News

In a recent post, we talked about “the unambiguous termination of the employment contract” by the employee and that as an employer you have to be very careful with this. In this ruling, the subdistrict court held that there was indeed notice of termination by the employee. Why now? 

The employee sent an e-mail to the employer with the subject “termination of employment”. In this e-mail she indicated that she wanted to terminate the employment contract. In the e-mail she mentions several reasons which she had also previously discussed with employer. In the e-mail she also clearly states her notice period. After this e-mail, employee and employer discussed the situation with each other and employee did not reverse the termination.

A few days later, employee found out that things were going to change for the better in the organization at employer, so employee decided to revoke her notice. In justification of the withdrawal, she indicated that the employer had never confirmed the notice in writing and that with the e-mail she had only meant to want to discuss a number of matters, but not that she actually wanted to leave.

The subdistrict court is clear: the employee unequivocally terminated the employment contract. Employer could not have concluded from the e-mail that employee only wanted to enter into the conversation, partly because she had even named the notice period and all kinds of reasons why she wanted to leave. Employer was already aware of these reasons, so it could logically assume that employee actually wanted to terminate the employment contract.

The moral of these stories? If an employee cancels the employment contract in anger or on a whim, then the employer should consider whether the cancellation is truly genuine, but if the employee cancels in a clear well-reasoned email, then the employer may hold the employee to that cancellation.

If you have any questions, please contact Dennis Oud, Tessa Sipkema or Elke Hofman. 

Read the ruling here: https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2024:4254

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

It sometimes happens that an employee shouts ‘I'm done with it’. That this cannot automatically be seen as resignation is proven by a decision of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal dated 7 May 2024 and the interlocutory decision that preceded it.

Again, an employee cried out that ‘he was done with it’. The employer took this seriously and during a conversation with HR, the employee indicated that he needed to think about whether he would stick to this position. During a conversation the following day, the employee indicated that he was ‘sick of recent times’. Employer did not accept this sick report and demanded that employee give a ruling the next day. When the employee also started talking about a settlement agreement, employer apparently had had enough and handed the employee a letter with the subject line ‘Confirmation of dismissal at own request’.

In this case too, both the subdistrict court and the court of appeal held that merely shouting that an employee is done with it does not constitute unequivocal termination of the employment contract. Once again, it appears that if an employee has had it for a while, the employer really needs to start the conversation and if that conversation does not lead to a termination of the employment contract, the employer cannot then argue that there was an own dismissal after all. Especially if emotions are running high, the employer would be well advised to take a time out; not to start the conversation until the next day; and if the employee still wants to resign, to explain in writing the consequences of such a resignation. If the employee then still stands by his position even after that, you can speak of an unequivocal resignation.

Should you have any questions following the above, please contact one of our employment specialists: Dennis Oud, Tessa Sipkema, or Elke Hofman.

Read the statements here: https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2023:3091 and https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2024:1238

In practice, we often see citizens and businesses relying on promises made by an alderman, but is this really possible? The Administrative Law Division of the Council of State gave an opinion on this in its ruling of 10 July 2024 in an issue where a promise by an alderman played a role. This ruling involved the following. The municipal council of the municipality of Best had imposed an order under penalty payments seeking the removal of the house, shed, canopy and aviary erected without planning permission. With regard to the dwelling and the shed, the appellant invoked the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. Indeed, he argues that a former planning councillor in the past gave him permission to build and use the dwelling with shed on the plot by a handwritten letter. The appellant believes he was entitled to rely on the commitment in that letter.

The Division ruled that a person who invokes the principle of reliance must make it plausible that promises or other statements were made or conduct carried out on the part of the government, from which he could and should reasonably infer, in the given circumstances, that the administrative body would exercise a particular power and, if so, how.

In any case, there is no legitimate expectation if:

1. the person invoking the principle of reliance has misrepresented or incomplete the relevant facts and circumstances,
2. he should have realised, given his knowledge or expertise, that the statement or conduct was contrary to the applicable rules of law, or
3. the statement was so clearly contrary to the applicable rules of law that he should have realised it.

While the appellant had a letter from the former councillor, that letter did not state that the then councillor considered that building the house and shed did not require an environmental permit. In those circumstances, the appellant should have realised that the alderman's statement did not constitute a declaration that it would be permissible to build and use a house and shed without an environmental permit. Of relevance here was also that the appellant knew that, as a rule, building a house and shed required an environmental permit. Thus, the appellant could not derive confidence from the letter that no permit was required. Nor could the appellant rely on the fact that the municipal executive would never take enforcement action. The appellant's reliance on the principle of reliance was therefore not upheld.

Are you planning to build something or have you already built something without an environmental permit and are you relying on the promise of an alderman of the municipality? If so, always check whether you actually qualify that promise as a promise. For questions about the principle of trust or other environmental law matters, please contact the lawyers of the Environmental Law section of our office.

You can read the ruling here: https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:RVS:2024:2822

Living next to a nature reserve is not pleasant for everyone.

Our colleague Petra Lindhout wrote an annotation following a ruling by the highest administrative court in a case where local residents of a Natura 2000 nature reserve experienced groundwater nuisance on their plots. They submitted an enforcement request to the Provincial Executive of North Brabant. The local residents believed that European nature conservation law had been violated. And then they got into the legal merry-go-round. The college did not decide on their request, they did not take a decision on the request. The local residents still tried to enforce a decision through the courts, which is how they ended up in court. However, the court declared itself incompetent to hear the appeal, as it held that the enforcement request was not an application within the meaning of the law. The local residents then appealed to the Council of State. It then had to decide whether the local residents' enforcement request was an "application" (to make a decision) within the meaning of the law. That ruled that the enforcement request did have to qualify as an application to make a decision. But that does not mean that action will now be taken. Why not?

You can read more about it in the annotation.

If you have any questions, please contact our Environmental Law specialists.

It was a great end to the hockey season for our colleague Tessa Sipkema's team from HC Rotterdam at the NK Trimhockey at HCR! 🏑 🏆
Being first in the pool meant qualification for the Feijenoord 1 trim team for the Dutch Trim Hockey Championships.

On Saturday 29 June, all champion teams from across the country came together for an epic final tournament. 🌟

It was not only hockey, but also fun with a BBQ including a party night! 🥳

With a shared 5th place, this is a great final result for this newcomer to the NK! 💪🏻

Next season too, our office is sponsoring the hockey club and providing Feijenoord with their need for materials, the Friday Hockeyhap and institute training sessions for the neighbourhood children of the district. We support the social impact the hockey club has on Rotterdam Zuid.