Written by Onur Arslan, employment lawyer at Arslan Advocaten. Registered in the areas-of-law register of the Netherlands Bar for employment law and personal injury. Last updated: 31 August 2026.
Have you just been summarily dismissed? Then read this first. You have two months to challenge the dismissal before the subdistrict court, counted from the day on which your employment contract ended. That period is set out in article 7:686a(4) of the Dutch Civil Code and is a forfeiture period: it cannot be interrupted, cannot be extended and cannot be restored. If you are late, your case will no longer be assessed on its merits — however unjustified the dismissal was. So protest in writing today, remain available for work, and have your situation assessed this week.
What exactly is summary dismissal?
Summary dismissal is the immediate termination of the employment contract for an urgent cause, ending the employment on the spot: without a notice period, without permission from the UWV and without the involvement of a court. It is the heaviest measure employment law knows, and for that reason also the measure that most often fails before the court.
The statutory basis is article 7:677(1) of the Civil Code: "Either party is entitled to terminate the employment contract without delay for an urgent cause, on immediate communication of that cause to the other party." Note the word either. The statute gives this power to both parties: the employer can summarily dismiss the employee, and the employee can resign summarily for an urgent cause. That second track gets its own section below.
What makes this dismissal so far-reaching are the consequences, which all arise at once:
| Consequence | What that means |
|---|---|
| The employment ends immediately | no notice period, no period in which to find something else |
| Pay stops immediately | continued payment during illness stops in principle as well |
| No dismissal permit or rescission beforehand | there is no body that tests the dismissal in advance |
| Unemployment benefit is at stake | an urgent cause can lead to culpable unemployment |
| The transition payment may lapse | but only in the case of seriously culpable conduct, see below |
| A non-competition or non-solicitation clause remains in force in principle | unless the court takes a different view |
Because all those consequences arise without any prior test, the legislature made the requirements for the dismissal onerous and placed the burden of proof on the employer. That is your most important starting point: you do not have to prove that the dismissal was unjustified; your employer must prove that it was justified.
Courts put it that way consistently. In a judgment of the Oost-Brabant District Court it is set out in a single sentence: "The burden of pleading and – where the employee disputes the matter with sufficient reasons – the burden of proof as to the existence of the immediate termination and the immediate communication of the urgent cause rest on the employer" (Oost-Brabant District Court, ECLI:NL:RBOBR:2026:4947). That same judgment also states why the communication requirement exists: the employee must know why he is being dismissed, so that he can determine his position on the dismissal.
Which three statutory requirements must a summary dismissal meet?
A summary dismissal is valid only if three requirements are met at the same time: there must be an urgent cause, notice must be given without delay, and that urgent cause must be communicated to the other party without delay. If one of the three is missing, the dismissal will in principle not stand — not even if the other two are in order.
The Gelderland District Court sums it up: "A summary dismissal is valid only if three requirements are met. The first requirement is that there must be an urgent cause for the summary dismissal. The second requirement is that notice must be given without delay. The third requirement is that the urgent cause must be communicated to the other party without delay" (ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2026:6178).
| Requirement | What the statute demands | Where it goes wrong in practice |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Urgent cause | acts, characteristics or conduct that mean the employer cannot reasonably be required to let the employment contract continue (article 7:678(1) of the Civil Code) | the employer fails to weigh the employee’s personal circumstances, or uses a heavy sanction for a minor incident |
| 2. Termination without delay | the dismissal must follow immediately once the cause becomes known | the employer waits days or weeks, consults internally, or first lets the employee carry on working |
| 3. Communication without delay | the cause must be stated to the employee at once and clearly | the cause is described vaguely, or other reasons are added later |
The first requirement is not a checklist. According to settled case law the court must weigh all the circumstances in conjunction: "weigh the nature and seriousness of the urgent cause against the personal circumstances put forward by the employee. Relevant are, for instance, the nature and duration of the employment, the way in which the employee performed the employment and the way in which the employer [acted]" (Limburg District Court, ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2026:25). To that are added: your age and the consequences the dismissal has for you personally. Those consequences count, but are not decisive: "Even if the consequences are far-reaching, a weighing of the personal circumstances against the nature and seriousness of the urgent cause may lead to the conclusion that immediate termination of the employment contract is justified" (Limburg District Court, ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2017:12151). A long and spotless period of service is therefore a strong argument, not a guarantee.
