Objecting to a UWV decision

Written by Ömür Arslan, social security lawyer at Arslan Advocaten. Registered in the specialisation register of the Netherlands Bar for tenancy law and social security law. Last updated: 1 September 2026.

I disagree with a UWV decision: what should I do now?

You lodge a written objection with UWV. In principle, this must be done within six weeks of the day on which the decision was notified — but in a medical dispute under the Sickness Benefits Act, such as a declaration that you have recovered, that period is only two weeks. So first check which of the two periods is stated on your letter. If the deadline may have passed, seek advice immediately. A late objection can be declared inadmissible, but the notification and any excusable failure to meet the deadline must be assessed separately.

UWV itself also mentions both periods: usually six weeks after the date of the decision letter, and two weeks for some decisions on Sickness Benefits Act benefits. Source: UWV, "Bezwaartermijn" (objection period).

The period is laid down in article 6:7 of the General Administrative Law Act (Algemene wet bestuursrecht, Awb): "The period for lodging a notice of objection or appeal is six weeks." When it starts is set out in article 6:8(1) Awb: from the day after the day on which the decision was notified in the prescribed manner. In practice, that is the day after the date at the top of the UWV letter — not the day on which you read the letter, and not the day on which the benefit stopped.

What to do today, in this order:

1. Find the date at the top of the decision and add six weeks to it. Write that end date down. That is your deadline.
2. Check whether the letter states a different period. For decisions on sickness and incapacity for work, a shorter period of two weeks applies in certain cases — see the next section. At the bottom of the decision, UWV states which period applies and where the notice of objection must be sent.
3. Lodge an objection, even if your grounds are not yet complete. A short notice of objection lodged in time is worth more than an extensive one lodged too late. See the section on the pro forma objection.
4. Keep proof of sending.
5. If you currently have no income, also look straight away at a provisional measure from the court — it runs alongside the objection and is intended for exactly this situation.

Two things often go wrong. Phoning UWV is not lodging an objection: a phone call or complaint does not replace a notice of objection and does not extend the deadline. For a digital objection, use UWV’s designated objection channel and keep the confirmation of receipt. And lodging an objection does not, in principle, suspend the decision: if your benefit has been stopped, it remains stopped while the objection is pending, unless you request a provisional measure and it is granted.

Source: General Administrative Law Act, articles 6:7 and 6:8, consulted via wetten.overheid.nl.

Exactly how much time do I have to object to a UWV decision?

In principle six weeks, counted from the day after the decision was notified; however, in a dispute of a medical nature about whether incapacity for work exists or continues, that period is two weeks under the Sickness Benefits Act. That exception is the most important pitfall in the whole of social security law, and it affects precisely those who are ill.

The exception is laid down in article 75k of the Sickness Benefits Act (Ziektewet, ZW): by way of derogation from article 6:7 Awb, the period in a dispute as referred to in article 75j ZW is two weeks, unless the dispute concerns an assessment as referred to in article 19ab ZW. Article 75j describes those disputes as disputes of a medical nature about whether incapacity for work exists or continues. In practical terms: if the decision is about whether you are ill — for example a declaration that you have recovered — you must as a rule respond within two weeks.

The Central Appeals Tribunal (Centrale Raad van Beroep) also applies that period. In ECLI:NL:CRVB:2026:923 the Tribunal held that the objection period in a dispute about whether incapacity for work exists or continues is two weeks and, under article 6:8(1) Awb, starts on the day after notification. In that case the objection was late; the reliance on illness and a childbirth with complications was considered insufficient and the objection remained inadmissible.

When is your objection on time? Under article 6:9 Awb, a notice of objection has been lodged in time if it is received before the end of the period; if sent by post, also if it was posted before the end of the period, provided it is received no later than one week after the period has expired. That postal rule is a safety net, not a strategy: it will not help you if you cannot prove the date of posting.

Are you late? Then the case is not automatically lost, but it is considerably harder. Article 6:11 Awb provides that no declaration of inadmissibility is made if it cannot reasonably be held that the person lodging it was at fault — a strict test. Case law also shows that a reason arising only after the deadline does not retroactively make an overrun that has already become inexcusable excusable, and that a changed legal insight is not sufficient for that either (ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2017:4891). Anyone who is late must substantiate, concretely and with documents, why they were reasonably unable to object in those specific weeks. Have that assessed before you submit anything yourself.

