18 June 2020

Extended right to a free choice of lawyer

By Koen Vermeulen

The right to a free choice of lawyer means that a private individual who is insured for legal assistance in the event of a legal dispute can ask the legal expenses insurer to hire a lawyer of his or her own choice.

Under the policy conditions, the costs of that lawyer are for the account of the legal expenses insurer. In general, there is a right to a free choice of lawyer in the case of legal proceedings. The Court of Justice of the EU recently extended this right to the mediation stage.

GMW lawyers contributes to the extended free choice of lawyer

The Court of Justice of the EU had already determined in 2013 that an insured person can always choose a lawyer themselves – in popular terms at the expense of the legal expenses insurer – in case of judicial or administrative proceedings. Think of a lawsuit with the subdistrict court about dismissal, pension or rent. Proceedings on benefits or permits before an administrative court also fall under the free choice of lawyer. Naturally, this free choice additionally applies to procedures in which a lawyer is required by law.

A few years later, in a case in which GMW lawyers assisted the insured party, the same Court of Justice determined that free choice of lawyer also applies to assistance in the UWV dismissal procedure. The term judicial or administrative must therefore be interpreted broadly for the benefit of the insured.

Free choice of lawyer in settlement negotiations

On 14 May 2020, the Court of Justice of the EU added something to that broad explanation. It has been decided that the free choice of lawyer also applies to a “judicial or extrajudicial mediation” in a Belgian case. Although such a legal mediation system does not exist in the Netherlands, this ruling does have consequences for policyholders in the Netherlands. The European judges hold that under “judicial procedure”, the run-up to this also applies. Therefore, the right to a free choice of lawyer also applies to the previous phase of a procedure. In our view, this too should be interpreted broadly and, for example, the phase of settlement negotiations and mediation falls under the right to a free choice of lawyer.

In short, the decision of 14 May 2020 implies that a legal expenses insurer must reimburse the costs of the insured party’s lawyer’s fees with regard to legal assistance in proceedings and in the preparatory phase (file study, determining strategy, settlement negotiations) on the basis of the policy conditions.

Just as in the years that we conducted the procedure for a DAS insured person in “Europe”, we are still happy to assist private individuals in (the preliminary phase of) disputes involving the free choice of lawyer.

Feel free to contact me in this regard.

Koen Vermeulen

Koen Vermeulen

Lawyer / associate partner

‘Solving Complex Legal Puzzles Together’

Related blogs

Previous slide
Next slide

18 March 2025

Holiday During Sick Leave: Is Permission Required?

What are the rights and obligations of employees who wish to go on holiday while on sick leave? In this blog, we explain the legal rules, the role of the company doctor, and the possible consequences if a sick employee goes on holiday without permission.

Read more

Read more about

17 March 2025

Obligations under the Collective Dismissal Notification Act

Under the Dutch Collective Dismissal Notification Act (WMCO), you are required to notify the Employment Insurance Agency (UWV) of the dismissal of 20 or more employees within three months. In this blog, we share some practical tips.

Read more

Read more about

5 March 2025

Building a paper trail in Dismissal Cases

Wherever people work together, employment relationships can be disrupted due to various circumstances. If an employer no longer wishes to continue an employment contract for this reason, the court will assess whether there is a valid ground for termination. In such cases, the dismissal file plays a crucial role.

Read more

Read more about

25 February 2025

Immediate Dismissal of a Sick Employee

During the first two years of an employee’s illness, an employer is generally not allowed to terminate the employment contract. However, there are exceptions to this rule. The dismissal protection does not apply if the sick employee is dismissed for urgent reasons, meaning they are dismissed on the spot (summary dismissal).

Read more

Read more about

12 February 2025

Gross misconduct by employer due to breach of reintegration obligations

An employer may request the court to terminate an employment contract on the grounds of a disrupted working relationship. In some cases, the court grants termination and concludes that the disruption resulted from gross misconduct by the employer. Such cases are exceptional.

Read more

Read more about
All articles