Dismissal in the Netherlands 2026 (Ontslag): Grounds, Routes and Protections

Dismissal in the Netherlands (ontslag) is not a decision an employer takes alone. Outside the probation period, ending an open-ended contract needs a ground the statute recognises and, in almost every case, a prior decision from a public body or a judge.

The rule sits in artikel 7:669 lid 1 BW, and it is regularly read as one condition when it is two. A reasonable ground is half of the test: the employer must also show that moving the employee into another suitable role is impossible or cannot reasonably be expected.

Information last verified on 21 July 2026. This page provides general legal information about Netherlands law and does not constitute legal advice in an individual case.

Notice is the last step, not the first

Dutch law calls termination by the employer opzegging and treats it as the end of a sequence: a ground, then permission or a court decision, then notice, then payment.

Artikel 7:671 lid 1 BW makes that concrete. An employer cannot validly give notice without the employee's written consent (schriftelijke instemming) unless an exception in that lid applies, and the two that reach most employees are onderdeel a, where UWV or a cao commissie has given permission, and onderdeel c, summary dismissal under artikel 7:677 lid 1 BW.

The remaining exceptions are narrow, and their conditions are part of them. Onderdeel d covers a domestic worker who usually works on fewer than four days a week for a private household, so a household employee at four days or more keeps full protection. Onderdeel e covers a bestuurder whose contract cannot be restored under Boek 2 BW, onderdeel f an employee in a religious office (geestelijk ambt), and onderdeel g a pension-age notice under artikel 7:669 lid 4 BW.

Onderdeel h, often left out, covers an employee of a bijzondere school dismissed for conduct incompatible with its religious or philosophical identity, and only where an independent commissie gave permission.

Under artikel 7:671 lid 2 BW the employee may revoke that consent in writing, without reasons, within fourteen days of its date, and lid 3 makes that three weeks where the employer did not point out the right within two working days.

Two conditions, not one

Artikel 7:669 lid 1 BW carries two requirements joined by the word en. There must be a reasonable ground (redelijke grond). And redeployment (herplaatsing) within a reasonable period, whether or not with training (al dan niet met behulp van scholing), into another suitable role must be impossible or must not reasonably be expected (niet in de rede ligt).

The herplaatsingsplicht is a separate test on its own facts, so an employer with a thick performance file can still lose where a suitable vacancy existed and was never offered. Suitable (passend) is measured against training and experience rather than the job title, and because the statute mentions retraining expressly, a skill gap that a short course would close is no answer.

Two limits sit inside the article. Redeployment is in any event not in de rede where there is culpable conduct (verwijtbaar handelen of nalaten) under lid 3 onderdeel e, and lid 2 disapplies the duty for an employee in a geestelijk ambt. Lid 7 keeps the scheme outside the probation period (proeftijd), where either party may end the contract at once.

The nine grounds in artikel 7:669 lid 3 BW

The grounds are lettered a to i, and the letter decides whether the file goes to UWV or to a judge.

Onderdeel d turns on process rather than opinion: the employer must have warned in good time and given a sufficient chance to improve, and it fails where the unsuitability follows from its own neglect of training or working conditions.

Onderdelen b and c both use a 26 week recovery horizon, which drops to six weeks at the AOW age of artikel 7 onderdeel a AOW. Both also require that the work cannot be done in an adapted form (in aangepaste vorm) within that period, a second condition rather than a restatement.

The cumulatiegrond is narrower than it looks

Onderdeel i lets individually incomplete grounds be added together, and names the ingredients exactly: omstandigheden genoemd in twee of meer van de gronden, bedoeld in de onderdelen c tot en met e, g en h.

So grounds a, b and f can never form part of a combination, and a half-made redundancy case cannot be added to a half-made performance case and presented as a redelijke grond.

Using it also costs money. Artikel 7:671b lid 8 BW lets the kantonrechter award the employee an extra sum of at most half the transitievergoeding of artikel 7:673 lid 2 BW.

Artikel 7:682 lid 7 BW allows the same after a notice on that ground, but only for an employee within artikel 7:671 lid 1 onderdelen d, e, f of h BW, the four narrow categories above. For anyone else a notice on ground i cannot lawfully be given, because onderdeel i belongs to the court route.

Route one: permission from UWV

Artikel 7:671a lid 1 BW requires an employer that intends to give notice on ground a or b to ask UWV in writing for permission (toestemming). UWV is an administrative body, not a court, and it tests the file on paper with both sides heard in writing.