What should a notice of objection to UWV look like?

A notice of objection must be signed and contain at least your name and address, the date, a description of the decision against which it is directed and the grounds of the objection. Those requirements are listed exhaustively in article 6:5(1) Awb. No more is required; no less is permitted.

In practical terms, it should include: your name, address, date of birth and citizen service number (the BSN is not a legal requirement but prevents delays); the date of your letter; the reference and date of the decision and which Act it concerns; why you disagree and what you want UWV to decide; that you wish to be heard; a request for reimbursement of the costs of the objection, which must be made before the decision on the objection (article 7:15(3) Awb); and your signature.

What makes a notice of objection strong is not its length but its precision. Under article 7:11(1) Awb, if the objection is admissible, the contested decision is reconsidered on the basis of it — so your grounds help determine the scope of that reconsideration. If you only write "I disagree", you will get an equally general answer. If you point out that the insurance physician did not take a specific letter from your treating doctor into account, that must be addressed, because under article 7:12(1) Awb the decision on the objection must be based on proper reasoning.

Three rules of thumb make the most difference in practice. Be factual, not indignant: what changes the assessment is a date that is wrong, an employment that was overlooked or a diagnosis that is missing. Enclose documents or announce them — letters from your treating doctors, payslips, the employment contract, correspondence with your employer. And dispute the facts and the conclusion separately: many decisions are factually correct but draw a conclusion that does not follow from those facts.

And if the grounds are still missing? Then UWV cannot immediately declare the objection inadmissible. Article 6:6 Awb provides that an objection may be declared inadmissible if article 6:5 has not been complied with, "provided the person lodging it has had the opportunity to remedy the omission within a period set for that purpose". That is the statutory basis for the pro forma objection.

I can barely meet the deadline: what is a pro forma objection?

A pro forma objection is a short notice of objection, lodged in time, in which you state that you object and that you will supplement the grounds later; UWV must then give you a period under article 6:6 Awb to remedy that omission. It is the tool for exactly the situation most people are in: the deadline is running out, the file is not yet complete and no lawyer has been consulted yet.

Such a notice of objection can be short, but it must be signed and describe the contested decision — the latter is essential. A period to remedy a failure to state the grounds (article 6:5(1)(d)) does not also cover the absence of a description of the decision (point (c)); in that case the objection remained inadmissible (ECLI:NL:RBROT:2018:5102). So make sure it is crystal clear which decision you are challenging, with its reference and date.

What you write, at a minimum:

I hereby object to your decision of (date) with reference (reference), by which (short description: my WW benefit was refused, or: my WIA benefit was set at a lower percentage than I expected). I do not agree with this decision. I will supplement the grounds of my objection as soon as possible; I ask you to set me a period for this. I would like to be heard and would like to receive a copy of all documents relating to the case. I also ask you to reimburse the costs that I reasonably have to incur in connection with the handling of this objection.

Two warnings. A pro forma objection is not a free pass: UWV is entitled to declare the objection inadmissible if you let the period set for remedying the omission expire unused, and that period is usually short. It also shifts the decision period: under article 7:10(2) Awb that period is suspended from the day after the request to remedy the omission until the day on which the omission has been remedied or the period has expired unused.

What happens at the UWV hearing, and how do you prepare?

Before UWV decides on your objection, it must give you the opportunity to be heard; that is a right, and it is generally wise to use it. That follows from article 7:2(1) Awb: before an administrative authority decides on the objection, it gives interested parties the opportunity to be heard.

A hearing may be dispensed with in the cases set out in article 7:3 Awb: if the objection is manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded, if you state that you do not wish to exercise the right to be heard, if you do not state within a reasonable period set for that purpose that you wish to be heard, or if the objection is upheld in full. Note that fourth case: if you do not respond to the invitation, you lose the right to be heard.

A hearing is not a court hearing. You sit across from an employee of the objections department; in a medical case, an insurance physician for objections and appeals is usually present as well. That is often the only moment at which that physician sees and speaks to you in person — and that carries weight in his or her report.

