Country report, non-discrimination : transposition and implementation at national level of Council Directives 2000/43 and 2000/78 : Netherlands 2025.
Date: 2025-09-04
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers
Subjects: Netherlands, age discrimination, anti-discriminatory measure, discrimination based on disability, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, equal treatment, ethnic discrimination, national law, religious discrimination, report, sexual discrimination, social policy

Netherlands 

2025 

including summary 

 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers 
Directorate D — Equality and Non-Discrimination 
Unit D1: Non Discrimination: LGBTIQ, Age, Horizontal Matters 
Unit D2: Non Discrimination: Anti-Racism and Roma Coordination 

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Country report  

Non-discrimination 

Transposition and implementation at national level of 
Council Directives 2000/43 and 2000/78 

Netherlands 

Karin de Vries 

Reporting period 1 January 2024 – 1 January 2025 

2025  Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union. 

Freephone number (*): 

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*)  The  information  given  is  free,  as  are  most  calls  (though  some  operators,  phone 

boxes or hotels may charge you). 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the 
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information 
contained therein. 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2025 

© European Union, 2025 

PDF  

ISBN 978-92-68-25438-7 

ISSN 2599-9176  doi: 10.2838/0613145    DS-01-25-074-EN-N 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................ 5 
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 12 
GENERAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK .................................................................. 15 
1 
THE DEFINITION OF DISCRIMINATION .................................................... 17 
2 
2.1  Definition of the grounds of unlawful discrimination within the directives ..... 17 
2.2  Multiple and intersectional discrimination ................................................. 21 
2.3  Assumed and associated discrimination ................................................... 23 
2.4  Direct discrimination (Article 2(2)(a)) ...................................................... 24 
Indirect discrimination (Article 2(2)(b)) ................................................... 25 
2.5 
Statistical evidence ................................................................... 27 
2.5.1 
2.6  Harassment (Article 2(3)) ...................................................................... 29 
Instructions to discriminate (Article 2(4)) ................................................ 31 
2.7 
2.8  Reasonable accommodation duties (Article 2(2)(b)(ii) and Article 5 Directive 

3 

2000/78) ............................................................................................. 33 
PERSONAL AND MATERIAL SCOPE ............................................................ 41 
3.1  Personal scope ..................................................................................... 41 

3.1.1 

EU and non-EU nationals (Recital 13 and Article 3(2) Directive 
2000/43 and Recital 12 and Article 3(2) Directive 2000/78) ........... 41 
3.1.2  Natural and legal persons (Recital 16 Directive 2000/43) ............... 41 
Private and public sector including public bodies (Article 3(1)) ........ 42 
3.1.3 
3.2  Material scope ...................................................................................... 42 

3.2.1 

3.2.2 

3.2.3 

Conditions for access to employment, to self-employment or to 
occupation, including selection criteria, recruitment conditions and 
promotion, whatever the branch of activity and at all levels of the 
professional hierarchy (Article 3(1)(a)) ........................................ 42 
Employment and working conditions, including pay and dismissals 
(Article 3(1)(c)) ........................................................................ 44 
Access to all types and all levels of vocational guidance, vocational 
training, advanced vocational training and retraining, including 
practical work experience (Article 3(1)(b)) ................................... 44 

3.2.4  Membership of, and involvement in, an organisation of workers or 

4 

3.2.5 

employers, or any organisation whose members carry on a particular 
profession, including the benefits provided for by such organisations 
(Article 3(1)(d)) ........................................................................ 46 
Social protection, including social security and healthcare (Article 
3(1)(e) Directive 2000/43) ......................................................... 46 
Social advantages (Article 3(1)(f) Directive 2000/43) .................... 52 
Education (Article 3(1)(g) Directive 2000/43) ............................... 53 
Access to and supply of goods and services which are available to the 
public (Article 3(1)(h) Directive 2000/43) .................................... 54 
3.2.9  Housing (Article 3(1)(h) Directive 2000/43) ................................. 55 
EXCEPTIONS ............................................................................................. 59 
4.1  Genuine and determining occupational requirements (Article 4 Directive 

3.2.6 
3.2.7 
3.2.8 

2000/43, Article 4(1) Directive 2000/78) ................................................. 59 

4.2  Employers with an ethos based on religion or belief (Article 4(2) 

Directive 2000/78) ................................................................................ 60 

4.3  Armed forces and other specific occupations (Article 3(4) and Recitals 18 and 

19, Directive 2000/78) .......................................................................... 62 
4.4  Nationality discrimination (Article 3(2)) ................................................... 62 
4.5  Health and safety at work (Article 7(2) Directive 2000/78) ........................ 63 
4.6  Exceptions related to discrimination on the ground of age (Article 6 

Directive 2000/78) ................................................................................ 64 
4.6.1  Direct discrimination ................................................................. 64 
4.6.2 
Special conditions for younger or older workers ............................ 66 
4.6.3  Minimum and maximum age requirements ................................... 67 
Retirement ............................................................................... 67 
4.6.4 

3 

 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

4.6.5 

Redundancy ............................................................................. 69 

4.7  Further exceptions necessary in a democratic society: Public security, public 

order, criminal offences, protection of health, protection of the rights and 
freedoms of others (Article 2(5) Directive 2000/78) .................................. 70 
4.8  Any other exceptions ............................................................................. 71 
POSITIVE ACTION (Article 5 Directive 2000/43, Article 7 Directive 2000/78)
 ................................................................................................................. 72 
REMEDIES AND ENFORCEMENT ................................................................. 75 
6.1 

Judicial and/or administrative procedures (Article 7 Directive 2000/43, Article 
9 Directive 2000/78) ............................................................................. 75 

6.2  Legal standing and associations (Article 7(2) Directive 2000/43, Article 9(2) 

Directive 2000/78) ................................................................................ 77 
6.3  Burden of proof (Article 8 Directive 2000/43, Article 10 Directive 2000/78).. 80 
6.4  Victimisation (Article 9 Directive 2000/43, Article 11 Directive 2000/78) ...... 81 
6.5  Sanctions and remedies (Article 15 Directive 2000/43, Article 17 

Directive 2000/78) ................................................................................ 82 
BODIES  FOR  THE  PROMOTION  OF  EQUAL  TREATMENT  (Article  13 
Directive 2000/43) ................................................................................... 87 
7.1  National equality bodies ......................................................................... 87 
7.2  Political, economic and social context of the designated bodies ................... 89 
7.3 
Institutional architecture ........................................................................ 90 
7.4  Status of the designated bodies – general independence and resources ....... 91 
7.5  Grounds and fields covered by the designated bodies ................................ 96 
7.6  Competences of the designated bodies – and their independent and effective 

exercise ............................................................................................... 97 
7.7  Legal standing of the designated bodies ................................................ 100 
7.8  Dispute resolution ............................................................................... 100 
7.9  Procedural safeguards ......................................................................... 101 
7.10  Data collection by the designated bodies ............................................... 102 
7.11  Roma and Travellers ........................................................................... 104 
IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES...................................................................... 105 
8.1  Dissemination of information, dialogue with NGOs and between social partners
 ........................................................................................................ 105 

8.2  Measures to ensure compliance with the principle of equal treatment 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

(Article 14 Directive 2000/43, Article 16 Directive 2000/78) ..................... 106 
COORDINATION AT NATIONAL LEVEL ..................................................... 107 
9.1  Coordination at the governmental level ................................................. 107 
9.2  National Strategies and action plans ...................................................... 108 
10  CURRENT BEST PRACTICES ..................................................................... 111 
11  SENSITIVE OR CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES ................................................ 112 
11.1  Potential breaches of the directives at the national level .......................... 112 
11.2  Other issues of concern ....................................................................... 112 
12  LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN 2024 ............................................................ 116 
12.1  Legislative amendments ...................................................................... 116 
12.2  Case law ............................................................................................ 116 
ANNEX 1: TABLE OF INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS ..................................... 121 

4 

Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

1. Introduction  

The  Netherlands  is  a  decentralised,  unitary  state  and  part  of  the  Kingdom  of  the 
Netherlands  (which  also  includes  the  Caribbean  islands  of  Aruba,  Curaçao  and  Sint 
Maarten).  King  Willem-Alexander  is  head  of  state.  The  Netherlands  has  a  parliamentary 
system of Government with a bicameral Parliament. The Dutch electoral system is one of 
proportional  representation,  with  the  result  that  the  Government  always  consists  of  a 
coalition of political parties. In recent years the political landscape has become increasingly 
fragmented:  after  the  most  recent  general  elections  (in  2023)  15  political  parties  were 
represented in the Second Chamber of Parliament, which is made up of 150 seats. Since 
the turn of the millennium considerable influence has been gained by populist parties on 
the radical right, notably the Freedom Party (PVV), whose political agendas are typically 
nativist,  anti-immigrant  and  anti-Islam.  On  the  other  side  of  the  political  spectrum  the 
parties  DENK  and  Bij1  strongly  advocate  the  eradication  of  racism  and  discrimination, 
however with a much  smaller number of seats.  Since 2 July 2024, the  Government has 
been  formed  of  a  coalition  consisting  of  the  PVV,  the  Liberal  Party  (VVD),  New  Social 
Contract (NSC) and the Farmer-Citizen Movement (Boer Burger Beweging, BBB).  

The Netherlands is party to all the major international agreements relevant to combating 
discrimination,  including  the  European  Convention  on  Human  Rights  (including  Protocol 
No.  12),  the  International  Covenant  on  Civil  and  Political  Rights  (ICCPR),  the  Optional 
Protocol  to  the  Covenant,  the  International  Covenant  on  Economic,  Social  and  Cultural 
Rights  (ICESCR),  the  International  Convention  on  the  Elimination  of  All  Forms  of  Racial 
Discrimination (ICERD), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination 
Against  Women  (CEDAW),  including  the  Optional  Protocol  to  this  Convention,  the 
Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and the Convention on the Rights of Persons 
with Disabilities (CRPD). The latter was ratified in 2016. The instruments constitute part of 
the domestic legal order following publication in the official Law Gazette (Staatsblad) and 
can be applied directly by domestic courts if the provision concerned is sufficiently clear 
and precise. 

The Kingdom of the Netherlands has the second highest population density in the European 
Union,  after  Malta.  On  1  January  2020,  24 %  of  the  Dutch  population  had  a  migration 
background,  with  almost  half  of  this  group  consisting  of  people  who  were  born  in  the 
Netherlands  (second  generation  migrants).  The  largest  migrant  groups  are  people  of 
Turkish origin (2.4 %), followed by people of Moroccan (2.3 %), Surinamese (2.0 %) and 
Polish  origin (1.1 %).1 The main religions are Roman Catholicism (20 %), Protestantism 
(15 %)  and  Islam  (5 %).  Six  per  cent  of  the  population  subscribes  to  another  religious 
faith and 51 % identifies as not  religious.2 In 2020, 22 % of the  Dutch population  were 
younger than 20, 25 % were between 20 and 40, 34 % between 40 and 65 and 20 % were 
65 or older.3 

2. Main legislation 

International law: the Netherlands adheres to a ‘monist theory’ of international law. This 
means that international norms of equal treatment and non-discrimination can be applied 
directly by the Dutch courts and take precedence over statutory acts.  

The  Constitution:  a  non-discrimination  clause  is  contained  in  Article  1  of  the  Dutch 
Constitution. It covers the grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race, sex, disability 

1   Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (Statistics Netherlands), Jaarrapport integratie 2020 (Annual report on 

immigrant integration), https://longreads.cbs.nl/integratie-2020/bevolking/ para 1.9.  

2   Statistics Netherlands, Religie in Nederland (Religion in the Netherlands), https://www.cbs.nl/nl-

nl/longread/statistische-trends/2020/religie-in-nederland/2-ontwikkelingen-in-religieuze-betrokkenheid, 
para 2.1. The percentages cited are from 2019. 

3   Statistics Netherlands, Tabel: bevolking naar leeftijd (Table: Population by age groups), 

https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/visualisaties/dashboard-bevolking/leeftijd/bevolking. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

and  sexual  orientation  as  well  as  ‘any  other  ground’.  Article  120  Dutch  Constitution, 
however, excludes the possibility of judicial constitutional review of statutory acts. Article 
1 of the Dutch Constitution can be invoked before the courts against non-statutory forms 
of legislation, eg government decrees, and against administrative acts. 

Criminal  law  provisions:  there  are  several  provisions  in  the  Criminal  Code  prohibiting 
discriminatory speech and prohibiting discrimination in the social and economic sphere. 

General  civil  law:  provisions  in  the  Civil  Code  offer  protection  against  unlawful 
discrimination, notably through provisions on tort and labour law provisions.  

Employment: the Act on Working Conditions contains an obligation to prevent any labour 
conditions that may cause stress or psychological or physical damage. This provision also 
puts a positive obligation on employers to prevent and combat discrimination and (sexual) 
harassment. 

Statutory equal treatment acts: the relevant equal treatment acts are the 1994 General 
Equal Treatment Act (GETA); the 2003 Disability Discrimination Act (DDA); and the 2004 
Age Discrimination Act (ADA). The GETA covers religion, belief, political opinion, race, sex, 
nationality,  hetero-  or  homosexual  orientation  and  marital  status.  The  DDA  covers 
disability and chronic illness, while the ADA provides protection against age discrimination 
in the field of employment. These acts elaborate Article 1 of the Constitution, in particular 
for horizontal relations. In addition, they must be perceived as measures transposing the 
EU anti-discrimination directives.  

Regarding  the  implementation  of  Directives  2000/43/EC  and  2000/78/EC  the  Dutch 
legislature  has  gone  beyond  what  is  strictly  required  by  the  directives.  For  example, 
protection against discrimination on the grounds of religion and belief, sexual orientation 
(defined as hetero-  or  homosexual orientation)  and disability  also applies in the area of 
goods and services. 

Given the scope of this summary, the discussion is limited to the GETA, DDA and ADA with 
regard to the implementation of Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC. 

3. Main principles and definitions 

The Dutch equal treatment laws (GETA, DDA and ADA) cover the grounds mentioned in 
Article 19 TFEU as well as nationality, political opinion, civil (or) marital status and chronic 
illness. In contrast to other areas of Dutch anti-discrimination law and in contrast to EU 
law,  these  acts  are  centred  on  the  concept  of  ‘distinction’  (onderscheid)  instead  of 
‘discrimination’ (discriminatie). ‘Distinction’ does not have the same negative connotation, 
and there may be a suggestion that it is possible to justify such distinctions. In practice, 
however, the laws are interpreted in line with the directives and the case law of the CJEU. 

Direct  discrimination  –  Since  2011,  the  definition  of  direct  discrimination  in  the  equal 
treatment  laws  copies  the  wording  of  the  directives,  except  for  the  use  of  the  word 
‘distinction’ instead of ‘discrimination’. Although this is not explicitly mentioned in the equal 
treatment legislation, the Dutch equality body (the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights, 
previously the Equal Treatment Commission) accepts that the equal treatment laws cover 
discrimination by association4 and discrimination by assumption.5  

Indirect discrimination  – Since 2011, indirect discrimination  is defined in the GETA, ADA 
and DDA in a similar way to the definition in the directives, except for the use of the word 
‘distinction’ instead of ‘discrimination’. 

4   E.g. NIHR Opinion 2012-204 of 28 December 2012; NIHR Opinion 2018-115 of 8 November 2018; NIHR 

Opinion 2021-149 of 14 December 2021; and NIHR Opinion 2022-100 of 26 August 2022. 

5   E.g. NIHR Opinion 2018-87 of 21 August 2018; NIHR Opinion 2021-90 of 13 July 2021; NIHR Opinion 2022-

131 of 21 November 2022; and NIHR Opinion 2023-128 of 6 December 2023. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

Intersectional discrimination – Dutch equal treatment legislation does not explicitly prohibit 
intersectional  discrimination.  However,  the  national  equality  body  (Netherlands  Institute 
for  Human  Rights)  accepts  that  cases  of  intersectional  discrimination  can  be  addressed 
under the existing legislative framework.6  

Victimisation – Legal measures of protection against victimisation are available. All three 
acts  (GETA,  DDA  and  ADA)  provide  protection  against  dismissal  related  to  victimisation 
and  against  other  forms  of  disadvantage  as  a  result  of  the  fact  that  an  individual  has 
invoked the  statutory  equality act  or has  otherwise assisted in proceedings under these 
acts. 

Harassment – Harassment is explicitly defined as a form of discrimination that can never 
be justified. The current definition of ‘harassment’ in the GETA, DDA and ADA mirrors the 
definition given in the directives. However, the current definition is narrower than the one 
used  by  the  (predecessor  of)  the  NIHR  in  its  pre-implementation  case  law.  Hence,  the 
Dutch approach could fall short of the directives’ non-regression clause. 

