In a judgment of 22 April 2026 (ECLI:NL:RVS:2026:2294), the Grand Chamber of the Administrative Law Division of the Council of State (hereinafter: “ABRvS”) ruled that, under certain circumstances, third parties may be regarded as interested parties in a penalty decision. Prior to this judgment, Advocate General Widdershoven delivered his opinion (ECLI:NL:RVS:2025:5985). In this article, colleague Noa van Eijs discusses the ABRvS’s judgment and its (potential) practical implications.
Background
The reason for this ruling was a penalty decision imposed by the Minister of Infrastructure and Water Management on a transport company for non-compliance with rules on rest and driving times. As the collective representative of its members (in this case: affiliated lorry drivers), the Dutch Trade Union Federation (FNV) wished to challenge this penalty decision. The Minister and the court rejected this: the FNV was not considered to be an interested party in the penalty decision. To this end, both the Minister and the court took the view that the administrative fine relates to the infliction of harm and that this nature means the fine proceedings are a matter between the administrative body and the offender, in which there is no room for the involvement of third parties. The appeal before the ABRvS (Council of State) concerns (primarily) the question of whether the FNV is an interested party in the penalty decision. Before the ABRvS delivered its judgment, Advocate General Widdershoven issued an opinion in which he addressed, in general terms, the possibility of classifying third parties as interested parties in penalty decisions.
The ABRvS’s ruling
In this ruling, the ABRvS addresses for the first time, in general terms, the question of whether, and under what circumstances, a third party may be regarded as an interested party in a penalty decision. In line with the opinion of the Advocate General, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State considers that third parties may also be interested parties in a penalty decision. The assessment is made on the basis of the general criteria for interested party status set out in Article 1:2(1) and (3) of the General Administrative Law Act (Awb). This leaves no doubt that collective and general representatives of interests may also be interested parties in a penalty decision. Unlike the Advocate General, the Division does not consider it relevant for the assessment of interested party status whether a natural person or legal entity has submitted a request for enforcement.
Following the Advocate General, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State considers that the administrative fine has a twofold nature.
The administrative fine is intended to inflict harm, whereby, in principle, no interests other than those of the offender are directly involved. However, according to the ABRvS, the punitive nature of the administrative fine does not mean that third parties can never be interested parties in such cases. The imposition of a punitive sanction may also have consequences other than inflicting harm on the offender, for example consequences relating to the desired cessation of the offence. These actual consequences of the fine decision may, in certain circumstances, affect the interests of (other) natural or legal persons, for example if they influence the labour market or competitive position. A natural or legal person may therefore have a direct interest in the intended effect of the fine imposed. This is the case if their interest is directly affected because a legal standard, compliance with which is intended by the natural or legal person, is not being complied with. Whether there is a sufficient causal link between the decision to impose the fine and the relevant interest of the third party, natural or legal person, must, according to the ABRvS, be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
If a third party, a natural person or a legal entity, has an interest in the decision to impose a fine, they may, according to the ABRvS, also comment on the amount of the fine. However, pursuant to Section 5:46 of the General Administrative Law Act (Awb), it is ultimately the court that determines whether the amount of the fine is proportionate.
In the present case, the ABRvS ruled that the FNV is an interested party in the decision to impose a fine, because, as evidenced by its statutory objectives and actual activities, the FNV represents the interests of lorry drivers working from the Netherlands. The FNV’s interests are directly affected by the decision to impose a fine in this case. According to the ABRvS, putting an end to the situation where drivers remain in their lorry cabs for longer than permitted falls, for both the drivers concerned and the drivers of the aggrieved competitors, within the scope of the collective interest that FNV represents. This interest relates to the effect intended by the fine. According to the ABRvS, the fine imposed on the transport company may, in fact, result in an end to the breaches of the prohibition on, amongst other things, spending weekends in the lorry cab.
Reflections on the ruling
With this ruling, the ABRvS addresses for the first time, in general terms, the question of whether, and under what circumstances, a third party may be regarded as an interested party in a fine decision.
The fact that third parties may, under certain circumstances, be interested parties in penalty decisions had already been accepted by the CBb, the ABRvS and lower courts. What is new, in particular, is that the ABRvS now explicitly and generally enshrines this possibility in case law, thereby clarifying the applicable assessment criteria.
In addition, the ABRvS has removed a number of existing ambiguities. For instance, it is irrelevant for the assessment of interested party status whether the third party in question has submitted an enforcement request, and it has been clarified that third parties may be regarded as interested parties in the case of both a decision to refuse and a decision to impose a fine.
The question is to what extent the ruling has broadened the circle of interested parties in relation to decisions imposing fines. Although it can be argued that this is the case – particularly now that it has been established beyond doubt that collective and general interest groups may also be regarded as interested parties – it remains uncertain to what extent the ruling will actually lead, in practice, to an increase in cases where third parties are regarded as interested parties in fine decisions. After all, the assessment remains case-by-case in nature and requires that the criteria of Article 1:2(1) and (3) of the General Administrative Law Act (Awb) are met in every instance. With regard to a collective or general interest group, this means, for example, that it can only be regarded as an interested party in a penalty decision if, in representing its general or collective interests, it pursues objectives that are (also) related to compliance with the regulations for which the fine has been imposed and carries out actual activities demonstrating this (and meets the other requirements for having an interest under Article 1:2(1) of the General Administrative Law Act). It is conceivable that meeting the requirement of a personal interest may prove difficult in practice for natural and legal persons, particularly where a decision has potential implications for a large group of people. Whether the ruling will in practice actually lead to a (substantial) broadening of the circle of interested parties depends on how the criteria of Article 1:2(1) and (3) of the General Administrative Law Act are applied in specific cases and will need to become clearer in future case law.
Although this aspect is not discussed in the judgment, it is worth noting that even if a third party is regarded as an interested party in a penalty decision, a subsequent appeal may be rejected on the grounds of the relativity requirement of Article 8:69a of the General Administrative Law Act (Awb), if the provision invoked does not serve to protect the interest claimed by that party.
Finally, it is relevant that the ABRvS, in line with the Advocate General and the Minister, acknowledges that the admission of third parties in penalty proceedings may give rise to tensions with the legal position of the (alleged) offender, in particular with the right to a fair trial. To mitigate some of the potentially undesirable consequences of the ruling, the ABRvS states that, where necessary by analogy, reference may be made to existing provisions in the General Administrative Law Act (Awb) and/or to general principles of good governance.
The ABRvS emphasises in this regard that it is ultimately up to the legislature to assess whether the consequences arising from this ruling are undesirable and, if so, how these should be limited.
Nieuws Overzicht