Netherlands, Council of State, 15 March 2023, 202202979/1/A2

Case overview

Country
Netherlands
Case ID
202202979/1/A2
Decision date
ECLI
ECLI:NL:RVS:2023:1028
Deciding body (English)
Council of State
Deciding body (Original)
Raad van State
Type of body
Court
Type of Court (material scope)
Administrative Court
Type of Court (territorial scope)
State Court
Instance
Appellate on fact and law
Area
Freedom of movement of people
Outcome of the decision
Claim upheld
Link to the full text of the decision
Decision_NL available at deeplink.rechtspraak.nl
General Summary

Lawsuit following a decision by the mayor of Meierijstad to close and seal a wellness centre after an inspection which showed that, despite the corona measures in force, 4 guests were present in two different private areas.

Facts of the case

On 20 December 2020, supervisors carried out a check at a wellness centre. Four guests were found during that check.

The mayor of Meierijstad has applied urgent administrative enforcement by closing and sealing the building until 19 January 2021. The mayor has explained that the wellness centre was open to the public and that this is in violation of Article 58h, first paragraph, of the Public Health Act and Article 4.a1 of the Temporary Regulation on COVID-19 Measures.

The District Court does not follow the mayor's views. According to the District Court, Article 4.8 of the Temporary Regulation on COVID-19 Measures specifically concerns wellness centres. In that provision, a wellness centre is designated as a public place open to the public under certain conditions. The Mayor appealed against the judgment.

Type of measure challenged
City government measure
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
Annulment of the District court’s judgment
Individual / collective enforcement
Action brought in the interest of a specific group of claimants for the purpose of injunctive measures or other remedies, including the annulment of administrative decisions, for the protection of a more general collective interest.
Nature of the parties
  • Claimant(s)
    Private individual
  • Defendant(s)
    Public
Type of procedure
Ordinary procedures
Reasoning of the deciding body

The Administrative Law Division of the Council of State (Division) considers that (among other things) the exceptions mentioned that could make opening possible concern crucial processes for the continuation of daily life and well-being. These are basically locations of essential retail aimed at basic necessities of life. This is evident from the Explanatory Memorandum to Article 4.a1 of the Temporary Regulation on Covid-19 Measures. Wellness centres are not such locations. The Division declares the mayor's appeal well-founded.

Conclusions of the deciding body

The challenged decision of the District court must be quashed.

Author of the case note
Simon Peers, Researcher, Council of State of the Netherlands