News

Due to the increasing workload in the courts, it is becoming more common for proceedings to take years. Sometimes the proceedings take so long that the original objector has already moved away. What happens to the ongoing proceedings in that case? That depends on the position of the objector. Different rules apply to the owner of a house/building than to a tenant. 

The Administrative Law Division of the Council of State clarified this distinction in its ruling of December 3, 2025. This case centered on the construction of a hostel. The municipal council of Rotterdam had granted an environmental permit for this project. The tenant of a neighboring house disagreed and lodged an objection. The municipal executive declared this objection unfounded, after which an appeal procedure was initiated in court. During the appeal proceedings, the tenant moved out. He was replaced by a new tenant, who also disagreed with the arrival of the hostel. The new tenant therefore wanted to take over the appeal. The court ruled that this was possible, but also ruled that the appeal was unfounded. The new tenant lodged an appeal with the Division.

The Division first ruled on the admissibility of the appeal. Unlike the court, the Division ruled that the new tenant could not take over the (higher) appeal from the previous tenant. As is apparent from established case law of the Division, the takeover of proceedings is only possible in the event of legal succession under a special title, provided that the interest in involvement in the proceedings has been transferred in its entirety. Legal succession under a special title could, for example, be the sale of a house. In that case, the owner's interest is transferred in full from the old owner to the new owner. 

Because this case concerned the transfer of the lease – and not the transfer of ownership – there was no question of legal succession under special title. The (higher) appeal proceedings could therefore not be taken over by the new tenant and the appeal was declared inadmissible. 

This ruling highlights an important difference between owners and tenants. That difference lies in their interests. Tenants mainly have residents' interests (noise pollution, parking problems, etc.). For owners, other interests may also play a role, such as a decrease in the value of the property. Owners therefore have a ‘greater’ interest in taking over the proceedings than tenants. Because new tenants can find out about ongoing proceedings in advance and still choose to rent a property, the Division does not consider legal protection to be necessary for them. 

You can read the ruling here. 

As an employer, can you dismiss an employee who is good at their job but brings the atmosphere in every team down to below zero? The subdistrict court in The Hague has given a clear and nuanced answer to this question: yes, a lack of ability to work with others can lead to dysfunction. But anyone who forgets the obligation to redeploy will be in for a nasty legal surprise.

This case concerns a project manager who has been employed since 2017. Everyone agrees on her professional qualities: she works hard, delivers results, and is even studying civil engineering on her own initiative. The problem lies in her ability to cooperate. Since 2018, the same theme has kept cropping up in meeting reports: she has difficulty interacting with colleagues, in teams, and with managers. It is not her professional skills, but her soft skills that are the stumbling block. Rijnland does not leave it at one conversation. The employee is placed in different teams, given different managers, and offered support, coaching, and mediation. Nevertheless, cooperation remains difficult and she is ultimately suspended.

Rijnland then requests termination of the employment contract, primarily due to a disrupted working relationship and, alternatively, due to poor performance. The subdistrict court judge dismissed the first ground: there is tension, but not such a disrupted relationship that it alone warrants termination. More interesting is what the judge said about poor performance. He emphasized that cooperation is not a nice bonus in a position as project leader, but an integral part of the job. An employee must therefore not only be good at their job; they must also be able to function in a team. Because the lack of ability to cooperate has been consistently identified, supported, and discussed for years, the subdistrict court judge concludes that the d-ground is valid.

As an employer, you would think that this settles the matter. But that is where the WWZ comes into play. Article 7:669 of the Dutch Civil Code requires more than just reasonable grounds: the employer must also demonstrate that redeployment within a reasonable period of time is not possible or reasonable. This is not a formality, but an independent test. In this case, this is precisely Rijnland's Achilles heel.

The employee does not necessarily want to leave; she is committed to keeping her job and has made a concrete proposal through her representative. She is willing to work partly from home and partly in another department, does not want to be isolated from her colleagues, and is open to guidance from an external coach to address the collaboration issues. In other words: not “I'm not to blame for anything,” but “I see that there is an issue and I want to work on it, as long as I can stay.”

The employer's response is crystal clear but disastrous: termination of employment is essential for her, and if the employee is committed to keeping her job, there is actually no basis for a settlement. The subdistrict court interprets this as Rijnland having definitively decided on termination and no longer seriously considering solutions within the organization. The transfers were not aimed at finding a position in which the problem would no longer arise and were overshadowed by the refusal to investigate the employee's concrete proposal. This conflicts with the intention of the legislator: employers are expected to actively investigate whether job retention—whether or not in an adapted form—is possible. The fact that the employee wants to stay should not be held against her; that is precisely what the WWZ aims to protect.

