At the beginning of 2024, the Subdistrict Court in Amsterdam ruled that the landlord of a listed building from 1665 had to replace the single glazing with double glazing. According to the court, the tenant’s enjoyment of the property was impaired due to a defect. I wrote a blog about this at the time.
The landlord lodged an appeal. The Subdistrict Court had almost seemed to invite this: its judgment could not be enforced immediately.
The landlord was willing to replace the single glazing, but only if the rent could be increased, as in his view (and that of an architect he consulted) this would qualify as an improvement to the dwelling. The tenant argued that the situation constituted a defect and was not prepared to pay a higher rent.
A defect within the meaning of the law (Article 7:204(2) Dutch Civil Code), is a condition or characteristic as a result of which the leased property does not provide the enjoyment that a tenant may expect from a well-maintained property of the kind to which the lease relates. The question is therefore: what level of enjoyment may be expected from a well-maintained listed building dating from 1665?
In answering that question, the Court of Appeal held in its judgement of 11 November 2025 that, in principle, the same level of enjoyment cannot be expected from a well-maintained monument dating from 1665 as from a well-maintained dwelling built much more recently. Construction standards that apply to modern buildings do not apply to this listed property.
The tenant could not infer (or reasonably expect) from the fact that the dwelling had been modernised that the windows had also been replaced and now complied with modern refurbishment standards. Nor does it make any difference that it is technically and legally possible to adapt the dwelling (as the Subdistrict Court had held): the mere fact that better insulation is possible does not in itself lead to the conclusion that the tenant may also expect it, and that there is therefore a defect.
The foregoing leads to the conclusion that single glazing in this dwelling does not constitute a defect.
The Court of Appeal also appears to disagree with the Subdistrict Court’s view that social and political developments (a shift in societal thinking about the expected comfort of a dwelling as a result of the energy crisis and increased climate awareness) may play a role in determining whether a dwelling should be regarded as defective.
So this judgment provides welcome clarity for landlords of listed buildings.
f you have any questions, please contact Per van der Kooi, real estate and tenancy law attorney.
Would you like to receive a monthly overview of updates and blogs in your inbox? Then sign up for our newsletter!