Instruction to discriminate – Prior to implementation, the prohibition of the ‘instruction to 
make  a  distinction’  was  already  implied  in  Dutch  equal  treatment  legislation.  In  the 
implementation  process,  this  implication  was  made  explicit  in  the  GETA,  DDA  and  ADA. 
Both  the  person  who  instructs  (e.g.  the  employer)  and  the  person  who  carries  out  the 
instruction (e.g. a recruitment agency) act in contravention of the law. If the instruction 
has been given within a hierarchical employment relationship (a manager instructing an 
employee to discriminate), it is only the person in charge (the manager, not the employee) 
whom an individual victim can hold (vicariously) liable. The Dutch approach in this respect 
arguably  reflects  an  unduly  narrow  interpretation  of  the  concept  as  contained  in  the 
directives. 

Reasonable accommodation – This concept is only enshrined in the DDA. The law speaks 
of ‘effective’ instead of ‘reasonable’ accommodation: the accommodation sought must have 
the pursued  effect(s),  which means that the accommodation must be both  ‘appropriate’ 
and  ‘necessary’.7  It  must  also  be  reasonable,  in  the  sense  that  it  may  not  impose  a 
disproportionate  (financial)  burden  upon  the  employer.  The  duty  to  make  an  ‘effective 
accommodation’  is  not  a  generic  obligation:  it  must  respond  to  the  specific  need  of  an 
individual employee.  

Exceptions – The GETA, DDA and ADA all enshrine exceptions to the central norm. In the 
first two acts these exceptions are explicitly and exhaustively listed by the legislature within 
the  acts  themselves  as  far  as  direct  discrimination  is  concerned.  These  exceptions  are 
interpreted  restrictively  by  the  courts  and  the  NIHR.  The  ADA  offers  more  flexibility  for 
(semi-)judicial  interpretation:  both  direct  and  indirect  age  discrimination  may  be 
‘objectively  justified’  and  only  certain  exceptions  have  been  a  priori  and  explicitly  listed 
within  the  act  itself.  Overall,  the  exceptions  in  the  equal  treatment  laws,  such  as  the 
general occupational requirement and the exception for ethos-based organisations, are in 
line with those possible under the directives. 

4. Material scope 

The  GETA  applies  to  the  areas  of  employment  and  occupation,  provision  of  goods  and 
services  (including  education  and  healthcare)  and,  only  in  the  context  of  racial 
discrimination,  the  areas  of  social  security  and  social  protection.  The  DDA  applies  to 
employment,  professional  education  and  goods  and  services.  Some  specific  restrictions 

6   E.g. NIHR Opinion 2022-132 of 21 November 2022 and NIHR Opinion 2023-132 of 14 December 2023. 
7   Since 1 January 2017, a more general duty exists under the DD to improve accessibility for persons with 

disabilities in addition to the duty to provide reasonable accommodation in individual cases. This proactive, 
general duty entails the duty to ensure accessibility at least gradually for persons with disabilities, unless 
this creates a disproportionate burden. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

apply  in  the  fields  of  housing  and  public  transport.  The  ADA  is  the  most  limited  in  its 
material scope: it only applies to employment and employment-related education. 

The concept of ‘employment’ in all three acts must be interpreted broadly, covering both 
public  and  private  sector  employment,  as  well  as  self-employment,  and  ranging  from 
recruitment  to  dismissal,  including  promotion,  employment  conditions,  employment 
mediation and (vocational) training.  

The  boundaries  of  the  GETA’s  scope  are  threefold.  First,  the  act  is  not  applicable  with 
regard to the internal affairs of churches and religious communities; secondly, it remains 
without prejudice to already existing sex discrimination law; and thirdly it is not applicable 
to  the  internal  affairs  of  associations  (this  follows  implicitly  from  the  constitutionally 
guaranteed  freedom  of  association).  Furthermore,  the  law  is  not  applicable  to  unilateral 
acts  by  public  officials  or  Government  bodies  (i.e.  acts  of  regulation  and  legislation  and 
acts by which such rules are executed).8 The latter limitation to the scope does not apply 
to  statutory  social  security  provisions  (which  are  only  covered  for  the  ground  of 
race/ethnicity). 

The  prohibition  of  age  discrimination  in  the  ADA  is  inapplicable  with  regard  to 
(occupational) pension provision (supplementary to pension provision on the basis of social 
security law) and with regard to actuarial calculations for pension provision.9 

5. Enforcing the law  

The GETA, the DDA and the ADA do not prescribe compulsory judicial procedures. Normal 
civil or administrative procedures can be used to enforce the equal treatment standards 
laid down in these acts. In addition, certain discriminatory acts are covered by the Criminal 
Code  and  these  can  be  enforced  through  criminal  law,  although  this  possible  route  is 
seldom  used  in  practice.  Individual  victims  can  report  discrimination  to  the  police  but 
cannot  instigate  criminal  proceedings;  the  decision  to  prosecute  is  always  taken  by  the 
Public  Prosecutor  (Openbaar  Ministerie).  Victims  who  disagree  with  a  decision  not  to 
prosecute can apply to the Court of Appeal, which may overrule the Public Prosecutor and 
order prosecution (Article 12, Code of Criminal Procedure). Of great practical relevance is 
the  special  low  threshold  procedure  before  the  Netherlands  Institute  for  Human  Rights 
(NIHR). The NIHR is an independent quasi-judicial body whose case law is non-binding but 
nevertheless  authoritative.  Interest  groups  (NGOs  and  other  organisations)  have  legal 
standing before both the courts and the NIHR and can act on behalf or in support of victims 
and also defend the public interest (actio popularis). The local anti-discrimination services 
(ADVs) can assist victims in bringing discrimination cases to the NIHR or to the courts. In 
addition,  the  NIHR  may  conduct  investigations  on  its  own  initiative.  Despite  their  non-
binding character, the Opinions issued by the NIHR are frequently followed by the parties 
concerned.10  

The  ‘partially  reversed  burden  of  proof’  applies  in  procedures  before  the  courts  and  the 
NIHR.  Regarding  sanctions,  the  GETA,  DDA  and  ADA  only  stipulate  that  discriminatory 
dismissals  (and  dismissals  related  to  victimisation)  are  voidable  and  that  contractual 
provisions that are in contravention of the equal treatment acts are null and void. Under 
the  ordinary  court  procedures,  if  an  employee  has  been  dismissed  contrary  to  equal 
treatment law, the termination of the contract can be invalidated and the employee can 
thereupon claim wages. They can also request to be reinstated in the job. Alternatively, 
they  can  claim  pecuniary  damages  under  general  administrative,  contract  or  tort  law. 
Sanctions in criminal proceedings can be imposed in the form of either a fine or a prison 

8   As the directives do not require this, this is not an issue from an EU perspective. 
9   No adjustments have been made to this exception in response to the Court’s judgment in the Court of 

Justice of the European Union (CJEU), Case C-476/11 HK Danmark, 26 September 2013, 
https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=142214&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mo
de=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1934200, in which age-related increases in pension contributions were 
found to be outside the scope of Article 6(2) of the Employment Equality Framework Directive. 

10   The NIHR reports on the follow-up to its Opinions in its annual reports, see further section 7.8.a below. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

sentence. In practice, however, prison sentences are not imposed for discrimination. The 
provisions  of  the  Criminal  Code  cover  all  grounds  of  discrimination  mentioned  in  the 
Directives, except age. Hence, for age discrimination, only civil law sanctions apply.  

The laws’ complicated and, in fact, limited arsenal of sanctions raises doubts about whether 
they meet the  requirement in the directives that sanctions be  ‘effective’,  ‘proportionate’ 
and ‘dissuasive’. Unlike the courts, the NIHR has no competence to impose sanctions. The 
NIHR can make recommendations to a party that has discriminated against someone and 
it may forward its findings to the minister concerned and to organisations of employers, 
employees, professionals and the like. The NIHR can also bring legal action with a view to 
obtaining a court ruling on situations of unequal treatment. To date, however, it has not 
made use of this power. 

6. Equality bodies 

The  NIHR 
is  the  designated  equality  body  (on  the  basis  of  Article  13  of 
Directive 2000/43/EC) at the national level. It has a broad human rights mandate within 
which it also operates as a quasi-judicial  equality body with the competence to give legal 
opinions on discrimination complaints. These Opinions are not binding, but are in practice 
very  authoritative.  The  NIHR  mandate  further  covers  conducting  surveys  and  issuing 
reports  and  recommendations.  The  NIHR  does  not  assist  victims  of  discrimination,  this 
function is carried out by the ADVs (see below). The NIHR also has an advisory task (e.g. 
for the Government when it is drafting or amending equality laws or for employers when 
they are developing new policies) and it performs information and research activities (e.g. 
through its annual bulletins and by assigning research projects to independent institutes). 
The NIHR deals with all non-discrimination grounds in the GETA, DDA and ADA, as well as 
more  specific  equal  treatment  grounds  (such  as  the  type  or  duration  of  employment 
contracts).  It  is  also  responsible  for  monitoring  the  implementation  of  the  CRPD.  All 
reports,  advice  and  Opinions  (judgments  in  individual  cases)  are  published  on  the 
Institute’s website.11 

The  NIHR  has  between  9  and  12  members  who  are  mostly  legal  experts.  The  NIHR  Act 
contains guarantees for their independence. The NIHR and its staff bureau are funded by 
the Government (from the budgets of a number of ministries) and are accountable to the 
Government by means of an annual report and by independent financial auditing. Every 
five  years  an  internal  and  external  evaluation  report  is  published  and  submitted  to  the 
Government and Parliament.  In 2023, several members of the NIHR reported harassment, 
discrimination  and  favouritism  by  the  Institute’s  president  and  other  members.  A 
committee  of  investigation  was  appointed,  and  presented  its  report  in  July  2024.  The 
committee  found  several  deficiencies  relating  to  the  overall  governance  structure  of  the 
NIHR and the role played by the president. However, it found no evidence of discrimination 
and concluded that the deficiencies did not amount to structural abuse and did not touch 
on the public interest.12 

The  local  anti-discrimination  services  (ADVs)  have  also  been  designated  by  the 
Government as equality bodies in the terms of the directives. Their tasks are closely related 
to but do not  overlap  with those  of the  NIHR.  All local authorities are  obliged by law to 
have  an  ADV  in  place.  The  ADVs  have  two  legal  tasks:  to  assist  people  who  have  a 
discrimination complaint and to register all such complaints and bring them to the attention 
of the Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations. A report published in 2023 signalled 
a  number  of  problems  concerning  the  functioning  of  the  ADVs,  including  with  regard  to 
their visibility, independence and the availability of financial resources (see section 7.1.b 
of this report, below).  

11   See: www.mensenrechten.nl.  
12   See section 7.2 of this report.  

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

7. Key issues  

The following key issues are of concern in the Dutch context, regarding the implementation 
and transposition of the directives. 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Overall, Dutch legislation and policies in the field of anti-discrimination are of a high 
standard. Still, there is ample evidence that (structural) discrimination continues to 
be prevalent in the Netherlands (see further section 11); 
Political parties on the extreme right/populist far right side of the political spectrum 
are gaining increasing support and have become an established presence in the Dutch 
political landscape, attesting to the increasing normalisation of racist and xenophobic 
attitudes in the Netherlands (see further section 11); 
A  bill  that  would  have  introduced  a  positive  duty  on  employers  and  intermediary 
agencies  to  develop  policies  for  non-discriminatory  recruitment  and  selection 
procedures  (Wetsvoorstel  toezicht  gelijke  kansen  bij  werving  en  selectie)  was 
rejected by the Dutch Senate (Eerste Kamer) in March 2024, after the liberal party 
(VVD) withdrew its support;13 
A high level of discrimination is experienced in the banking sector. People with a ‘non-
western’  migration  background,  including  Muslims,  are  especially  affected.  The 
discrimination is mostly experienced in the form of excessive controls, following from 
institutional  policies  to  prevent  money  laundering  and  financing  of  terrorism  (see 
further section 11);  
Research shows that digital technologies, including algorithms, are widely used in the 
field  of  education,  including  in  primary,  secondary  and  higher  education,  possibly 
enhancing bias against, for example, pupils with disabilities or those with a migration 
background (see section 11); 
The great majority of people who experience discrimination in the Netherlands do not 
report it. Most people  who chose not to  report an incident of discrimination did so 
because they believed that reporting would not help (see further section 11);  
In  its  most  recent  evaluation  of  the  Dutch  equal  treatment  legislation,  the  NIHR 
expressed  concern  about  the  fragmented  nature  of  this  legislation  (see  further 
section 11); 
In the same  evaluation, the NIHR points out that it  currently lacks the capacity to 
conduct  investigations  into  situations  of  institutional  discrimination,  including 
algorithmic discrimination, on a regular basis (see section 11); 
The  Netherlands  does  not  have  a  legal  or  policy  framework  for  the  collection  of 
(disaggregated)  equality  data,  which  makes  it  more  difficult  to  monitor  the 
prevalence of discrimination and formulate adequate anti-discrimination policies. 

Some elements of Dutch legislation or practice do not seem to  comply fully with the EU 
directives: 

- 

- 

- 

- 

the accumulative conditions in the ‘harassment’ definition may be considered to fall 
short of the directives’ ‘non-regression’ clause (see section 2.4 of the report); 
arguably, the Dutch Government interprets the prohibition of an ‘instruction to make 
a  distinction’  unduly  narrowly,  including  in  relation  to  the  scope  of  liability  for  this 
type of discrimination (see section 2.5 of the report); 
the  use  of  risk  profiles  that  include  the  criterion  ‘of  non-Dutch  origin’  could  be  in 
contravention of Directive 2000/43/EC (see section 3.2.5 of the report); 
case law from the Dutch courts on residence requirements for social security show 
that  the  courts  do  not  always  establish  whether  the  use  of  such  requirements 
amounts  to  indirect  discrimination  on  the  ground  of  racial  or  ethnic  origin  before 
proceeding  to  the  question  of  justification.  By  failing  to  establish  whether  the 
residence requirements put persons of a certain racial or ethnic origin at a particular 
disadvantage, the courts do not give full effect to the Racial Equality Directive (RED) 
(see section 3.2.5); 

13   A  flash  report  was  published  on  this  development;  see  https://www.equalitylaw.eu/downloads/6100-

netherlands-act-against-labour-market-discrimination.  

10 

 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

- 

it is doubtful whether the sanctions imposed by Dutch courts in discrimination cases, 
in particular given the high threshold for awarding non-material damages, meet the 
requirements of being ‘effective’, ‘dissuasive’ and ‘proportionate’ as required by EU 
law (see section 6.5 of the report). 

Positive developments and good practices that stand out in 2024 are as follows: 

- 

- 

- 

- 

The State Commission against Discrimination and Racism  started a pilot for a self-
assessment  tool  to  enable  Government  agencies  to  detect  risks  of  discrimination 
embedded in their work processes and organisational culture (see section 10);  
Investigations are ongoing into the possibility of expanding the scope of the General 
Equal Treatment Act (GETA) to cover so-called unilateral Government acts (eenzijdig 
overheidshandelen).  This  would  make  it  easier  for  individuals  to  obtain  legal 
protection  against  discrimination  resulting  from,  for  example,  ethnic  profiling  and 
other  law  enforcement  practices,  and  to  combat  institutional  discrimination  (see 
section 10); 
In  2024  the  Dutch  Data  Protection  Authority  (Autoriteit  Persoonsgegevens)  was 
expanded  with  a  new  directorate  to  monitor  risks  resulting  from  the  use  of 
algorithms.  Among  the  priorities  identified  by  the  Directorate  is  the  prevention  of 
discrimination through algorithms (see section 10); 
The Government confirmed its intention to ratify the Optional Protocol to the CRPD 
(accepting the right of individual petition) and added that it would not opt out of the 
possibility to allow the treaty monitoring body to conduct an investigation of its own 
accord (see further section 10). 

11 

 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

INTRODUCTION 

The national legal system 

The Netherlands is a decentralised, unitary state. Equal treatment legislation is passed at 
the national level. Municipalities may pursue their own anti-discrimination policies within 
the boundaries set by national law. The principles of equality and non-discrimination are 
embedded in various legal instruments. Of relevance are the Constitution, specific statutory 
equal treatment acts, criminal law and labour law. The Dutch constitutional system adheres 
to a monist theory of international law, meaning that international equality guarantees are 
automatically  applicable  in  the  national  legal  system  (provided  that  they  are  sufficiently 
clear and precise to be justiciable in individual cases) and that statutory acts that are not 
compatible with such guarantees will be set aside, (Articles 93 and 94 Dutch Constitution). 
Because  the  Netherlands  does  not  allow  constitutional  review  of  statutory  acts, 
international provisions such as Article 14 ECHR and Article 26 ICCPR play a major role in 
guaranteeing the compliance of statutory law with the principle of non-discrimination.  

