Background
The Grand Chamber of the Administrative Jurisdiction Division, in the case that led to the August 2024 opinion, ultimately reached the judgment (opens in a new window) (refers to another website) that there was no legitimate expectation raised. For this reason, the Grand Chamber did not apply the recommendations from the opinion in a concrete case. Therefore, the Chair has now asked Advocate-General Snijders to apply his earlier opinion to a different case.
Legitimate Expectation
This new case concerns, among other things, a penalty imposed by the municipal executive of The Hague on a company. The company built houses and used the inner area for parking spaces. According to the municipal executive, the parking spaces violate the zoning plan. In a first interim ruling (opens in a new window) (refers to another website), the Administrative Jurisdiction Division ruled that the municipal executive had raised legitimate expectation for the company that the inner area could be used as a parking lot and that the executive would not act against it. The Division ordered the municipal executive to make a new decision. If the executive maintained its enforcement decision, it had to consider whether there was reason to compensate the company for damage suffered due to the raised expectation. The executive stated it would maintain its penalty decision and that the company could submit a substantiated claim for compensation if damage occurred. The Division found this decision insufficiently motivated. A second interim ruling (opens in a new window) (refers to another website) followed. In the decision the executive made following the order in that interim ruling, the penalty decision remains in place. The executive also finds no causal link between the damage claimed by the company and the raised expectation. The Chair now asks Advocate-General Snijders to assess what his earlier opinion means for determining compensation in this case.
Further Procedure
A Grand Chamber of the Administrative Jurisdiction Division will hear this case with case number 202306264/3 again on Monday, March 23, 2026, at a hearing. A Grand Chamber consists of five state councillors. After this hearing, the Advocate-General has six weeks to provide an opinion. Parties involved will then have the opportunity to respond in writing. Afterwards, the Division will issue a ruling in this case. Would you like to stay informed? Then use our email service (opens in a new window) (refers to another website).