News

On February 12, 2026, the District Court of The Hague issued an interesting ruling regarding the termination of an employment contract due to a breakdown in the working relationship. The ruling demonstrates that while an employer may not always succeed in terminating a contract on the basis of “e-grounds” (integrity issues and alleged fraud), it can ultimately achieve termination on the basis of “g-grounds” (irreparable damage to trust) if the trust between the parties has been irreparably damaged.

In this case, Stedin accused an employee with a very long tenure of having committed fraud regarding working hours and of engaging in so-called “time theft.” The employer based its case, among other things, on discrepancies between records in internal systems and data from the company vehicle’s tracking system. The subdistrict court ruled that there was indeed culpable conduct, but not that fraud had been committed intentionally. A factor in this ruling was that the employee had argued he had difficulty with the registration system and that Stedin, partly in view of his long service record, should have provided him with better guidance. The “e” ground therefore did not hold up.

Nevertheless, the employment contract was terminated because the employment relationship had by then become seriously and permanently disrupted. At the hearing, the supervisor and the investigators remained convinced that fraud had occurred, making a normal return to the position no longer considered realistic. The employee therefore received the transition allowance, but no fair compensation. According to the subdistrict court, there was no serious culpable conduct on the part of Stedin, in part because, under the given circumstances, it was not unreasonable for them to have initiated an integrity investigation and to have lost trust. The ruling thus underscores that an unsubstantiated ground for termination need not preclude termination if the allegations and the subsequent proceedings have permanently damaged the employment relationship.

As an employer, however, be aware that the cause of the disrupted employment relationship must not lie with you. In that case, the threshold for grossly culpable conduct and fair compensation for the employee is easily met. 

Do you have any questions? Please feel free to contact Dennis Oud, Tessa Sipkema, Elke Hofman-Bijvank, or Noa Bilogrevic. 

You can read the ruling here.

Many municipalities include requirements in an environmental permit that project proponents must comply with. These may include, for example, requirements regarding the use of a building or plot of land, or conditions pertaining to the creation of green spaces. For municipalities, this is an effective way to regulate the implementation of an environmental permit while simultaneously imposing obligations on the project proponent.

However, the inclusion of regulations is not unlimited. In its ruling of March 5, 2026, the Gelderland District Court set clear limits on what municipalities may and may not attach as a regulation to an environmental permit.

The ruling concerned a temporary environmental permit for the use of an existing warehouse for the storage of pallets. That use did not fit within the zoning plan, which meant an environmental permit was required. Initially, the permit application was denied, but following a valid objection, an environmental permit was ultimately granted. However, various conditions were attached to that environmental permit, including mandatory camera surveillance on the property.

The applicant disagreed with a number of conditions, including those regarding mandatory video surveillance, and filed an appeal. The court then had to determine whether the conditions were lawful. The municipality argued that video surveillance was necessary to monitor complaints from local residents, make supervision more efficient, and verify compliance with the other conditions.

The court ruled that camera surveillance could not be included as a regulation in the environmental permit. Regulations accompanying an environmental permit must, in fact, be focused on spatial planning. CCTV surveillance does not pertain to spatial planning, but rather to supervision and enforcement. The municipality therefore had no relevant spatial interest in imposing this requirement and was thus not permitted to include CCTV surveillance as such in the environmental permit.

What does this mean in practice? Although the municipality has some discretion when including conditions in an environmental permit, the inclusion of such conditions must always be linked to a relevant spatial interest. 

Do you have questions about (applying for) an environmental permit? Please contact Gerard van der Wende or Fleur Huisman.

You can read the ruling here. 

The Fixed-Term Rental Contracts Act came into force on July 1, 2024. This Act marks a significant change in tenancy law and has far-reaching consequences for both tenants and landlords. Whereas since 2016 it has been possible to enter into temporary leases of up to two years for independent living space and five years for non-independent living space, this practice has largely come to an end. With this legislative change, the legislator aims to increase the housing security of tenants.

What has changed?

The core of the Fixed-Term Rental Contracts Act is that, from now on, rental agreements will in principle be entered into for an indefinite period. This restores the principle of tenancy law that fixed-term contracts are the norm and temporary contracts are only permitted in exceptional cases. For tenants, this means greater legal protection and continuity, while landlords have less freedom to terminate the tenancy without cause.

However, the law still allows a limited number of exceptions. For example, temporary rentals remain possible in the case of hospita rentals, where the landlord lives in the property himself and rents out part of it. Temporary contracts may also be concluded for rentals to students under certain conditions, provided that the use of the living space is demonstrably related to enrollment at an educational institution or is permitted in the event of a social emergency.

It is noteworthy that the law does not currently provide for an explicit exception for migrant workers. This target group is being further elaborated in separate regulations, which are still under development at the time of writing. Until these further details are available, the housing of migrant workers will generally be based on the short stay principle. This means that extra attention must be paid to the qualification of the agreement and the actual arrangement of the use, in order to prevent it from still being considered a regular rental with rent protection.

Consequences for landlords

For landlords, this legislative change means that they will have to think more critically in advance about the type of contract they choose. Whereas temporary contracts previously offered a flexible and relatively accessible solution, that flexibility is now severely restricted. This requires not only a conscious choice when entering into the lease agreement, but also careful documentation of the reason why a temporary rental is permitted. The focus is thus shifting from flexibility in advance to legal sustainability afterwards. In practice, there is a fear that this will make some private landlords more cautious, which could put further pressure on the already scarce supply in the rental market. It remains important to note that temporary rental agreements concluded before July 1, 2024, will continue to be governed by the old law, while new contracts will be governed by the new law.

