On 22 January 2025, the Grand Chamber of the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State (hereinafter: “the Division”) issued an important ruling on the application of the principle of legitimate expectations in environmental law. The Division held that trust, once established, has an expiration date, and that the passage of time and changing circumstances may prevent a successful invocation of the principle of legitimate expectations.
Since 2013, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division has operated with a single-judge chamber, a multi-judge chamber (three judges), and a “Grand Chamber” (five members). The Central Appeals Tribunal (CRvB) and the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb) have also had a Grand Chamber since 2013.
A multi-judge chamber may refer a case to the Grand Chamber if:
(a) it is important for legal consistency within the Division’s chambers,
(b) it is important for consistency across the three administrative courts, or
(c) it is relevant for legal development.
Since its establishment in 2013, the Grand Chamber has ruled in 24 cases. The most recent ruling prior to the one discussed in this blog was issued on 1 March 2023.
This underscores the significance of the ruling below concerning the principle of legitimate expectations.
In a previous “overview ruling” dated 29 May 2019 (ECLI:NL:RVS:2019:1694), the Division (a multi-judge chamber, not the Grand Chamber) outlined the requirements for a successful appeal to the principle of legitimate expectations.
According to the Division, three steps must be followed:
In May 2002, the municipal executive of Nieuw-Bergen granted a building permit for a riding hall with pony stables.
Shortly thereafter, construction began on the foundation, but was quickly halted.
On 20 September 2017, a potential buyer asked the municipality whether the permit was still valid and whether it was possible to start an equestrian business.
In response, the municipality confirmed by email on 21 September 2017 that a riding hall with pony stables could be built.
Based on this information, the buyer purchased the property on 6 October 2017.
On 30 September 2019, the municipality informed the new owner of its intention to revoke the permit. However, the owner could still proceed with construction if the permit was transferred to his name and the building was completed (a) within one year and (b) in accordance with current standards.
On 11 October 2019, the new owner requested the permit be transferred and stated that construction had resumed.
In an email dated 15 October 2019, the municipality responded that (i) no construction activity had been observed and (ii) keeping horses was not permitted under the applicable zoning plan.
Subsequent correspondence followed. On 15 May 2020, the owner informed the municipality that construction was underway and the hall would be completed within five months.
On 2 June 2020, the municipality decided to revoke the permit.
The owner appealed the rejection of his objection to the Limburg District Court.
The court ruled in favor of the owner.
It held that, based on the municipality’s email of 21 September 2017, the owner had a legitimate expectation that he could build and use the riding hall under the permit, and that the permit would not be revoked.
Only from the email dated 15 October 2019 onward could the owner no longer reasonably expect that the use of the riding hall was permitted under zoning regulations.
The court found that the municipality had failed to consider the legitimate expectation and resulting damages in its balancing of interests.
The municipality appealed the ruling.
The Division requested an opinion from Advocate General Snijders (also AG in civil law at the Supreme Court) on whether the government must compensate damages when it does not honor legitimate expectations due to overriding public interests (the “third step” from the 2019 ruling).
The AG concluded that the court had rightly found that the owner had a legitimate expectation between 21 September 2017 and 15 October 2019 that the permit would not be revoked. The AG assumed the Division would reach the same conclusion.
Based on this assumption, the AG concluded that full reliance damages should be compensated.
Surprisingly, the Grand Chamber of the Division reached a different conclusion.
According to the Division, the owner could reasonably expect, based on the 21 September 2017 email, that the 2002 permit was still valid at that time. However, the owner could not infer from that email that the municipality would refrain from revoking the permit in the future, regardless of the passage of time or changing circumstances.
The absence of a statement about the revocation power in the email did not justify the expectation that the municipality would not exercise that power. The Division held that the municipality was not obligated to proactively mention its revocation authority.
Between 30 September and 15 October 2019, the owner could briefly rely on the expectation that the permit would not be revoked. However, during that period, the owner did not incur costs or take actions based on that expectation.
The Division upheld the municipality’s appeal and overturned the district court’s ruling.
Legitimate expectations have a limited shelf life and are not indefinite. The passage of time and changing circumstances may prevent individuals or businesses from relying on previously established expectations.
The advice: act promptly after receiving a government promise—do not delay.
It should be noted that this case involved a building permit, which may be revoked under the law if unused for an extended period. However, the Division may apply similar reasoning in other cases, especially in spatial planning, where circumstances can change rapidly.
Still, it is striking that the Division reached this conclusion, given the municipality’s communications on 21 September 2017 and 30 September 2019.
Also noteworthy: the Grand Chamber did not address the AG’s conclusion that full reliance damages should be compensated when legitimate expectations are not honored due to overriding interests. This shows how unpredictable legal proceedings can be—based on the AG’s involvement, it seemed likely the Division would recognize the legitimate expectation.
Time will tell whether the Division will ultimately agree with the AG that full reliance damages must be compensated.
You can read the ruling here: https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:RVS:2025:213
For inquiries, contact David Wenniger, Attorney at law specialized in Real Estate & Government.
Would you like to receive monthly updates and blog posts in your inbox? Subscribe to our newsletter!