For a redundancy on ground a affecting an open-ended contract, lid 5 sets four preconditions rather than a ranking. Permission is granted only where the employer has already ended the working relationships of people at the disappearing posts who are not on an open-ended contract, whose contracts do not fix the volume of work, who are hired in, or who have reached AOW age.

Which of the remaining employees is dismissed is decided elsewhere. Artikel 7:669 lid 5 onderdeel b BW delegates that order to a ministerial regeling, the Ontslagregeling. Its artikel 11 holds the afspiegelingsbeginsel: inside a category of interchangeable functions the staff are split into the age groups 15 to 25, 25 to 35, 35 to 45, 45 to 55 and 55 and over, dismissals are spread over those groups in proportion to their size, and within each group the shortest service goes first.

Lid 6 sets the shelf life: the permission is valid four weeks from the date of the decision, the employer gives notice in writing stating the reason, and lid 9 voids any clause that widens that window.

Lid 11 links the permission back to the dismissal bans: UWV does not grant it where an opzegverbod of artikel 7:670 leden 1 tot en met 4 en 10 BW applies, unless that ban may reasonably be expected to lapse within four weeks of the decision.

Lid 2 moves the whole file where a collective agreement (cao) designates a commissie that is independent of the employer and impartial. The employer then asks that commissie rather than UWV for permission on ground a, under cao rules on hearing both sides, confidentiality and time limits.

Route two: dissolution by the kantonrechter

Artikel 7:671b lid 1 BW lets the kantonrechter dissolve the contract (ontbinding) at the employer's request on onderdelen c tot en met i.

Onderdeel b of that lid reopens the court route after a refusal: where permission under artikel 7:671a BW was refused on ground a or b, the employer may still ask the kantonrechter to dissolve on that same ground. Onderdeel c covers a fixed term contract that cannot be ended by interim notice, again on grounds a and b only.

Lid 2 limits the judge to the test the statute already set: the request may be granted only where the conditions of artikel 7:669 BW are met and no opzegverbod of artikel 7:670 BW, or a comparable ban elsewhere, applies.

That is the rule, and the same article writes two carve-outs into it. Artikel 7:671b lid 6 BW lets the kantonrechter dissolve on onderdelen b tot en met i, in afwijking van lid 2, despite a ban of artikel 7:670 leden 1 tot en met 4 en 10 BW, where the request is unconnected to the circumstances the ban covers, or where the contract ought to end in the employee's own interest.

Artikel 7:671b lid 7 BW disapplies the illness ban of artikel 7:670 lid 1 BW where the illness began after the kantonrechter received the request. So a ban stops notice by the employer, it does not always stop the court from dissolving, and reporting sick once the request is filed does not create protection.

Two grounds carry an extra evidential requirement. Under lid 4 a request on onderdeel c is refused where the employer has no statement from an artikel 7:629a BW deskundige, unless one could not reasonably be required. Under lid 5 a request on onderdeel e for unmet re-integratie obligations is refused where the employer neither warned in writing nor stopped the wage, or where that statement is missing.

Lid 9 sets the end date at the moment the contract would have ended on regular notice, minus the time the procedure took, with at least one month left over. That deduction falls away where the dissolution results from the employer's seriously culpable conduct (ernstig verwijtbaar handelen of nalaten), and sub c then also allows a billijke vergoeding. Artikel 7:671c lid 1 BW lets the kantonrechter dissolve at the employee's request too.

The dismissal bans

Artikel 7:670 BW lists situations in which the employer cannot give notice at all, whatever the ground. They operate before the merits, which is why many dismissals never start.

Lid 1 covers illness. Notice is blocked while the employee is unfit for the agreed work through illness, unless the incapacity has lasted at least two years, or six weeks at the AOW age of artikel 7 onderdeel a AOW, or it began after UWV or the cao commissie received the permission request. Lid 11 extends those two years where a WIA application was late or the waiting period was extended.

Lid 2 covers pregnancy, the maternity leave (bevallingsverlof) and the six weeks after returning to work, and extends to partner leave, while lid 3 covers military or substitute service. Leden 5 and 6 add two bans tied to a reason: notice for trade union membership or activities, unless those fell in working time without permission, and notice for attending meetings under artikel 7:643 BW with leave.