Consequences for tenants

For tenants, the law primarily provides greater certainty and protection. The likelihood that they will have to look for new accommodation after one or two years is significantly reduced. In this way, the legislator aims to contribute to a greater sense of security, particularly in a tight housing market where moving on is not a given. At the same time, the law does not solve the structural shortage of affordable housing. The number of available homes will not increase, but the position of tenants who have already found a home will be strengthened.

Practice

In the coming period, there will be particular discussion about rental agreements concluded after July 1, 2024, for a fixed term, for example with a term of two years. From a legal point of view, this moment is not coincidentally relevant. Until the Fixed-Term Rental Contracts Act came into force, it had been permitted since 2016 to conclude temporary rental agreements of up to two years for independent living space. As a result, many landlords and tenants have become accustomed to this type of contract.

Precisely because this practice has been the norm for many years, there is a risk that landlords will continue to conclude two-year contracts after July 1, 2024, assuming that this is legally permissible. In reality, unless a legal exception applies, such a contract can be regarded as a lease for an indefinite period. This means that the tenant enjoys full rent protection and the lease cannot simply be terminated at the end of the contract period.

Now that the first contracts concluded after July 1, 2024, for a period of two years are approaching their end date, this could lead to a tipping point in practice. At that point, landlords may be confronted with the fact that they assumed they had concluded a temporary contract, while from a legal point of view it may be an indefinite agreement with associated rent protection. This area of tension is expected to lead to increasingly frequent discussions and possibly also to legal proceedings, with case law having to provide guidance on the application of the new law.

If you have a dispute regarding your lease agreement, please do not hesitate to contact one of our real estate lawyers for advice!

After two years of illness, it sometimes seems as if a case has been closed. However, in the case of a dormant employment contract, this turns out to be different in practice.

In a recent case in Rotterdam, the employee had been incapacitated for work for two years as of July 27, 2025. From that moment on, she received WIA benefits. The employer then attempted to terminate the employment contract retroactively by letter dated August 21, 2025. This is not legally possible. The termination therefore only took effect when the letter reached the employee: August 21, 2025. 

Between July 27, 2025, and August 21, 2025, there was therefore a dormant employment relationship: the employment contract continued to run, but without pay and without reintegration obligations. The employee then argued that she had accrued vacation days during that period and that these should therefore be paid out.

Opinions on this question currently differ. There have been rulings by subdistrict courts in Nijmegen, Arnhem, Groningen, Dordrecht, and Rotterdam, and there is no clear line in the literature either. The subdistrict court therefore wishes to refer a question to the Supreme Court for a preliminary ruling. In plain language: the highest court is being asked to clarify whether an employee who is unable to work still accrues paid vacation days during a dormant employment contract.

Why is this relevant? A dormant employment relationship often arises automatically, simply because dismissal proceedings via the Employee Insurance Agency (UWV) take time and are followed by a notice period. In addition, some employment relationships continue for longer, for example until an employee requests termination.

In this case, the parties may first comment on the intention to submit this question to the Supreme Court. There is therefore a real chance that national clarity will finally be provided on this issue in due course.

We will keep an eye on developments and notify you when there is more news.

You can read the ruling here. 

On Saturday, February 28, our sponsored fighter Dave Kientz participated in the IFK Dutch Open at the Topsportcentrum Rotterdam!👊

After three strong matches, Dave convincingly secured victory and finished in an impressive 1st place in the men's -70 kg class. A great start to the new season, which we as proud sponsors are delighted to see! It promises to be a great sporting year, because on March 21, Dave already has the next big tournament on his agenda: the Western European Championships.

We congratulate Dave on this wonderful result and look forward to the next matches. Good luck with the preparations!

Construction initiatives often involve various parties. The initiator, the contractor, and any future owners or tenants all have an interest in ensuring that the preparatory work and final realization proceed smoothly. The permit process is an essential part of this. If an environmental permit is subsequently refused, all these different parties will therefore also benefit from blocking that decision.

This was also the case in the ruling of the Zeeland-West-Brabant District Court of February 9, 2026. In 2011, the mayor and aldermen of the municipality of Veere had already granted an environmental permit for the construction of a hotel. However, in 2021, the permit was revoked because it had not been used in all those years. An objection to that decision was lodged by the owner of the plot, the contractor, a construction company, and various parties involved in the construction of the hotel. A group of residents also appealed against the decision on the objection, in which the objections were declared unfounded.

So there were many different parties, all with varying interests. The court therefore first had to assess which appeals were admissible and which were not.

To do so, it first had to consider the interest in bringing proceedings. This means that the appeal could achieve a result of factual significance for the appellant. In other words: does the appellant have anything to gain from lodging the appeal? In this case, the court ruled that all parties had an interest in bringing proceedings.

Next, the court had to consider the parties' interest in the proceedings. Only those whose interests are directly affected by a decision can lodge an objection and/or appeal against it. The court ruled as follows on this matter.

Regarding the appeals of the various parties involved in the development of the hotel and the contractor and construction company, the court ruled that they had no direct interest in the decision, but only a derivative interest. They were only indirectly affected in their interests. That interest was dependent on contractual relationships, such as a purchase or contract agreement. These appeals were therefore also declared inadmissible.

The court ruled that residents living approximately 20 meters from the project are interested parties because they may experience significant consequences from the project. Residents living further away will not experience any significant consequences and were therefore not qualified as interested parties. The appeal of the latter group was therefore declared inadmissible. 

What does this mean in practice? Only parties whose interests are directly affected by a decision are interested parties and may lodge an objection and/or appeal, as long as they have a legal interest. The fact that a party's interests may be indirectly affected by a decision does not make that party an interested party. 

Do you have any questions about the admissibility of an objection or appeal? Please feel free to contact Gerard van der Wende or with Fleur Huisman. 

You can read the ruling here.