The outcome is tough for the employer. The subdistrict court acknowledges that there is poor performance, but finds that redeployment in a modified form is reasonable and that Rijnland has not made sufficient efforts in this regard. The request for termination is therefore rejected. In fact, Rijnland is ordered to allow the employee to return to work from September 1, 2025, broadly in line with its own proposal, on pain of a penalty of € 500 per day. 

The message is clear: anyone who focuses solely on termination runs the risk of reinstatement with a penalty.

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

You can read the ruling here. 

When an administrative body imposes an order subject to a penalty, the aim is to put an end to an illegal situation. The offender is then ordered, for example, to cease illegal use or to remove an illegal structure. But what if the offender is unable to do so?

This was discussed in the ruling of the Administrative Law Division of the Council of State on November 5, 2025. It concerned an order subject to a penalty that had been imposed for the construction of various extensions to a main building and the creation of two independent dwellings in that same main building, without the necessary environmental permits.

The legality of the order subject to a penalty was established in the opinion of the Division. The only remaining issue to be decided was the legality of the collection of the penalty. For that assessment, it was important that the offender had already indicated to the council that it was not entirely possible to remove one of the rooms because the outer walls were on the property line and were shared, which meant that the neighbors' permission was required to demolish the outer walls. The neighbors refused to give their permission. The offender therefore left only the outer walls standing, but removed the rest of the structure. Nevertheless, the municipal executive ruled that the order had not been fully complied with and that the penalty payment would therefore be collected.

The Division ruled that the board had acted contrary to the principle of due care. According to established case law, the council may refrain from collection in exceptional cases, for example if it appears that an order is unenforceable. According to the Division, the order was unenforceable in this case because the offender was dependent on the consent of the neighbors. The council was aware of this, but nevertheless issued the collection order, which was therefore made without due care. 

This ruling emphasizes that collection must be waived in exceptional cases and that the council must therefore always check whether the order is enforceable and the collection reasonable. 

You can read the ruling here. 

Imagine: an employee falls ill, you continue to pay her salary as usual, but it turns out that she also has two full-time jobs and occasional work elsewhere. Formally, that amounts to around 120 hours per week. This happened to an employer in a recent ruling by the Amsterdam District Court.

In this case, the employee already had a full-time job (40 hours) and took on two additional full-time jobs with other employers, plus occasional work for a university. Shortly thereafter, she reported sick to her first employer and later to the other two as well. She received wages during her illness and sickness benefits from all of those employers.

The employer attempted to offset the wages paid against that other income via the rules on continued payment of wages in the event of illness, but the subdistrict court did not agree. The additional income already existed before the sick leave was reported and was therefore not covered by that offset arrangement.

That was not the end of the matter. The subdistrict court judge classified the concealment of the side jobs (and later providing incorrect information) as a serious breach of good employment practices. Freedom of choice in employment is all well and good, but three full-time jobs at the same time exceed the limits of the Working Hours Act and reasonableness. The judge ultimately awarded the employer damages of € 73.285,20, based on the additional income and sickness benefits that the employee had received in addition to her continued salary.

Why is this relevant?

It is not only contractual provisions that count; general standards such as “good employment practices” can also provide guidance when employees conceal secondary employment and you suffer financial loss as a result.

Practical tips:

• Stipulate in employment contracts and/or staff handbooks that secondary employment must always be reported in writing in advance, including the number of hours worked.
• When employees report sick, actively and explicitly ask about other jobs and record the answers in the file.
• Involve the company doctor in questions about work capacity if you suspect that someone is working elsewhere during illness.

Do you have doubts about an employee with multiple jobs or a difficult sick report? Please contact Dennis Oud, Tessa Sipkema, or Elke Hofman.

You can read the ruling here. 

In its ruling of October 17, 2025, the Midden-Nederland District Court ruled that a landlord is not automatically liable if a tenant uses the rented property in violation of laws and regulations. 

This ruling concerned an apartment that was being used for a sex business without the necessary permit. The municipality had received a report about possible prostitution in an apartment. After an inspection, it appeared that a sex business was indeed being operated in the apartment without the necessary permit. Both the mayor and the municipal executive therefore imposed an order subject to a penalty on the landlords of the apartment. 

