The most landmark rulings on summary dismissal in the Netherlands

Summary dismissal (ontslag op staande voet) ends an employment contract with immediate effect and is lawful only where there is an urgent reason within the meaning of articles 7:677 and 7:678 of the Dutch Civil Code, communicated to the employee without delay. The burden of proving both the urgent reason and the immediacy rests entirely on the employer, and the employee has two months to ask the subdistrict court to annul the dismissal. Where privacy-sensitive evidence is involved, the outcome can turn on how it was obtained, as our note on a summary dismissal built on GDPR-breaching monitoring shows. This article sets out what the leading rulings of recent years require of employers under Dutch employment law, and what they give employees to work with.

The consequences for the employee are severe. There is no notice period, no salary from the date of dismissal, and, depending on the reason given, damage to their position on the labour market. The courts have responded to that severity by setting a high threshold and by holding employers to every element of the test rather than to the overall impression of the case.

The legal framework: a strict straitjacket

The statutory basis for summary dismissal can be found in Articles 7:677 and 7:678 of the Dutch Civil Code (BW). Together, these provisions form a strict straitjacket within which the employer must operate. The core is simple but demanding: there must be an urgent reason (dringende reden) – a circumstance so serious that the employer cannot reasonably be expected to continue the employment contract. And that reason must be communicated immediately (onverwijld) to the employee.

But what does that mean in practice? The courts have outlined the precise contours of these standards in countless rulings. The burden of proof lies entirely with the employer. Not only must they prove that the urgent reason exists, they must also demonstrate that they acted immediately. And here the problem for employers often begins: between discovering a possible urgent reason and actually giving notice lies an internal investigation. An investigation takes time. And time is the enemy of immediacy.

The Supreme Court’s step-by-step test for immediacy

In ECLI:NL:HR:2023:1668 of 1 December 2023 the Supreme Court set out a concrete sequence of questions for assessing the immediacy requirement where the dismissal follows an internal investigation. The ruling did not change the law so much as make explicit what had been implicit in years of case law, which is what makes it useful in practice.

The Supreme Court poses four concrete questions that the judge must answer:

1. Did the employer conduct or have conducted sufficiently expeditious investigation into the suspected involvement in irregularities?
2. Was the investigation itself carried out sufficiently expeditiously?
3. Did the employer inform themselves sufficiently expeditiously of the (including interim) findings from the investigation?
4. Did the employer proceed sufficiently expeditiously to summary dismissal after becoming aware of these findings?

This step-by-step plan gives employers guidance, but also a warning: expeditiousness must be demonstrated in every phase. A slow-starting investigation can already be fatal, even if the rest of the process proceeds quickly. The message is crystal clear: keep moving, or lose your case.

Weighing all the circumstances of the case

One of the most fundamental principles in dismissal law is that the judge must assess all circumstances of the case in their totality. This stems from the landmark ruling ECLI:NL:HR:2021:596, in which the Supreme Court confirmed that when assessing an urgent reason, it is not only about whether there is blameworthy conduct, but also how seriously that conduct should be weighed given the concrete circumstances.

What are these circumstances? The Supreme Court mentions a broad range of factors:

• The nature and seriousness of the blame – Is it fraudulent, careless, or ‘merely’ a mistake?
• The duration of employment – Has someone served faithfully for 30 years or only worked for a month?
• The employee’s personal circumstances – Age, family situation, financial position
• The consequences of dismissal – Can the employee still find work? Is there permanent reputational damage?
• How the employee has always performed – Was this an incident or a pattern?

This balancing of interests makes summary dismissal an extremely case-specific matter. The same conduct can lead to dismissal in one case and not in another. A 58-year-old employee with 25 years of service and two children at university has different protection than a 23-year-old starter who makes a mistake on their second workday. That is not arbitrariness; it is the statutory test applied to the facts of the individual case.

The evidence dilemma: new evidence after dismissal

One of the most controversial aspects of dismissal law concerns the question: may an employer rely on evidence in judicial proceedings that was only obtained after the dismissal? The answer came in 2019, when the Supreme Court in ECLI:NL:HR:2019:55 ruled clearly: yes, that is permitted.

