Ụgwọ ọrụ ziri ezi n'okwu ndị metụtara ịchụpụ ndị Dutch: olee mgbe na ego ole?

Fair compensation (billijke vergoeding) is an extra sum the subdistrict court (kantonrechter) can award an employee on top of the statutory ịkwụ ụgwọ mgbanwe when the dismissal results from seriously culpable conduct by the employer. The main exception: an ordinary mistake or a weak dismissal file is not enough, and the amount is not a penalty but follows the loss the employee actually suffers.

Unlike the transition payment under Article 7:673 of the Dutch Civil Code (BW), fair compensation has no formula. Courts award it sparingly, but once the threshold is met the amount can run to tens of thousands of euros, as the rulings discussed below show.

When can a court award fair compensation?

Only where the employer acted in a seriously culpable way (ernstig verwijtbaar handelen of nalaten) and the employee uses one of four statutory routes. Which route applies depends on how the employment ended.

Dismissal without consent or UWV permission (Article 7:681 BW)

Under Article 7:681 BW the employee can ask the kantonrechter to annul the dismissal or to award fair compensation instead. This applies, among other cases, when the employer gave notice without the employee’s written consent or UWV permission, in breach of a prohibition on dismissal such as during illness, or in breach of a ban on discrimination. It is the usual route after a mwepụ nchịkọta that does not hold.

Dismissal after UWV permission (Article 7:682 BW)

Article 7:682 BW covers notice given after the Usoro mwepụ UWV. The court can order the employer to restore the contract or award fair compensation, for example where a dismissal for long-term incapacity for work is the result of seriously culpable conduct by the employer.

Dissolution by the court (Articles 7:671b and 7:671c BW)

If the kantonrechter dissolves the contract at the employer’s request, Article 7:671b(9) BW allows fair compensation where the dissolution results from the employer’s seriously culpable conduct. Article 7:671c BW gives the same option when the employee asks for dissolution because the employer has made continued employment untenable.

What counts as seriously culpable conduct?

The law gives no full definition; case law and the standard of good employment practice in Article 7:611 BW fill it in. Courts treat it as a narrow opening: losing a dissolution case or building a thin file does not by itself meet the test.

Conduct that does cross the line usually touches the employee’s basic position. Recurring examples in case law are:

• taking a far-reaching step such as suspension, transfer or dismissal without first hearing the employee;
• deliberately creating a breakdown in the relationship to force an exit;
• ignoring the duty to look for redeployment or to cooperate in reintegration during illness;
• unfounded accusations of theft or fraud;
• allowing discrimination or an unsafe working environment to continue;
• structurally failing to pay wages or refusing to let the employee do the agreed work.

The common thread is the process, not the outcome. Where the file shows the employer knew what was required and chose otherwise, the court is far more likely to find serious culpability than where the employer tried and fell short.

How does the court set the amount?

The court weighs all circumstances of the case; there is no table or formula. The leading ruling is the Supreme Court’s New Hairstyle decision of 30 June 2017 (ECLI:NL:HR:2017:1187).

In that decision the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) held that fair compensation is not punitive. The court may consider the income the employee would have earned if the employment had continued, including when the employer could lawfully have ended it. It also considers the degree of fault, income from new work, income the employee could reasonably earn, and the transition payment already received. Where part of the award compensates loss, the damages rules of Article 6:95 BW and following apply by analogy.

In practice the court therefore estimates how long the employment would probably have lasted with proper conduct. That estimate drives the missed salary, the lost pension accrual and any non-material harm such as reputational damage. The employee must substantiate each element with documents; bare assertions rarely survive.

What do benefits and new income do to the amount?

They reduce it. Unemployment benefit (WW) received over the estimated remaining period is deducted from the missed salary, and so is income from a new job or freelance work that can reasonably be attributed to the period after the dismissal.