Without delay does not mean "within 24 hours", but it does mean: promptly. An employer may investigate, hear both sides and take advice — that may take time — but it must demonstrably keep up the pace. The longer the gap between the incident and the dismissal, the more it has to explain what it was doing in that time. If you simply carried on working during that period, that is often fatal to the requirement of immediacy: continuation could evidently be required after all.
By way of illustration. A shop manager is challenged over an irregularity in the handling of the till. The employer wants to look into it first, lets her carry on working in the meantime, speaks to colleagues, seeks advice and dismisses her summarily two weeks later. Investigating and hearing both sides may take time, but it must demonstrably be done promptly. The longer the gap between the cause becoming known and the dismissal — and certainly where someone simply stays at work during that period — the sharper the question becomes whether continuation of the employment could evidently still be required of the employer after all. This is an example situation illustrating the rule, not a case of our firm.
The communication binds the employer: only the cause that was communicated is assessed by the court. If your employer comes to the proceedings with new or adjusted allegations, those do not in principle count. So keep the dismissal letter or the message in which the dismissal was given exactly as you received it. And note a provision that is rarely mentioned: article 7:678(3) of the Civil Code declares clauses under which the employer may itself determine whether there is an urgent cause void. A staff handbook with such a clause is legally worthless.
I have been summarily dismissed: what should I do now?
Within a few days do three things: protest against the dismissal in writing, state expressly that you remain available for work and are claiming pay, and make sure an application reaches the subdistrict court within two months. That order is not optional. The first two steps cost you half an hour; the third determines whether you still have a case at all.
In concrete terms, in order of urgency:
- Sign nothing. Not for agreement, not for "seen", not for a termination agreement and not for the final settlement. A signature can be read as consent to the end of the employment, and with that your most important argument falls away.
- Ask for the reason in writing if you do not have it in black and white. If you receive no dismissal letter, confirm yourself by e-mail what you were told orally and when. That records the communication on your terms.
- Protest in writing and unambiguously. An e-mail is enough: you do not accept the dismissal, you remain available for the agreed work and you claim your pay. Keep the proof of sending.
- Register with the UWV immediately and apply for unemployment benefit, even if you expect it to be refused. Waiting costs you benefit days you will not get back. State that you are challenging the dismissal.
- Gather evidence while it is still there: dismissal letter, messages, e-mails, rosters, time records, earlier warnings, appraisal reports, witnesses, your employment contract and the staff handbook. Work e-mail and systems are often shut off the same day.
- Hand in company property against a receipt — car, laptop, phone, keys, pass. That prevents a second conflict on top of the first.
- Have your case assessed within a few days, not in two months’ time. An application is not written in an afternoon.
What you should above all not do: stay away and wait. Anyone who goes home angry, says nothing and only calls a lawyer after ten weeks has two problems at once: the forfeiture period has expired and the employer can maintain that you never held yourself available. Neither can be repaired afterwards.
Within what period must I challenge a summary dismissal?
You must file your application with the subdistrict court within two months of the day on which the employment contract ended; after that your entitlement lapses definitively. That is set out in article 7:686a(4), opening words and under a, of the Civil Code: the power to file an application with the subdistrict court lapses "two months after the day on which the employment contract ended", among other things for applications under article 7:677 and article 7:681(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Civil Code.
This is a forfeiture period, not a limitation period. The difference is decisive:
| Limitation period | Forfeiture period (article 7:686a(4) of the Civil Code) | |
|---|---|---|
| Can be interrupted by letter | yes | no |
| Continues to run during negotiations | is interrupted | simply keeps running |
| Appeal to reasonableness and fairness | sometimes possible | virtually never |
| Effect of exceeding it | the claim is time-barred, but still exists | the entitlement no longer exists |
| Does the court test this of its own motion | no | yes, before the merits |
What that means in practice is shown by the case law. In a case before the Oost-Brabant District Court the employment contract ended by summary dismissal on 21 November 2016; the application should therefore have been filed by 21 January 2017 at the latest. It only came in on 29 March 2017, and the subdistrict court did not even reach the question whether the dismissal was justified (ECLI:NL:RBOBR:2017:2711). An application that is a few days late also fails (Rotterdam District Court, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2021:3753).
And an appeal to the circumstances rarely helps. In a judgment of the Midden-Nederland District Court the representative argued that the employee "was on the verge of a nervous breakdown, that he had been out of action for months and had had a hard time financially" — understandable, but the application was declared inadmissible (ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2026:5589).