The Supreme Court explicitly held that the employer is not limited in providing evidence to the evidence they already possessed at the time of dismissal. This is logical from the perspective of fact-finding: if an employer subsequently finds more evidence confirming their suspicion, why shouldn’t they be allowed to use it? The judge assesses this evidence in the same way as other evidence.

But this rule has limits. The evidence must relate to the facts on which the dismissal was based. An employer cannot first give dismissal for poor performance and later present evidence of fraud. The dismissal letter fixes the reason for dismissal – and the employer must stick with that. New grounds may not be added, only new evidence for the same ground.

The dismissal letter: fate sealed in black and white

If there is one document that determines the fate of a summary dismissal, it is the dismissal letter. The law requires an ‘immediate notification of the urgent reason’ – and that notification must be concrete and clear. No vague descriptions, no general reproaches, but concrete facts on which the dismissal is based.

Recent case law shows how strictly judges rule on this. In ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2025:2567, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal declared a summary dismissal invalid because the dismissal letter was insufficiently concrete about the urgent reason. The employer had put something in writing, but not precisely enough, and the dismissal failed on that ground alone.

Why is this so important? Because the dismissal letter must enable the employee to immediately consider their position. If the reason is vague or general, the employee cannot adequately defend themselves. They don’t know what to defend against. This is a fundamental form of legal protection that the legislator deliberately built into the system.

An important case law rule is that the employer may not supplement or change the reason for dismissal afterwards. What is in the dismissal letter is in it. A later specification in a statement of defence comes too late. What is fixed is the reason as the employee could reasonably understand it from the letter at the moment it was given. This prevents employers from first sending a general dismissal letter and later, when they see how the procedure develops, coming up with more details. The rules are fixed: what you write is what you get.

Privacy and evidence: the tension

One of the most current issues in dismissal law concerns the tension between fact-finding and privacy protection. May an employer read emails? May they use camera footage? And if that evidence was obtained in violation of the GDPR – must the judge then exclude it?

The answer is nuanced. The main rule is that evidence in civil proceedings may be provided by all means and that the assessment is left to the judge (Article 152 Code of Civil Procedure). The mere fact that evidence was obtained unlawfully does not automatically lead to exclusion of evidence. The Supreme Court ruled in ECLI:NL:HR:2014:942 that only in the case of additional circumstances – such as a serious violation of fundamental rights or disproportionality – can evidence be excluded.

In practice, this means a balancing of interests. The judge weighs the seriousness of the privacy infringement against the interest of fact-finding. Factors that play a role:

• How serious is the infringement of privacy?
• Did the employer have a justification?
• Were less intrusive means available?
• Is the use of the evidence proportionate given the interest in fact-finding?

Recently, the Overijssel District Court ruled in ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2025:6184 that if the employer makes it plausible that alternative, less intrusive investigative means were insufficient, and the interest in fact-finding outweighs, the evidence is generally admitted. This gives employers room, but also a warning: think carefully before deploying heavy means, because if they turn out not to be necessary afterwards, that can work against you.

Damages, fair compensation, and restoration of the employment contract

What happens if a summary dismissal turns out to be unjustified? The consequences for the employer can be far-reaching. Article 7:681 BW offers the employee two remedies: restoration of the employment contract or fair compensation (billijke vergoeding).

Restoration of the employment contract

The first option is restoration: the employment contract is deemed never to have been terminated. This means the employee gets their old position back and is entitled to payment of salary from the moment of dismissal until restoration. In practice, however, restoration is rarely demanded or granted, because the employment relationship after such a conflict is usually irreparably damaged. Both employees and judges therefore usually choose the second option: fair compensation.

Fair compensation

This fair compensation is intended as compensation for seriously blameworthy conduct by the employer. This is a broader basis than just wrongful dismissal – it concerns conduct that goes beyond a simple legal miscalculation. What falls under this? For example:

• Giving dismissal without any reasonable basis, purely out of arbitrariness or grudge
• Deliberately obtaining evidence unlawfully, such as serious privacy violation without any justification
• A manifestly careless internal investigation leading to an evidently wrongful dismissal
• Completely ignoring elementary hearing rights during the investigation
• Significantly exaggerating facts in the dismissal letter to make the dismissal appear more serious

Recent case law, such as ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2025:6793, shows that judges are not reluctant to award fair compensation when the employer has clearly erred. Amounts vary greatly – from a few thousand euros to substantial amounts that can amount to multiple gross monthly salaries, depending on factors such as:

• The seriousness of the reproach against the employer
• The duration of employment
• The age and financial position of the employee
• The consequences of the dismissal (reputational damage, difficulties finding new work)
• The way the employer conducted themselves during the proceedings

How the amount is set

The fair compensation is not a fixed sum and there is no statutory formula for it. In ECLI:NL:HR:2017:1187, the New Hairstyle ruling, the Supreme Court held that the court must determine the amount by reference to all the circumstances of the case, including the consequences of the dismissal for the employee, the length of service, the income the employee would have earned had the dismissal not been given, and the degree of the employer’s fault. The compensation is not punitive, but it is also not confined to strictly provable loss. Two considerations pull in opposite directions:

Mitigation can occur if awarding the full compensation would lead to manifestly unacceptable consequences, considering:

• The circumstances of the case
• The nature of the liability
• The financial capacity of the parties

In practice, this means that a small employer who made a mistake, but not deliberately or very carelessly, can request mitigation if the full fair compensation would put the company in financial difficulties.

Increase is possible if the judge rules that the standard fair compensation does not do justice to the seriousness of the reproach. We see this especially in cases where the employer:

• Deliberately made false accusations
• Publicly damaged the employee
• Grossly violated privacy
• Applied intimidation or retaliation

Transition allowance: the forgotten item

A crucial point often missed: in case of wrongful summary dismissal, the employee is in principle also entitled to transition allowance (transitievergoeding) (Article 7:673 BW). Since 1 January 2020 the entitlement arises from the first day of the employment contract, so the old requirement of two years of service no longer applies; it is calculated on length of service and salary, and the statutory maximum is set each year by the Minister and published in the Staatscourant.

The employer can only avert this right if they prove that there is seriously blameworthy conduct or omission by the employee (Article 7:673 paragraph 7 sub a BW). Note: this is a different test than the urgent reason! Even if there turns out to be no urgent reason (making the dismissal invalid), the employer can still argue that there was seriously blameworthy conduct that excludes the transition allowance.

This leads to interesting situations: a dismissal can be wrongful because the employer did not act immediately or the dismissal letter was insufficiently concrete, but at the same time it can be established that the employee did indeed act seriously blameworthy. In that case, the employee receives:

✓ Continued salary payment (because the dismissal is invalid)

✓ Possibly fair compensation (if the employer acted seriously blameworthy)

✗ But no transition allowance (because they themselves acted seriously blameworthy)

Judges make this assessment very casuistically. Fraud, theft, and serious aggression generally lead to forfeiture of the transition allowance. But less serious conduct, or conduct that is nuanced by personal circumstances (such as overstrain), often do lead to granting of the transition allowance.

Privacy and damages

For employees, it also applies that in case of unlawfully obtained evidence, a separate damage claim for privacy violation is also possible (Article 6:162 BW), provided that violation is separate from the dismissal itself. This means that in extreme cases a double sanction is possible:

• Annulment of the dismissal
• Continued salary payment
• Fair compensation for seriously blameworthy conduct by employer
• Separate damages for privacy violation
• Transition allowance (if not excluded)

This combination can lead to amounts that far exceed the employee’s annual salary. For employers, this is a strong incentive to handle privacy-sensitive investigation methods very carefully.

Procedural aspects: the clock is ticking

An often underestimated aspect of summary dismissal is the time limit within which the employee must act. Article 7:686a BW sets a strict deadline: the employee must submit a request for annulment to the subdistrict court within two months after the dismissal.

This time limit is not extendable and starts running from the moment the dismissal was given – not from the moment the employee obtained legal advice or received all documents. It is a fatal time limit: those who are too late definitively lose the right to request annulment.

Why such a short time limit?

The legislator chose this short time limit to create legal certainty. Both employer and employee must quickly know where they stand. The employer must be able to plan (hire a new employee or not?), and the employee must not remain in uncertainty about their legal position. According to the legislator, two months is sufficient to obtain legal advice and start a procedure.

What does the procedure entail?

The employee submits a petition to the subdistrict court of the district court in the district where they usually perform or performed their work. This is not a summons procedure but a petition procedure – a more informal and faster route.