Inspection of the file. Under article 7:4 Awb, the documents relating to the case are made available for inspection before the hearing, and interested parties may submit further documents up to ten days before the hearing. For medical disputes within the meaning of article 75j ZW a more favourable regime applies: under article 75l ZW you can still submit further documents during the hearing, and the documents are sent to you in advance or made available for inspection at least two days before the hearing.

How to prepare:

1. Request the file as soon as you lodge your objection, not a week before the hearing. The report of the insurance physician and that of the labour expert are the two documents that really matter.
2. Read the Functional Capabilities List (functionele mogelijkhedenlijst) line by line and note for each limitation whether it matches what you can do on a bad day — not what you can do on your best day. Then go through the sample jobs for demands you cannot cope with.
3. Gather information from your treating doctors, focused on your capacity and the course of your condition, not just on the diagnosis.
4. Put your points on a single A4 page and bring someone with you. You are allowed to be assisted; in a medical or labour-expert dispute, that is rarely superfluous.

My WW benefit has been refused: am I culpably unemployed?

You are culpably unemployed if your unemployment is based on an urgent reason for which you can be blamed, or if you resigned yourself without continuing the employment being something that could not reasonably be required of you. This is laid down in article 24(2) of the Unemployment Insurance Act (Werkloosheidswet, WW), which refers to article 7:678 of the Civil Code for the urgent reason.

The obligation itself is laid down in article 24(1) WW: the employee must prevent becoming culpably unemployed, and must prevent being or remaining unemployed because he makes insufficient efforts to obtain suitable work, does not accept suitable work offered, or through his own actions fails to obtain or retain it, or sets requirements that hinder obtaining suitable work. If paragraph 1(a) is breached, under article 27(1) WW UWV permanently deducts an amount from the benefit — in practice, a full refusal — unless the failure to comply can not predominantly be blamed on the employee; in that case half is deducted for a maximum of 26 weeks.

The label given to the dismissal is not decisive. The question is not what the employer or the court called the dismissal, but whether there was in substance an urgent reason and whether you can be blamed for it; the Central Appeals Tribunal assesses this independently (see ECLI:NL:CRVB:2015:193 and ECLI:NL:CRVB:2017:3755, in which the permanent full refusal was upheld). That works both ways: an employer writing "urgent reason" does not make it one, and the fact that a dismissal was later converted into a dismissal for unsuitability does not rule out UWV still assuming an urgent reason.

The settlement agreement. Anyone who cooperates in a termination by mutual consent does not thereby automatically resign within the meaning of article 24(2)(b) WW — but the wording of that agreement largely determines what UWV makes of it. The WW test therefore belongs at the negotiating table, not only at the application stage. See settlement agreement and dismissal and illness.

By way of illustration. An employee signs a termination agreement after the atmosphere in the department has been deteriorating for months. The agreement states that the parties are parting ways "at the employee’s initiative". He thinks nothing of it, because the severance payment has been arranged. When he applies for WW, it is held against him that he ended the employment himself although continuing it could reasonably have been required of him. What matters legally is not the atmosphere in the department, but who took the initiative and whether the termination was based on a reason for which the employee can be blamed — and that question is answered on the basis of the text he signed himself. This is a hypothetical situation illustrating the rule, not a case handled by our firm.

Do I meet the weeks requirement, and what if I applied too late?

In principle, you are entitled to WW if, in the 36 calendar weeks immediately preceding the first day of unemployment, you worked at least one hour per calendar week in at least 26 of those calendar weeks. That is the weeks requirement of article 17 WW, which reads: "The employee becomes entitled to benefit if, in 36 calendar weeks immediately preceding the first day of unemployment, he has at least one working hour per calendar week in at least 26 calendar weeks."

Two nuances regularly make objections succeed. Article 17a WW provides that certain weeks are disregarded when determining those 36 weeks — including weeks in which you could not work due to illness or incapacity for work, and weeks of unpaid leave up to a maximum of 78 calendar weeks; the reference period therefore shifts back, so that weeks worked earlier still count. And what counts are calendar weeks with at least one working hour, not a minimum number of hours or continuous employment: short jobs, on-call shifts and agency weeks all count. So check the employment history used against your own payslips and contracts.