Watch these three things when counting:
- The period runs from the day on which the employment contract ended, so as a rule from the day of the dismissal itself — not from the day you received the dismissal letter or from the moment you spoke to a lawyer.
- What counts is the day on which the application is received by the court registry, not the day on which it was sent.
- For the transition payment a different, slightly more generous period applies: three months after the day on which the employment contract ended (article 7:686a(4)(b) of the Civil Code). Do not confuse the two: the two months is the period that counts for challenging the dismissal itself.
Unsure whether your period is already running, or how many days you have left? Do not assume the most favourable reading. Have it calculated today. A strong case filed one day late is no longer a case.
What counts as an urgent cause for summary dismissal?
Article 7:678(2) of the Civil Code names twelve examples of urgent causes, but none of them automatically produces a valid dismissal: the court always assesses the specific case. The list is expressly not exhaustive ("Urgent causes shall be deemed to be present among other things") and not binding either — the word may is not there for nothing.
The twelve statutory examples, in brief:
| Sub-paragraph | Urgent cause under article 7:678(2) of the Civil Code |
|---|---|
| a | misleading the employer when entering into the contract with false references or deliberately false information |
| b | lacking to a serious extent the competence or suitability for the work |
| c | giving way, despite warning, to drunkenness or other dissolute conduct |
| d | theft, embezzlement, fraud or other offences by which trust is forfeited |
| e | assaulting, grossly insulting or seriously threatening the employer, their family or colleagues |
| f | inducing the employer, their family or colleagues to acts contrary to the law or public decency |
| g | intentionally, or recklessly despite warning, damaging or endangering the employer’s property |
| h | intentionally, or recklessly despite warning, exposing oneself or others to serious danger |
| i | disclosing business secrets that should have been kept confidential |
| j | persistently refusing to comply with reasonable orders or instructions |
| k | otherwise grossly neglecting the duties under the employment contract |
| l | becoming or remaining unable to do the work through intent or recklessness |
If the allegation against you does not fall under one of these twelve, the dismissal is not automatically invalid — sub-paragraph k is a broad residual category. But if it does fall under one of them, the dismissal is not automatically valid either. The statute gives categories; the court weighs.
What as a rule does not amount to an urgent cause, or calls for a heavily substantiated account from the employer:
- Underperformance. Delivering poor work is a reason for an improvement plan and ultimately for rescission, not for immediate dismissal. Only unsuitability to a serious extent (sub-paragraph b) brings an urgent cause into view, and that threshold is high.
- Reporting sick or frequent absence. Being ill is not an urgent cause; failing to comply with monitoring rules carries suspension of pay, not dismissal.
- A single incident after years of good performance, without any earlier warning.
- A conflict or a damaged working relationship. That is a ground for rescission, not for summary dismissal.
- Criticism, a complaint or a report of wrongdoing. Anyone who invokes their rights may not be dismissed for it.
- Facts the employer had known about for some time and did not respond to immediately: the requirement of immediacy then fails.
What tips the scales in your favour: a long period of service, a clean record, the absence of warnings, an age at which other work is hard to find, financial dependence, and the existence of a lighter measure the employer could have taken — a warning, a suspension, a transfer. Courts expressly ask about that.
Is refusing to work a reason for summary dismissal?
Refusing to work can amount to an urgent cause, but only if the instruction was both clear and reasonable and the refusal is persistent — saying no once is as a rule not enough. The basis is article 7:678(2)(j) of the Civil Code: an urgent cause may be present "where he persistently refuses to comply with reasonable orders or instructions given to him by or on behalf of the employer". There are three independent conditions in that single sentence, and the employer must make good on all three.
The Zeeland-West-Brabant District Court describes the concept as follows: "There is a refusal to work where the employee is absent without permission or good reason or refuses a reasonable instruction or a reasonable order from the employer. Under article 7:678(2)(j) of the Civil Code, persistent refusal to work can amount to an urgent ground" (ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2024:7660). Note the word can.
