News

On February 25, 2026, the Administrative Law Division of the Council of State issued an interesting ruling on whether housing for migrant workers falls under accommodation or residence. This is a topical issue that many employers with international employees have to deal with.

The ruling concerned the construction of accommodation units with a service building for the housing of migrant workers. The initiator had submitted a permit application for this purpose. The permit application was rejected by the municipal executive because the building plan was deemed to be in conflict with the zoning plan and the Building Decree.

According to the municipal executive, the accommodation units did not fall under the permitted accommodation function, but would have a residential function. The construction drawings indicated residential use, because all units had their own entrance and shared kitchen, bathroom facilities, and living room, and were therefore suitable for habitation. The fact that the application explained that the accommodation was for stays of 3 to a maximum of 6 months by persons whose main residence was elsewhere and that a night register was kept for this purpose did not alter this, according to the municipal executive. Because the council believes that this is residential use, the requirements of the Building Decree would also not be met, as different requirements apply to residential use than to lodging.

The Division disagreed with the council. It ruled that, in view of the application and the additional information provided about the use, the units are being used for accommodation in the sense of overnight stays, and not for residential purposes. Providing accommodation is in line with the zoning plan.

Regarding the possibility that the units will be used for residential purposes rather than accommodation, the Division ruled that the fact that the units may be suitable for habitation does not mean that it must be assumed that the environmental permit will actually be applied for for unauthorized residential use.

The Division therefore considers that the council had insufficient grounds to base its refusal of the permit application on an unauthorized intended use for residential purposes. If the accommodation units are in fact used for residential purposes in practice, this is a matter of enforcement, but that is not relevant in the permit procedure.

What can we conclude from this ruling? In a permit procedure concerning the housing of migrant workers, the intended use (for lodging) must be taken as a basis, and not any possible illegal use (for residential purposes) that might also be possible. That is a matter of enforcement.

Do you have questions about housing migrant workers and the requirements that apply? Please contact Gerard van der Wende or Fleur Huisman. 

You can read the ruling here. 

What can you do as an employer if an employee refuses to cooperate with their reintegration? This recent ruling shows that termination is ultimately possible, provided you follow the process carefully.

For employers and HR, this is a clear reminder: termination is possible, but only if you handle it carefully. The court explicitly states what is required in any case:

• a written warning or wage measure,
• and an expert opinion from the UWV (Employee Insurance Agency) showing that the employee is not cooperating sufficiently.

In this case, the employer had issued several warnings, first suspending the employee's wages and then terminating them. In the meantime, the employee had attended two consultations with the company doctor. The company doctor indicated that reintegration into (suitable) work was not yet possible, but that regular contact between the employer and the employee could be expected. Also known as ‘a cup of coffee with the employer’.

However, the employee did not respond to the employer's invitations, despite the warnings and the suspension of wages. An expert opinion was then requested. The UWV ruled that the employee was not cooperating sufficiently with his reintegration. The subdistrict court agreed.

However, the employee did not respond to the employer's invitations, despite warnings and the suspension of wages. An expert opinion was then requested. The UWV ruled that the employee was not cooperating sufficiently with his reintegration. The subdistrict court agreed with this ruling.

What is striking about this ruling is that the UWV's expert opinion was issued relatively quickly. The exact date of the request is not stated in the ruling, but it cannot have taken longer than about six weeks. The UWV can therefore act swiftly when necessary. The court proceedings did take longer, however. The request was submitted in November, the ruling followed in February, and the employment contract does not end until April 1, 2026. 

This means that, as an employer, you should take into account a processing time of several months. 

It is also striking that nothing is said about the transition allowance. Because there is no serious culpable conduct, the employee may still be entitled to a transition allowance.

The most important lesson for employers and HR: make sure you have a solid case file. Put everything in writing, apply wage measures correctly, and request an expert opinion in good time. Without these steps, termination on these grounds is virtually impossible.

Questions about a stalled reintegration process? Please contact Dennis Oud, Elke Hofman-Bijvank, or Tessa Sipkema.

You can read the ruling here. 

Employers like clarity. Study cost clauses too. But on 5 February 2026, the subdistrict court in East Brabant showed that this clarity quickly disappears when training is classified as “necessary” within the meaning of the law. In this case, the study cost clauses were simply declared null and void. As a result, the employee did not have to repay any study costs, even though she had resigned of her own accord and had even requested one of the courses.

