THE BOTTOM LINE
- Escalating Penalties: Public bodies in the Netherlands face repeated and mounting financial penalties for failing to comply with information requests under the Dutch Open Government Act (Woo). Ignoring a court order to respond will likely result in a second fine.
- Legal Action Gets Results: This ruling confirms that businesses and individuals can effectively use the courts to compel government transparency. A public body cannot indefinitely delay a decision, even after an initial penalty has been imposed.
- Excuses Carry Little Weight: The court showed limited patience for administrative backlog arguments, especially given the prolonged delay. A history of non-compliance significantly weakens a public body’s position and invites stricter judicial intervention.
THE DETAILS
The case revolved around a straightforward request for information submitted to the municipality of Wijdemeren under the Dutch Open Government Act (Woo) in July 2024. After extending the decision period, the municipality failed to meet its deadline. The requester subsequently issued a formal notice of default and, when no decision was forthcoming, initiated legal proceedings. In a previous ruling in February 2025, the court ordered the municipality to issue a decision within two weeks. The municipality failed to comply with this direct court order, prompting the requester to file this second appeal for non-compliance.
The District Court of Midden-Nederland ruled that the second appeal was manifestly well-founded. The municipality argued that the appeal was premature, as a penalty payment period from the first ruling had not yet fully expired. The court swiftly rejected this defense, clarifying that a requester’s legal interest in receiving a decision remains as long as the court-ordered deadline has passed. The failure to act on the court’s explicit instruction created a new basis for legal action. Consequently, the court once again ordered the municipality to make a decision, setting a firm new deadline of two weeks.
To ensure compliance this time, the court imposed a fresh penalty payment of €100 for each day the new deadline is missed, capped at a maximum of €15,000. This penalty is in addition to any amounts accrued from the previous ruling. Furthermore, the municipality was ordered to reimburse the requester for their legal costs and court filing fees. The decision underscores a critical principle for any organization interacting with Dutch public bodies: persistent failure to adhere to transparency laws is not only unlawful but also carries a direct and escalating financial cost.
SOURCE
Rechtbank Midden-Nederland (District Court of Midden-Nederland)