The three conditions, set out:
| Condition | What the employer must make good | What your defence can be |
|---|---|---|
| The instruction was clear | it was stated concretely what had to be done, when and by whom | the instruction was vague, contradictory or came second-hand |
| The instruction was reasonable | the work falls within the job, is safe, is feasible and fits the circumstances | it fell outside your job, was unsafe, you were ill, there were caring responsibilities, it was contrary to the law or a collective agreement |
| The refusal was persistent | you persisted after an express warning about the consequences | you received no warning, or you did offer to do the work after all |
That third point is usually the heart of it. In a case before the ‘s-Hertogenbosch Court of Appeal the dismissal stood because the employee "had already been warned twice before in writing that refusal to work was unacceptable to [the employer] and could lead to summary dismissal", after which he again refused a clear and reasonable instruction (ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2016:2513). The structure is therefore: instruction, warning with an explicit consequence, persistence. If the middle step is missing, the persistence is as a rule missing too.
What makes the difference in practice: whether you gave a reason — someone who refuses in silence stands weaker than someone who explains on the spot why (unsafe, outside the job, ill, no childcare), and put that reason in writing the same day; whether you offered an alternative ("not this run, but tomorrow" is legally something quite different from a bare refusal); and whether the work was unsafe, contrary to the collective agreement or not legally permitted — in which case the refusal is in principle justified. If it concerned work at a different employer, article 7:679(2)(h) of the Civil Code even turns the matter around: anyone forced into that where the nature of the employment contract does not entail it has an urgent cause of their own.
Is theft always an urgent cause?
Theft, embezzlement and fraud are expressly named in the statute as an urgent cause, but here too the court weighs all the circumstances — and the value of what was taken is not decisive. Article 7:678(2)(d) of the Civil Code names "theft, embezzlement, fraud or other offences by which he becomes unworthy of the employer’s trust". The last part is the heart of it: what matters is the breach of trust, not the amount. That is why an item worth a few euros can produce a valid dismissal, while in other cases a larger sum still does not suffice.
What makes the difference: whether there was a clear and known policy, and whether it has been enforced consistently with others; which job it concerns (at a till, in security or in key management a breach of trust weighs more heavily); whether there was intent or rather carelessness or a misunderstanding; and whether both sides were heard, with lawfully obtained footage or investigation reports.
Important: a criminal investigation does not suspend the two-month period. So do not wait for the outcome of a criminal complaint before challenging the dismissal. Those two tracks run independently of each other, and only the employment-law track has a hard forfeiture period. A decision not to prosecute or an acquittal is, incidentally, not decisive in employment law — the standards differ — but it is an argument.
Why must I protest and remain available for work?
Because a dismissal that is set aside means your employment contract never ended, and you can claim pay over the intervening period only if you held yourself available to work. That is why every employment lawyer asks you the same thing at the first meeting: did you protest, and do you have it on paper?
The legal logic runs as follows. If the subdistrict court sets the termination aside, it never legally existed and the employment simply continues. For the period in which you did not work, article 7:628(1) of the Civil Code then applies: the employer must pay the wage even if the work was not performed, "unless the failure to perform the agreed work in whole or in part should reasonably be for the employee’s account". So the question becomes: for whose account was it that no work was done? If you expressly held yourself available while the employer denied you access, that is for its account. If you never came forward, it becomes a discussion you can lose.
How to do that in concrete terms: send an e-mail as soon as possible saying three things — (a) you do not accept the dismissal, (b) you remain available for the agreed work and are willing to resume as soon as you are called, and (c) you claim continued payment of your wage. Repeat that offer of availability with some regularity for as long as the proceedings last; one letter at the start is less strong than a sustained position. If you are ill, report sick as well and comply with the monitoring rules: illness and availability do not exclude one another. If you work elsewhere in the meantime, report that and keep track of the income — that does not rule out a wage claim, but it can be set off. Keep all proofs of sending.
Why this so often goes wrong: it feels unnatural. You have just been thrown out, often in a humiliating way, and then you have to write that you would like to come and work. Do it anyway. That one e-mail is the cheapest piece of evidence in your file and can be worth months of pay.
Besides setting the dismissal aside, there is a second route: you can also ask the subdistrict court not to set the dismissal aside and instead to award you fair compensation. So anyone who, after everything, no longer wants to go back to this employer does not have to pretend otherwise. That route is subject to the same two-month forfeiture period.
Will I get unemployment benefit if I have been summarily dismissed?
Summary dismissal does not automatically mean losing your unemployment benefit, but the UWV will assess independently whether you have become culpably unemployed — and that assessment can turn out differently from the court’s. So always apply for the benefit, even if you think it is hopeless. Not applying is the only sure way to get nothing.
