Blogs

Earlier, I wrote a blog about the legislative proposal to amend the Dutch Public Procurement Act. In the meantime, the so-called “Scientific Review” (Wetenschapstoets) of that proposal has been published. This review forms part of the legislative process. The academics’ conclusion is devastating: the proposal does not provide any genuine strengthening of legal protection.

The standard Nederlandse Vereniging van Makelaars (NVM) residential purchase agreement provides that if one of the parties fails to comply with its obligations under the agreement, the other party may terminate (rescind) the contract. The defaulting party must first be given formal notice of default. Upon termination of the agreement, the defaulting party will generally forfeit a penalty of 10% of the purchase price.

This is a question we increasingly receive from clients. The trigger is usually current geopolitical developments and the related media coverage. We are by now all familiar with the (legal) boundaries of the European Economic Area (EEA) under the GDPR, but the issue of digital sovereignty goes further than that. It is explicitly about (undesirable) dependencies on technology and suppliers in general. What does this mean for you as an organisation? And what can you do about it in practice? In this blog, we explain further.

On 20 April 2026, the State Secretary for Digital Economy and Sovereignty published the draft bill for the Implementation Act for the Artificial Intelligence Regulation for public consultation. With this legislative proposal, the Netherlands implements the AI Regulation. The proposal designates which supervisory authorities will be responsible for enforcing the AI Regulation and sets out how supervision will be carried out. In total, ten supervisory authorities will be appointed.

The Data Act (Regulation (EU) 2023/2854) has been applicable since 12 September 2025 and aims to make the European data economy fairer and more competitive. However, the European Commission now intends to amend the Data Act once again.

Last month, we successfully represented a contracting authority in summary proceedings before the District Court of The Hague. The central question was whether a delivered machine complied with the knock-out requirements set out in the tender. However, beneath this lay a more fundamental legal question: how does the court interpret technical requirements?

Hospitals using AI for diagnostics. Algorithms that read scans faster than radiologists. Chatbots guiding patients between appointments. What a few years ago still seemed like science fiction is already daily practice in many European hospitals. The question is not whether AI will transform healthcare, but whether healthcare institutions will be ready for those changes. The European Commission has recently conducted extensive research on this topic, and the findings have now been published. The report can be downloaded here, and it closely aligns with a similar report published last summer.

On Wednesday, 15 April, the House of Representatives adopted the legislative proposal for the Cybersecurity Act. The bill will now be considered by the Senate. The Cybersecurity Act is expected to enter into force in Q2 2026. This means that organisations falling within its scope must comply with all statutory obligations from that moment onwards. It is therefore advisable to take action now and conduct a final review to assess which matters may need to be addressed (with urgency) in the coming months.

At the end of 2024, the Supreme Court held that an indexation clause providing for an annual 3% increase in the rent under a lease agreement is, in general, not unfair. I previously wrote a blog on this topic: A rent increase clause with an annual 3% uplift is generally not unfair.