DG Herstel letter: Novum request rejected, no further correspondence
The document
On 19 May 2026, I received a letter from Program Director Herstelbeleid Dennis van Breemen, reference 2026-0000223614. It is the definitive rejection of my novum request and all related requests.
Source: PDF — Reactie verzoeken, kenmerk 2026-0000223614, 19 mei 2026
Timeline of the request
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 13 May 2024 | VSO signed with SGH (€189,829 additional compensation) |
| 21 May 2025 | Injunction notice sent regarding novum request |
| 8 August 2025 | Final revision request submitted |
| 28 August 2025 | Meeting with two officials — told: no novum grounds |
| 2 October 2025 | Email confirmation: no grounds for novum |
| 17 February 2026 | Further explanation of request |
| 3 March 2026 | Three requests submitted; legal assistance engaged |
| 10, 16, 30 March 2026 | Supplementary emails with Woo, AVG and damage requests |
| 31 March 2026 | Ministry response on saldering position |
| 2, 14, 16, 23 April 2026 | Further emails with requests |
| 11 April 2026 | Letter on “loss of 2 businesses + income deprivation since 2016” |
| 19 May 2026 | Definitive rejection of all requests |
From the first injunction notice (May 2025) to the definitive rejection (May 2026), the process took exactly one year. From signing the VSO (May 2024), it is two years of questions, requests and correspondence now terminated by a letter that excludes further dialogue.
Key points of the rejection
1. No VSO adjustment
“We see no reason in your request(s) to adjust the settlement agreement (VSO).”
The VSO of €189,829 is presented as “generous” but covers an estimated 15-31% of actual damage. It includes no entrepreneurial damage, no statutory interest, and no full coverage of income deprivation since 2016.
2. Final discharge as a wall
“After signing the VSO, neither party can make any further demands on the other (discharge).”
The final discharge in the VSO is used as the ultimate blockade: every request, every new fact, every new discovery (datakluis, RAM, RIEC/LIEC, Heidi) is blocked by a signature placed under pressure in a process the PZC described as “exile.”
3. Novum is not novum
“The facts and circumstances you described do not constitute grounds to modify the VSO […] because they were already known to you.”
This is circular reasoning: the facts (AOW gap, statutory interest, real estate loss, loss of 2 businesses, income deprivation since 2016) “were already known” because they already existed. But the knowledge that this damage resulted from systems like RAM, FSV, RIEC/LIEC and the datakluis — which only fully came to light in 2025-2026 — was not known at the time of signing.
4. No statutory interest
“No separate compensation of statutory interest takes place.”
Statutory interest on damage of, for example, €500,000 over 10 years (2016-2026) amounts to approximately €25,000-€50,000. This is categorically refused.
5. No administrative appeal possible
“You cannot file an objection or injunction against this letter. This is because it is not a decision within the meaning of the General Administrative Law Act.”
The letter is deliberately not a “besluit” under the Awb, cutting off the administrative law route. The only remaining option is civil litigation — for which no funded legal aid is available.
6. Further correspondence refused
“We will no longer respond to requests related to the VSO you concluded with the State.”
Dialogue is unilaterally terminated.
Rights being violated
| Right | Violation |
|---|---|
| ECHR art. 6 (fair trial) | VSO with final discharge under pressure; no appeal possible; civil route practically inaccessible |
| ECHR art. 13 (effective remedy) | Letter is not a “decision”, no administrative route, civil route without funded legal aid |
| ECHR art. 1 P1 (property protection) | Statutory interest refused; entrepreneurial damage not compensated; real estate loss not recognized |
| ECHR art. 8 (private life) | Systematic refusal to consider new information about RAM/FSV/RIEC |
| Good faith (art. 6:248 BW) | The State conceals systems (datakluis, RAM, Heidi) while simultaneously invoking final discharge for damage caused by those systems |
The sixth mechanism
This letter illustrates the sixth mechanism identified in the investigation Recovery Operation as Instrument for Limiting Civil Remedies: active limitation of precedent effect. By refusing all dialogue and referring to the “careful procedure” of SGH, the State prevents jurisprudence that could help other victims.
What remains
The letter closes with: “You are however free to submit your dispute to a civil court.” This is the civil route — the same route that the Rechtbank Noord-Holland in ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2025:8961 effectively blocked by treating the Wht as the exclusive framework. The asymmetry is complete: the State refuses administrative review, and the civil court refers back to the administrative framework.
Notes
This letter reached me on 19 May 2026 — two days after the PZC interview and one day before the RIEC/LIEC investigation was published. The timing is notable: at the moment when media pressure increases and new information requests via Woo and AVG are pending, the State closes the door.