Private  employment  contracts  are  regulated  by  Book  7  of  the  Civil  Code  (Burgerlijk 
Wetboek), which contains equal treatment provisions, and by the statutory equal treatment 
acts. Regulation also occurs through collective labour agreements (CAOs) at the level of 
the sector or individual employer. Civil servants are subject to the same employment rules 
as private sector employees, with the exception of specific categories such as judges and 
military personnel.14 The main equality body is the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights 
(NIHR) (College voor de Rechten van de Mens), which is also a quasi-judicial body dealing 
with complaints of unequal treatment.  

List of main legislation transposing and implementing the directives 

Official title of the law: Constitution for the Kingdom of the Netherlands of 
24 August 181515 
Name used in this report: (Dutch) Constitution 
Abbreviation: N/A 
Date of adoption: 24 August 1815 
Entry into force: 24 August 1815 
Latest relevant amendments: 22 February 2023 
Web link: https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001840 
Grounds covered: Religion, belief, political opinion, race, sex, disability, sexual 
orientation or any other ground16 
Constitutional law 
Material scope: all fields 
Principal content: Article 1 Dutch Constitution is a general non-discrimination provision, 
prohibiting discrimination on the above-mentioned grounds 

Official title of the law: General Equal Treatment Act17 
Abbreviation: GETA 
Date of adoption: 2 March 1994 
Entry into force: 1 September 1994 
Latest relevant amendments: 1 November 2019 
Web link: http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0006502 

14   Act on the regularisation of the legal status of civil servants (Wet normalisering rechtspositie ambtenaren), 
Staatsblad 2017, 123. The Act entered into force on 1 January 2020. The exempted categories are listed in 
Article 3 Civil Servants Act (Ambtenarenwet 2017). 

15   Constitution for the Kingdom of the Netherlands of 24 August 1815 (Grondwet voor het Koninkrijk der 

Nederlanden van 24 augustus 1815), Staatsblad 1815, 45. 

16   The grounds of disability and sexual orientation were expressly added to the text of Article 1 of the 

Netherlands Constitution by means of the constitutional amendment of 22 February 2023. 
17   General Equal Treatment Act (Algemene wet gelijke behandeling), Staatsblad 1994, 230. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

Grounds covered: Race, religion & belief, political opinion, hetero- or homosexual 
orientation, sex (including sex characteristics, gender identity and gender expression), 
nationality and civil (or marital) status 
Civil/administrative law 
Material scope: Employment relationships (both civil and public), occupational training 
and education, goods and services (including general education) + liberal professions 
Principal content: Prohibition of direct and indirect discrimination 

Official title of the law: Act on equal treatment on the ground of disability or 
chronic illness 18  
Name used in this report: Disability Discrimination Act 
Abbreviation: DDA 
Date of adoption: 3 April 2003 
Entry into force: 1 December 2003 
Latest relevant amendments: 14 June 2016 
Web link: http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0014915 
Grounds covered: Disability and chronic illness 
Civil/administrative law 
Material scope: Employment relationships (both civil and public), occupational training 
and education + liberal professions + goods and services (including general education) 
Principal content: Prohibition of direct and indirect discrimination 

Official title of the law: Act on equal treatment on the ground of age in 
employment19 
Name used in this report: Age Discrimination Act 
Abbreviation: ADA 
Date of adoption: 17 December 2003 
Entry into force: 1 May 2004 
Latest relevant amendments: 10 July 2014 
Web link: http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0016185 
Grounds covered: Age 
Civil/administrative law 
Material scope: Employment relationships (both civil and public), occupational training 
and education + liberal professions 
Principal content: Prohibition of direct and indirect discrimination 

Official title of the law: Criminal Code20 
Abbreviation: N/A 
Date of adoption: 3 March 1881 
Entry into force: 15 January 1886 
Latest relevant amendments: 19 April 2005 
Web link: https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001854 
Grounds covered: race, religion, belief, sex, hetero- or homosexual orientation 
Criminal law 
Material scope: employment (private and public sector), access to goods and services, 
public services 
Principal content: Article 429quater prohibits discriminatory acts committed in the 
performance of one’s function, employment or enterprise  

Official title of the law: Civil Code21 
Abbreviation: N/A 
Date of adoption: 22 November 1991 

18   Act on equal treatment on the ground of disability or chronic illness (Wet gelijke behandeling op grond van 

handicap of chronische ziekte), Staatsblad 2003, 206, entry into force Staatsblad 2003, 329. 

19   Act on equal treatment on the ground of age in employment (Wet gelijke behandeling op grond van leeftijd 

bij de arbeid), Staatsblad 2004, 30, entry into force Staatsblad 2004, 90. 

20   Criminal Code (Wetboek van Strafrecht), Staatsblad 1881, 35. 
21   Civil Code (Burgerlijk Wetboek), Staatsblad 1991, 600. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

Entry into force: 22 November 1991 
Latest relevant amendments: 1 July 2015 
Web link: https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0005290  
Grounds covered: sex, duration of contract, permanent or fixed-term contract 
Civil law 
Material scope: employment 
Principal  content:  Book  7  of  the  Civil  Code  includes  specific  articles  prohibiting  sex 
discrimination and discrimination in relation to the duration of employment contracts and 
whether they are permanent or fixed-term contracts (Articles 7:646-7:649).  

Official title of the law: Act on working conditions22 
Abbreviation: N/A 
Date of adoption: 18 March 1999 
Entry into force: 1 November 1999 
Latest relevant amendments: 1 January 2007 
Web link: https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0010346  
Grounds covered: all grounds 
Civil law 
Material scope: employment 
Principal content: Article 3(2) Act on Working Conditions contains a positive obligation 
for employers to prevent and combat discrimination and (sexual) harassment in the 
workplace. 

Official title of the law: Act on the establishment of the Netherlands Institute 
for Human Rights23 
Name used in this report: Netherlands Institute for Human Rights Act 
Abbreviation: NIHR Act 
Date of adoption: 24 November 2011 
Entry into force: 1 October 2012 
Latest relevant amendments: N/A 
Web link: https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0030733 
Grounds covered: all grounds 
Administrative law 
Material scope: all fields 
Principal content: The NIHR establishes the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights, 
the national equality body. 

22   Act on Working Conditions (Arbeidsomstandighedenwet), Staatsblad 1999, 184. 
23   Act on the establishment of the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights (Wet College voor de rechten van de 

mens), Staatsblad 2011, 573. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

1  GENERAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK  

Constitutional provisions on protection against discrimination and the promotion 
of equality  

The  constitution  of  the  Netherlands  includes  the  following  article  dealing  with  non-
discrimination: 

Article 1 

‘All  persons  in  the  Netherlands  shall  be  treated  equally  in  equal  circumstances. 
Discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race, sex, disability, 
sexual orientation or on any other ground shall be prohibited.’  

As the wording of this provision shows, it is a general clause with an open-ended list of 
grounds and no limitation in terms of its material scope.  The term ‘any other ground’ is 
understood  to  include  age,  which  is  expressly  protected  in  statutory  equal  treatment 
legislation  implementing  the  constitutional  non-discrimination  clause.  It  was  also 
understood to include disability and sexual orientation, until Article 1 was amended in 2023 
so as to explicitly include these grounds. The bill proposing this amendment took 13 years 
to  get  through  Parliament  (in  the  Netherlands,  constitutional  amendments  require  two 
readings in differently composed Chambers to be passed). During this period, there have 
been many political debates in which alternative formulations were considered, such as a 
provision that does not mention any grounds at all (‘Discrimination on any ground shall be 
prohibited’) or a provision adding still more grounds (e.g. age or socio-economic status).24 
An amendment to add the ground of ‘age’ was rejected after the Council of State advised 
against  its  inclusion  because  it  was  of  a  different  degree  of  ‘suspectness’  compared  to 
disability and sexual orientation.25 On 7 January 2023, the amendment bill was adopted at 
its second reading. The amendment entered into force on 22 February 2023.26  

The provision applies to all areas covered by the directives. Its material scope is broader 
than those of the directives. 

The provision is directly applicable, but Article 120 of the Dutch Constitution prohibits the 
courts from assessing the constitutionality of statutory laws, including their compatibility 
with Article 1 of the Constitution. Consequently, statutory acts cannot be set aside by a 
court  if  they  prove  to  be  discriminatory.  The  consequences  of  this  in  terms  of  legal 
protection of persons against discrimination are mitigated, however, since Articles 93 and 
94  of  the  Dutch  Constitution  allow  all  domestic  courts  to  set  aside  and  disapply  even 
statutory legislation if it is in conflict with a treaty provision on equal treatment. Moreover, 
Article 120 of the Dutch Constitution only applies to statutory legislation. Lower legislation 
(such as Government decrees or municipal bylaws), administrative decisions etc. can be 
reviewed for their compatibility with the Constitution. 

24   For further analysis of the history and debates surrounding the amended provision, see De Vries, K. M. 

(2023), ‘Constitutionalising the Status Quo: Expanding non-discrimination protections to include disability 
and sexual orientation in the Dutch Constitution’, Constitutionnet 27 February 2023, 
https://constitutionnet.org/news/constitutionalising-status-quo-expanding-non-discrimination-protections 
and Gerards, J. H. (2023) ‘De nieuwe discriminatiegronden van artikel 1 Grondwet – lijnen in het debat’ 
(The new grounds of discrimination of Article 1 of the Constitution – lines in the debate), in: Gerards, J.H., 
Goossens, J. and Van Vugt, E.Y. (eds.), Constitutionele verandering in Nederland? De grondwetswijzigingen 
van 2022-2023 (Constitutional Change in the Netherlands? The Constitutional Amendments of 2022-2023), 
The Hague: Bju 2023, pp. 273-307. 

25   Handelingen II (Parliamentary Proceedings of the Second Chamber) 2019-2020, No. 89, item 14. The advice 
of the Council of State is published as Tweede Kamer 2019-2020, 32 411, No. 14. The Council found that 
the ground of ‘age’ was of a different nature from ‘disability’ and ‘sexual orientation’ because there are 
many situations in which differences on the ground of age are objectively and reasonably justified.  

26   See: Staatsblad 2023, 62. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

The  provision  can  be  enforced  against  private  individuals27  as  well  as  against  the  state, 
with  the  exception  stated  above.  However,  because  of  its  open  character,  the  provision 
does not specify what the equal treatment or non-discrimination norm entails in concrete 
situations and how this norm should be weighed against other constitutional rights (e.g. 
freedom  of  speech/opinion  or  freedom  of  belief/religion).  In  order  to  ensure  the 
applicability of the  equality principle in horizontal relations, the  constitutional guarantee 
has been incorporated into criminal law provisions and specific statutory equal treatment 
legislation (ADA, DDA, GETA and ETA). 

27   E.g. Supreme Court 8 October 2004, NJ 2005/117 (Van Pelt/Martinair and KLM / Vereniging van 

Verkeersvliegers), ECLI:NL:HR:2004:AP0425. 

16 

 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

2  THE DEFINITION OF DISCRIMINATION 

2.1  Definition of the grounds of unlawful discrimination within the directives 

The  grounds  of  racial  or  ethnic  origin,  religion  or  belief,  disability,  age  and  sexual 
orientation are not defined in Dutch equal treatment law. Dutch equal treatment legislation 
applies  symmetrically,  meaning  that  people  from  both  the  dominant  group  and  the 
disadvantaged group are covered. As grounds of discrimination have to be interpreted in 
concrete cases, some indications about the definition of grounds can be derived from case 
law.  

a) 

Racial or ethnic origin 

The Explanatory Memorandum to the GETA stresses that ‘race’ is a broad concept, which 
must  be  interpreted  in  line  with  the  UN  International  Convention  on  the  Elimination  of 
Racial Discrimination (ICERD). The concept embraces race, colour, descent and national or 
ethnic  origin.28  In  the  EC  Implementation  Act  of  2004,  the  Government  did  not  deem  it 
necessary to explicitly include the notion of ‘ethnic origin’, since this is sufficiently captured 
by the aforementioned interpretation of ‘race’.29  

The Supreme Court and the NIHR (formerly the ETC) both subscribe to the ICERD definition 
of race.30 Both the courts and the NIHR tend to interpret the definition of ‘race’ as referring 
to  particular  characteristics  (e.g.  colour,  national  origin  or  culture)  rather  than  as  a 
category resulting from processes of racialisation.31 To determine whether an applicant in 
an individual case can rely on the ground of ‘race’ (including ethnic origin) the NIHR uses 
as a yardstick whether the applicant belongs to ‘a coherent group with collective physical, 
ethnic,  geographical  or  cultural  characteristics  and  which  distinguishes  itself  from  other 
groups  by  common  features  or  a  common  behaviour’.32  It  is  commonly  accepted  in  the 
case law of the NIHR that the ground  of ‘race’ applies to persons belonging to so-called 
‘non-western’ migrant minorities, for example persons of Turkish or Surinamese origin. 33 
However, the NIHR has also applied the ground more generally to the group of ‘persons of 
non-Dutch origin’.34 Travellers can also rely on the ground of race.35  

In 2017 the NIHR explicitly stated that its interpretation of the ground of ‘race’ in Dutch 
equal  treatment  legislation  is  broader  than  the  definition  or  ‘racial  and  ethnic  origin’ 
provided  by  the  CJEU  in  the  case  of  Jyske  Finans.  Unlike  the  CJEU  the  NIHR  does  not 
require that persons belonging to a disadvantaged group must be of any particular ethnic 
origin. Hence, the ground of ‘race’ in the GETA also covers, for example, ‘persons of non-
Dutch origin’. In the NIHR’s view, if the CJEU’s interpretation of ‘ethnic origin’ were to be 
followed this would mean a significant lowering of the level of protection provided by the 
GETA.36 

It can be difficult to draw the line between race, ethnicity and religion.37 If all three grounds 
were  protected  to  the  same  extent  (as  far  as  the  personal  and  material  scope  of  the 

28   Explanatory Memorandum to the GETA, Tweede Kamer 1990-1991, 22 014, No. 3, p. 13. The notion of 

‘national origin’ only embraces nationality in an ethnic sense. Nationality in a civic sense is covered by the 
non-discrimination ground of nationality. 

29   Explanatory Memorandum to the EC Implementation Act, Tweede Kamer 2002-2003, 28 770, No. 3, p. 3. 

See also Gerards, J. H. and Heringa, A. W. (2003), Wetgeving gelijke behandeling (Equal treatment 
legislation), Deventer, Kluwer, pp. 28-30.  

30   E.g. Supreme Court 14 March 1978, ECLI:NL:PHR:1978:AC3463; ETC 1995-23. 
31   E.g. Supreme Court 20 March 2016, ECLI:NL:HR:2016:510; NIHR Opinion 2019-135 of 23 December 2019. 
32   See, for example, ETC 1997-119 and 1998-57. 
33   E.g. NIHR 2020-100 and NIHR 2020-76. 
34   NIHR Opinion 2023-97 of 12 September 2023. For details see the case law section (12.2) in this report. 
35   E.g. NIHR 2020-108, NIHR 2020-88. 
36   NIHR 2017-67. 
37   In line with the interpretation by e.g. the European Court of Human Rights, discrimination against Jews is 
put on a par with discrimination on grounds of race. Discrimination against Muslims is not approached in a 
similar way. 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

legislation is concerned and the exceptions to the non-discrimination ground are similar for 
each of these grounds), that would be no problem.  However, this is not the case in the 
Dutch legal system where – following the directives – race is covered more broadly than 
religion.  

Another  discussion  concerns  the  exact  borderline  between 
‘race/ethnicity’  and 
nationality.38 The GETA mentions nationality as a separate discrimination ground next to 
race,  but  race  discrimination  is  covered  more  broadly  (including  the  field  of  social 
security/social  protection).  In  cases  concerning  hate  speech  and  group  insult  (see 
Introduction) the Supreme Court does accept that the ground of ‘race’ covers references 
to  nationality  and  immigration  status  (e.g.  ‘Surinamese’,  ‘Moroccans’  or  ‘asylum 
seekers’).39 In line with this case law, politician Geert Wilders was found guilty in 2016 of 
incitement to racial discrimination against ‘Moroccans’. This verdict was upheld in 2020 by 
the Court of Appeal.40 

In the most recent evaluation of the GETA, the NIHR observed that further specification of 
the  term  ‘race’  in  the  equal  treatment  legislation,  for  example  by  adding  ‘skin  colour’, 
‘descent’, ‘ethnic origin’ and ‘language’, could potentially help to clarify the scope of the 
prohibition  on  discrimination,  especially  towards  actors  who  may  be  liable  for 
discrimination. At the same time, however, the NIHR also pointed at complexities such as 
the  need  to  maintain  the  possibility  of  objective  justification  at  least  in  relation  to  the 
ground ‘language’.41  

b) 

Religion or belief 

‘Religion’  is  not  defined  in  the  Constitution,  the  GETA  or  anywhere  else  in  the  equal 
treatment legislation. According to the legislative history of the GETA, the term ‘religion’ 
covers both the fact of having religious beliefs or adhering to a certain philosophy of life 
and the fact of acting in accordance with that conviction.42  

In the Netherlands the term ‘belief’ (geloof) is not used. In the Explanatory Memorandum 
to the EC Implementation Act, the Government explained that it wished to continue using 
the term levensovertuiging, which translates as ‘philosophy of life’, rather than introducing 
the term geloof. According to the Government, there is no material difference between the 
two  terms.  In  this  report,  the  term  ‘belief’  is  used  where  Dutch  law  uses  the  term 
levensovertuiging.43 This  term has no  further definition in the Constitution, the  GETA  or 
elsewhere in the equal treatment legislation. 

