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:
Below you can choose for which purposes you want to allow cookies on the website of De Clercq.
Partner & Attorney at law
Real Estate & Government
Jacco van Lint has been practising as an attorney since 1999. He advises and litigates on behalf of companies, civic organisations and individuals in the field of property law, in matters relating to civil law (including construction disputes, purchase, tenancy law, apartment rights), as well as administrative law (including permits, zoning, project development, enforcement). Additional areas of his practice include corporate law (including purchase/sale, entering into and terminating partnerships, shareholder disputes, contracts, liability, franchise law) and employment law (specifically dismissal).
Jacco is often already involved in a case before it actually becomes ‘a case’, and works together with his clients to steer the process in a positive direction. This often makes a difference by either preventing or limiting problems at an early stage. He is extremely committed to his clients and effectively advocates for their interests in conflicts. Disputes are often only partly legal in nature
Jacco studied at Erasmus University in Rotterdam. He initially worked as legal counsel for a business organisation from 1996 to 1999 before becoming an attorney in 1999. He started his law career as a partner at De Groen & Van Lint Advocaten in Sassenheim, continuing until the end of 2023. As of 2024, this firm has merged with De Clercq, where he is continuing his practice as a co-partner. Jacco has also completed the VBR programme in construction law (civil and administrative law).
Jacco is experienced in litigating in venues such as courts, courts of appeal (including the Netherlands Enterprise Court), the Council of State, and arbitration institutions. He also has ample experience in dispute resolution without a judge, and advising and contracting. Jacco is also often involved in administrative and official consultations with local governments.
Construction dispute with multiple aspects
Assisting a contractor in the settlement of a construction project for industrial premises with an office building. Disputes involving the client and subcontractors related to defects, payments, additional work and less work, and liens. Following seizure of assets from the contractor and an expert investigation, the ongoing arbitration proceedings were finally settled.
Project development with various conflicts
Advising an entrepreneur/developer on a range of spatial aspects. Consulting with various authorities involved at both administrative and political levels, as well as with other stakeholders. Assisting in objection and appeal proceedings initiated by opponents of the plan, up to and including the Council of State. The plan was eventually realised as initially intended.
Eviction from rental property
Providing advice to a landlord regarding a commercial property, in relation to a non-paying tenant and termination of a lease agreement. Preliminary relief proceedings for the purpose of eviction, and dispute about the applicable leasing regime. After winning two proceedings, managed to reach a final settlement with the former tenant, with all payment obligations eventually met.
Enforcement in the event of a zoning violation
Advising an entrepreneur and property owner facing zoning enforcement requests. Transitional provisions ultimately enabled enforcement action to be avoided, but this required a court ruling.
Civil engineering tender dispute
Advising and litigating on behalf of a contractor who had come second in a municipal tender for civil engineering work. The winning contractor had not met all requirements, and the allocation of points in the bid evaluation method was incorrect. Preliminary relief proceedings between all involved parties led to the municipality being prohibited from awarding the project to the winning contractor. The desired result was eventually achieved when the project was awarded to the second contractor.