The test is set out in article 24(2)(a) of the Unemployment Insurance Act: the employee has become culpably unemployed if "the unemployment is based on an urgent cause within the meaning of article 678 of Book 7 of the Civil Code and the employee can be blamed in that respect". Those are two requirements, and that is your room to manoeuvre: there must be an urgent cause and you must personally be to blame for it. If the urgent cause is missing, or you are not to blame, there is no culpable unemployment.
The sanction is set out in article 27(1) of the Unemployment Insurance Act: in the case of culpable unemployment the UWV permanently deducts an amount from the benefit, "unless the failure to comply with the obligation cannot be blamed on the employee to a predominant extent". In that latter case half is deducted for a maximum of 26 weeks. So there is a middle course between everything and nothing, and it is worth arguing for.
Source: Unemployment Insurance Act, articles 24 and 27, consulted via wetten.overheid.nl.
What this means in practice:
| Situation | What happens in principle |
|---|---|
| You challenge the dismissal and the court sets it aside | there is no urgent cause; your unemployment is in principle not culpable |
| You challenge the dismissal and lose | the UWV will as a rule accept the urgent cause |
| You accept the dismissal and do nothing | the UWV has no counterweight and will in principle follow the employer’s account |
| There is an urgent cause, but you are hardly to blame | the sanction can be halved for a maximum of 26 weeks |
| The dismissal is converted in a settlement into a neutral termination | the assessment concerns the real reason, not just the label |
Here the order of events is everything. Register with the UWV at once and say that you are challenging the dismissal; the UWV can then hold the decision over or pay subject to conditions. If you receive a refusal, the ordinary six-week objection period applies — a period of its own, separate from the two months at the subdistrict court, and therefore a second date to keep an eye on. If you have no unemployment benefit and no other income, have it assessed immediately whether you qualify for social assistance under the Participation Act; you apply for that at your municipality and it stands apart from the unemployment assessment.
Can you resign summarily yourself?
Yes: the statute expressly gives the power to terminate without delay for an urgent cause to both parties, and so to the employee as well — but it is a drastic step, and without a genuine urgent cause on your employer’s side it puts your benefit seriously at risk. This is the most frequently asked question on this whole subject and at the same time the question on which most people are given too optimistic an answer.
Article 7:677(1) of the Civil Code speaks of "Either party". The same three requirements therefore apply in full, only the other way round: there must be an urgent cause on your employer’s side, you must terminate without delay, and you must communicate that cause without delay. What amounts to an urgent cause for you as an employee is set out in article 7:679 of the Civil Code: "such circumstances as have the result that the employee cannot reasonably be required to let the employment contract continue."
Paragraph 2 of that article gives ten examples. The most important in practice:
| Sub-paragraph | Urgent cause on the employer’s side (article 7:679(2) of the Civil Code) |
|---|---|
| a | assaulting, grossly insulting or seriously threatening you, your family members or members of your household — or tolerating members of the household or subordinates doing so |
| b | inducing or attempting to induce you to acts contrary to the law or public decency |
| c | failing to pay the wage at the appointed time |
| d | failing to provide properly for agreed board and lodging |
| e and f | providing insufficient work or insufficient assistance where pay is piecework-based |
| g | otherwise grossly neglecting the duties under the employment contract |
| h | ordering you, against your refusal, to work for another employer where the nature of the contract does not entail this |
| i | attaching to the continuation of the work serious dangers to life, health, morality or good name that were not clear when it was entered into |
| j | you are no longer able to do the work through illness or other causes beyond your control |
Sub-paragraph c deserves a separate remark, because it is the most common situation: wages structurally paid late or not at all is, under the statute, an urgent cause. That does not mean one payment a week late is enough; it is about a pattern, and here too the court weighs the circumstances. Before you take this step there is, moreover, a safer route that is almost always preferable: give your employer written notice of default, claim the statutory increase and statutory interest, and bring a wage claim if necessary. That preserves both your employment and your benefit position.
And if there is no urgent cause? Then your termination is not invalid — you can always resign — but the ordinary rules apply. You must then observe the notice period (in principle one month for the employee, unless agreed otherwise in writing) and terminate with effect from the end of the month, unless your contract or collective agreement provides otherwise. If you nevertheless terminate without delay without an urgent cause, your employer can claim from you, under article 7:677(2) and (3) of the Civil Code, fixed damages equal to the wage over the notice period you should have observed. With a fixed-term contract that cannot be terminated early, that can run up to the wage over the remaining term (article 7:677(4) of the Civil Code).