‘Religion’ and ‘belief’ are interpreted in a broad sense by the NIHR and the courts (including 
in  cases  concerning  freedom  of  religion).  The  interpretation  of  these  terms  is  strongly 
inspired  by  the  case  law  of  the  European  Court  of  Human  Rights  (ECtHR)  and  other 
international  institutions  (e.g.  the  UN  Human  Rights  Committee).44  To  qualify  as  an 

38   See, for example, ETC 2011-97 and 2011-98, including the case comment by A. Böcker and S. Dursum-
Aksel in Foster, C. J. et al. (eds.) (2012), Oordelenbundel 2011 (‘NIHR Opinions 2011’). Nijmegen, Wolf 
Legal Publishers, pp. 453-464. For a more recent example see NIHR Opinion 2023-79 of 19 July 2023, para 
4.6. 

39   E.g. Supreme Court 16 April 1996, ECLI:NL:PHR:1996:AD2525; Supreme Court 26 June 2012, 

ECLI:NL:HR:2012:BW9189. 

40   Court of Appeal of The Hague 4 September 2020, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2020:1606. 
41   Netherlands  Institute  for  Human  Rights  (2023),  Evaluation  of  the  equal  treatment  legislation  2017-2022 

(Evaluatie gelijkebehandelingswetgeving 2017-2022), Utrecht, pp. 34-35. 

42   Explanatory Memorandum to the GETA, Tweede Kamer 1990-1991, 22 014, No. 3, pp. 39-40 and 

Memorandum in Response to the GETA (Memorie van Antwoord bij de Algemene Wet Gelijke Behandeling), 
Tweede Kamer 1990-1991, 22 014, No. 5, pp. 39-40. See also, inter alia, ETC 1997-46, 2004-112 and 
2004-148.  

43   The NIHR, in the English translation of the GETA on its website, also translates ‘levensovertuiging’ as 

‘belief’.  

44   E.g. Administrative Jurisdiction Division (AJD) of the Council of State 15 August 2018, 

ECLI:NL:RVS:2018:2715, para 9. In this case the AJD found that pastafarianism did not meet the 
requirements of ‘seriousness’ and ‘cohesion’ as formulated by the ECtHR in relation to Article 9 ECHR 
(freedom of religion).  

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

expression of religion or belief, it is not necessary for a particular manifestation (e.g. the 
wearing of headscarves by women) to be a mandatory requirement of the religion or belief 
concerned45  or  to  be  practised  by  all  persons  adhering  to  that  religion  or  belief.46  The 
wearing of a headscarf and the wish not to shake hands with a person of the opposite sex 
are  among  the  acts  that  are  commonly  accepted  by  the  NIHR  as  manifestations  of 
religion.47 

The NIHR has found that a man who refused to be tested for or vaccinated against COVID-
19 could not rely on the discrimination ground ‘belief’, because his convictions, which he 
himself qualified as ‘libertine-legalistic freedom thinking’, were insufficiently encompassing 
and did not include fundamental convictions relating to the human condition. Instead they 
related  predominantly  to  his  interpretation  of  the  Dutch  Constitution,  as  the  man  had 
argued  that  his  views  were  based  on  the  right  to  freedom  as  it  is  laid  down  in  the 
Constitution.48 The NIHR did accept that the man could rely on the discrimination ground 
‘political  opinion’.  Since  both  grounds  are  protected  in  the  same  way,  the  practical 
consequences of distinguishing between them were considered to be limited.  

c) 

Disability 

The  Dutch  equal  treatment  legislation  does  not  define  disability,  as  the  Government 
deemed  it  unnecessary  and  undesirable  to  do  so.49  However,  unlike  the  Employment 
Equality  Directive,  the  DDA  expressly  mentions  ‘chronic  illness’  as  a  ground  alongside 
‘disability’. Criteria mentioned during the parliamentary discussions on the DDA to define 
‘disability’ were, amongst others, the long duration of the disability or chronic illness and 
the fact that – in the case of disability – the impairment is irreversible. This means that a 
short-term disability is excluded.50 According to the Explanatory Memorandum to the DDA, 
the  concept  of  disability  (handicap)  covers  not  only  physical,  but  also  intellectual  and 
psychological  impairments.51  The  Government  was  of  the  opinion  that  differences  in 
treatment on the ground of disability do not only result from the physical or psychological 
characteristics of the individual, but also from a physical and/or social environment that 
prevents them from participating on an equal footing.52 This interpretation appears to be 
in  line  with  the  definition  of  disability  provided  by  the  CJEU  in  HK  Danmark  (Ring  and 
Skouboe Werge). 

Both the courts and the NIHR accept that the term ‘disability’ must be defined in conformity 
with  the  CRPD  and  with  the  Employment  Equality  Directive  as  interpreted  by  the  CJEU, 
including  in  the  cases  of  HK  Danmark  (Ring  and  Skouboe  Werge)  (C-335/11  and  C-
337/11), Kaltoft (C-354/13) and Daouidi (C-395/15).53 Despite this general acceptance of 
the CJEU’s definition of ‘disability’, application  of this discrimination ground in individual 
cases sometimes remains focused on the existence of physical impairments.54 Moreover, 

45   Administrative Jurisdiction Division (AJD) of the Council of State 15 August 2018, ECLI:NL:RVS:2018:2715, 

para 8. 

46   See, for example, ETC 2008-12. 
47   E.g. ETC 2007-173, NIHR 2018-102 and 2020-74. 
48   NIHR Opinion 2022-44 of 2 May 2022.  
49   Explanatory Memorandum to the DDA, Tweede Kamer 2001-2002, 28 169, No. 3, p. 9. 
50   Explanatory Memorandum to the DDA, Tweede Kamer, 2001-2002, 28169, No. 3, p. 24 and No. 5, p. 16. 

See also ETC 2005-234. 

51   Tweede Kamer 2001-2002, 28 169, No. 3, p. 24.  
52   Tweede Kamer 2001-2002, 28 169, No. 3, p. 7. 
53   See, for example, Court of Appeal of Den Bosch, 30 June 2020, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2020:1978, para 3.6.4; 

District Court of Northern Holland 14 July 2020, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2020:5426, para 4.8 and District Court of 
the Central Netherlands 26 August 2021, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2021:4061, para 3.3. For the NIHR see, amongst 
others, NIHR Opinion 2014-158 of 11 December 2014, NIHR Opinion 2019-94 of 12 August 2019 and NIHR 
Opinion 2022-13 of 24 February 2022. 

54   See, for example, Court of Appeal of Den Bosch 30 June 2020, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2020:1978 and District 

Court of Northern Holland 14 July 2020, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2020:5426. A more social-contextual approach 
can be found in District Court of East Brabant 18 January 2018, ECLI:NL:RBOBR:2018:2005. All cases are 
discussed in more detail in the European network of legal experts in gender equality and non-discrimination 
(2023) Country report 2022 on non-discrimination for the Netherlands, pp. 18-19. 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

the courts do not always explain why they consider a particular situation to be covered by 
the ground ‘disability’.55 

The  NIHR held, in Opinions 2021-83 and 2021-84, that a girl with a  very high IQ (over 
145),  which  prevented  her  from  attending  school  regularly,  could  not  rely  on  the 
discrimination ground disability because she was not fully excluded from participating in 
the classes on offer.56 Although the NIHR referred to the definition of disability in the CRPD, 
it is the opinion of the author of this report  that the criterion of being ‘fully’ excluded is 
more restrictive than required by the CRPD or CJEU case law. To date the NIHR has not 
addressed  this  particular  question  in  cases  coming  within  the  scope  of  the  Employment 
Equality Directive. 

In  2023  the  Administrative  Jurisdiction  Division  of  the  Council  of  State  (AJD)  rejected  a 
claim  for  reasonable  accommodation  by  a  university  student  who  had  missed  several 
exams because he needed surgery following a traffic accident. After  confirming that  the 
ground ‘disability’ has to be interpreted in conformity with the CRPD and the Employment 
Equality Directive, the AJD held that the applicant’s medical situation was not long-lasting 
and did not prevent him from fully and effectively participating in professional life on an 
equal basis with others.57 In the same vein, the Amsterdam district court found that a rider 
for a grocery delivery service could not claim disability discrimination because, at the time 
of his dismissal, it could not be established that the injuries he sustained in a bike accident 
resulted in long-term incapacity for work.58 Both judgments seem in line with the CJEU’s 
definition of ‘disability’ in  Daouidi (C-395/15). Meanwhile, both the NIHR and the courts 
accept that illness resulting in long-term incapacity for work, such as (breast) cancer, falls 
under the definition of ‘chronic illness’ in the DDA even if a chance exists that the person 
concerned will fully recover.59 In 2024, the NIHR accepted for the first time that limitations 
in working capacity due to long COVID (or post-COVID syndrome) qualify as a disability.60 

A clear application of the social model approach to disability can be found in NIHR Opinion 
2023-31.61 The case concerned a young child who was denied access to several primary 
schools who claimed that they were unable to support the child’s special learning needs. 
Although  it  emerged  from  a  psychologist’s  report  that  the  child  experienced  several 
difficulties, including in terms of his linguistic development, behaviour and concentration, 
no medical diagnosis  was available. The fact that the child had not attended school  had 
stood in the way of reaching such diagnosis, as it had not been possible to evaluate his 
functioning  in  a  group  of  pupils.  Before  the  NIHR,  the  school  board  argued  that  the 
applicant (the child’s father) could not rely on the DDA because the child did not have a 
disability. In response, the NIHR stated that ‘in interpreting [the term ‘disability’] it must 
have  regard  to  the  social  restrictions  experienced  by  an  individual  as  a  result  of  their 
impairment and not exclusively to the medical-scientific definition of such impairment’.62 
The NIHR therefore considered itself competent to hear the case. 

d) 

Age 

The  legislator  has  not  defined  the  word  ‘age’.  Case  law  shows  that  it  is  not  only  direct 
references to someone’s age that are considered to be direct distinctions on this ground. 
The  use  of  classifications  like  ‘young’,  ‘old’,  ‘adult’,  ‘pensioner’  or  ‘student’  may  also  be 

55   See e.g. District Court of Limburg 25 October 2022, ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2022:8265, para 4.7. The district court 

found that a woman who was dismissed after she was diagnosed with pulmonary cancer could claim 
disability discrimination, but did so without referring to the expected duration of the disease or its effects on 
the woman’s condition.  

56   NIHR Opinions 2021-83 and 2021-84 of 2 July 2021. 
57   Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State 30 August 2023, ECLI:NL:RVS:2023:3307, para. 

4.2. 

58   District court Amsterdam 3 May 2023, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2023:2812, para 11. 
59   District court Zeeland-West-Brabant 22 March 2024, ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2024:2334; NIHR Opinion 2014-9 of 

30 January 2014; NIHR Opinion 2024-45 of 17 April 2014 and NIHR Opinion 2020-32 of 14 April 2020. 
60   NIHR Opinion 2024-98 of 2 December 2024, for details see the case law overview at the end of this report. 
61   NIHR Opinion 2023-31 of 8 March 2023, for details see section 12.2. 
62   NIHR Opinion 2023-31 of 8 March 2023.  

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

considered as such, as was established in the case of an applicant who believed he had 
been  denied  a  job  because  he  had  too  much  work  experience.63  In  another  case  an 
applicant  claimed  age  discrimination  because  his  employer  had  given  a  pay  rise  only  to 
employees  on the lower salary scales.  The court established that the salary  scales were 
linked  to  the  different  functions  performed  in  the  company  rather  than  to  age-related 
factors, such as the number of service years, therefore no age discrimination was found to 
have taken place.64 

In 2023, the NIHR reversed the position of the ETC, which held that a distinction based on 
‘relative  age’ (the age  difference between a person and her partner,  in the context  of a 
widow’s  pension)  resulted  in  indirect  age  discrimination.  Referring  to  the  Opinion  of 
Advocate-General Sharpston in Bartsch (C-427/06), the NIHR held that a distinction based 
on ‘relative age’ qualifies as direct age discrimination.65 

Since the ADA allows for objective justifications (open system) in case of both direct and 
indirect discrimination, the boundary between what kind of classification constitutes direct 
or indirect discrimination is not problematic.  

e) 

Sexual orientation 

The GETA employs the terminology ‘hetero- or homosexual orientation’ to cover the ground 
‘sexual orientation’ of Directive 2000/78/EC, without specifying what is covered by these 
terms.  The  Dutch  Government  opted  for  the  term  ‘orientation’  (gerichtheid)  rather  than 
‘preference’ (voorkeur) to reflect that it is not only individual emotions that are covered, 
but also concrete  expressions thereof.  It further follows  from parliamentary history that 
‘hetero-  or  homosexual  orientation’  covers  bisexual  orientation.66  One  reason  for  the 
legislature’s  preference  for  the  term  ‘hetero-  or  homosexual  orientation’  over  ‘sexual 
preference’ or ‘sexual orientation’ was that the latter terms might be understood to include 
‘paedophile  orientation’.  However,  since  its  amendment  in  2023  (see  section  1  above) 
Article 1 of the Dutch Constitution uses the term ‘sexual orientation’, which the authors of 
the  amendment  considered  to  be  more  inclusive  (especially  towards  lesbians  and 
bisexuals) and more in line with the terminology used in international and European law.67 
In 2020, based on the same arguments, the Government announced its intention to replace 
the  term  ‘hetero-  or  homosexual  orientation’  with  ‘sexual  orientation’  in  both  the  equal 
treatment  legislation  (GETA)  and  the  Criminal  Code.68  The  Government  added  that, 
although ‘sexual orientation’ does not encompass all forms of sexuality, it can be defined 
as ‘a sexual orientation – based on consensus and equality – towards persons of different 
or the same gender or of more than one gender’.69 A bill to introduce the new terminology 
was sent to Parliament in March 2024.70 As at the cut-off date for this report (1 January 
2025), the legislative process was still ongoing. 

2.2  Multiple and intersectional discrimination 

In the Netherlands, multiple and intersectional discrimination are not expressly prohibited 
by  law.  A  suggestion  made  by  the  then  Equal  Treatment  Commission  (ETC)  in  2011  to 
include an explicit prohibition of multiple discrimination in the GETA was rejected by the 
Government.71 Hence, when cases of such discrimination arise in practice, they have to be 
solved  by  means  of  interpretation  of  the  applicable  legislative,  constitutional,  EU  and 
international law provisions. Although the GETA contains a closed list of non-discrimination 

63   Court of Appeal of Den Bosch 1 September 2020, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2020:2703. 
64   Court of Appeal of The Hague 11 February 2020, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2020:154. 
65   NIHR Opinion 2023-123 of 22 November 2023. 
66   Tweede Kamer 1991-1992, 22 014, No. 10, p. 12. 
67   Tweede Kamer 2018-2019, 32 411, No. 9. 
68   Tweede Kamer 2019-2020, 30 950, No. 185, p. 21. 
69   This can be derived from the advice that has been published by the Advisory Division of the Council of 

State: https://www.raadvanstate.nl/adviezen/@126198/w04-21-0211/.  

70   Tweede Kamer 2023-2024, 36 510, No. 2. 
71   ETC (2011), Third evaluation report (2004-2009), p. 64.  

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

grounds,  the  legislative  history  does  not  exclude  the  possibility  that  a  finding  of 
discrimination is based on a combination of grounds. An interpretation of Article 1(1) GETA 
that allows for findings of multiple or intersectional discrimination further seems to be most 
in  line  with  the  legislator’s  objectives.  However,  in  cases  brought  before  the  NIHR  no 
material difference results from the recognition of multiple or intersectional discrimination, 
as the NIHR cannot impose sanctions and can only establish that an unlawful distinction 
has been made. 

