An authority may decide, but it must also explain why. The duty to give reasons is among the most frequently invoked grounds in administrative proceedings, precisely because it reveals whether the weighing of interests actually took place.
Legal basis
Article 3:46 of the General Administrative Law Act provides that a decision must rest on sound reasoning. Article 3:47 requires that reasoning to be stated when the decision is notified, naming where necessary the statutory provisions on which the decision rests. Article 3:49 allows a reference to an advisory opinion, provided that opinion is itself sufficiently reasoned and is sent with the decision. For a decision on objection, Article 7:12 repeats the requirement and adds a duty to address the grounds put forward. Where the court finds a defect in reasoning it may quash the decision, but it may also apply the administrative loop and give the authority an opportunity to repair the defect.
How it works in practice
Sound means visible, intelligible and capable of carrying the decision. A standard formula that fits every file does not qualify, nor does reasoning that leaves the arguments raised unanswered. The more far-reaching the decision, or the further it departs from an advisory opinion or from earlier policy, the higher the standard. At the objection stage this is often the most productive line of attack, because the authority must then show how it weighed the interests.
Where it goes wrong
Three points recur. First, reasoning supplemented only at the appeal stage, which is possible but undermines credibility. Second, a reference to an advisory opinion that was never enclosed. Third, a decision that cites the rules without explaining why they lead to this outcome in this case.
Related terms
The duty to give reasons connects to the principle of proportionality, to the administrative loop and to the notice of objection.
Is your decision thinly reasoned? Our administrative law specialists measure it against the statutory requirements.