One final, practical point that protects you: for resignation by an employee a strict test applies. According to settled case law there must be "a clear and unambiguous statement by the employee showing that he wishes the employment contract to end", and the employer has a duty of inquiry in that respect: it must satisfy itself with due care that you really want to resign (see among others Leeuwarden District Court, ECLI:NL:RBLEE:2002:AE1710, and The Hague Court of Appeal, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2022:2395, in which the court describes that test as intended to protect the employee). Did you shout "I’m done" in anger and is your employer holding you to it? Then that is in principle not a valid resignation. Withdraw it in writing immediately and state that you remain available for work.
By way of illustration. A warehouse worker is told, after a row about the roster, that he has to come in that Saturday after all. He throws his keys on the counter and says: "Sort it out yourselves, I’m not coming back." The next morning he calms down and reports for work, but his employer tells him he has resigned and that there is no work for him any more. For a valid termination by an employee, however, a clear and unambiguous statement directed at ending the contract is required, and the employer has a duty of inquiry to satisfy itself that that was really intended. The question is therefore not what was said in the heat of the row, but whether it could be taken as a genuine, intended termination — and whether it was retracted in writing that same day. This is an example situation illustrating the rule, not a case of our firm.
What risk do I run with my unemployment benefit if I resign?
Anyone who resigns has in principle no right to unemployment benefit; there is a benefit only if continuing the employment could not reasonably be required of you — and you have to make that plausible. This is the risk that always stays underexposed on this question, and it is big enough to turn the decision on.
The basis is article 24(2)(b) of the Unemployment Insurance Act: the employee is also culpably unemployed if "the employment was ended by or at the request of the employee without its continuation being attended by such objections that this continuation could not reasonably be required of him". If you resign summarily and the UWV finds there was no urgent cause, you land precisely in that provision.
The UWV itself is brief about it: you will probably not get unemployment benefit if you resign during your probationary period, after resigning while ill you may have no right to unemployment or sickness benefit, and in situations where continuing to work is unreasonable — for instance where there are threats — the UWV advises seeking legal advice to see whether you can get a benefit. Source: UWV, "What to bear in mind if you resign".
So put the two routes side by side before you do anything:
| Resigning summarily yourself | The safer route | |
|---|---|---|
| What you do | you terminate immediately for an urgent cause on your employer’s part | you give notice of default, claim what is due to you, and negotiate a termination |
| Employment | ends immediately | continues until there is a settlement |
| Pay | stops immediately | continues, and you can claim arrears of pay with the statutory increase |
| Unemployment benefit | only with a recognised urgent cause; otherwise in principle no benefit | in principle yes, with a neutral termination agreement |
| Compensation | possibly the fixed damages payable to your employer (article 7:677(2) of the Civil Code) | transition payment and possibly an additional payment |
| Risk | you carry the burden of proving the urgent cause and the benefit risk | much smaller |
Our advice is almost always the same: do not resign before you know where you stand. If the situation is untenable, there are almost always routes that leave your benefit intact — a termination by mutual consent in which the reason is worded neutrally, or an application for rescission in which you ask the court to hold seriously culpable conduct against your employer. Read more about that on our page on the settlement agreement.
If you walk out without giving notice and without a word, that is the worst variant of all: your employer can treat it as refusal to work, dismiss you summarily and claim the fixed damages as well. Refusal to work and resignation lie closer together than people think, and the difference is in what you put in writing.
What am I entitled to if the summary dismissal was unjustified?
If the dismissal turns out to be unjustified, you can choose: setting the dismissal aside with continued payment of wages, or keeping the termination with fair compensation — and in both cases the fixed damages as well and, as a rule, the transition payment. So it is not a matter of one single outcome; you decide yourself which way you want to go, and that choice is made in the application.