In  the  Netherlands,  multiple  discrimination  is  taken  into  account  when  deciding  on 
discrimination cases. The NIHR occasionally deals with cases in which the applicant claims 
to  have  been  discriminated  against  on  multiple  grounds.  A  distinction  can  be  drawn 
between cases in which the claim concerns different (alleged) acts of discrimination, each 
relating to a different discrimination ground, and cases in which it is claimed that a single 
(alleged) act of discrimination is based on multiple grounds. One example of a case that 
falls in the first category concerns an employee  of a university  for applied sciences who 
experienced  discrimination  on  the  ground  of  gender  by  a  student  and,  in  a  separate 
incident,  discrimination  on  the  ground  of  racial  or  ethnic  origin  by  a  colleague.72  The 
equality body considered both acts separately and found that there had been discrimination 
on the ground of gender but not on the ground of racial or ethnic origin. An example from 
the second category concerns a woman with autism who worked as an assistant pharmacist 
in an academic hospital and had to take sick leave twice following miscarriages.73 Because 
of  her  autism,  the  woman  required  a  number  of  accommodations,  including  working  at 
different locations, in a low-stimulus working environment and with work days spread out 
over  the  week,  enabling  her  to  rest  in  between.  The  woman  claimed  that  the  hospital’s 
refusal  to  renew  her  (second)  temporary  contract  amounted  to  discrimination  on  the 
grounds  of  disability  and  sex  (pregnancy).  The  NIHR  investigated  each  discrimination 
ground  separately  and  found  that  the  hospital  had  done  all  that  could  reasonably  be 
expected to accommodate the woman (hence there had been no disability discrimination) 
and that it had  effectively  rebutted her claim that the pregnancy had  been (one  of) the 
reason(s) for not extending her contract. 

The  NIHR’s  recognition  of  multiple  discrimination  grounds  allows  it  to  address  claims  in 
full, considering different elements put forward by claimants.  

The  author  of  this  report  is  not  aware  of  any  court  decisions  concerning  multiple  or 
intersectional discrimination. 

In the Netherlands, intersectional discrimination is occasionally taken  into account when 
deciding on discrimination cases, as is explained further below. 

Between  2012,  when  the  Equal  Treatment  Commission  was  replaced  by  the  NIHR,  and 
2022,  the  concept  of  intersectionality  did  not  play  a  role  in  the  Opinions  issued  by  the 
NIHR.74  During  this  period,  cases  were  either  treated  as  involving  (potential)  multiple 
discrimination  or  as  involving  discrimination  on  a  single  ground.  The  latter  approach  is 
illustrated in cases concerning Islamic headscarves, which are almost always treated only 
as direct or indirect discrimination on the ground of religion. This may also be due to the 
fact that applicants often rely only on this ground.75 

Recently,  the  NIHR  has  begun  to  engage  more  explicitly  with  the  concept  of 
intersectionality. This can be seen in Opinion 2022-132 where the equality body dealt with 
the complaint of a woman of colour who claimed discrimination on the grounds of race and 

72   NIHR  Opinion  2024-82  of  2  October  2024.  See  also  NIHR  Opinion  2024-28  of  2  April  2024,  NIHR  Opinion 

2024-6 of 25 January 2024 and NIHR Opinion 2021-149 of 14 December 2021. 

73   NIHR Opinion 2024-17 of 15 February 2024. See also NIHR Opinion 2024-14 of 6 February 2024. 
74   De Vries, K. (2024), ‘Het College voor de Rechten van de Mens en het stereotype van de ‘stelende kleurling’. 
Een  vingeroefening  in  intersectionaliteit’  in:  Loof,  J.-P.  and  Lawson,  R.  (eds.),  Diverse  mensen  en  gelijke 
rechten anno 2024 (liber amicorum Titia Loenen), Leiden: Stichting NJCM-boekerij, pp. 205-209.  

75   E.g. NIHR Opinions 2017-135, 2018-24, 2019-57 and 2024-5. In Opinion 2017-91 the NIHR treated the 

case as involving race as well as religion; however, the claim was deemed unsubstantiated. 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

sex because she had not been considered for  a position in the  company where  she was 
contracted  as  a  temporary  worker.76  In  2023  the  NIHR  again  expressly  addressed 
intersectional discrimination in the case of a man of Ghanaian origin who was suspected of 
shoplifting. In this case, the equality body confirmed, in general terms, that a single case 
can  involve  multiple  discrimination  grounds,  whereby  both  grounds  can  apply 
independently from each other, one ground can reinforce the other or the different grounds 
can  be  intertwined  to  such  an  extent  that  it  is  their  combination  that  results  in  the 
distinction  being  made.  Despite  this  recognition,  the  NIHR  did  not  actually  take  an 
intersectional approach.77 Most recently, in 2024, the NIHR considered a complaint by a 
female employee of a public health organisation who had suffered racist harassment by a 
client and complained that the organisation had failed to adequately protect her. The NIHR 
acknowledged  that  the  woman  had  claimed  intersectional  discrimination  (as  a  black 
woman) but held that this part of the claim fell outside the scope of its assessment.78 In 
sum, the NIHR does recognise the possibility of intersectional discrimination but appears 
to still be searching for a way to effectively integrate an intersectional approach into its 
assessment of discrimination complaints. 

2.3  Assumed and associated discrimination 

a)  Discrimination by assumption 

In  the  Netherlands,  discrimination  based  on  a  perception  or  assumption  of  a  person’s 
characteristics, is not prohibited in national law (GETA, ADA and DDA) in an explicit way, 
but such cases are covered implicitly, as case law shows. For example, the NIHR treated 
the complaint of a man who alleged he had been refused a job because of his non-Dutch-
sounding name as a case of potential racial discrimination.79 

b)  Discrimination by association 

In  the  Netherlands,  discrimination  based  on  association  with  people  with  particular 
characteristics is not prohibited in national law in an explicit way. However, the wording of 
Article  1(1)  GETA  (the  legal  definition  of  what  is  a  ‘distinction’  for  the  purpose  of  equal 
treatment law) does not explicitly require that the alleged distinction is based on the race, 
religion/belief or sexual orientation of the alleged victim. It is therefore possible to interpret 
the Act so that it includes discrimination by association. The same goes for the grounds of 
age and disability, under Articles 1(b) ADA and DDA. In several opinions the ETC and later 
the NIHR, relying on the CJEU’s judgment in Coleman,80 indeed followed this line. To date, 
the equality bodies have considered claims of discrimination by association in  relation to 
the grounds of disability, race and nationality.81 It appears that Dutch law is in line with 
the judgments of the CJEU in Coleman (C-303/06) and CHEZ Razpredelenie (C-83/14). 

In  a  noteworthy  NIHR  Opinion  from  2022,  the  NIHR  accepted  that  a  man  had  suffered 
discrimination on the ground of racial or ethnic origin because of racist remarks made by 

76   NIHR Opinion 2022-132 of 21 November 2022, for further details see the European network of legal experts 

in gender equality and non-discrimination (2023) Country report 2023 on non-discrimination for the 
Netherlands, pp. 21-22. 

77   NIHR Opinion 2023-132 of 14 December 2023. For further details see the European network of legal experts 

in gender equality and non-discrimination (2024) Country report 2024 on non-discrimination for the 
Netherlands, p. 23. See also De Vries (2024) (op cit, fn 111). 

78   NIHR Opinions 2024-39 and 2024-40 of 14 May 2024. 
79   NIHR 2018-87. The complaint was deemed unfounded because of a lack of proof. 
80   Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), 17 July 2008, Coleman v Attridge Law, C-303/06, 

ECLI:EU:C:2008:415, 
https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=67793&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mod
e=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1933466.  

81   E.g. ETC 2011-90 of 15 June 2011 (disability); NIHR Opinion 2012-204 of 28 December 2012 (nationality); 
NIHR Opinion 2013-180 of 30 December 2013 (race); NIHR Opinion 2018-115 of 8 November 2018 (race); 
NIHR Opinion 2021-21 of 4 March 2021 (disability); NIHR Opinion 2021-149 of 14 December 2021 
(disability);NIHR Opinion 2022-100 of 26 August 2022 (race); NIHR Opinion 2023-73 of 29 June 2023 
(disability); NIHR Opinion 2023-90 of 22 August 2023 (nationality; claim found not admissible for lack of 
interest) and NIHR Opinion 2023-104 of 5 October 2023 (disability). 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

his  co-workers  concerning  ‘negroes’.82  It  was  undisputed  that  the  applicant  himself  was 
light-skinned  and  that  the  remarks  were  not  directed  at  him,  still  the  applicant  claimed 
that he was affected by the remarks because his father was a person of colour. The NIHR 
noted that it can  consider complaints from anyone who has been ‘disadvantaged’ by an 
alleged  discriminatory  act.  It  further  considered  that  it  was  clear  that  the  applicant  had 
been (very much) bothered by the remarks, to the point where he had felt compelled to 
resign from his job. The NIHR therefore concluded that the applicant had suffered ‘personal 
and concrete’ disadvantage from the remarks. It remains unclear from the opinion whether 
the applicant’s direct family relationship to a person of colour (his father) played a role in 
this finding. 

In  2023,  the  NIHR  established  that  the  relationships  that  can  result  in  a  finding  of 
discrimination  by  association  include  the  relationship  between  a  grandparent  and  a 
grandchild.83 The applicant was a grandfather who had attempted to book accommodation 
for a family holiday, but was denied a reservation because his granddaughter, who had a 
disability, needed to bring her assistance dog. 

2.4  Direct discrimination (Article 2(2)(a)) 

a) 

Prohibition and definition of direct discrimination 

In  the  Netherlands,  direct  discrimination  is  defined  and  prohibited  in  national  law.  In 
November  2011,  Dutch  equal  treatment  legislation  was  amended  in  order  to  bring  the 
definitions of direct and indirect discrimination in line with the EU directives.84 This change 
was required by the European Commission, which maintained that, as a consequence of 
the  different  wording  of  the  definitions,  victims  of  discrimination  were  offered  less 
protection than the EU directives require.85 The Government has always held that this was 
not the case,86 but nevertheless proposed the amendment in 2008, in which the definitions 
from  the  directives  are  included  word  for  word.87  One  difference  between  the  directives 
and  Dutch  legislation  remains,  where  the  latter  uses  the  word  ‘distinction’  instead  of 
‘discrimination’. There is no material difference between the terms. 

Direct discrimination is defined in Article 1 GETA, Article 1 DDA and Article 1 ADA. 

Article 1 GETA reads: 

‘In this Act and in the provisions based upon this Act the following definitions apply:  

a. 

b. 

Distinction: direct and indirect distinction, as well as the instruction to make a 
distinction; 
Direct  distinction:  if  a  person  is  treated  differently  from  another  person  in  a 
comparable situation is or would be treated on the grounds of religion, belief, 
political  opinion,  race,  sex,  nationality,  hetero-  or  homosexual  orientation  or 
marital status.’ 

Article 1 DDA reads: 

‘In this Act the following definitions apply:  

82   NIHR Opinion 2022-100 of 26 August 2022. 
83   NIHR Opinion 2023-73 of 29 June 2023. 
84   Act of 7 November 2011 (Wet van 7 November 2011), Staatsblad 2011, 554.  
85   Letter dated 31 January 2008, with reference to the infringement procedure of 18 December 2006, 

infringement No. 2006/2444. 

86   Letter from the Dutch Government to Vladimír Špidla, dated 18 March, entitled Reactie Nederlandse 

regering op het met redenen omkleed advies van de Europese Commissie; ingebrekestelling No. 2006/2444 
(response to letter dated 31 January 2008). 

87   See Tweede Kamer 2008-2009, 31 832, nos. 1-3 and Tweede Kamer 2009-2010, 31 832, nos. 4-8. 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

a. 

b. 

Distinction: direct and indirect distinction, as well as the instruction to make a 
distinction; 
Direct  distinction:  if  a  person  is  treated  differently  from  another  person  in  a 
comparable  situation  is  or  would  be  treated  on  the  grounds  of  disability  or 
chronic illness.’ 

Article 1 ADA reads: 

‘In this Act the following definitions apply:  

a. 

b. 

Distinction: direct and indirect distinction, as well as the instruction to make a 
distinction; 
Direct  distinction:  if  a  person  is  treated  differently  from  another  person  in  a 
comparable situation is or would be treated on the grounds of age.’ 

Subsequent provisions in each of the above-mentioned acts prohibit direct discrimination 
in different fields: 

− 

− 

− 

Articles  5-7a  GETA  prohibit  direct  discrimination  in  the  fields  of  employment  and 
access  to  goods  and  services  (including  education,  healthcare,  housing  and  social 
security); 
Articles 4-8 DDA prohibit direct discrimination in the fields of employment, access to 
goods  and  services  (including  education  and  healthcare),  housing  and  public 
transport; 
Articles  3-6  ADA  prohibit  direct  discrimination  in  the  fields  of  employment  and 
vocational education and training. 

b) 

Justification of direct discrimination 

Under the GETA, DDA and ADA direct distinctions can never be justified unless one of the 
statutory  exception  clauses  applies.  To  the  extent  that  the  distinctions  covered  by  the 
GETA, DDA and ADA are also covered by the directives, the  statutory  exception clauses 
correspond  to  the  exceptions  stipulated  in  the  directives  (see  Sections  4  and  5  of  this 
report).  

On a few occasions, the former ETC accepted that direct discrimination may be objectively 
justified in the absence of a statutory exception, namely when the prohibition of a certain 
distinction  would  be  absolutely  unacceptable  or  completely  irrational.88  In  the  past 
discussions have been held, on the initiative of the ETC, about whether the closed system 
of justifications should be opened up, but this was eventually deemed unnecessary due to 
the limited number of cases in which the existing exceptions do not suffice.89  

2.5  Indirect discrimination (Article 2(2)(b)) 

a) 

Prohibition and definition of indirect discrimination 

In  the  Netherlands,  indirect  discrimination  is  defined  and  prohibited  in  national  law.  In 
November 2011, Dutch equal treatment legislation was amended to bring the definitions 
of  direct  and  indirect  discrimination  in  line  with  the  directives  (see  section  2.4  above). 
There is no material difference between the term ‘distinction’ used in the Dutch legislation 
and the term ‘discrimination’ in the directives. 

Indirect discrimination is defined in Article 1 GETA, Article 1 DDA and Article 1 ADA. 

88   See, for example, ETC 2006-20 and ETC 2007-85; other cases are ETC 2005-155 and ETC 2010-62. 
89   ETC (2011), Third evaluation report (2004-2009), p. 7 and the Evaluation of the NIHR Act (Evaluatie Wet 
College voor de rechten van de mens) of 2017, published as annex to Tweede Kamer 2017-2018, 34 338, 
No. 3, p. 11. 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

Article 1 GETA, first sentence and (a) and (c), read as follows: 

‘In this Act and in the provisions based upon this Act the following definitions apply:  

a. 

c. 

Distinction: direct and indirect distinction, as well as the instruction to make a 
distinction […] 
Indirect distinction: where an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice 
would affect persons of a particular religion, belief, political opinion, race, sex, 
nationality, hetero- or homosexual orientation or marital status in a particular 
way.’ 

Article 1 DDA, first sentence and (a) and (c), read: 

‘In this Act the following definitions apply:  

a. 

c. 

Distinction: direct and indirect distinction, as well as the instruction to make a 
distinction […] 
Indirect distinction: where an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice 
would affect persons with a disability or chronic illness in a particular way.’ 

Article 1 ADA, first sentence and (a) and (c), read: 

‘In this Act the following definitions apply:  

a.  Distinction: direct and indirect distinction, as well as the instruction to make a 

c. 

distinction […] 
Indirect distinction: where an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice 
would affect persons of a particular age in a particular way.’ 

Subsequent provisions in each of the above-mentioned acts prohibit indirect discrimination 
in different fields: 

− 

− 

− 

Articles 5-7a  GETA prohibit  indirect discrimination in the fields  of  employment and 
access  to  goods  and  services  (including  education,  healthcare,  housing  and  social 
security); 
Articles 4-8 DDA prohibit indirect discrimination in the fields of employment, access 
to  goods  and  services  (including  education  and  healthcare),  housing  and  public 
transport; 
Articles  3-6  ADA  prohibit  indirect  discrimination  in  the  fields  of  employment  and 
vocational education and training. 

b) 

Justification test for indirect discrimination 

Article 2(1) GETA contains an objective justification test for indirect discrimination, which 
includes the elements of legitimate aim, appropriateness and necessity. The same applies 
to Article 3(2) DDA and Article 7(1)(c) ADA. All three provisions mirror the core substantive 
elements of the objective justification test in indirect discrimination cases as laid down in 
Article 2(2)(b)(i) of Directive 2000/78/EC. This also reflects the case law of the CJEU in 
indirect discrimination cases, which is followed by the NIHR and the courts.90  

90   See, for example, NIHR 2020-100 (race discrimination) and NIHR 2020-120 (age discrimination). An 

extended – although somewhat older – overview of the Dutch justification tests in equal treatment cases 
can be found in: Gerards, J.H. (2005), Judicial review in equal treatment cases, Leiden/Boston, Martinus 
Nijhoff Publishers. 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

2.5.1  Statistical evidence 

a) 

Legal framework 

In the Netherlands, there is legislation regulating the collection of personal data. In 2018 
the  existing  regulation  was  replaced  by  the  EU  General  Data  Protection  Regulation 
(GDPR).91  As  a  result,  the  GDPR  standards  (see  in  particular  Article  9  GDPR)  regarding 
data  collection  of  a  sensitive  nature,  such  as  data  on  the  grounds  covered  by  the  EU 
equality directives, are applicable as of May 2018. 

