Jurisprudence Timeline: Key Rulings in the Toeslagenaffaire (1988-2026)

Executive Summary

Thirteen key court rulings spanning nearly four decades form the jurisprudential backbone of the toeslagenaffaire. The rulings establish four thematic pillars: state liability and unlawful acts (Veenbroei 1988, HR 2018:107), Wht interpretation and the constitutional testing prohibition (ABRvS 2023:772, ABRvS 2025:2864), interest and compensation frameworks (ABRvS 2017:274, Rb. Den Haag 2021), and institutional failure recognition (ABRvS 2019:3535 Wendde-ruling).

What Happened

The jurisprudence evolved in distinct phases. The foundation was laid by the Veenbroei-arrest (1988), establishing the state’s special duty of care under Article 6:162 BW. Between 2016-2018, the Hoge Raad issued critical rulings on statutory interest — confirming it starts from the moment of the unlawful act (HR 2018:107) and that waiving interest requires an unequivocal declaration (HR 2016:57). The HR 2018:412 ruling established that settlement agreements (VSO) only cover what parties explicitly agreed, leaving room for additional claims.

The administrative courts pivoted in 2019. The ABRvS ruled the all-or-nothing approach unlawful (2019:2572) and issued the landmark Wendde-ruling (2019:3535), reversing years of jurisprudence that had supported the Belastingdienst’s approach. In 2023, the ABRvS Grote Kamer confirmed the testing prohibition of Article 120 of the Constitution applies to the Wht (ECLI:NL:RVS:2023:772). This was reinforced in the breaking ruling of July 2025 (ECLI:NL:RVS:2025:2864), which confirmed the €500/half-year immaterial damage forfait is intentionally set by the legislator and cannot be challenged in administrative courts.

Evidence

The most recent rulings are the most consequential. In ECLI:NL:RVS:2025:2864, a CAF 11 gastouderbureau owner received €88,332 after objection but disputed the forfait immaterial damage, destroyed business dossier, and personal dossier access. The ABRvS dismissed all grounds of appeal, confirming the CWS as the only route for additional compensation. In ECLI:NL:RVS:2024:3114, statutory interest of €6.87 was denied as it fell below the €10 threshold — with the ABRvS expressing frustration about procedures over small amounts. The most recent ruling, Rb. Amsterdam AMS 25/1972 (31 March 2026), addresses additional damage claims but has no ECLI available yet.

Analysis

The jurisprudence reveals a narrowing pathway for victims through administrative courts. The ABRvS has systematically closed legal avenues: the testing prohibition prevents substantive review of the Wht’s compensation levels, the forfait amounts are deemed intentional by the legislator, and the CWS is positioned as the exclusive alternative — yet the CWS itself was closed to new applications in early 2026. The civil route remains the only option for full compensation, supported by the Veenbroei-arrest, HR 2018:412 on limited VSO discharge, and HR 2018:107 on interest from the date of the unlawful act.

Sources

• ECLI:NL:HR:1988:AD0344, ECLI:NL:HR:2016:57, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:214
• ECLI:NL:RVS:2017:274, ECLI:NL:HR:2018:107, ECLI:NL:HR:2018:412
• ECLI:NL:RVS:2019:2572, ECLI:NL:RVS:2019:3535
• ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:4834
• ECLI:NL:RVS:2023:772, ECLI:NL:RVS:2024:3114, ECLI:NL:RVS:2025:2864
• Rb. Amsterdam AMS 25/1972 (31 Mar 2026)
• MemPalace knowledge base (79 ECLI matches in 20+ files)