The four items in a row:
| Item | Legal basis | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Setting aside + wages | article 7:681(1)(a) of the Civil Code, in conjunction with article 7:628 of the Civil Code | the dismissal is reversed, the employment continues and the wages are paid in arrears |
| Fair compensation | article 7:681(1) of the Civil Code | compensation instead of setting aside, assessed by the court on the basis of fairness |
| Fixed damages | article 7:677(2) and (3) of the Civil Code | the wage over the notice period your employer should have observed |
| Transition payment | article 7:673 of the Civil Code | the statutory severance payment; period three months (article 7:686a(4)(b) of the Civil Code) |
The fixed damages are the most predictable of the four. Article 7:677(2) of the Civil Code provides that the party that has given an urgent cause through intent or fault owes compensation. Paragraph 3(a) makes that concrete: with a permanent contract or one that can be terminated early, it is "the amount of the wage in money over the period the employment contract should have continued had notice been given properly"; with a fixed-term contract that cannot be terminated early, the wage over the remaining term (paragraph 3(b)). Statutory interest is payable on that from the day on which the employment contract ended (article 7:686a(1) of the Civil Code).
The fair compensation has no formula and no table. The court assesses it on the basis of fairness and takes into account, among other things, your loss of income, how much longer you would probably have stayed employed, your prospects on the labour market, age, the length of your service and the culpability on both sides. The amounts therefore vary widely. In one case the ‘s-Hertogenbosch Court of Appeal considered € 15,000 gross appropriate, partly in view of the loss of income, the very long period of service and the transition payment and fixed damages already awarded (ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2021:3613). In another case — unjustified dismissal, but with culpable conduct on the employees’ own part and good prospects on the labour market — the subdistrict court arrived at € 1,000 per employee (The Hague District Court, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2019:6177). Anyone who quotes you a figure without knowing your file is guessing.
The transition payment is the point where most of the misunderstandings lie. Article 7:673(7)(c) of the Civil Code provides that the transition payment is not payable if the end of the employment contract is the result of seriously culpable conduct or omission on the employee’s part. That is a higher threshold than an urgent cause. Courts expressly apply that exception with restraint: "It appears from the parliamentary history of the Work and Security Act that this exception has a limited scope and must be applied with restraint. The employee can lose the right to a transition payment only in exceptional cases, in which it is evident that the employee’s conduct or omission leading to the ending of the employment contract must be regarded not merely as culpable, but as seriously culpable" (Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal, ECLI:NL:GHARL:2024:4102).
In addition, article 7:673(8) of the Civil Code gives the subdistrict court the power to award the transition payment in whole or in part after all "if not awarding it would be unacceptable by standards of reasonableness and fairness". Practical consequence: even if the summary dismissal stands, you may in some circumstances still be entitled to the transition payment. That is very often not asked for, and what is not asked for is not awarded. How the transition payment is calculated can be read on our page on the transition payment.
Finally, note the two periods: two months for the setting aside, the fair compensation and the fixed damages, and three months for the transition payment. Including everything in one application is the wisest course — that way you automatically meet the shorter period.
How do proceedings before the subdistrict court work?
The case begins with an application to the subdistrict court, which must be filed within two months; under the statute the hearing begins no later than in the fourth week after filing. That last point is set out in article 7:686a(5) of the Civil Code and explains why this type of case comes to a hearing relatively quickly. The proceedings themselves run in principle as follows:
- Assessment and building the file. Dismissal letter, correspondence, employment contract, warnings and witnesses. This is also where the choice is made: setting aside or fair compensation.
- Formal demand and discussion. Often the employer is written to first; a proportion of cases is settled at this stage. Note: negotiating does not suspend the forfeiture period. The application is therefore prepared while talks are still going on.
- Filing the application with the competent subdistrict court (article 7:686a(9) of the Civil Code), with all the requests at once: setting aside or fair compensation, fixed damages, transition payment, arrears of pay, the statutory increase and interest.
- Statement of defence and counter-applications, often a conditional application for rescission in case the dismissal fails.
- Oral hearing. The court’s questions almost always concern the three requirements: was there an urgent cause, was the employer prompt, and was the cause clearly communicated?
- Decision, often preceded by an attempt at settlement at the hearing. Appeal to the court of appeal is possible within the applicable period.
If you have no income in the meantime, an interim measure can be applied for — for instance continued payment of wages for the duration of the proceedings. Discuss that possibility straight away; it is often the difference between being able to see a case through and being forced to accept too little.
What should I above all not do after a summary dismissal?
Most cases are lost not on the merits, but on what the employee does or fails to do in the first few days. These are the mistakes we see most often, and which can rarely be repaired afterwards.
- Letting the period expire. Two months after the end of the employment, and after that it is over. By far the most common and most costly mistake.