In  the  Netherlands,  statistical  evidence  may  be  admitted  under  national  law  in  order  to 
establish  indirect  discrimination.  Rules  on  the  admission  of  evidence  can  be  found  in 
different  acts  depending  on  the  legal  field  concerned  (e.g.  the  Code  of  Civil  Procedure 
(Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering) for claims made under civil law, the General 
Administrative Law Act (Algemene wet bestuursrecht) for administrative law procedures). 
These rules do not contain any specific provisions regarding the use of statistical evidence 
in court, nor has any clear doctrine been developed in the case law. There also exists no 
specific regulatory framework for the use of statistical evidence before the NIHR, however 
the equality body has developed some standards in this regard. These are discussed below 
(under ‘Practice'). 

In the Netherlands, ethnic data collection as promoted in the EU anti-racism action plan is 
considered  controversial  because  of  the  (alleged)  risk  that  such  data  may  be  used  for 
discriminatory purposes. The author of this report is not aware of any specific Government 
action  or  parliamentary  debate  on  this  topic.  At  the  level  of  civil  society,  however,  a 
conference on the topic of ethnic data collection was organised on 20 October 2023 by the 
Meijers  Committee  (Standing  Committee  of  Experts  on  International  Migration,  Refugee 
and Criminal Law). During the conference, which brought together academic experts and 
representatives of the NIHR and the Ministry of the Interior and featured a keynote speech 
by EU anti-racism coordinator Michaela Moua, the possibility of ethnic data collection was 
discussed in relation to rules on data protection. It is as yet uncertain whether ethnic data 
collection will become subject to political attention at any time in the near future. 

b) 

Practice 

In  the  Netherlands,  statistical  evidence  is  used  in  practice  in  order  to  establish  indirect 
discrimination. The use of this type of evidence is neither widespread nor very rare. 

Statistical  evidence  is  occasionally  put  forward  in  procedures  before  the  NIHR  and  is 
accepted  by  this  body.  When  using  statistical  evidence,  the  NIHR  considers  that  a 
presumption of indirect discrimination has been established if the contested rule or practice 
results in a ‘particular disadvantage’ for a group of people protected by one of the non-
discrimination grounds.92 The NIHR stresses that the disadvantage should not be calculated 
on the basis of absolute figures, but should be seen relatively. In earlier cases, the ETC 
used  the  standard  rule  that  people  in  the  group  alleged  to  be  indirectly  discriminated 
against (e.g. women) should at least be disadvantaged by the apparently neutral rule or 
practice 1.5 times as often as people from the comparator group. However, since 2004 the 
ETC/  NIHR  no  longer  mentions  this  standard.  Instead,  they  it  started  to  use  more 
sophisticated  statistical  methods  to  calculate  whether  a  particular  group  has  a  greater 
chance of experiencing negative effects than another group.93 The NIHR currently uses a 
correlation  test  to  determine  the  correlation  between  the  measure  said  to  cause  the 

91   General Data Protection Regulation Implementation Act (Uitvoeringswet Algemene verordening 

gegevensbescherming) of 16 May 2018, Staatsblad 2018, 144. 

92   E.g. NIHR Opinion 2017-11 of 9 February 2017 and NIHR Opinion 2020-84 of 9 October 2020. 
93   Waaldijk, K. (2004) ‘The Netherlands’, in: Waaldijk, K. and Bonini-Baraldi, M. (eds.) (2004), Combating 

sexual orientation discrimination in employment: legislation in fifteen EU member states, report of the 
European Group of Experts on Combating Sexual Orientation Discrimination, Leiden, Universiteit Leiden, pp. 
341-375, available online at: https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/handle/1887/12587. For an example from 
NIHR case law see NIHR 2017-11. 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

disadvantage and the characteristic linking to the discrimination ground. If a sufficiently 
strong  correlation  is  found,  a  significance  test  is  applied  to  test  the  significance  of  the 
correlation.94 

Facts of common knowledge are taken into account by the NIHR, either in the absence of 
relevant  statistics  or  to  support  such  statistics.  For  example,  the  NIHR  accepts,  without 
relying  on  statistical  evidence,  that  Dutch  language  requirements  amount  to  indirect 
differential  treatment  on  the  ground  of  racial  or  ethnic  origin  because  people  with  a 
migration background are less likely to be proficient in Dutch.95  

In both 2023 and 2024, the NIHR relied on statistical evidence in cases connected to the 
childcare  benefits  scandal.96  Apart  from  the  context  in  which  they  were  issued,  these 
Opinions are noteworthy because a statistical report was prepared by the NIHR itself in the 
form of a preparatory study (vooronderzoek) to support its decision making on individual 
complaints  arising  from  the  scandal.  In  the  study,  which  was  published  in  September 
2022,97 the NIHR analysed the effects of several enforcement procedures employed by the 
benefits  department  of  the  Dutch  Tax  Agency  on  benefits  recipients  with  a  migration 
background.98  It  concluded,  amongst  other  things,  that  for  each  of  the  procedures 
examined, benefits recipients with a migration background were selected relatively more 
often compared to recipients without a migration background.99 In a majority of the cases 
considered, the results from the preparatory study led the NIHR to establish a presumption 
of indirect racial discrimination. In three cases decided in 2024, the NIHR (also) relied on 
another statistical report, prepared by Statistics Netherlands, which showed that benefits 
recipients  with  a  migration  background  had  a  higher  chance  of  being  affected  by  the 
childcare  benefits  scandal.100  In  one  of  these  cases  the  NIHR  even  went  so  far  as  to 
establish  a  presumption  of  discrimination  based  solely  on  the  applicant’s  group 
membership (i.e. her migration background), in the absence of any evidence showing that 
she had in fact been negatively affected by the Tax Agency’s enforcement procedures.101  

Meanwhile, the courts have not developed any identifiable doctrine regarding the use of 
statistical evidence. Case law involving assessments of statistical evidence is rather sparse 
and practice appears to vary (although it is difficult to say this with certainty because court 
judgments on equal treatment cases are not registered as such and therefore cannot be 
researched separately). An example of where statistical evidence was accepted by a court 
is a 2020 judgment concerning indirect age discrimination.102 Remarkably, the court did 
not follow the statistical analysis previously conducted by the NIHR in the same case. 103 
As a  result, it did not  find a presumption  of indirect age discrimination, whereas such a 
presumption had been established by the NIHR.  

Another  example  shows  statistical  evidence  being  disregarded  by  the  court  in  a  case 
concerning deprivation of citizenship. The applicant submitted statistical evidence to prove 
that  the  Dutch  legislation  was  indirectly  discriminatory  against  Dutch  citizens  of  non-
western ethnic origin. The court, however, neglected this claim, stating that the applicable 

94   E.g. NIHR Opinion 2020-84 of 9 October 2020. 
95   See, for example, NIHR Opinion 2020-100 of 17 November 2020. 
96   See also section 3.2.5 of this report, with references to the relevant Opinions. On the childcare benefits 
scandal, see the European network of legal experts in gender equality and non-discrimination (2023) 
Country report 2023 on non-discrimination for the Netherlands, section 3.2.6. 

97   Netherlands Institute for Human Rights, Preparatory study on the presumed discriminatory effects of the 

methods employed by the Tax Agency/Benefits department (Vooronderzoek naar de vermeende 
discriminerende effecten van de werkwijzen van de Belastingdienst/Toeslagen), available at 
https://publicaties.mensenrechten.nl/publicatie/a356efac-8752-4843-a86c-665bb0a98667.  

98   Defined for the purpose of the study as persons a) with one or more foreign nationalities, b) with Dutch and 
a foreign nationality, or c) who immigrated to the Netherlands after 1 January 1989. See p. 26 of the study. 

99   Preparatory study, p. 37. 
100  NIHR Opinion 2024-51 of 12 June 2024; NIHR Opinion 2024-77 of 6 September 2024 and NIHR Opinion 2024-

96 of 21 November 2024. 

101  NIHR Opinion 2024-96 of 21 November 2024. 
102  Court of Appeal Den Bosch 30 June 2020, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2020:1978, para 3.5.6. The case is discussed in 

more detail in the Country report non-discrimination, Netherlands 2021, para 2.3.1. 

103  See NIHR Opinion 2017-19 of 21 February 2017. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

legislation was formulated in a neutral manner (‘can be applied to anyone who has been 
convicted  for  terrorist  activities’)  and  therefore  did  not  amount  to  discrimination. 104  On 
appeal, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State did not even assess 
whether there was a presumption of indirect discrimination and merely stated that ‘to the 
extent  that  [the  legislation]  makes  an  indirect  distinction  on  the  ground  of  race,  ethnic 
origin and religion’ this was objectively and reasonably justified because of the seriousness 
of the applicant’s conduct and its prejudicial effects on the interests of the Dutch State.105 
While  this  case  demonstrates  reluctance  on  the  part  of  the  courts  to  rely  on  statistical 
evidence,  this  reluctance  is  not  defended  by  reference  to  ethical  or  methodological 
arguments.  

2.6  Harassment (Article 2(3)) 

a) 

Prohibition and definition of harassment 

In the Netherlands, harassment is defined and prohibited in national law. A definition of 
(sexual) harassment is provided in Article 1a GETA, Article 1a DDA and Article 2 ADA. 

Article 1a GETA reads as follows: 

‘1.  The  prohibition  of  distinction  as  laid  down  in  this  Act  shall  also  include  a 

prohibition of harassment and a prohibition of sexual harassment.  

2.  Harassment as referred to in the first subsection shall mean:  conduct related 
to the characteristics or behaviour as referred to in Article 1(1)(b) and that has 
the  purpose  or  effect  of  violating  the  dignity  of  a  person  and  creating  an 
intimidating,  hostile,  degrading,  offensive,  humiliating  or  grievous 
environment. 
Sexual harassment as referred to in the first subsection shall mean: any form 
of verbal, non-verbal of physical behaviour with a sexual connotation that has 
the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of a person, in particular when an 
intimidating, hostile, degrading, offensive, humiliating or grievous environment 
is created. […]’ 

3. 

Article 1a DDA reads as follows: 

‘1.  The  prohibition  of  distinction  as  laid  down  in  this  Act  shall  also  include  a 

prohibition of harassment.  

2.  Harassment as referred to in the first subsection shall mean: conduct related 
to disability or chronic illness and that has the purpose or effect of violating the 
dignity of a person and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, offensive, 
humiliating or grievous environment. […]’ 

Article 2 ADA reads as follows: 

‘1.  The  prohibition  of  distinction  as  laid  down  in  this  Act  shall  also  include  a 

prohibition of harassment.  

2.  Harassment as referred to in the first subsection shall mean: conduct related 
to age and that has the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of a person 
and  creating  an  intimidating,  hostile,  degrading,  offensive,  humiliating  or 
grievous environment. […]’ 

Subsequent provisions in each of the acts mentioned above prohibit harassment in different 
fields: 

104  The Hague District Court 16 September 2019, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2019:9682, para 9. 
105  Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State 30 December 2020, ECLI:NL:RVS:2020:3045, 

para 6.3. 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

− 

− 

− 

Articles  5-7a  GETA  prohibit  harassment  in  the  fields  of  employment  and  access  to 
goods and services (including education, healthcare, housing and social security); 
Articles 4-8 DDA prohibit indirect discrimination in the fields of employment, access 
to  goods  and  services  (including  education  and  healthcare),  housing  and  public 
transport; 
Articles  3-6  ADA  prohibit  harassment  in  the  fields  of  employment  and  vocational 
education and training. 

In  the  Netherlands,  harassment  explicitly  constitutes  a  form  of  discrimination  (see  the 
provisions mentioned above).  

b) 

Scope of liability for harassment 

Where  harassment  is  perpetrated  by  an  employee,  in  the  Netherlands,  the  employer  is 
liable. The prohibition of (sexual) harassment is aimed at the employer or anyone who acts 
on their behalf. This means that if harassment takes place between colleagues, in principle 
the  victim  cannot  (under  the  equal  treatment  legislation)  hold  their  colleague(s) 
accountable but should address the employer instead.  

The ADA, the DDA and the GETA do not specify to whom the prohibition of discrimination, 
including  harassment,  is  addressed.106  Regarding  employment,  the  only  area  that  is 
covered by all three Acts, the prohibition of discrimination is aimed not only at public and 
private employers, but also at employers’ organisations, workers’ organisations, (public) 
recruitment  agencies,  pension  funds,  members  of  the  liberal  professions,  schools, 
universities, etc. However, it is not clear whether only the official owners or managers of 
these  enterprises  or  institutions  can  be  held  liable  under  the  Acts  or  whether  this  also 
applies  to  colleagues  or  third  parties.  The  matter  of  personal  scope  was  raised  in 
parliamentary discussions on the implementation of the directives. It follows clearly from 
these  discussions  that  the  Government  did  not  intend  to  make  the  equal  treatment 
legislation  applicable  in  relationships  between  colleagues,  let  alone  in  relationships  with 
third  parties.107  However,  it  indicated  that  the  equal  treatment  legislation  is  aimed  at 
employees who, in the name of their employer, exercise authority over their co-employees. 
Such employees function de facto in the capacity of employer.108  

According to ETC case law, the duty of an employer to prevent acts of harassment is not 
limited to acts committed by employees but extends to all persons under their supervision, 
which may include third parties such as a patient.109 Furthermore, service providers can 
be held liable for harassment in situations where the harassment occurs between persons 
who make use of a service.110 In addition to preventing acts of harassment (which may be 
difficult to prove) employers have a legal duty to seriously investigate any complaint about 
this kind of behaviour and take adequate protective measures. Where they fail to do so, 
the norm that the employer should not discriminate as regards (equal) working conditions 
is considered to have been breached.111 

The purported inapplicability of the Dutch equal treatment acts in relationships between 
colleagues  appears  overly  restrictive  in  the  light  of  the  presumed  broad  scope  of 
Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC. In their current form and in light of the legislative 
history, Dutch equal treatment laws prevent alleged victims of harassment from holding a 

106  Cremers-Hartman, E. ‘Werkingssfeer AWGB (Article 3, 4 sub c, 5 lid 1, 6, 7 lid 1 AWGB)’ (‘The scope of the 
GETA’), in: Asscher-Vonk, I.P. and Groenendijk, C.A. (1999), Gelijke behandeling: regels en realiteit (Equal 
treatment: regulations and reality), The Hague, SDU Uitgevers, pp. 29-88 at p. 33.  

107  Explanatory Memorandum to the ADA, Tweede Kamer 2001-2002, 28169, No. 3, p. 19. See also Tweede 

Kamer 2002-2003, 28770, No. 5, p. 28.  

108  Explanatory Memorandum to the ADA, Tweede Kamer 2001-2002, 28169, No. 3, p. 19. 
109  ETC Opinion 1997-82. 
110  ETC Opinion 2004-128. The case concerned harassment of a participant in a community project by another 
participant and a volunteer working for the project. The ETC held that the foundation that organised the 
project was under a duty, in its capacity as service provider in the field of social protection (welzijn), to 
ensure an environment that was free of discrimination and harassment.  

111  See, for example, ETC 2011-148 and NIHR Opinions 2021-91 and 2021-92 of 15 July 2021.  

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

colleague or a third party directly liable for the contested  behaviour. The only way to do 
this would be by seeking recourse to the general provisions of tort law enshrined in the 
Dutch Civil Code. Furthermore, Article 429quater Criminal Code prohibits discrimination by 
individuals in the exercise of their function, profession or enterprise. This provision could 
be interpreted to cover harassment by colleagues or third parties and serve as a basis for 
criminal  liability,  however  it  is  rarely  invoked  in  practice  and  no  relevant  case  law  is 
available. 

