Real Estate and Environmental Law Increasingly Subject to Bibob Assessments
A notable development is that Bibob is being applied more and more frequently to construction and real estate projects. This is evident, among other things, from the ruling of February 25, 2026, ECLI:NL:RVS:2026:1070, Uithoorn Environmental Permit.
In that case, a permit application was dismissed because the applicant had provided insufficient financial data and Bibob information.
The ruling underscores that transparency regarding financing is now an essential part of permit procedures. Not only the applicant themselves, but also financiers, investors, and cash flows may be subject to investigation.
Failure to cooperate can have far-reaching consequences
This is also evident from the ruling of May 13, 2026, ECLI:NL:RVS:2026:2749, FEBO Almere I. In this case, a permit holder had failed to cooperate sufficiently with a Bibob investigation. The Division confirmed that failure to provide requested information can, in and of itself, constitute grounds for revoking licenses.
This is an important consideration for business owners. Whereas in the past the focus was primarily on criminal records, nowadays the extent to which an applicant is transparent also plays a significant role. Failing to answer Bibob questions, or providing incomplete answers, can in itself have major consequences.
Administrative body retains its own discretion
Another interesting, related ruling (based on the same facts) also dates from May 13, 2026, ECLI:NL:RVS:2026:2643, FEBO Almere II. In this case, the National Bibob Office had concluded that the level of risk was low. The mayor, however, concluded that there was a serious risk and refused to grant the permit.
The Division confirmed that an administrative body is not automatically bound by the National Bibob Bureau’s assessment. The advisory opinion serves as an important tool, but the final assessment remains the responsibility of the competent administrative body.
In practice, this means that a relatively favorable Bibob advisory opinion does not guarantee that a permit will be granted.
Proportionality Has Its Limits
The most high-profile ruling of this year is that of May 20, 2026, ECLI:NL:RVS:2026:2905, Creil Pig Farm). In this case, permits for a pig farm were revoked and a new permit was denied based on a negative Bibob recommendation. The court had previously ruled that the consequences for the business might be too far-reaching.
The Administrative Jurisdiction Division, however, reached a different conclusion. Despite the significant financial consequences for the company, it deemed the measures proportionate, given the severity, nature, and duration of the violations in question.
This ruling demonstrates that the now-established proportionality test does not mean that Bibob decisions will be easily overturned. In cases involving serious risks or systemic violations, a refusal or revocation of a permit can be lawful even if it results in significant economic damage.
Conclusion
The common thread in the Bibob case law of 2026 is clear. Bibob is increasingly being applied to real estate development, construction projects, and environmental permits. At the same time, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division imposes strict requirements regarding transparency concerning financing and corporate structures. Entrepreneurs who fail to provide sufficient information face significant risks, while a favorable Bibob opinion offers no guarantee that a permit will be granted.
For developers, investors, and entrepreneurs, it is therefore prudent to identify Bibob risks early in a project’s life cycle. Recent case law demonstrates that Bibob has now become a structural component of administrative law practice and that the consequences of a negative Bibob assessment can be significant.
These rulings demonstrate that Bibob is increasingly evolving from an exceptional integrity tool into an integral part of the permitting process, real estate development, and environmental law.
This article was written by Rob Schobben.
For Bibob-related questions, please contact him (r.schobben@paulussen) or one of the following colleagues: Ralf Vlecken (r.vlecken@paulussen.nl), Sharon Fraats (s.fraats@paulussen.nl), Emiel de Bruijne (e.debruijne@paulussen.nl), Noa van Eijs (n.vaneijs@paulussen.nl) or Jesse Simonis (J.simonis@paulussen.nl).
Nieuws Overzicht