The petition must contain:

• The names and places of residence of the parties
• A description of the dismissal (date, manner of notification)
• The grounds on which annulment is requested (no urgent reason, not immediate, dismissal letter insufficiently concrete, etc.)
• The petition: what does the employee request? (annulment + continued salary payment + fair compensation + transition allowance)

The subdistrict judge summons the parties for an oral hearing, usually within a few weeks to months. This is a relatively fast procedure compared to regular civil procedures.

Court fees and costs

The employee pays a court fee (griffierecht) to file the petition. The rates are set in the Court Fees in Civil Cases Act, are adjusted at the start of each year and are published by the Council for the Judiciary; the rate for a natural person in a subdistrict case is substantially lower than in ordinary civil proceedings, which reflects the social character of employment cases. Check the current rate before you file rather than relying on a figure quoted elsewhere.

Regarding procedural costs, the main rule applies that in petition procedures each party bears their own costs, unless the judge decides otherwise. In practice, this means that even if the employee wins, they must bear their own attorney fees. Employers also bear their own costs. This is different from summons, where the losing party usually must reimburse (part of) the winning party’s attorney fees.

However: if the judge rules that the employer has litigated manifestly unreasonably, they can order the employer to pay the employee’s procedural costs. This rarely occurs, but can in very blatant cases.

What if the two months have expired?

If the employee is too late with their request for annulment, they lose the right to annulment. But note: they can then still start a regular civil procedure based on tort (Article 6:162 BW). This is a different legal ground: not annulment of the dismissal, but damages because the employer acted tortiously by giving wrongful dismissal.

The difference:

For the employee, annulment is therefore usually the better route – but only if they are on time. The message is clear: anyone who is summarily dismissed must immediately obtain legal advice and not wait.

Summary proceedings

In addition to the petition procedure, an employee can also start summary proceedings (kort geding) with the preliminary relief judge. This is a fast-track procedure in which a ruling follows within a few weeks. In summary proceedings, the employee can request:

• Provisional relief: temporary salary payment until the main proceedings are completed
• A preliminary judgment on the legality of the dismissal

Summary proceedings are often used when the employee gets into acute financial problems due to the dismissal. The preliminary relief judge can order that the employer provisionally pay (part of) the salary, pending the final ruling of the subdistrict judge. This gives the employee breathing room to await the main proceedings without going under financially.

Note: a ruling in summary proceedings is provisional and does not bind the court in the main proceedings. But in practice it does have great influence: if the preliminary relief judge rules that the dismissal “at first glance” appears wrongful, the subdistrict judge will often follow that (but not always).

Practical lessons from the case law

What can we now conclude from this tangle of case law? What practical lessons can employers and employees draw?

For employers:

1. Expeditiousness is king. As soon as you have a suspicion of an urgent reason, you must take action. Every day of delay can be fatal. But expeditiousness does not mean hasty: you may first conduct an investigation, but that investigation must then itself also be expeditious.

2. Make the dismissal letter as concrete as possible. No vague reproaches, but hard facts. Date, time, place, what exactly happened. Think like a journalist: who, what, where, when, how. And don’t forget to state why this conduct is so serious that summary dismissal is justified.

3. Weigh all circumstances. Yes, the employee may have done something serious. But have they served faithfully for 20 years? Are they 55 years old? Do they have children who are still studying? Sometimes even a serious mistake can justify a less severe sanction due to personal circumstances.

4. Document everything. If you conduct an internal investigation, ensure you can demonstrate when what happened. When did the investigation start? When did you receive what information? When did you take what steps? This is crucial for the test of expeditiousness.

5. Be careful with privacy-sensitive evidence. Yes, you may use it in principle, even if it turns out afterwards that you didn’t obtain it entirely according to the GDPR. But if the violation is serious, you risk that the judge excludes the evidence or imposes additional damages on you.

For employees:

1. Study the dismissal letter in detail. Is the reason for dismissal concrete enough? Can you understand exactly what you are being dismissed for? If not, you immediately have an important defence.

2. Check the timeline. When did the employer discover the alleged urgent reason? When did you receive dismissal? Is there more than a few days between? Then there may be a problem with immediacy, especially if there was no well-founded internal investigation.

3. Actively bring forward your personal circumstances. How long have you worked for the employer? How old are you? How drastic are the consequences of this dismissal for you? These are all factors the judge must weigh, but that only happens if you explicitly mention them.

