.svg)
On 10 April 2026, the Supreme Court handed down an important judgment concerning the extrajudicial termination of a tenancy agreement following the closure of a property under Section 13b of the Opium Act. The central issue is the extent of the landlord’s authority and what factors the court must take into account in its decision when the tenant objects to the extrajudicial termination.
The ruling is relevant in practice because it clarifies which interests may play a role in termination and how the court must weigh those interests. I will explain the case below.
Facts and background
Eigen Haard has been letting a property to tenants since 2006. Over the years, several incidents relating to the property have been identified. For instance, during a search in 2019, drugs and weapons, amongst other things, were found. In 2021, another police investigation took place, during which significant quantities of drugs were found in the property, along with a drug press and an illegal weapon. Furthermore, according to the mayor, there had been a long-standing issue of nuisance emanating from the property.
On 29 December 2021, the Mayor therefore decided to close the property for three months pursuant to Section 13b of the Opium Act. The closure took effect on 21 January 2022.
Under the law, a landlord has the power to terminate a tenancy agreement out of court by means of a letter announcing this. Eigen Haard also took action on the day of the closure and sent a termination letter. The tenancy agreement is terminated out of court by the landlord and the tenants are ordered to vacate the property. The tenants are not cooperating with this.
Proceedings before the subdistrict court and the Court of Appeal
Eigen Haard subsequently initiates proceedings, seeking, among other things, a declaration that the tenancy agreement has been terminated, eviction from the property and payment of a usage fee equivalent to the rent.
The subdistrict court dismisses these claims. The landlord lodged an appeal.
The Court of Appeal quashed the judgment and upheld the claims, granting a six-month notice period for vacating the property. The tenants were therefore granted a somewhat longer period than is customary.
The Court of Appeal considered that Article 7:231(2) of the Dutch Civil Code grants the landlord the power to terminate the tenancy out of court as soon as the property is closed under the Opium Act. No breach by the tenant is required for this. Eigen Haard was therefore entitled to terminate the tenancy out of court.
The Court of Appeal then formulated the key question:
“The follow-up question is whether the exercise of that power (…) is unacceptable according to standards of reasonableness and fairness (…) or constitutes an abuse of power (…) and, in addition, proportionality must be assessed (Article 8 of the ECHR).”
The Court answered that question in the negative. In doing so, it considers it of decisive importance that there is a series of serious facts, including the presence of large quantities of drugs and weapons, and that this situation poses a risk to public order and safety. In this regard, the Court also takes into account the landlord’s interest, as a housing association, in safeguarding the quality of life in the neighbourhood and sending a signal to other tenants that such practices are not accepted.
According to the Court of Appeal, the tenants’ personal interests carry less weight, partly because they have not substantiated those interests in concrete terms.
Appeal to the Supreme Court: what is at stake?
Tenants are appealing to the Supreme Court. Their main complaint is that the Court of Appeal applied an incorrect standard. In their view, the power under Section 7:231(2) of the Dutch Civil Code is intended to protect the landlord against the financial disadvantages of a property closure. In this case, Eigen Haard is alleged to have used that power for a different purpose, namely combating drug-related crime and improving the quality of life in the neighbourhood.
According to the tenants, this is not a legitimate purpose within the context of abuse of power or Article 8 of the ECHR.
The housing association counters that its interest is broader. As a housing association, it has a statutory duty to protect the quality of life in its neighbourhoods. Combating drug trafficking and preventing dangerous situations are, in its view, explicitly part of this.
Ruling of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court dismissed the tenants’ position. According to the Supreme Court, the complaints are based on an incorrect interpretation of the law.
The Supreme Court considers that, whilst it follows from the legislative history that the scheme is partly intended to protect the landlord against the disadvantages of a property closure, this does not mean that other interests of the landlord must be disregarded.
On the contrary, interests such as public safety, the prevention of criminal offences and the protection of local residents are legitimate aims that may justify an interference with the right to housing within the meaning of Article 8 of the ECHR, according to the Supreme Court.
In doing so, the Supreme Court confirms that a housing association may also exercise its powers in fulfilment of its social duty to safeguard quality of life and safety.
The Supreme Court’s key consideration
After dismissing the appeal in cassation, the Supreme Court adds a further important consideration. This aspect is perhaps the most relevant in practice.
The Supreme Court corrects a line of reasoning it had previously adopted, in which it was assumed that, in the event of a dispute over an extrajudicial termination, the court should apply Article 6:265 of the Dutch Civil Code. That article concerns the termination of a (tenancy) agreement (by the court) in connection with a breach by the tenant.
The Supreme Court makes it clear that this approach is incorrect. Termination on the basis of Article 7:231(2) of the Dutch Civil Code does not, in fact, require a breach by the tenant.
The correct test to be applied is a different one. If the tenant does not accept the termination, the court must assess in such cases whether:
- the termination or eviction is unacceptable according to standards of reasonableness and fairness (Article 6:248(2) of the Dutch Civil Code)
- there is an abuse of power (Article 3:13 of the Dutch Civil Code)
- the measure is proportionate in the light of Article 8 of the ECHR
In doing so, the court must weigh up the interests involved. This assessment may take into account, amongst other things, the nature and seriousness of the facts that led to the termination and the extent to which the tenant can be blamed for them.
The Supreme Court adds an important element to this. If minor children live in the property, their interests must be given primary consideration, pursuant to Article 3(1) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This is in line with preliminary questions answered by the Supreme Court at the end of November 2025 regarding the presence of minor children in a rented property, in proceedings where termination of the tenancy agreement and/or eviction from the rented property is sought. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that the interests of children carry particular weight in the assessment of eviction cases.
Implications for practice
The Supreme Court’s ruling provides clarity on two points that regularly arise in practice.
Firstly, the Supreme Court confirms that the landlord’s power to terminate the tenancy out of court under Section 7:231(2) of the Dutch Civil Code is broad. A landlord may exercise this power not only to prevent financial loss, but also to protect the quality of life and safety in the neighbourhood. This is of particular importance to housing associations.
Secondly, the Supreme Court clarifies the correct standard of review. This is not a test of breach of obligation as in Section 6:265 of the Dutch Civil Code, but a balancing of interests along the lines of reasonableness and fairness, abuse of power and proportionality.
For tenants, this means that their defence must focus on that balancing of interests. It is not sufficient to argue that they themselves are not at fault. What matters most is how heavily their interests weigh against those of the landlord and the neighbourhood.
For the court, this means that it must explicitly assess whether the termination and eviction are justified, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. In doing so, the position of any minor children must also be explicitly taken into account, where applicable.
The Supreme Court thus confirms a strong position for landlords in drug-related property closures, but at the same time demonstrates that this power is not unlimited. The balancing of interests remains the central benchmark. It remains to be seen how this standard will be applied in the lower courts. We will keep an eye on this for you.
If you are facing a property closure by the local authority and the property is let, please feel free to contact one of our solicitors for advice on the steps to take. We have extensive experience in this type of case.
Günes van Dijk