- Signing for agreement. For the dismissal letter, the final settlement, a termination agreement or a declaration that you waive rights. If you are pressed to sign on the spot, that is in itself a reason not to.
- Staying away and saying nothing. Without written protest and without offering your availability you weaken your wage claim considerably.
- Waiting for a criminal case or a complaint. That runs independently of your employment-law period and suspends nothing.
- Not applying for unemployment benefit because you think it will come to nothing. You lose benefit days you will not get back.
- Responding on social media or in the group chat. Everything you write can be put before the court, and anger reads differently in a file than it was meant.
- Keeping company property as leverage. Hand everything in against a receipt.
- Resigning yourself after all to "be done with it". With that you forfeit both your application to set the dismissal aside and, as a rule, your unemployment benefit position.
When do I need a lawyer, and what does that cost?
With a summary dismissal expert assistance is almost always sensible, if only because a single mistake over a period ends the whole case — and the costs are covered more often than people think. This is not the type of case in which waiting stays without consequences.
The signs on which you should in any event take legal advice:
| Sign | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| The reason was never clearly stated to you or is nowhere on paper | the communication requirement may then not be met |
| There was a gap between the incident and the dismissal | the requirement of immediacy is then open to question |
| You were or became ill | illness affects both your pay and your benefit position |
| You are considering resigning summarily yourself | your right to unemployment benefit is at stake |
| You are immediately presented with a termination agreement | signing can give away your whole position |
| You have long service or are over fifty | the personal circumstances then weigh heavily |
| Your unemployment benefit has been refused | that has an objection period of its own of six weeks |
The funding. Look, in this order, at what applies to you:
- Legal expenses insurance. Report the case immediately — insurers set requirements as to timely reporting. For court or administrative proceedings the policy must, under article 4:67 of the Financial Supervision Act, expressly provide that you may choose a lawyer yourself; the Court of Justice interprets that right of choice broadly (CJEU 7 November 2013, C-442/12, Sneller/DAS).
- State-funded legal aid (toevoeging) through the Legal Aid Board, with an own contribution. Precisely after a summary dismissal — no pay, no benefit — people qualify for this more often than they think.
- Trade union. If you are a member, legal assistance with dismissal is often included in the membership.
- An hourly rate or a fixed fee arrangement, agreed in advance and in writing.
With us you can have your situation assessed free of charge. Send us the dismissal letter and your employment contract and we will tell you whether the three requirements are met, which period is running and which route yields the most in your case.
Summary dismissal or a settlement after all?
In some cases the best result is not a judgment, but a withdrawal of the dismissal in exchange for a proper termination — keeping your right to unemployment benefit and with a payment. That is not a sign of weakness: it is often exactly what an employer wants as soon as it realises that its dismissal does not meet the three requirements.
The reason employers are willing to do that is their own risk. If the dismissal does not stand, they face continued payment of wages with retroactive effect, plus fair compensation, the fixed damages, the transition payment and statutory interest. A termination agreement with a payment is then soon cheaper — and that is your negotiating position. What such a settlement turns on:
- The reason for the termination must be worded neutrally, and the urgent cause must expressly be taken out. This is the point at which your right to unemployment benefit is made or broken.
- The end date must respect the notice period, otherwise a notional notice period follows after all during which you receive no benefit.
- The initiative must lie with the employer, and the agreement must show that you are not to blame.
- There must be something in return: at least the transition payment, as a rule more, plus a contribution to your legal costs.
- Watch for clauses that continue to have effect: non-competition and non-solicitation clauses, confidentiality, and the final discharge.
What exactly should be in such an agreement and which provisions you should never leave in it, we have set out on our page on the settlement agreement. Important: negotiating a settlement does not suspend the two-month forfeiture period. Make sure the application is ready while the talks are going on.
About this advice
Arslan Advocaten handles employment cases from offices in The Hague, Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Utrecht, Tilburg and Eindhoven. We assist employees who have been summarily dismissed, review termination agreements, litigate over wage claims and fair compensation and help with objections to a refused unemployment benefit. Besides Dutch we speak Turkish and Polish.
Have you been summarily dismissed? Do not wait. The two-month period runs from the day on which your employment ended, and that period is hard.
Call 070 450 0300 or send us your question via the contact form. We will tell you where you stand and what the next step is.
This page gives general information and is not legal advice on your own case. No rights can be derived from the principles set out here.