4. If evidence was used that violates your privacy, be alert to it. Was secret investigation conducted? Were your emails read without your knowledge? Was camera surveillance used without warning? This can be grounds for evidence exclusion or damages.

5. Provide a reasoned defence. It is not enough to just say ‘I didn’t do it’. You must present concrete, verifiable facts that contradict the employer’s version. Otherwise, the judge may assume that the facts as stated by the employer are correct.

6. Act immediately. You have only two months to submit a request for annulment to the subdistrict judge. This time limit is not extendable. Don’t wait, but immediately engage a lawyer. Every day you wait brings you closer to losing your right to annulment.

7. Don’t forget the transition allowance. Even if your dismissal turns out to be wrongful, you must explicitly claim the transition allowance. This doesn’t come automatically. And be alert: the employer can argue that you yourself acted seriously blameworthy, causing you to miss the transition allowance after all – even though the dismissal was invalid.

8. Consider summary proceedings in case of acute financial need. If you get into payment problems due to the dismissal (mortgage, rent, fixed costs), then start summary proceedings in addition to the annulment procedure. The preliminary relief judge can order within a few weeks that the employer provisionally pay (part of) your salary.

The trend: stricter review

When we survey the case law of recent years, a clear trend is noticeable: judges are testing increasingly strictly. This is evident from rulings such as ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2025:6184, in which the court emphasises that restraint is required in accepting an urgent reason. The message to employers is clear: summary dismissal is and remains an ultimum remedium – a last resort that may only be deployed in exceptional cases.

This stricter review fits into a broader development in employment law: more protection for employees, more requirements for employers. The subdistrict judges and the higher courts are aware of the enormous impact that summary dismissal has on an employee’s life. Summary dismissal is not just the loss of a job – it is also reputational damage, financial uncertainty, and often psychological stress.

At the same time, case law recognises that employers sometimes genuinely face serious situations where summary dismissal is the only way out. Fraud, theft, serious aggression – these are kinds of conduct that irreparably damage an employment relationship. The art is to find the right balance between the interests of the employee and those of the employer, and to assess whether in the specific case that balance tips toward termination.

What diligence requires of both sides

Summary dismissal is a fascinating and complex area of law. The case law of recent years shows that judges expect a high degree of diligence from employers. The Supreme Court’s step-by-step plan from 2023, the emphasis on balancing interests, the strict requirements for the dismissal letter, and the nuanced approach to privacy-sensitive evidence – they are all expressions of the same principle: summary dismissal is only allowed if it really cannot be otherwise.

For employers, this means they should not resort to summary dismissal lightly. The temptation can be great – a quick end to a problematic employment relationship without notice period or severance arrangement. But the risks are at least as great. An invalid dismissal means continued salary payment, possibly fair compensation, and often also reputational damage for the employer.

For employees, the message is that they are not without options. The law offers protection, and that protection is taken seriously by judges. But with nuance: if the conduct is truly serious, and the employer has acted diligently and expeditiously, then even an employee with long service and drastic personal consequences will have to accept the dismissal.

An important practical point deserves extra emphasis: timing is crucial. Both for the employer (who must act immediately) and for the employee (who must litigate within two months), the clock is ticking. Dutch employment law is an area of law in which fatal deadlines and procedural requirements play a major role. A perfect case can still be lost due to a missed deadline or an incorrectly filed petition.

The financial consequences also deserve more attention than is often realised. A wrongful summary dismissal can cost the employer not only continued salary payment, but also fair compensation, transition allowance, and possibly a separate damage claim for privacy violation. This can amount to sums far exceeding the employee’s annual salary – a risk every employer should take seriously before proceeding with summary dismissal.

The most landmark rulings teach us that Dutch dismissal law seeks a delicate balance between protection of the employee and freedom of action for the employer. It is a balance that must constantly be sought and reconsidered, with an eye to the specific circumstances of each individual case.

And perhaps that is the most important lesson: every summary dismissal is unique. There is no standard formula, no checklist that automatically guarantees success. What remains is the advice to both parties: act diligently, document thoroughly, and seek legal advice in time. In this area of law the outcome usually turns on the detail of the timeline and the wording of the letter.

Frequently asked questions