Beyond the scope of Dutch equal treatment legislation, it is worth observing that employers 
may  be  held  vicariously  liable  for  discriminatory  acts  or  harassment  perpetrated  by 
colleagues under employment law. The relevant articles upon which a claim can be based 
are (a) good employer practice (Article 7:611 of the Civil Code); and (b) the employer’s 
general duty of care (i.e. the employer’s liability for damages suffered by an employee in 
the performance of job-related duties, laid down in Article 7:658 of the Civil Code). Both 
articles concern the employer’s liability for acts perpetrated by employers themselves or 
by  others  over  whom  they  exercise  control.  In  the  past  it  was  much  disputed  whether 
Article  7:658  of  the  Civil  Code  could  form  the  legal  basis  for  claims  that  concern  mere 
psychological  damage,  rather  than  physical  damage.112  In  2005  the  Supreme  Court 
accepted that Article 7:658 Civil Code  covers psychological damage.113 The lower courts 
have  accepted  that,  in  cases  of  sexual  harassment,  this  article  can  form  the  basis  for 
financial compensation of psychological damage resulting from such behaviour.114  

2.7  Instructions to discriminate (Article 2(4)) 

a) 

Prohibition of instructions to discriminate 

In the Netherlands, instructions to discriminate are prohibited in national law, but are not 
explicitly  defined.  Instructions  to  discriminate  are  covered  by  Article  1(1)(a)  GETA, 
Article 1(a)  ADA  and  Article  1(a)  DDA.  The  prohibition  of  issuing  an  instruction  to 
discriminate is applicable for the whole scope of the equal treatment legislation and is thus 
not limited to the field of employment.115 

The  legislative  history  of  the  ADA  shows  that  the  Dutch  legislature  considered  that 
instructions to discriminate imply active rather  than passive behaviour and therefore do 
not cover the passive toleration of an existing discriminatory situation or act.116 This is a 
narrow interpretation of the verb ‘to instruct’. The ETC and NIHR have applied their own 
interpretation,  which  understands  the  prohibition  of  instructions  to  discriminate  as  also 
covering situations where there was no explicit instruction.117  

112  Geers, A. ‘Intimidatie op de werkplek’ (‘Harassment in the workplace’), in: van Maanen, G. (ed.) (2003), De 

rol van het aansprakelijkheidsrecht bij de verwerking van persoonlijk leed (The role of liability law in 
processing personal suffering), Den Haag, Boom, pp. 183-198, at p. 188, with further references to the 
literature on this question. See also Vegter, M. S. A. (2001) ‘Aansprakelijkheid werkgever voor psychische 
schade werknemer als gevolg van seksuele intimidatie van de werknemer’ (‘Liability of the employer for 
psychological harm to the employee caused by sexual harassment’), in: Aansprakelijkheid, verzekering en 
schade (Liability, insurance and damage) No. 5, October 2001, pp. 133-140, at p. 134. With regard to 
Article 7:611 of the Civil Code, the Supreme Court has decided that this article may be relied upon to claim 
compensation for damages of only a psychological nature. See Supreme Court 11 July 1993, NJ 1993/667 
(Nuts/Hofman), ECLI:NL:HR:1993:ZJ 1032. 

113  Supreme Court 11 March 2005, RvdW 2005/37 (ABN AMRO/Nieuwenhuys), ECLI:NL:HR:2005:AR6657.  
114  See Vegter, M. S. A. (2001), ‘Aansprakelijkheid werkgever voor psychische schade werknemer als gevolg 
van seksuele intimidatie van de werknemer’ (‘Liability of the employer for psychological harm to the 
employee caused by sexual harassment’), in: Aansprakelijkheid, verzekering en schade (Liability, insurance 
and damage) No. 5, October 2001, pp. 133-140 and pp. 134-135. See also Holtmaat, R. (2009) Seksuele 
intimidatie; de juridische gids (Sexual harassment: legal guide), Nijmegen, Ars Aequi Libri.  
115  Examples of cases where the ETC/NIHR found that there was a (possible) case of ‘instruction to 

discriminate’ are ETC 2010-95, 2010-180 , 2012-82, 2014-88, 2014-104, 2014-176, 2015-95, 2016-26, 
2018-51 and 2022-82 .  

116  Explanatory Memorandum to the ADA, Tweede Kamer 2001-2002, 28170, No. 3, p.18. 
117  ETC (2011) Third evaluation report (2004-2009), p. 30. The ETC mentions Opinion 2005-154 as an example 

of such a case. See also several opinions of the NIHR, such as 2012-175/176/177.  

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

In the Netherlands, instructions explicitly constitute a form of discrimination. Article 1(a) 
GETA and the counterpart provisions in the ADA and DDA define ‘distinctions’ as: ‘direct or 
indirect  distinctions,  as  well  as  instructions  to  make  a  distinction’.  Prior  to  the 
implementation of the directives, a prohibition of the instruction to make a distinction was 
implied within the GETA. However, to avoid any misunderstanding, the phrase ‘as well as 
instructions to make a distinction’ was added through the EC Implementation Act.118  

In addition to the above, instructions to discriminate on the grounds of race, religion or 
belief,  sex,  hetero-  or  homosexual  orientation  or  disability  can  be  subject  to  criminal 
prosecution under Article 137d of the Criminal Code – ‘age’ is not included in the list. For 
this  article  to  be  applicable,  the  instructions  must  qualify  as  incitement  to  hatred, 
discrimination  or  violence.  In  criminal  law  cases  based  on  this  provision,  the  public 
prosecution  service  (Openbaar  Ministerie,  OM)  will  have  to  offer  clear  proof  that  an 
individual  or  group  is  guilty  of  acting  contrary  to  all  elements  contained  in  it.  The 
interpretation of the  element of ‘incitement to  hatred, discrimination or violence’ closely 
follows the ECtHR’s case law on this matter. 

b) 

Scope of liability for instructions to discriminate 

In the Netherlands, the instructor is liable but the discriminator is not. 

The ADA, the DDA and the GETA do not specify to whom the prohibition of discrimination, 
including instructions to discriminate, is addressed (see section 2.6, under b), above). The 
wording of the relevant provisions clearly indicates that it is the instruction to discriminate 
that  is  prohibited.  This  suggests  that  the  prohibition  of  instructions  to  discriminate  only 
applies  to  the  instructor.  However,  the  discriminator  may  still  be  liable  for  violating  the 
prohibition of direct or indirect discrimination. In this regard, the legislative history of the 
ADA  mentions  that  instructions  to  discriminate  include  the  notion  of  ‘opdracht’ 
(commission) in Article 7:400 Civil Code.119 This article regulates the law on contracts for 
the  provision  of  services.  The  Government  mentioned  the  example  of  an  employer  who 
instructs a recruitment agency to select only people under the age of 30 (without a sound 
justification  for  this).  In  such  a  scenario,  both  the  person  who  gives  the  contested 
instruction  and  the  person  who  carries  out  the  instruction  are  considered  to  violate  the 
non-discrimination norm. If the ‘recipient’ of the instruction refuses to abide by it and, as 
a consequence thereof, suffers damages, they can hold the person who gave the instruction 
liable for it. 

The legislative history of the ADA further shows that instructions that are given within an 
employment relationship are not covered by the prohibition of instructions to discriminate 
(e.g. if a director instructs a member of the personnel department to recruit only young 
people).  Instead,  this  scenario  is  considered  to  involve  the  exercise  of  authority  by  an 
employer over an employee within the employment relationship (‘gezagsuitoefening in het 
kader van de arbeidsovereenkomst’). Any distinction that results from such an exercise of 
authority  can  only  be  attributed  to  the  employer  and  not  to  the  employee.120  This 
interpretation is followed by the ETC (now the NIHR).121 The reasoning might fall short of 
what  the  EU  legislature  had  in  mind  with  the  prohibition  of  instruction  to  discriminate. 
Arguably, on this point the Dutch Government interprets the prohibition of an instruction 
to make a distinction unduly narrowly.  

Article 429quater Criminal Code prohibits discrimination by individuals in the exercise of 
their  function,  profession  or  enterprise.  This  provision  could  be  interpreted  to  cover 
instructions to discriminate. However, it is rarely invoked in practice and no relevant case 
law is available. 

118  Explanatory Memorandum to the EC Implementation Act, Tweede Kamer 2002-2003, 28 770, No. 3, p. 7.  
119  Explanatory Memorandum to the ADA, Tweede Kamer 2001-2002, 28169, No. 3, p.18. 
120  Explanatory Memorandum to the ADA, Tweede Kamer 2001-2002, 28169, No. 3, p. 19.  
121  ETC (2011), Third evaluation report (2004-2009), p. 30.  

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

2.8  Reasonable  accommodation  duties  (Article  2(2)(b)(ii)  and  Article  5 

Directive 2000/78) 

a) 

Implementation of the duty to provide reasonable accommodation for  persons with 
disabilities in the area of employment 

In the Netherlands, the duty to provide reasonable accommodation is included in the law 
and is defined in Article 2 DDA, which reads as follows:  

‘The prohibition of making a distinction also includes the duty for the person to whom 
the prohibition is addressed to make effective accommodations in accordance to the 
need for this, unless doing so would constitute a disproportionate burden upon him.’  

Instead of the term ‘reasonable’, which is used in Article 5 of the directive, Article 2 DDA 
employs  the  term  ‘effective’  (‘doeltreffend’).  In  the  Government’s  view,  the  latter  term 
better reflects the fact that an accommodation must have the desired effect.122 The aspect 
of reasonableness is reflected in the second part of the provision, which states that there 
is  no  obligation  to  accommodate  if  doing  so  would  constitute  a  disproportionate  burden 
(i.e.  would  not  be  reasonable).  In  the  remainder  of  this  section  the  term  ‘reasonable 
accommodation’ will be used unless the reference specifically concerns the requirement of 
effectiveness. 

It follows from the legislative history of the DDA that a reasonable accommodation measure 
must  be  both  appropriate  (geschikt)  and  necessary  (noodzakelijk).123  Reasonable 
accommodation can be tangible (e.g. a special chair or adjustments to the accessibility of 
the  building)  or  intangible  (e.g.  adjustments  to  working  hours  or  supervision).  The 
requirement  of  appropriateness  means  that  the  accommodation  must  actually  have  the 
effect of undoing any limitations experienced by persons with disabilities and contribute to 
their full and autonomous participation. The requirement of necessity means that the same 
effect cannot be achieved by means of another (cheaper) accommodation. It was expected 
that medical and occupational health expertise would play an important role in determining 
the effectiveness of proposed accommodation measures. The Government noted that the 
view of the persons with disabilities concerned should also be taken into account. Finally, 
it was observed that if a particular accommodation is eligible for reimbursement under the 
Labour  Reintegration  Act  (Wet  op  de  (re)integratie  arbeidsgehandicapten)  this  may  be 
taken as an indication that it would be an effective accommodation.124 

To determine whether an effective accommodation constitutes a disproportionate burden, 
a  balancing  exercise  must  be  undertaken  whereby  the  interests  of  the  person  with 
disabilities are weighed against the interests of the employer.125 This balancing exercise 
must be carried out in the light of ‘open norms’ of civil law (i.e. the duty to act as a good 
employer and the notion of ‘reasonableness’).126 The Government highlighted the factors 
mentioned in Consideration 21 of the Preamble to Directive 2000/78/EC and added as an 
additional criterion that the duration of the employment contract may be a weighty factor. 
In the field of vocational education, additional criteria to determine the proportionality of 
the burden imposed on the educational institution include the effect of the accommodation 
on other students and the availability of comparable education within the same region.127  

122  Explanatory Memorandum to the DDA, Tweede Kamer 2001-2002, 28 169, No. 3, p. 25.  
123  Explanatory Memorandum to the DDA, Tweede Kamer 2001-2002, 28 169, No. 3, p. 8. 
124  Explanatory Memorandum to the DDA, Tweede Kamer 2001-2002, 28 169, No. 3, p. 25-26. The Labour 

Reintegration Act was replaced in 2005 by the Act on Work and Income according to Labour Capacity (Wet 
werk en inkomen naar arbeidsvermogen). 

125  Explanatory Memorandum to the DDA, Tweede Kamer 2001-2002, 28 169, No. 3, p. 8. 
126  Explanatory Memorandum to the DDA, Tweede Kamer 2001-2002, 28 169, No. 3, p. 27-30. 
127  Explanatory Memorandum to the DDA, Tweede Kamer 2001-2002, 28 169, No. 3, p. 29. It is submitted that 
this might trigger indirect sex discrimination, since women are more likely than men to be employed on the 
basis of a fixed-term contract.  

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

If financial assistance for the realisation of the reasonable accommodation is provided by 
the State, the burden cannot be regarded as ‘disproportionate’.128 Financial assistance is 
available,  for  example,  through  Article  36  of  the  Work  and  Income  according  to  Labour 
Capacity  Act  (Wet  werk  en  inkomen  naar  arbeidsvermogen)  for  employers  who  hire  a 
person  with  disabilities  for  at  least  six  months  and  provided  that  the  costs  of  the 
accommodation exceed a certain threshold.129  

The  duty  to  provide  reasonable  accommodation  applies  to  existing  employment 
relationships and in relation to access to employment (the ‘pre-contractual phase’).130 

b) 

Case law 

The  NIHR  is  strict  in  its  assessment  of  employers’  efforts  to  provide  reasonable 
accommodation. In practice, most cases that are brought before the NIHR do not start with 
a request for reasonable accommodation by a person with disabilities. Instead it is often 
the case that a person with disabilities is refused a job or an internship or the employment 
relationship is terminated because the employer finds that, because of the disability, the 
person concerned cannot do the job well enough or that workplace safety is at stake.131 
The NIHR will then assess whether reasonable accommodation could have been provided 
that  would  have  allowed  the  applicant  to  fulfil  the  job  requirements  or  that  could  have 
removed the safety hazard.  

The NIHR consistently holds that employers must actively investigate the possibilities of 
providing reasonable accommodation. This obligation comes into existence at the moment 
when  the  employer  becomes  aware  of  the  disability.132  A  lack  of  proper  investigation 
amounts  to  discrimination  in  violation  of  the  DDA.133  The  obligation  for  employers  (and 
vocational  education 
reasonable 
accommodation  includes  the  obligation  to  actively  involve  persons  with  disabilities  by 
asking them what they consider to be reasonable accommodation.134  

the  possibility  of 

institutions) 

investigate 

to 

In the context of vocational education it is, in principle, for the student to make a request 
for reasonable accommodation. Educational institutions are not required to investigate the 
possibility of providing reasonable accommodation of their own accord unless the need for 
such accommodation is evident.135 In the case of a student with ADHD (attention deficit 
hyperactivity  disorder),  the  NIHR  found  that,  although  the  university  was  aware  of  the 
applicant’s disability, it  had been his responsibility to indicate that he  needed additional 
support to plan his studies following a change of the curriculum.136 

Reasonableness of the accommodation 

In cases where a violation of the DDA is found, this is often because the employer failed 
altogether  to  investigate  whether  reasonable  accommodation  could  have  been  provided 
that  would  have  enabled  a  person  with  disabilities  to  meet  the  job  requirements  or  to 
perform  the  job  in  a  safe  manner.  Nevertheless,  more  case  law  and  NIHR  Opinions  (at 
least in the field of employment) are gradually becoming available regarding the question 
of what constitutes effective accommodation and/or a disproportionate burden.  

128  This follows from the Explanatory Memorandum to the DDA, Tweede Kamer 2001-2002, 28 169, No. 3, 

p. 28 but is not explicitly mentioned in Article 2. 

129  The existence of a disability (structurele functionele beperking) is determined by the Employee Insurance 

Agency (Uitvoeringsinstituut Werknemersverzekeringen, UWV). 

