On 10 April 2026, the Dutch Supreme Court handed down a judgment clarifying the legal test for the out-of-court termination of a residential tenancy agreement and, in the process, correcting a position it had recently adopted.
Housing association Eigen Haard has rented out a property in Amsterdam since 2006. Following a series of incidents — including a 2019 search of the property during which drugs, knives and a balaclava were found; indications that a firearm had been discharged in the backyard in 2020; and a police investigation in November 2021 during which more than 100 grams of cocaine, 1.5 kilograms of cannabis, a drug press and a prohibited knife were found — the mayor ordered the property to be closed for three months pursuant to Article 13b of the Dutch Opium Act. The property was closed on 21 January 2022, and on the same day Eigen Haard terminated the tenancy agreement out of court pursuant to Article 7:231(2) of the Dutch Civil Code. The tenants refused to vacate the property.
The general rule is that an agreement may be terminated if the other party fails to perform its obligations and that failure is sufficiently serious (Article 6:265 of the Dutch Civil Code).
Article 7:231(2) of the Dutch Civil Code gives landlords the possibility, as an exception to this general rule, to terminate a tenancy agreement out of court if the property has been closed by the competent authority pursuant to Article 13b of the Dutch Opium Act (the so-called Damocles Act) or Article 174a of the Municipalities Act (the so-called Victoria Act).
The district court dismissed Eigen Haard's claims and considered the termination disproportionate, partly in view of the tenants' vulnerable family circumstances. The Amsterdam Court of Appeal overturned the district court's judgment and granted the claims. The Court of Appeal held that Eigen Haard's interests — including its statutory duty as a regulated housing association to promote the quality of life in its neighbourhoods, the seriousness of the facts and the deterrent effect of the measure — outweighed the tenants' personal interests, which had not been substantiated in concrete terms.
In cassation, the tenants argued that Article 7:231(2) of the Dutch Civil Code was intended solely to protect landlords against the financial consequences of a closure, such as lost rental income and the inability to re-let the property, and that promoting liveability and combating drug-related crime did not constitute a legitimate aim within the meaning of Article 8 ECHR, which protects the right to respect for private and family life and the home.
The Supreme Court rejected this argument. Although the legislative history refers to protecting the landlord's financial interests, this does not preclude other interests of the landlord from being taken into account when balancing the relevant interests. Public safety, the prevention of crime, the protection of health, and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others are legitimate aims that may justify an interference with the right to respect for the home under Article 8(2) ECHR.
The judgment contains an important substantive correction. In a preliminary ruling of 28 November 2025, the Supreme Court had held that, where a tenant challenges an out-of-court termination under Article 7:231(2) of the Dutch Civil Code, the court should assess whether the termination can stand by applying the criteria of Article 6:265(1) of the Dutch Civil Code, i.e. whether there is a sufficiently serious breach of contract.
On further consideration, the Supreme Court now considers that reasoning incorrect. Article 6:265(1) requires a sufficiently serious breach of contract, whereas Article 7:231(2) does not presuppose any breach: the mayor's closure of the property itself constitutes the ground for termination.
If the tenant disputes the out-of-court termination, the court must, provided that the tenant has put forward sufficient grounds, assess the matter against the following criteria:
Where minor children live in the property, their interests must, pursuant to Article 3(1) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, be treated as a primary consideration, in accordance with the principles set out in the preliminary ruling of 28 November 2025.
This judgment confirms and further clarifies the legal framework governing out-of-court termination following a mayoral closure of a property.
The termination power under Article 7:231(2) of the Dutch Civil Code is broad, and promoting liveability and public safety constitutes a recognised legitimate aim.
The correction of the preliminary ruling of 28 November 2025 is particularly significant: the framework of Article 6:265(1) of the Dutch Civil Code, which requires a breach of contract, no longer applies in this context.
If you have any questions, please contact Per van der Kooi, attorney specialising in tenancy law.
Would you like to receive a monthly overview of our latest legal updates and blog articles? Subscribe to our newsletter.