The application period. Under article 26(1)(b) WW, the employee must apply to UWV within one week of becoming unemployed. That week is often missed, for example because people first want to settle matters with their employer. Failure to comply may, under article 27(3) WW, lead to a temporary or permanent, full or partial refusal; the consequences in your case depend on the reason for the delay and the degree of blame. If in doubt, apply too early rather than too late.

Source: Unemployment Insurance Act, articles 17, 17a, 24, 26 and 27, consulted via wetten.overheid.nl.

My WW benefit has been reduced or stopped, and UWV is reclaiming money

Reduction, termination and recovery are three separate decisions, each with its own legal basis and its own objection period — and you can challenge each of them separately. They often arrive in one envelope, and that is exactly why people lodge one objection and leave the rest.

Recovery is in principle mandatory. Article 36(1) WW provides that benefit paid unduly as a result of a decision as referred to in article 22a or 27, as well as anything otherwise paid unduly, is reclaimed by UWV. UWV has little discretion in this. Where there is room: in the question of whether the underlying decision is correct, and over which period and up to what amount recovery has been ordered. If the measure is overturned on objection, the basis for the recovery falls away. In addition, article 36(3) WW contains a defined scheme for waiving (further) recovery, including where the person concerned has fully met their payment obligations for five years or repays at least 50% of the remaining balance in one go; have it assessed whether you qualify before you sign a payment arrangement.

So object to every decision in the letter, including the recovery itself, and ask for a month-by-month breakdown. What is not broken down per period cannot be checked — and therefore cannot be refuted either.

WIA: how is my degree of incapacity for work determined?

Your degree of incapacity for work is determined by comparing what you earned per hour before your illness with what you can still earn with your remaining capacities; that assessment is based on an insurance-medical examination and a labour-expert examination. The latter is stated in so many words in article 6(1) of the Work and Income (Capacity for Work) Act (Wet WIA).

The concepts that determine your benefit:

This produces the threshold that most disputes are about: anyone deemed less than 35% incapacitated for work receives no WIA benefit. That difference arises in the labour expert’s calculation, not in the doctor’s diagnosis.

A second pivotal point is the distinction between WGA and IVA. If you are fully incapacitated for work, the next question is whether that is also permanent; the Tribunal assesses this on the basis of article 4 Wet WIA and the insurance physician’s prognosis regarding the chance of recovery. In ECLI:NL:CRVB:2018:3885 precisely that question was central: was the incapacity for work on the relevant date both full and permanent, so that there was entitlement to an IVA benefit instead of a WGA benefit? Anyone who has been declared fully incapacitated for work but receives a WGA benefit would be wise to examine the reasoning on permanence separately.

By way of illustration. After two years of illness, an employee is completely exhausted and assumes she will receive a benefit because she cannot possibly do her own job any more. She receives a decision stating that she is less than 35% incapacitated for work and therefore not entitled to WIA. What matters legally is not whether she can still do her own job, but what she could still earn per hour according to the selected sample jobs, compared with her benchmark income. The question to be answered is therefore whether the demands of those jobs match the limitations established by the insurance physician — a labour-expert question, not a medical one. This is a hypothetical situation illustrating the rule, not a case handled by our firm.

The application. Under article 64(2) Wet WIA UWV notifies you in writing, no later than the day on which the waiting period has lasted 89 weeks, of the possibility of applying; under paragraph 3 you submit that application no later than eleven weeks before the end of the waiting period. Applying too late can affect the start date of your benefit.

The insurance physician and the labour expert: why is their report decisive?

In principle, UWV may base its decision on the reports of its insurance physicians and labour experts, provided they were prepared with due care, contain no contradictions and their conclusions follow logically from them — and it is up to you to make it plausible that this is not the case. That standard is repeated in case law in almost the same words every time; see, among others, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2026:5938, in which the court adds that, to make it plausible that the medical assessment is incorrect, "in principle a report from a doctor" is needed, and that the way in which someone experiences their own health complaints is not sufficient for that.

That is the heart of why objections in medical cases fail: people write down how ill they are, and legally that is not the evidence that counts. What does count:

An effective point is that the insurance physician for objections and appeals largely adopts the report of the primary physician: defects then carry through into the reconsideration. In ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2026:2817 the court held that, since the insurance physician for objections and appeals built on the report of the primary physician and largely concurred with it, the inconsistencies found earlier also carried through into that physician’s report, and the contested decision had to that extent not been prepared with due care.

