27 May 2026
On 28 November 2025, the Dutch Supreme Court answered preliminary questions regarding the role of children’s rights in claims seeking the eviction of a rented property. This article discusses the background to these questions, the key considerations of the Supreme Court and the consequences for legal practice.
The preliminary questions arose from a case before the District Court of North Holland. Housing association Ymere had rented a property to a man and woman with two minor children. During a police search of the property, hard drugs and ammunition were found. The mayor subsequently ordered the closure of the property under the Opium Act.
Ymere applied a zero-tolerance policy towards criminal activity and terminated the tenancy agreement extrajudicially pursuant to Article 7:231 of the Dutch Civil Code. In preliminary relief proceedings, it sought an eviction order.
A key issue in the proceedings was how the interests of the children living in the property should be taken into account when assessing the eviction claim. There was uncertainty regarding the meaning of Article 3 par. 1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (‘CRC’). This provision states that in all actions concerning children, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. These interests include, among other things, the right to housing (Article 27 par. 3 CRC) and the right not to be separated from one’s parents (Article 9 par. 1 CRC).
In an interim judgment, the District Court found that Ymere had insufficiently demonstrated that the interests of the children had been considered when deciding to terminate the tenancy agreement and seek eviction, or whether accommodation would be available for the children after the eviction. Ymere disputed this and argued that its zero-tolerance policy also takes into account the presence of minor children.
The preliminary relief judge observed that lower courts had taken differing approaches to the application of a zero-tolerance policy in tenancy disputes involving (young) children. The court therefore considered it necessary to refer preliminary questions to the Supreme Court in order to obtain clarity on the framework within which lessors must make their assessments.
The nine preliminary questions addressed whether Article 3 CRC provides guidance for the assessment of eviction claims in cases involving children living in the property, how proactive courts should be in investigating the interests of the children and the availability of alternative accommodation, what courts may expect from the parties in this regard, and how adequate accommodation for children may be taken into account in the decision-making process.
In its judgment of 28 November 2025, the Supreme Court confirmed that an eviction claim concerning a property where children live constitutes a measure within the meaning of Article 3 CRC. Consequently, when assessing an eviction claim, the interests of the children must be given primary consideration under Article 3 CRC. This means that courts must carefully weigh, and where necessary examine at their own motion, the consequences of eviction for the children living in the property.
Where it is established that eviction also affects children, the court must include the children’s interests in its assessment. These interests are shaped by the rights of the child, such as the aforementioned right to housing and right not to be separated from their parents. The court must also examine whether the lessor has explored possibilities for alternative accommodation for the child. The Supreme Court held that, in this context, more may be expected from a housing association than from a private lessor.
The degree of culpability of the tenant(s) in relation to the conduct that led to the eviction claim, as well as the interests of neighbours, also play a role in the assessment. The interests of the child are therefore not decisive in every case, but they do carry significant weight.
The Supreme Court further held that the lessor must have made reasonable efforts to obtain the relevant information. Although a court is not obliged to contact institutions that are not party to the proceedings, such as the municipality or the Child Protection Board, it may nevertheless be expected that the court makes efforts to obtain the necessary information, for example by ordering an expert report.
Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that courts may adopt measures to mitigate the consequences of eviction for the children. For example, a court may grant a longer eviction period or postpone the decision until parties have had the opportunity to find alternative housing. Although it is generally not the responsibility of the lessor, the court may in exceptional circumstances stipulate a condition to the eviction by order requiring that adequate accommodation for the children be arranged.
The Supreme Court’s ruling indicates that the rights of the child will play a (more) prominent role in eviction proceedings. Lessors, and housing associations in particular, would therefore be well advised to examine before initiating proceedings whether children’s interests are involved and whether alternative accommodation is available, and to include this information in the summons.
Would you like to know more about eviction proceedings involving a rented property? Please feel free to contact us.