The case involved Teamzorg, a home care organisation. An employee was hired as a trainee care assistant and followed the Care Assistant training programme (followed by the Plus certificate) at the Zorgcollege in Nijmegen. She then started the follow-up course to become a Care Assistant, but did not complete it. When she left the company, the employer wanted to recover an amount for both courses on the basis of the study cost clauses. The employee defended herself with an argument that is now well known but still underestimated in practice: if training is necessary for the job, the employer must offer that training free of charge and cannot recover the costs. The court ruled in her favour.

What made the judge classify these courses under Section 7:611a of the Civil Code? In the case of the Care Assistant course, it was actually quite clear. The judge considered it particularly important that this course was necessary in order to perform the job at Teamzorg. Teamzorg itself stated that every employee must have “a basic qualification in care on paper”. The job advertisement literally stated: a Care Assistant diploma is required (or you must be willing to obtain one). So if, as an employer, you effectively say, “without this diploma, you cannot do your job here”, then it quickly falls under the category of necessary training.

The Plus certificate was rejected for the same reason. It was not seen as a nice bonus, but as something that is necessary in order to be able to perform certain skills independently within the job. The judge saw it as a logical extension of the training programme.

The biggest discussion was about the follow-up training for IG Caregivers. Here too, the court ruled that it was necessary training. The context was particularly decisive. The parties entered into a training/employment contract for the position of IG Caregiver apprentice, which, according to the court, shows that Teamzorg wanted to employ her in that role (in the long term). In addition, there were structural vacancies for nursing assistants and Teamzorg confirmed that the employee was performing well and had opportunities for advancement. The judge linked this to a clear employer interest: retaining a good employee and broader employability.

Salient detail: Teamzorg actively directed where the training had to be followed. The employee wanted the cheaper ROC, but the employer wanted the Zorgcollege because the training could be completed more quickly there and Teamzorg was facing a staff shortage. That direction actually worked against Teamzorg. The court ruled that if the employer has a say in the choice of training provider and pace of training because it suits them, this shows that it is not just a matter of “personal development”, but also serves a direct business interest.

The judge did not consider the fact that the initiative came from the employee to be decisive. “Voluntary” is therefore not a free pass if, in practice, the training is (also) in the employer's interest and is linked to employability.

What does this mean for employers who do want to work with study cost clauses? Take a good look at the actual context. If the training is necessary for the job, if the employer requires the diploma as a basis, if you enter into a training/employment contract for a (different) job, if there is a structural need for that commitment, and certainly if you, as an employer, dictate the training provider and pace because you want to make use of the employee's new skills more quickly, it will soon become difficult to reclaim the costs later.

Do you have any questions about study cost arrangements? Please feel free to contact Dennis Oud, Tessa Sipkema or Elke Hofman-Bijvank. 

You can read the ruling here.

Preparing tax returns for a fee alongside your job at the Tax and Customs Administration? The subdistrict court put a stop to that.

In a ruling dated January 22, 2026, the subdistrict court ruled that an employee of the Tax and Customs Administration had acted in violation of the prohibition on secondary employment and had acted in a seriously culpable manner by preparing tax returns in the evenings for a fee and consulting his employer's internal systems in the process.

What happened?

The Tax and Customs Administration suspected that an employee was preparing tax returns and providing tax advice in the evenings in exchange for payment. The employee was also said to be consulting the Tax and Customs Administration's internal systems. 

The Tax and Customs Administration invited the employee in question for a meeting. During this meeting, the employee stated that he had repeatedly provided tax advice to acquaintances and family members in exchange for payment. It later emerged that the employee had helped more people. After this meeting, the employee was suspended in the interests of the organization on suspicion of a serious breach of integrity. 

In these proceedings, the State requested that the employment contract with the employee be terminated because the employee had acted in a seriously culpable manner.

The subdistrict court ruled that the employee had acted in a seriously culpable manner because he:

• had acted in violation of the prohibition on secondary employment;
• it has been established that he accessed the Tax and Customs Administration's systems without authorization, and
• it has been established that he used the information obtained from the systems without authorization for his prohibited tax advice.

The employee also knew that what he was doing was not permitted. The Tax and Customs Administration's intranet clearly states that you may only consult the internal systems to the extent necessary for your work. It also states that the use of confidential information for, among other things, secondary activities is considered a serious breach of integrity. It should be noted that when logging in, the employee was repeatedly shown a message warning him that use of the systems would be logged and misuse would be punished.

In addition, the subdistrict court emphasized the special position of the Tax and Customs Administration in society, the large amount of data it holds on citizens and businesses, and the fact that Tax and Customs Administration employees have a special responsibility to ensure that citizens' trust in the Tax and Customs Administration is not undermined.