Equality of arms. The fact that UWV uses its own doctors and you do not is a structural imbalance. The Central Appeals Tribunal tests this against the principle of equality of arms from the Korošec judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. The core, in the words of the Tribunal in ECLI:NL:CRVB:2023:418, is that the administrative court can only give an independent judgment if there is a balance between the parties as regards the opportunity to adduce evidence; the court must therefore assess whether the person concerned has had sufficient opportunity to challenge the findings of the insurance physicians, for example by submitting medical documents themselves. In ECLI:NL:CRVB:2019:1141 the person concerned relied on this because, for financial reasons, she could not have her own expert report drawn up. If you cannot afford an expert, state this explicitly and ask the court to appoint an independent expert.

My Sickness Benefits Act benefit has been refused, reduced or terminated

You are entitled to sickness benefit if you are unable to perform your work as a direct and objectively medically ascertainable consequence of illness — the discussion is almost always about that "objectively medically ascertainable" and about what counts as "your work" in your case. The legal basis is article 19(1) of the Sickness Benefits Act.

That second point is underestimated: the yardstick shifts. For those who no longer have an employer, under article 19(5) ZW a separate yardstick applies: inability to perform the work that is usually characteristic of their work with a similar employer. In addition, after the first-year Sickness Benefits Act assessment, the yardstick shifts to what you can still earn with generally accepted work (article 19ab ZW, which refers to an insurance-medical and a labour-expert examination). That explains why people "remain ill" but still lose their Sickness Benefits Act benefit: not because UWV considers them to have recovered, but because the yardstick has changed.

Refusal and reduction have their own catalogue in article 45 ZW: UWV refuses sickness benefit in whole or in part, temporarily or permanently, including where the insured person does not seek medical help within a reasonable period or does not remain under treatment, engages in conduct that hinders his recovery, fails without good reason to attend when called, or does not comply with the monitoring rules.

And this is where the short period applies. A declaration of recovery is a dispute of a medical nature about the continuation of incapacity for work within the meaning of article 75j ZW. Under article 75k ZW, an objection period of two weeks in principle applies to it — unless the dispute concerns an assessment as referred to in article 19ab ZW, in which case the usual six weeks apply. Anyone who does not see the distinction is too late before they have even spoken to a lawyer. So always read the legal remedies clause at the bottom of the decision, and act within two weeks if you are in doubt.

The wage sanction: UWV extends my employer’s obligation to continue paying wages

If UWV finds that the employer has done too little on reintegration without good reason, it extends the period during which that employer must continue to pay wages, by up to 52 weeks. This is laid down in article 25(9) of the Wet WIA: UWV extends the period during which the insured person is entitled to wages under article 7:629 of the Civil Code "so that the employer can remedy its shortcoming with regard to the obligations or reintegration efforts referred to", the extension being no more than 52 weeks.

For the employee, this is generally good news: wage payments continue and the WIA assessment is postponed. For the employer, it is a burdensome decision with substantial financial consequences, against which it can lodge an objection.

The assessment focuses first on the result achieved. If there is a satisfactory reintegration result, no sanction follows; if there is not, UWV assesses whether the employer made sufficient efforts and, if not, whether it had good reason for that. Because the decision is burdensome, the burden of proof lies with UWV (ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2026:2648). Two deadlines are strict: under article 25(10) Wet WIA, UWV issues the decision no later than six weeks before the end of the waiting period, and under paragraph 11 no extension takes place if the decision was not issued before the end of the waiting period.

Fines and recovery for breach of the duty to provide information

Anyone who does not report as soon as possible anything that may affect their benefit risks, in addition to recovery of the overpayment, an administrative fine of up to the loss amount — and considerably more in the case of intent. The duty to provide information under the WIA is laid down in article 27(1) Wet WIA, the fine in article 91 Wet WIA; for the WW, articles 25 and 27a WW apply in almost identical terms.

The fine amounts to no more than the loss amount (benadelingsbedrag): the gross amount of benefit received wrongly or at too high a level as a result of the breach. If the offence was committed intentionally, the maximum is the amount of the fifth category of article 23(4) of the Criminal Code; if it was not committed intentionally, the third category. If the breach did not lead to a loss amount, the second category applies.

