Cassation in the interest of the law

Applications

In 2025, the Procurator General received 37 applications for cassation in the interest of the law. This is one fewer than the previous year.

Rejections

In the reporting period, thirty rejection letters were sent in response to applications for cassation in the interest of the law. This is twelve more than the year before. The most common reason for rejecting a request was that it did not concern a question of law which required clarification in view of uniformity of law or legal development.

There were two cases – which had been brought to the attention of the Procurator General through the Committee for Cassation in the Interest of the Law – in which there was initially an intention to file a claim, but it was ultimately decided not to do so. These cases concerned:

-        the question of whether, in view of Articles 7:259 and 7:260 DCC, it is possible to have several consecutive annual service charges statements established in one summons procedure. After Supreme Court 2 May 2025, ECLI:NL:HR:2025:701, para. 3.5, it was decided not to institute a claim after all.

-        the question of who bears the risk if a consumer exercises their right of revocation under Article 6:230o DCC and the return shipment does not reach the trader (or does so in damaged condition). After further review of the case law, the intention was abandoned.

Claims and decisions

In 2025, eight claims for cassation in the interest of the law were submitted. That is four fewer than last year. This included five criminal cases, two civil cases and one tax case. Some cases are highlighted here.

Pilot project: examining of witnesses by senior court lawyer

In one of the criminal cases in which a claim was filed, the issue was whether the examination of a witness in the Office of the Examining Justice may be conducted by a senior court lawyer. This question rose from a pilot project one of the Courts of Appeal ran in certain pre-selected cases. With the consent of the Advocate General and the defence, witnesses in these cases were examined by an experienced senior court lawyer, working under the responsibility of the Examining Justice. The Procurator General at the Supreme Court filed a claim for cassation in the interest of the law to submit to the Supreme Court the question of whether this practice was permissible. The Procurator General considered the practice inadmissible because it lacks a sound legal basis. The Supreme Court ruled congruently.

For the claim, see https://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:PHR:2025:806

and for the Supreme Court's decision https://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2025:1434.

Limitations on payment of costs of the proceedings in traffic fine cases

A claim was also filed in a case where a traffic fine had been imposed under the Administrative Enforcement of Traffic Regulations Act (abbreviated: WAHV). With effect from 1 January 2024, the legislator introduced restrictions on reimbursement claims for litigation costs in WAHV cases. The legislator thus wanted to remove the financial incentive for proceedings wherein legal aid is provided on the basis of 'no cure, no pay'. In the case in which a claim for cassation in the interest of the law was filed, the Court of Appeal ruled that the restrictions introduced as of 1 January 2024 must be disregarded when awarding payment of costs of the proceedings, because the Court of Appeal did not rule out that those restrictions (in brief) violate the prohibition of discrimination arising from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Advocate General Keulen, who filed the claim on behalf of the Procurator General, disagreed. The Supreme Court concurred, referring to an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court's Tax Division regarding the regulation on the limitation of payment of costs of the proceedings in cases concerning the Valuation of Immovable Property Act (abbreviated: WOZ) and the taxation of passenger cars and motorbikes (abbreviated: bpm). The Tax Division did not consider these limitations to contravene treaty law. The Criminal Division of the Supreme Court arrived at the same conclusion with regard to the limitations on the payment of legal costs under the WAHV. The Supreme Court held that there was no issue of unjustified difference in treatment – and thus no violation of the ECHR – in the limitation of payment of legal costs in WAHV cases.

For the claim, see

https://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:PHR:2025:369

and for the decision of the Supreme Court

https://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2025:985.

Should interested party within the meaning of Article 1:24(1) DCC also include the civil registrar?

In a civil case in which a claim for cassation in the interest of the law was filed, the question was whether the civil registrar is among the interested parties who can request the court to order supplementation or rectification of the Civil Registry. The question of law was brought to the attention of the Procurator General by the Committee for Cassation in the Interest of the Law. The case involved a child born prematurely in 1981 who died within hours of birth. This happened shortly before the parents' wedding date. No birth or death certificates had been drawn up. The parents wished for the biological father to still be mentioned in a birth certificate and for the child to have his surname, like the parents' two other children. On the basis of Article 1:24(1) DCC, the civil registrar had requested the District Court to order supplementation of the birth register with a birth certificate of the child and supplementation of the death register with a death certificate of the child. The District Court had granted the request.

