observe the notice period, and reimbursement for the actual legal costs incurred. All told, a total of approximately € 19,000.

The difference: honesty versus medical assessment

The first case revolved around transparency and consistency. The employee claimed he was unable to work, but his behavior suggested otherwise. The employer was justified in taking strong action precisely because reintegration can only succeed if an employee is honest about his capabilities.

In the “beer case,” the focus was on something else: whether working in a bar was medically compatible with the employee’s symptoms. That is not a matter of feeling or outrage, but in principle a medical judgment. That assessment belongs with the company doctor, not with the employer. Without that medical judgment and without first attempting a less drastic measure (such as a warning, suspension of pay, or pay freeze), summary dismissal was a step too far.

An expensive lesson for employers

The outcome: while the summary dismissal in the first case was justified, that was not the case in the beer shop case. Helping out in the pub for one evening thus became an expensive lesson for the employer.

The common thread between both rulings: in cases of illness, an employee may be expected to be as honest as possible about their ability to work. At the same time, an employer may be expected to refer medical questions to the company doctor and reserve the most severe sanction for exceptional cases.

Questions about summary dismissal during illness? Please contact Tessa Sipkema, Elke Hofman-Bijvank, Noa Bilogrević, or me.

You can read the previous blog here and the ruling here.

If a building plan has been submitted to the municipality, minor changes can often still be made at a later date. It is important that these changes be of a minor nature. In other words, the entire design is not intended to be altered.

This often leads to a discussion about when an adjustment can still be considered minor, and when the adjustment results in a fundamental change to the building plan.

This debate also arose in the ruling of the Gelderland District Court on April 15, 2026. The applicant submitted an application in late 2023 to construct four chalets on a recreational lot in the municipality of Nijkerk. Because the construction plan conflicted with the zoning plan, the municipal executive intended to reject the application. However, in October 2024, a revised building plan was submitted. In that plan, the position of the chalets had been changed and the layout of the plot had been modified. According to the municipal executive, the changes made meant that the applicant no longer needed an environmental permit to carry out the construction plan. Local residents disagreed. They took the matter to court.

What was important in this case is that the original application was submitted at the end of 2023—before the Environmental Act came into effect—and the amendment to the building plan was made in October 2024, when the Environmental Act was already in effect. The question that needed to be answered was which legislation should apply: the old law or the Environment Act, which has been in effect since January 1, 2024.

As a general rule, the old law remains applicable as long as the amendments to the building plan are of a minor nature. In the case of more substantial changes, the amended building plan must be regarded as a new application, and the Environment Act applies.

According to established case law, whether a change is minor must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The decisive factor in this regard is whether the plan can still be considered the same building plan.

In this case, the court ruled that the changes made to the building plan—including the relocation of the chalets and the layout of the lot—could not be considered minor. These changes altered the spatial character of the plan, meaning it is no longer the same building plan. The municipal executive therefore wrongly applied the old law. In this case, this made no difference, as the assessment framework remained the same under both the old and new laws. However, this ruling does establish a clear framework for making changes to a building plan. 

Do you have questions about amending a building plan that has already been submitted, or are you unsure whether your building plan complies with laws and regulations? Please contact Gerard van der Wende or me. 

You can read the ruling here.