Leden 4 and 10 protect employee representation, reaching members of an ondernemingsraad, a personeelsvertegenwoordiging and the European bodies, plus candidates, former members within two years and the prevention worker of artikel 13 Arbeidsomstandighedenwet. Leden 7, 8 and 9 tie the ban to a reason rather than a status: no notice for taking statutory leave, for the transfer of the business, or for refusing Sunday work.

Artikel 7:670a BW then carves out exceptions. Lid 2 disapplies the bans of artikel 7:670 leden 1 tot en met 4 en 10 BW in five situations: written consent, notice in the probation period, notice on the ground of artikel 7:677 lid 1 BW, notice because the activities of the undertaking are being ended, and a pension-age notice under artikel 7:669 lid 4 BW.

Two of those five carry a proviso that decides the outcome for the person it protects. Onderdeel d states that a business-closure notice kan niet betreffen de werkneemster die zwangerschaps- of bevallingsverlof geniet, so closing the business does not remove the protection of an employee on pregnancy or maternity leave. Onderdeel e applies only voor zover de opzegging geen verband houdt met omstandigheden waarop die opzegverboden betrekking hebben, so a pension-age notice connected to the illness or pregnancy stays caught.

Lid 1 of that article deals separately with an employee who, without proper grounds, refuses the re-integratie obligations of artikel 7:660a BW after a written warning or a wage stop under artikel 7:629 lid 7 BW. The practical route for an employer there runs through the court, not through notice: artikel 7:671b lid 5 BW allows a dissolution request on ground e for that refusal, provided the employer gave the warning or stopped the wage and holds the deskundigenverklaring of artikel 7:629a BW.

Money, and the deadlines for challenging

Where the employer gives notice or the kantonrechter dissolves at the employer's request, the statutory severance of artikel 7:673 BW is engaged. The calculation and the worked examples sit on the severance pay page.

Two remedies sit alongside it, and which applies depends on how notice was given. After a notice given with UWV permission, artikel 7:682 lid 1 BW lets the employee ask the kantonrechter for restoration of the contract (herstel) where the notice conflicts with artikel 7:669 lid 1 or lid 3 onderdeel a of b BW, or for a billijke vergoeding where herstel is not reasonably possible because of the employer's seriously culpable conduct.

Where the employer gave notice without the consent or permission artikel 7:671 BW required, or in breach of a dismissal ban or a discrimination prohibition, artikel 7:681 lid 1 BW applies. The kantonrechter can set the notice aside (vernietiging), so the contract never validly ended, or award a billijke vergoeding at the employee's election.

Onderdelen d en e of that lid are most often missed. Where an employer that dismissed on ground a has the same work done by someone else within 26 weeks without offering the former employee the chance to resume it on the usual terms, those two remedies open up again, and onderdeel e applies the equivalent rule to a payrollwerkgever under artikel 7:690 BW.

The deadlines are short and they are lapse periods (vervaltermijnen). Artikel 7:686a lid 4 sub a BW gives two months from the day the contract ended for a request under artikel 7:672 lid 11, artikel 7:677, artikel 7:681 lid 1 onderdelen a, b en c, or artikel 7:682 leden 1, 2 en 3 BW. Sub b gives three months for the transitievergoeding, and sub d two months from a refusal of permission for a request under artikel 7:671b lid 1 onderdeel b BW.

The 26 week re-hire claims run on a different clock. Sub c gives two months from the day the employee knew or could reasonably have known of the situation in artikel 7:681 lid 1 onderdelen d en e or artikel 7:682 leden 4 en 5 BW, and at the latest two months after that period expired.

A vervaltermijn expires by itself, so a reminder or a negotiation does not reset it. The forum is the kantonrechter whatever the amount at stake, under artikel 93 sub c Rv, and the case starts by verzoekschrift under artikel 7:686a lid 2 BW.

Where summary dismissal fits

Summary dismissal (ontslag op staande voet) is the one route that skips this structure. Artikel 7:671 lid 1 onderdeel c BW lets an employer give notice without consent or permission where artikel 7:677 lid 1 BW is satisfied, and artikel 7:670a lid 2 onderdeel c BW switches off the bans of artikel 7:670 leden 1 tot en met 4 en 10 BW in the same situation.

That is a large amount of protection removed at once, so the three requirements are read strictly. They and the consequences when a summary dismissal fails are on the page about summary dismissal, the wider structure on the Netherlands employment law page, and the courts and codes on the Netherlands law overview.