Advocate General Vlas, who filed the claim on behalf of the Procurator General, took the view that the District Court had demonstrated an incorrect interpretation of the law by designating the civil registrar as an interested party within the meaning of Article 1:24(1) DCC. The Supreme Court concurs. It follows from the legislative history that the legislator never envisaged for the civil registrar to be able, in addition to the Public Prosecution Service, to request the court to order supplementation or rectification of the registers. The civil registrar is therefore not among the interested parties within the meaning of Article 1:24(1) DCC. The Supreme Court added that this does not detract from the fact that if an interested party within the meaning of Article 1:24(1) DCC or the Public Prosecution Service requests the court to order the supplementation or rectification of the registers, the civil registrar is an interested party in that request, because under Article 1:16a DCC, the civil registrar is charged with the registration of deeds in the registers of the Civil Registry in their custody and the subsequent entries to be added to them.

For the claim, see

https://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:PHR:2025:247

and for the decision of the Supreme Court

https://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2025:766.

Facebook posts of the Minister of Finance of Curaçao do not create legitimate expectations

A tax case in which a claim for cassation in the interest of the law was filed concerned a case in which the Joint Court of Justice of Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten and of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba had rendered a decision. One of the questions at issue in this case concerned the extent to which posts by the Minister of Finance of Curaçao on his private Facebook page had created legitimate expectations. The Minister had written in those posts that tax assessments for 2017 and older would be "cancelled", among other things. The Court had upheld a reliance on the principle of legitimate expectations.

According to Advocate General Wattel, who filed the claim on behalf of the Procurator General, the appeal to the principle of legitimate expectations should have been rejected. The posts could not be regarded as a properly published policy rule, already because they could not be read without a Facebook account. Moreover, the posts were hard to find and had already been partly removed. In light of the Supreme Court's Erven R./St Eustatius judgment, the Advocate General said it is doubtful whether this Facebook behaviour could, in common societal interaction, qualify as conduct of Curaçao's Ministry of Finance. According to the Advocate General, it amounted at most to (incorrectly) informing the public. Moreover, to rely on such information to contravene the law, the taxpayer must have done or omitted to do something on the basis of the incorrect information that they would not have done or omitted to do without it, as a result of which they have to pay tax that they would not have to pay according to that information. According to the Advocate General, there was no evidence that this was the case here.

For the claim, see http://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:PHR:2025:385

The Supreme Court has not yet rendered a decision.

The other cases for which claims were submitted in 2025 were:

Criminal law

- the question of whether the court that, at the request of the Public Prosecution Service, orders the enforcement of the conditionally non-enforced sentence or measure, or instead orders the enforcement of community service, must base its decision on the date of the arrest or on the date on which the examining judge decided on the provisional enforcement of the sentence or measure when deducting the imprisonment already served as referred to in Article 6:6:21(7) of the Dutch Code of Criminal Procedure. For the claim, see

https://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:PHR:2025:184

and for the decision of the Supreme Court

https://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2025:451

- the question of which standard must be applied and/or which requirements for substantiation must be met in the case of an (ex officio) revocation of the suspension of pre-trial detention by final decision. For the claim, see https://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:PHR:2025:267

and for the decision of the Supreme Court

https://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2025:987

- the question of whether the criminal court in Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba (BES) adjudicating on a newly charged offence, if the accused is found guilty of that new offence, may order the enforcement of a previously imposed suspended sentence on the ground that the person concerned has misbehaved during the probationary period as referred to in Article 17h Penal Code of the BES Islands. For the claim, see https://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:PHR:2025:746

and for the decision of the Supreme Court

https://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2025:1786

Civil law

- the question of whether it is possible to impose a contact restriction during 'bankruptcy detention' as referred to in Article 87 of the Dutch Bankruptcy Act. The question of law has been brought to the attention of the Procurator General by the Committee for Cassation in the Interest of the Law. For the claim, see

https://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:PHR:2025:1066

The Supreme Court has not yet rendered a decision.

Lastly, the Supreme Court rendered decisions in 2025 in the following cases for which claims had been filed in 2024:

Criminal law

- the question of whether a decision to convert community service to substitute detention as referred to in Article 6:3:3 Code of Criminal Procedure must be signed and dated. For the claim, see https://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:PHR:2024:1388

and for the Supreme Court's decision https://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2025:455

Civil law

- the question of whether the Subdistrict Court or the ordinary Civil

Division of the District Court has jurisdiction to rule on claims based on Articles 4:29 and 4:30 DCC with regard to "usufructs for support". The question of law was brought to the attention of the Procurator General by the Committee for Cassation in the Interest of the Law. For the claim, see https://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:PHR:2024:1129  and the Supreme Court's decision https://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2025:511