This website uses cookies

We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners who may combine it with other information that you’ve provided to them or that they’ve collected from your use of their services.

Our privacy statement:

Eveline Bakker

Eveline Bakker

Senior Associate | Attorney at law

Employment & Employee Participation & Corporate Law

Eveline specialises in employment participation law and corporate law. She supports clients in consultation and consent processes and provides advice on employment participation structures. She is particularly interested in matters arising at the interface between employment participation and corporate law.

Eveline is meticulous, dedicated and purposeful in her approach. She carefully examines the various interests and possibilities, identifies opportunities and risks, and then consults with her client to determine the most effective strategy. In taking this approach, Eveline’s aim is always to achieve the best possible result for her client.

Education

Eveline studied at Leiden University, and took the minor in Business Administration during her law studies. She successfully completed her Master’s in Tax Law and Corporate Law, and then went on to specialise in Enterprise and Liability through the Grotius programme.

Career

During her studies, Eveline worked and undertook internships with other law firms and at the Tax Administration. She joined De Clercq after completing her studies.

Eveline’s daily practice

Eveline’s daily practice involves issues in corporate law and employment participation law, with a focus on employment participation structures, employment participation in group relationships, and consultation and consent processes.

Stay up to date

The latest developments

Employment, Employee Participation & Mediation

Transgressive Behaviour in the Workplace: Legal and Cultural Shifts in the Netherlands

13 May 2025

In the Netherlands, the topic of “grensoverschrijdend gedrag”—transgressive or inappropriate behaviour in the workplace—has evolved from a relatively underexposed HR issue to a legal and societal priority. As an employment lawyer advising Dutch and international employers, I have seen this shift unfold in both subtle and seismic ways. What was once handled quietly within organisations is now a subject of public debate, regulatory scrutiny, and legislative reform. In this blog, I explore the recent legal developments, practical implications, and cultural challenges surrounding transgressive behaviour at work in the Netherlands—and what employers should know to act responsibly and effectively.

Read more

Employment, Employee Participation & Mediation

Modern Employment Conditions: (4) Changing Employment Conditions

30 April 2025

The work environment has changed significantly in recent years. Technological advancements, a new generation of employees, and the desire of workers to pay more attention to work-life balance are forcing employers to review their policies and employment conditions. It is important to respond to these changes, as modern employment conditions are increasingly becoming a determining factor for talent retention, attracting new employees, productivity, and overall employee engagement. What modern employment conditions can you think of? You can read more about this in this blog series.

Read more

Employment, Employee Participation & Mediation

Appealing to the return guarantee in the social plan? Not a foregone conclusion!

29 April 2025

Suppose: you part ways with your employer during a reorganization with a settlement agreement. The social plan, which applies to your settlement agreement, states that you can be re-employed within 26 weeks if a suitable vacancy arises. But what if that vacancy is filled internally? Do you still have the right to return? In a recent ruling, the court of appeal considered such a situation. The employee claimed that the employer had violated their return guarantee. The subdistrict court agreed with the employee, but the court of appeal thought otherwise. In this blog, I explain what the court of appeal ruled and why it is relevant for HR and employers. 

Read more