Where objections against fines succeed, it is almost always on the question of culpability. According to settled case law, the administrative authority must tailor the amount to the seriousness of the offence and the degree to which it can be blamed on the offender, and where necessary take into account the circumstances in which it was committed; the court reviews without restraint whether the fine decision satisfies this and leads to a proportionate sanction (ECLI:NL:CRVB:2022:1957, referring to CRvB 24 November 2014, ECLI:NL:CRVB:2014:3754). The distinct categories range from intent through gross negligence and ordinary culpability to reduced culpability, each with a different percentage of the loss amount; the burden of asserting and proving facts that may lead to a reduction lies with the person concerned.

An objection against a fine is therefore a different kind of document from an objection against a refusal: you substantiate with documents why you could not reasonably have understood that you had to report something, what information you did provide, and what your financial capacity is.

By way of illustration. Someone on benefit does irregular paid work through an employment agency for a few months and assumes that UWV can already see those hours, because there are payslips and tax is being withheld. Months later, a decision with a recovery and a fine lands on the doormat. What matters legally is not whether he still has the money, but whether it should reasonably have been clear to him that that income could affect his benefit, and to what extent he can be blamed for not reporting it. That is a different question from whether he acted in good faith — and it is the question to which the amount of the fine must be tailored. This is a hypothetical situation illustrating the rule, not a case handled by our firm.

UWV rejects my objection: how do I appeal to the district court?

You lodge an appeal against the decision on your objection with the administrative court at the district court within six weeks; after that, a further appeal lies to the Central Appeals Tribunal in Utrecht, also within six weeks. Interested parties may appeal to the administrative court under article 8:1 Awb, and the fact that the objection precedes the appeal follows from article 7:1 Awb.

Under article 7:10 Awb UWV must decide on the objection within six weeks, or within twelve weeks if an advisory committee has been set up, with a possible deferral of no more than six weeks.

That the Central Appeals Tribunal is the appellate court for the Unemployment Insurance Act, the Sickness Benefits Act and the Wet WIA follows from article 9 of the Regulation on Jurisdiction in Administrative Matters (Bevoegdheidsregeling bestuursrechtspraak) (Annex 2 to the Awb), which expressly names those three Acts. That article also confers suspensive effect: under article 8:106(1)(a) Awb, the effect of the district court’s judgment is suspended until the period for further appeal has expired or the appeal has been decided. So if you win at the district court and UWV appeals, payment does not have to be made straight away.

What changes on appeal: you face an independent court, a court fee is charged, and the district court can appoint an independent expert. The latter is often the core of the strategy in medical cases — precisely with a view to the equality of arms discussed above.

Is UWV failing to decide? Under article 6:12 Awb, an appeal against a failure to take a decision in time is not bound by a time limit, and it can be lodged as soon as the administrative authority is in default and two weeks have passed since the day on which you gave it written notice of default. That notice of default is a necessary intermediate step.

For the wider context of litigating against the government, see administrative law.

I have no income right now: can I ask for something that is quicker?

Yes: you can ask the interim relief judge for a provisional measure as soon as you have lodged an objection, provided urgency so requires, having regard to the interests involved. The legal basis is article 8:81(1) Awb: if an appeal has been lodged against a decision or, prior to a possible appeal, an objection has been made, the interim relief judge of the administrative court that has or may have jurisdiction in the main proceedings may, on request, grant a provisional measure if urgency so requires.

Note the order: an objection must be lodged first. Without a pending objection there is no access to the interim relief judge; in practice, the notice of objection and the request are therefore often sent on the same day.

You substantiate two things at the same time. The urgent interest: that you currently have no income, that fixed costs continue, that there are rent arrears or an announced eviction, that there is no other safety net — with documents, not words. And a provisional assessment that the decision will not stand: the interim relief judge does not decide the whole case, but weighs the interests partly on the basis of how promising the objection looks at first sight.

Be realistic about the outcome: a provisional measure is by its nature temporary and as a rule applies until the decision on the objection. If the objection is then rejected, the measure lapses and the amount paid out may become subject to recovery. It bridges precisely the period in which most damage occurs, but it is not a definitive solution.

What does an objection and appeal against UWV cost?