The question that had to be answered by the court was whether the landlords could be regarded as functional perpetrators in this case. Established case law of the Administrative Law Division of the Council of State stipulates that a person is a functional perpetrator if they had control over the violation and accepted that violation, for example by not preventing the violation when they could have done so. 

The court ruled that the landlords had control over the use of the property because they were the owners. They therefore had control over the violation. 

However, the violation was not accepted by the landlords, or at least the municipality had not provided sufficient evidence of this. The municipality based its case on reports from which it was unclear who had made them, when, and how, which meant that the only thing that could be established was that the sex business had been operated from the property for a period of two weeks. In addition, the court also ruled that the landlords had actively supervised the property and had no reason to expect that the apartment would be used illegally. 

The court therefore ruled that the landlords had been wrongly designated as functional perpetrators and that the order subject to a penalty for non-compliance should not have been imposed on them. 

This ruling underscores that a landlord is not automatically responsible for what a tenant does and that the concept of functional perpetration is therefore not unlimited. 

You can read the ruling here. 

This time, it's not a light-hearted blog, but one you really should read! 

You've probably already seen it. The Senate has passed the bill ‘Wet toelating terbeschikkingstelling van arbeidskrachten’ (Wtta) (an extension of the Waadi). 

This law will have major consequences for temporary employment agencies, secondment companies, other lenders, and hirers, because a licensing requirement will apply. The new rules are set to take effect on January 1, 2027. 

What does this mean in concrete terms?

Companies that want to continue to supply workers must register with the Dutch Temporary Employment Market Authority (NAU) in good time. This registration is mandatory in order to obtain a permit (with some exceptions). The Labor Inspectorate is expected to start enforcing the rules from January 1, 2028. Anyone who continues to operate without a license (or valid exemption) risks a fine — not only the lender, but also the hirer who takes on staff. In short, check in good time whether you need to take action. If you are not a temporary employment agency (and are not covered by a collective labor agreement for temporary employment), but do sometimes hire out employees, for example as a secondment agency or payroll company, you still need to check whether you need to take action in the coming year. If you are covered by the Waadi, you are also covered by the Wtta. Contracting and contracting out of work (i.e., if the management and supervision of employees does not lie with the client) are not covered by this in any case. Please note: in practice, the distinction between lending and contracting is often a subject of debate. 

To obtain a license, the lender must, among other things:

• Be registered with the Chamber of Commerce;
• Submit a Certificate of Good Conduct (VOG), which checks whether the company and its directors have any criminal offenses to their name.
• Demonstrate that the organization complies with existing labor and wage legislation (e.g., payment of the minimum wage; the SNA quality mark is also important here);
• Paying a deposit of € 100.000,00 (or € 50.000,00 for small or start-up lenders), unless you are covered by transitional law; and
• Ensuring that workers are correctly registered in the Personal Records Database (BRP). 

Lenders have until July 1, 2027, to apply for a license. 

Transitional arrangement

Under transitional law, approximately 80% of existing companies are not required to pay a deposit. This applies to companies (and private individuals) that have been registered in the Commercial Register for more than four years. Please note: you must still meet the other conditions. Anyone wishing to make use of transitional law must report to the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment between November 1, 2026, and January 1, 2027. The security deposit is intended to prevent so-called volatile entrepreneurship—situations in which unscrupulous lenders close their businesses as soon as supervision or debts threaten, only to continue under a new name.

Exceptions                                                                                 

The law also provides for exceptions for:

• non-profit collegial lending (such as the temporary lending of healthcare workers between healthcare institutions during peak periods in exchange for wage costs);
• intra-group arrangements, whereby employees are loaned within the same group;
• security and investigation companies requiring a license, BBL programs, and social development companies;
• companies that only provide workers “to a limited extent,” such as consultancy firms (they can apply for an exemption). 

Foreign lenders can also apply for an exemption under certain conditions. 

Purpose of the law
The Wtta aims to provide better protection for employees, particularly migrant workers. Stricter licensing and supervision will tackle abuse and exploitation in the temporary employment sector and create a level playing field between bona fide and rogue lenders.

Are you unsure whether your organization will need a license or whether it falls under an exception? Or would you like to know what steps you need to take and when?

Please contact one of our employment lawyers: Dennis Oud, Elke Hofman, or Tessa Sipkema.

Read the legislative proposal here.