The practical effect is that fair compensation bridges a gap rather than replacing a salary. An employee who quickly finds comparable work may receive a modest award even after clearly culpable conduct. An older employee with poor labour-market prospects may receive a substantial one on the same facts.

What do recent rulings show?

Three published decisions show how differently the same threshold can work out in euros.

Transfer and reintegration handled badly: €75,000

On 31 July 2025 the kantonrechter of the District Court of Zeeland-West-Brabant (ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2025:5717) awarded €75,000 gross under Article 7:682 BW, against a claim of €218,500. The employer had transferred the employee without discussing alternatives, pressed for meetings against the occupational physician’s advice and stopped her wages unlawfully. The court also ordered back pay with a statutory increase capped at 30% and statutory interest.

Very serious culpability, modest award: €3,800

On 23 April 2024 the Court of Appeal of The Hague (ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2024:655) found that the employer had very seriously failed in its duties to pay wages and to let the employee work. Even so, it awarded €3,800 gross, about two months’ salary. The court considered that the relationship would probably have ended anyway and that the employee had good prospects of new work in the hospitality sector.

A large claim cut down: €75,000 instead of €619,000

On 8 December 2025 the kantonrechter in Utrecht, District Court of Midden-Nederland (ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2025:6708), dissolved the contract of a senior employee who had been suspended after a flawed investigation in which he was not properly heard. He claimed €619,692 gross in fair compensation. The court found serious culpability but awarded €75,000 gross, next to a transition payment of €101,907 gross and a €10,000 bonus, because much of the claimed loss was not substantiated.

Gịnị ka ị kwesịrị ịlele dịka onye ọrụ?

• Which route applies: dismissal without consent or permission (7:681 BW), dismissal after UWV permission (7:682 BW) or dissolution (7:671b or 7:671c BW).
• Whether you were heard before suspension, transfer or dismissal, and whether that is on paper.
• Your deadline: a request under Article 7:681 or 7:682 BW must reach the kantonrechter within two months after the employment ended (Article 7:686a(4) BW).
• Evidence of loss: payslips, pension statements, job applications and rejections, medical reports.
• Income that will be deducted: WW benefit, a new salary, freelance earnings.

Gịnị ka ị kwesịrị ịlele dịka onye were gị n'ọrụ?

• Whether your file exists before the decision: appraisals, warnings and, for underperformance, a real improvement plan (see our article on the faịlụ mwepụ maka arụmọrụ na-adịghị mma).
• Whether the employee was heard before any far-reaching step, and whether the conversation was recorded.
• Whether redeployment was investigated and documented, including the vacancies considered.
• Whether you are following the occupational physician’s advice during illness and paying wages correctly.
• Whether a negotiated exit is cheaper and more predictable; compare a nkwekọrịta nkwekọrịta na usoro UWV tupu ịhọrọ.

What can we do for you with fair compensation?

Our employment lawyers act for employees and employers in dismissal cases; see also our ọkaiwu ịchụpụ page.

• We review the dismissal or dissolution and tell you which statutory route and deadline apply.
• We assess whether the facts meet the test of seriously culpable conduct, using current case law.
• We calculate the claim or exposure: lost salary, pension, deductions and the transition payment.
• We draft and file the request with the kantonrechter, or the defence against it.
• Anyị na-akparịta ụka maka nkwekọrịta nkwekọrịta dị ka ihe ọzọ kama ime ihe ndị a.

Summary

• Fair compensation comes on top of the transition payment and requires seriously culpable conduct by the employer.
• The routes are Articles 7:681, 7:682, 7:671b and 7:671c BW; for 7:681 and 7:682 the deadline is two months after the end of employment.
• There is no formula: following New Hairstyle (ECLI:NL:HR:2017:1187) the court estimates the actual loss and deducts benefits and new income.
• Awards in recent rulings range from €3,800 to €75,000; large claims are cut down when the loss is not substantiated.

Ọtụtụ mgbe Ẹbụp Ajụjụ