The subdistrict court concluded that the employment contract was terminated with immediate effect due to seriously culpable conduct and that the employee was not entitled to a transition payment, with the employee being ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Although secondary employment is permitted in principle, an employer may still prohibit certain secondary employment on objective grounds. Do you have questions about secondary employment by your employee or would you like to know whether your policy is still up to date? Please contact Dennis Oud, Tessa Sipkema and Elke Hofman-Bijvank. 

You can read the full ruling here. 

In its ruling of December 22, 2025, the District Court of The Hague had to assess whether it was permissible to deviate from an environmental permit that had been issued during the reconstruction of a building. The case concerned an office building in Leiden for which several environmental permits had been granted over the years, including for the conversion of the office building into residential studios, then from non-independent to independent living space, then for the demolition and reconstruction of the building, and finally, on January 31, 2022, an environmental permit for changing the use to a hotel function.

On February 17, 2023, a local resident submitted an enforcement request because the construction work was allegedly being carried out in deviation from the permit granted for the demolition and reconstruction of the building. Among other things, the fire compartmentation had been implemented differently and the facade had not been realized as specified in the permit.

The municipality only partially granted the enforcement request. For the other deviations, the council considered that either there was no violation or that the deviations had been legalized through approved revision drawings. The latter would mean that the environmental permit of January 31, 2022, would have been amended by the approval of the revision drawings. The local resident disagreed with this and appealed to the court. 

The court first explained the legal framework for changing a building plan and permit. A building plan may only be changed without a new environmental permit if the change is of a minor nature. Moreover, such a change is only possible if the permit to be changed is not yet irrevocable.

In the court's opinion, the legal framework was not complied with in this case. Firstly, the environmental permit of January 31, 2022 did not provide for permission to build at all, but only for the change of function to a hotel. Approving and stamping revision drawings as part of the environmental permit of January 31, 2022, cannot therefore in any case result in minor changes relating to construction being permitted. That was not what the permit was about at all.

Nor was it possible to regard the stamping and approval of the revised drawings as a minor change to the earlier permits, because those environmental permits were already irrevocable, meaning that no further changes were possible.

The court therefore ruled that violations had indeed occurred, because the deviations from the building plan were not permitted. The municipal executive should therefore have taken enforcement action.

Do you have any questions about the possibility of changing an environmental permit granted to you? Please contact Gerard van der Wende of Fleur Huisman.

You can read the ruling here. 

You have probably already seen it: the new coalition agreement. What is relevant in it for hiring self-employed professionals? It contains a clear message: self-employed professionals belong in a modern labor market in which the desire for autonomy is increasing. At the same time, D66, VVD, and CDA want more clarity about the boundary between self-employment and employment. That is the starting point for the course that is now being chosen.

The cabinet wants to introduce the Self-Employed Persons Act as soon as possible. This will not happen all at once, but in phases due to European obligations. The introduction is therefore deliberately being divided into steps so that it can keep pace with developments at the European level.

The first step consists of a combination of measures:

• The legal presumption of employment from the VBAR. It is explicitly stated that the clarification section will be removed from the VBAR. This means that the VBAR as a whole will not be implemented, but that one core component of it will serve as the starting point for the first phase. 
• Sectoral legal presumptions together with an assessment committee from the Self-Employed Persons Act. Sectoral legal presumptions indicate that specific principles may apply per sector, because practices vary from one sector to another. The assessment committee is intended as an additional assessment mechanism within the system of the Self-Employed Persons Act.

After this initial phase, the government wants to submit the rest of the Self-Employed Persons Act as soon as possible. The line is therefore clear. First, the legal presumption of employment, the sectoral legal presumptions, and the review committee will be introduced, after which the entire legal framework will be further elaborated and submitted.

The core of the agreement is that self-employment is explicitly recognized as part of the labor market, but at the same time there will be more structure and assessment around the question of when self-employment applies and when employment actually applies. 

What does this mean in practical terms?

For self-employed persons and clients, this is a signal to already take a critical look at the structure and documentation of the collaboration. Precisely because the first phase focuses on instruments that can more quickly determine the qualification of the employment relationship.

In short, you will still be able to hire self-employed persons in 2026, but the rules of the game will become more structured.

Do you have questions about hiring self-employed persons, the legal presumption of employment, or the structure of your contracts? Please contact one of our employment law specialists: Tessa Sipkema, Elke Hofman-Bijvank, or Dennis Oud.