No fee is payable for the handling of the objection itself, but the costs you incur in the objection phase are only reimbursed if the decision is revoked because of an unlawfulness attributable to the administrative authority and you asked for reimbursement in time. This is laid down in article 7:15 Awb: paragraph 1 provides that no fee is payable for the handling of the objection; paragraph 2 that the costs are reimbursed only at the request of the interested party insofar as the contested decision is revoked because of an unlawfulness attributable to the administrative authority; paragraph 3 that the request must be made before the administrative authority has decided on the objection.

That third paragraph is a pitfall that costs a lot of money. If you only ask for reimbursement once you have been proven right, you are too late. So always include the request in your notice of objection as standard — including in a pro forma objection.

A different regime applies on appeal. Article 8:75 Awb gives the administrative court the power to order a party to pay the costs that another party has reasonably had to incur in connection with the handling of the appeal, and of the objection. The amount is set according to a fixed-rate system, so that an award of costs generally does not cover the full cost of legal assistance. In addition, on appeal and further appeal a court fee is payable (article 8:41 Awb); those amounts are indexed periodically, so ask the court for the current amount.

On this page we deliberately do not state any amounts for court fees, personal contributions or awards of costs: they are indexed regularly, and a wrong amount leads to a wrong decision. You can have your situation assessed by us free of charge, including whether you are eligible for subsidised legal aid.

Common mistakes in a UWV objection

Most cases against UWV are lost not on the law but on the deadline and the substantiation. These are the mistakes that can rarely be put right afterwards.

1. Phoning first, writing later. A phone call or a message in Mijn UWV is not an objection and does not stop the deadline from running.
2. Not reading the legal remedies clause. In a medical dispute about being ill, the period is in principle two weeks, not six.
3. Waiting until the file is complete. Lodge a pro forma objection and supplement it; the deadline does not wait for your specialist.
4. Challenging only the most visible decision. Measure, revision, recovery and fine are separate decisions.
5. Providing no medical substantiation. According to settled case law, your own experience of your complaints is insufficient; in principle, information from a doctor is needed.
6. Skipping the Functional Capabilities List and the sample jobs. That is where the percentage is made, not in the diagnosis.
7. Not responding to the invitation to the hearing. Anyone who does not indicate within the set period that they wish to be heard loses that right (article 7:3(d) Awb).
8. Asking for reimbursement of costs only afterwards. The request must be made before the decision on the objection.
9. Not requesting a provisional measure while you have no income. An objection does not, in principle, suspend the decision.

Further reading: objections by situation

These topics look at a specific situation in more detail:

• Forcing UWV to decide with a notice of default and penalty payment — UWV decides too late on your WIA or objection: what can you do?
• Objecting to the first-year Sickness Benefits Act assessment (EZWb) — Sickness benefit stopped after the first-year assessment: objecting to the EZWb
• Recovery by UWV after UWV’s own mistake — UWV reclaims your benefit after its own mistake: do you have to pay?
• Checking your daily wage and challenging the calculation — UWV has miscalculated your daily wage: checking and objecting
• Requesting a provisional measure when your benefit stops — Benefit stopped and no income during the objection: provisional measure against UWV
• Engaging a medical counter-expert in a UWV case — Engaging a medical expert in a UWV case: when does an expert assessment help?

About this advice

Arslan Advocaten assists clients in disputes with UWV about WW, WIA and the Sickness Benefits Act — from objection and hearing to appeal to the district court and further appeal to the Central Appeals Tribunal — from offices in The Hague, Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Utrecht, Tilburg and Eindhoven. We assess your situation free of charge. In addition to Dutch, we speak Turkish and Polish.

Call the office nearest to you — the direct numbers are below — or send us your question through the contact form. If you have just received a letter, keep it to hand: the date and the reference are the first things we need.

Our offices: visiting address and direct telephone number

Each office has its own direct number. The first conversation is free of charge and confidential; besides Dutch we speak Turkish, Polish and English.

Not sure which office is most convenient? Then call 070 4500 300 or send your question through the contact form; we will put you through to the right colleague.

This page provides general information and is not legal advice on your own case. No rights can be derived from the principles set out here.

Would you like to discuss your question in Turkish? See the information on Turkish-language assistance in The Hague and state your language preference when making the appointment.