Netherlands: Termination of a Residential Lease Refused due to the Best Interests of Resident Children

The District Court of North Holland refused to terminate several residential lease agreements requested on public-law planning grounds.
Giving decisive weight to the best interests of the children living in the dwelling, the Court held that termination would create a real risk of family homelessness.
The judgment confirms the high threshold for evictions and lease termination where children’s rights and housing stability are at stake.

Facts

The landlord sought termination of several residential lease agreements relating to rooms and shared residential space in a property subject to municipal housing and planning regulations. The termination was primarily based on the ground of realisation of a public-law destination within the meaning of Article 7:274(1)(e) of the Dutch Civil Code, as well as alleged breaches of the lease agreements.

Two of the tenants were a married couple with two very young children, residing together in part of the property. The landlord argued that continued occupation was incompatible with the applicable municipal zoning and permit regime, which limited the number of residents. 

Legal issues

• Whether termination of residential leases can be justified on the ground of realisation of a public-law destination under Article 7:274(1)(e) BW. 

• How the best interests of the child, as protected under Article 3(1) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), must be weighed in tenancy termination proceedings. 

• Whether alleged breaches of lease conditions justified termination or dissolution of the lease. 

Court’s assessment

Realisation of a public-law destination

The Court recalled that termination under Article 7:274(1)(e) BW requires more than the existence of a restrictive zoning or permitting framework. The landlord must demonstrate that municipal developments genuinely necessitate the realisation of the destination, and that termination is reasonable following a comprehensive balancing of interests . 

The Court emphasised that where children are involved, Article 3(1) CRC applies directly in the tenancy relationship. Referring to recent case law of the Hoge Raad (28 November 2025), the Court underlined that the interests of the child must be treated as a primary consideration, carrying particular weight in the balancing exercise . 

In the present case, the Court found that:

• No suitable alternative housing was available to the family. 

• There was a real risk of homelessness for the children if the lease were terminated.  

• The municipality had repeatedly extended enforcement deadlines, explicitly awaiting the outcome of the judicial proceedings. 

In light of these factors, the Court held that the landlord could not reasonably conclude that municipal developments required termination of the lease.

Alleged breach of good tenancy and dissolution

Although the Court acknowledged that the household size exceeded what was contractually permitted, it ruled that this breach did not justify termination or dissolution, given the severe consequences for the family and the overriding weight of the children’s interests . 

Claims for contractual penalties were also rejected, as the landlord failed to sufficiently substantiate them. 

Other tenants

With regard to the other tenants occupying individual rooms, the Court found that their use of the property was in line with the existing permit. Termination on the basis of realisation of the destination was therefore equally unjustified . 

Outcome

• All termination and dissolution claims were dismissed. 

• The lease agreements remain in force.  

• The landlord was ordered to pay the procedural costs. 

Significance

This judgment is significant for housing and tenancy law as it confirms that:

• Termination of residential leases on public-law grounds is subject to a strict proportionality and necessity test. 

• The best interests of the child must be given substantial and concrete weight in eviction and termination cases. 

• The risk of child homelessness constitutes a decisive factor against termination.  

The ruling strengthens judicial safeguards for families with children and reinforces the role of international children’s rights standards in domestic housing disputes.