130  Explanatory Memorandum to the DDA, Tweede Kamer 2001-2002, 28 169, No. 3, p. 27. 
131  E.g. NIHR Opinions 2020-26, 2020-77 and 2020-116. 
132  E.g. NIHR Opinion 2024-6 of 25 January 2024. 
133  E.g. NIHR 2014-1 and 2014-2; 2018-148, 2020-26 and NIHR Opinion 2024-46 of 6 June 2024. 
134  E.g. NIHR Opinion 2020-26 of 19 March 2020, NIHR Opinion 2020-71 of 11 August 2020 and NIHR 

Opinion 2021-108 of 10 August 2021. 
135  NIHR Opinion 2021-71 of 8 June 2021. 
136  NIHR Opinion 2021-71 of 8 June 2021, para 4.8. 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

Existing case law indicates that a reasonable accommodation must be of such a nature that 
it enables the person concerned to meet the relevant job requirement. Thus, a refusal to 
provide reasonable accommodation was found to be objectively justified in the case of a 
student  at  the  police  academy  who  could  not  pass  a  mandatory  test  because  she  had 
fibromyalgia. The court accepted that the test was a necessary requirement to qualify as 
a  police  officer  and  that  the  competences  needed  to  pass  it  could  not  be  adequately 
assessed  by  other  means.137  Meanwhile,  a  recent  judgment  from  the  Central  Appeals 
Tribunal (one of the administrative supreme courts) establishes that the burden of proof 
lies with the employer to show that a reasonable accommodation would be incompatible 
with the requirements of the job concerned. The case also regarded a police officer, who 
had been denied a promotion on the ground that the reasonable accommodation that was 
already provided to him in his current function (amongst other things, limited and fixed 
working hours and an exemption from tasks potentially involving the use of force), would 
not allow him to fulfil the function he applied for. In light of the applicant’s claim that he 
was able to comply with the job requirements, the Tribunal found that it had been up to 
the  employer  to  provide  evidence  to  the  contrary  (eg  in  the  form  of  an  expert  report), 
which they had failed to do.138 

The NIHR has further held that the duty to provide reasonable accommodation cannot be 
satisfied by offering an applicant an unpaid internship instead of a paid job.139 Still, it is 
standing NIHR case law that this duty does not extend so far as to provide persons with 
disabilities  with  different  tasks  within  the  organisation  from  those  belonging  to  the  core 
tasks of the employee.140 Thus, it held that a university board was not obliged to redefine 
the curriculum so that the applicant, an assistant professor with a visual impairment, could 
continue to teach the same courses  even though the faculty’s financial situation did not 
allow for this.141 The NIHR also dismissed the claim of a man who asked to be assisted by 
his wife while performing his job, on the ground that the job must be performed by the 
person  who  signed  the  employment  contract.142  The  above  Opinions  were  issued  before 
the  CJEU  judgment  in  HR  Rail  (C-485/20).  Arguably,  the  rather  generally  formulated 
statement  by  the  NIHR  in  Opinion  2020-109  that  reasonable  accommodation  cannot 
involve the assignment of different tasks within the organisation is not compatible with the 
HR Rail judgment. Regarding future cases, it is submitted that the NIHR will need to assess 
whether a different function or different tasks were available within the organisation before 
concluding whether a possibility of reasonable accommodation exists. At present, this does 
not (yet) appear to be part of the assessment conducted by the NIHR.143 

Meanwhile,  where  an  employee  is  unable  to  continue  their  job  because  of  disability 
following illness the employer is under an obligation to offer another, suitable function if 
such  a  function  is  available  (Article  7:658a  Civil  Code).  A  judgment  by  the  Amsterdam 
Court of Appeal suggests that this obligation must also be understood as a way to counter 
discrimination on the ground of disability.144  

Regarding the interpretation of ‘effective accommodation’ and ‘disproportionate burden’, 
an illustrative judgment was issued in 2018 by the District Court of Amsterdam, which held 
that an employer had not discriminated against a candidate for an internship by refusing 
to  make  the  office  accessible  for  a  person  who  used  a  wheelchair.145  In  reaching  this 

137  District Court of the Northern Netherlands 11 May 2021, ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2021:2358. 
138  Central Appeals Tribunal 9 March 2023, ECLI:NL:CRVB:2023:453. 
139  NIHR Opinion 2020-71 of 11 August 2020. 
140  NIHR Opinion 2020-109 of 8 December 2020. 
141  NIHR Opinion 2020-5 of 27 January 2020. 
142  NIHR Opinion 2021-135 of 16 November 2021. 
143  E.g. NIHR Opinion 2024-17 of 15 February 2024. The NIHR found that an employer was entitled to end an 
employment relationship after it emerged that multiple accommodations provided did not sufficiently enable 
the applicant to perform her job. The NIHR found that there had not been discrimination without assessing 
whether the assignment of different tasks would have been possible. Meanwhile, the facts of the case and the 
extent of the accommodations already provided make it seem unlikely that this would have been a realistic 
possibility. 

144  Court of Appeal of Amsterdam 26 January 2021, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2021:199.  
145  District Court (kantonrechter) of Amsterdam 26 January 2018, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2018:1086. 

35 

 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

conclusion the court considered a variety of circumstances, including the fact that a large-
scale renovation of the office building would be required, that the internship sought by the 
candidate was for five months only and that the employer had looked into the possibility 
of offering the candidate an internship in another office where she would be able to enter 
with her wheelchair. The court’s conclusion differed from that reached earlier by the NIHR 
in what was apparently the same case, which may, however, be due to increased efforts 
on the part of the employer to substantiate the argument that the burden of providing the 
accommodation was disproportionate.146 Meanwhile, the short (remaining) duration of an 
employment  contract  has  also  led  the  NIHR  to  find  that  it  would  have  been  a 
disproportionate burden for the employer to provide effective accommodation.147 Another 
case in which the NIHR agreed that the accommodation requested by the applicant imposed 
an unreasonable burden on the employer concerned an intern at a university for applied 
sciences, who requested the support of colleagues for a number of activities, including both 
professional tasks and personal care for the applicant.148 

The  courts  and  the  NIHR  also  deal  regularly  with  cases  concerning  reasonable 
accommodation  in  vocational  education.  In  the  past  years,  several  of  these  cases  have 
reached the Administrative Jurisdiction Division (AJD) of the Council of State (another one 
of  the  Dutch  administrative  supreme  courts).  Overall,  this  court  appears  to  carefully 
balance the interests of students requiring a reasonable accommodation against the burden 
imposed on the educational institution. In 2023, the AJD accepted that a university had 
fulfilled its duty to provide reasonable accommodation by offering a student with a visual 
impairment the possibility to take oral exams instead of written tests.149 In this case the 
university had offered the student an oral examination, however this was refused by the 
student on the ground that she was psychologically unfit to take oral exams at a scheduled 
time. The student subsequently requested to be given an individual (written) assignment, 
which the university refused to do. The AJD found in favour of the university because the 
student had failed to substantiate the psychological difficulties she claimed to experience. 
It also accepted the university’s argument that an individual assignment would not allow 
for an adequate assessment of the course objectives. Finally, the AJD considered it relevant 
(although not decisive in this case) that an individual assignment would take up more of 
the lecturers’ time compared to an oral exam.150 In a similar case decided in 2024, the AJD 
also concluded that the school had fulfilled its obligations under the DDA.151 The AJD further 
issued judgments regarding reasonable accommodation in relation to admission tests for 
university programmes and regarding a request for a substantial prolongation of the study 
programme followed by the applicant.152 In most of these cases, the AJD found in favour 
of the  educational institution. Meanwhile, the NIHR found that a university had failed to 
provide a reasonable accommodation by taking too much time to grant an extension to a 
student with both physical and psychosocial disabilities.153 

The ETC determined that the duty to provide reasonable accommodation goes further than 
what is required by general accessibility and building regulations and applies to situations 
where  compliance  with  general  accessibility  norms  does  not  suffice  to  make  a  building 
accessible to a particular applicant.154 Instead, non-compliance with general accessibility 

146  NIHR Opinion 2014-154 of 10 December 2014. Before the NIHR the employer did not put forward any 

evidence to show that they had actually investigated the costs involved in providing the accommodation or 
had contacted the owner of the building. 
147  NIHR Opinion 2021-125 of 18 October 2021. 
148  NIHR Opinion 2024-26 of 14 March 2024. 
149  Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State 20 September 2023, ECLI:NL:RVS:2023:3544, 

para 5.1. 

150  Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State 20 September 2023, ECLI:NL:RVS:2023:3544, 

para 5.2. 

151  Administrative  Jurisdiction  Division  of  the  Council  of  State  21  August  2024,  ECLI:NL:RVS:2024:3410.  For 

details, see the case law overview at the end of this report.  

152  Administrative  Jurisdiction  Division  of  the  Council  of  State  20  March  2024,  ECLI:NL:RVS:2024:1154  and 
Administrative  Jurisdiction  Division  of  the  Council  of  State  28  August  2024,  ECLI:NL:RVS:2024:3484.  For 
details on both cases, see the case law overview at the end of this report. See also Administrative Jurisdiction 
Division of the Council of State 2 October 2024, ECLI:NL:RVS:2024:3960. 

153  NIHR Opinion 2024-29 of 2 April 2024. 
154  ETC Opinion 2010-11 of 27 January 2010, para 3.4. 

36 

 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

and building regulations is likely to be viewed as a form of indirect discrimination (putting 
persons with disabilities at a particular disadvantage).155 

c) 

Definition of disability and non-discrimination protection 

Disability is not explicitly defined in Dutch equal treatment law. There are no signs that the 
concept of disability is applied in different ways in cases of non-discrimination protection 
in  general,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  right  to  claim  reasonable  accommodation,  on  the 
other hand.  

d) 

Failure to meet the duty of reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities 

In the Netherlands, failure to meet the duty of reasonable accommodation in employment 
for persons with disabilities is recognised as a form of discrimination to which the ordinary 
sanctions apply. This follows from the wording of Article 2 DDA (see section 2.8.a above). 
The provisions of the DDA do not shed light on the question of whether a failure to provide 
reasonable  accommodation  constitutes  direct,  indirect  or  a  third  type  of  distinction.156 
Article  10(2)  DDA  provides  that  the  burden  of  proof  is  shifted  if  the  person  alleging 
discrimination  establishes  facts  that  are  capable  of  supporting  the  presumption  that  the 
duty to provide reasonable accommodation has not been met. 

It follows from the text of Article 2 DDA that no duty to provide reasonable accommodation 
exists  if  making  such  an  accommodation  would  constitute  a  disproportionate  burden  on 
the employer (cf. Article 5 of Directive 2000/78/EC). In terms of justifications, Article 3(1) 
DDA enshrines three general exceptions to the central norm (i.e. the prohibition of making 
a  distinction,  which  on  the  basis  of  Article  2  includes  the  failure  to  provide  reasonable 
accommodation). In brief, these exceptions relate to public security and health, supportive 
social policies, and positive action measures. Thus, a textual reading of Article 3(1) DDA 
suggests  that  these  three  general  exceptions  could  also 
‘lift’  the  reasonable 
accommodation  duty,  as  this  falls  within  the  central  norm.  However,  logically  and  in 
accordance with what the Government observed in its Explanatory Memorandum, only the 
exception  concerning  public  security  and  health  can  have  the  effect  of  ‘lifting’  the  duty 
enshrined  in  Article  2.157  Consequently,  the  other  two  exceptions  mentioned  cannot  be 
invoked by employers with respect to their reasonable accommodation duty. It is indeed 
difficult  to  perceive  in  what  ways  the  other  exceptions  could  be  applicable  in  a  case 
concerning the failure to provide reasonable accommodation.158  

e)  Duties  to  provide  reasonable  accommodation  in  areas  other  than  employment  for 

persons with disabilities 

In the Netherlands, there is a legal duty to provide reasonable accommodation for persons 
with  disabilities  outside  the  area  of  employment.  Originally,  the  DDA  only  covered 
employment and vocational education. However, in 2009 the Dutch legislature extended 
the scope of the DDA to housing and primary and secondary education.159 In 2016 the DDA 
was  extended  further,  in  parallel  with  the  ratification  of  the  CRPD,  to  include  the  entire 
field of goods and services, including public transport and public sector services such as 
healthcare. 

A limitation to the duty to provide reasonable accommodation in the field of housing is laid 
down  in  Article  6c  DDA.  This  provision  states  that  no  duty  to  provide  reasonable 
accommodation  exists  if  such  accommodation  would  require  reconstruction  or  building 
work in or around a residential building.  

155  ETC Opinion 2010-11 of 27 January 2010, para 3.3. 
156  See: Waddington, L. and Hendriks, A. (2002), ‘The expanding concept of employment discrimination in 

Europe: from direct and indirect discrimination to reasonable accommodation discrimination’, in: 
International journal of comparative labour law and industrial relations, Winter 2002, pp. 403-427. 

157  Explanatory Memorandum to the DDA, Tweede Kamer 2001-2002, 28 169, No. 3, p. 33.  
158  Article 3(2) DDA moreover stipulates that indirect distinction can be objectively justified.  
159  Act of 29 January 2009, Staatsblad 2009, 101. 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

The  Decree  on  public  transport  accessibility  (Besluit  toegankelijkheid  van  het  openbaar 
vervoer) specifies the adjustments that must be made in the field of public transport.160 
These  adjustments  are  classified  in  the  DDA  as  a  form  of  reasonable  accommodation, 
although they are not individualised measures.161 They include adjustments to vehicles and 
stations/stops  as  well  as  to  the  provision  of  travel  information.  Article  17  of  the  Decree 
contains a timeline providing for a phased implementation of the necessary adjustments. 
For  example,  buses  and  metros  had  to  be  adapted  for  persons  with  disabilities  as  of 
1 July 2011,  bus  stations  as  of  1  January  2016  and  trams  and  tram  stations  as  of 
1 January 2020. At the moment the only remaining deadline is for trains: they have to be 
adapted as of 1 January 2030. 

The first ETC opinion concerning the duty to provide reasonable accommodation outside 
the  area  of  employment  was  issued  in  2010.162  Many  cases  that  have  come  before  the 
NIHR since then have concerned reasonable accommodation in the area of education.163 
This is partly caused by the fact that mainstream schools are obliged to admit children with 
disabilities,  unless  they  can  prove  that  they  are  unable  to  provide  adequate  education. 
However, the NIHR has also issued opinions on reasonable accommodation in the fields of 
housing, public transport and other goods and services.164 There are no indications that 
the  concepts  of  reasonable  accommodation  or  disproportionate  burden  are  interpreted 
differently in these fields than in employment cases. The NIHR applies the requirement of 
‘reasonable accommodation’ strictly and puts a duty on the provider to actively investigate  
the possibility of providing a requested accommodation, with due regard to the wishes of 
the  person  in  need  thereof.165  In  this  respect,  and  referring  to  the  parliamentary 
discussions on the extension of the DDA in the context of the ratification of the CRPD, the 
NIHR emphasises that the purpose of the obligation to provide reasonable accommodation 
is to realise the autonomy of persons with disabilities to the greatest extent possible.166 In 
2023, a district court issued a decision on reasonable accommodation in the field of goods 
and services in which it followed the decision previously taken by the NIHR in the same 
case.167 In 2023 and 2024, the  NIHR issued a series of  Opinions  concerning refusals by 
service providers to admit assistance dogs (assistentiehonden).168 In most cases, the NIHR 
found  that  such  a  refusal  amounted  to  discrimination  under  the  DDA.  Occasionally, 
however,  the  Institute  accepts  that  a  refusal  is  justified  under  the  health  exception,  for 
example if the service provider is a medical practice and the health of other patients is at 
stake.169 

Arguments  concerning  public  security  and  health  are  also  met  with  strict  review.170  An 
illustration  of  this  approach  can  be  found  in  a  series  of  NIHR  Opinions  concerning  the 
accessibility  of  public  buses  for  users  of  electric  wheelchairs.171  Nevertheless,  the  NIHR 
held that a public transport provider who is able to demonstrate the existence of safety 
risks can rely on the health and safety exception of Article 3 DDA, even if it is established 

160  Staatsblad 2011, 225. 
161  Article 8 in conjunction with Article 2 DDA. 
162  See ETC 2010-35, and ETC 2011-30, in which the ETC reached the same conclusion. 
163  E.g. NIHR Opinion 2017-41 of 4 April 2017; NIHR Opinion 2023-31 of 8 March 2023; NIHR Opinion 2023-60 

of 30 May 2023; NIHR Opinion 2023-84 of 8 August 2023. 

164  E.g. NIHR Opinion 2016-136 of 9 December 2016 (notary services); NIHR Opinion 2017-104 of 

7 September 2017 (access to a drugstore); NIHR Opinion 2021-86 of 8 July 2021 (public transport);  NIHR 
Opinion 2021-106 of 30 July 2021 (housing); NIHR Opinion 2023-73 of 29 June 2023 (access to holiday 
home); NIHR Opinion 2023-74 of 30 June 2023 (housing) and NIHR Opinion 2024-42 of 17 May 2024 
(access to a café). 

165  E.g. NIHR Opinion 2023-60 of 30 May 2023; NIHR Opinion 2023-74 of 30 June 2023; NIHR Opinion 2023-89 

of 22 August 2023. 

166  E.g. NIHR Opinion 2017-104 of 7 September 2017; NIHR Opinion 2023-89 of 22 August 2023. 
167  District court Central Netherlands 1 March 2023, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2023:4197. 
168  E.g. NIHR Opinions 2023-136 of 22 December 2023, 2024-4 of 4 January 2024 and 2024-31 of 11 April 2024. 
169  E.g. NIHR Opinions 2024-4 of 4 January 2024 and 2024-104 of 17 December 2024. 
170  E.g. NIHR Opinion 2023-73 of 29 June 2023. 
171  See NIHR Opinions 2016-39 of 12 May 2016, 2020-107 of 7 December 2020; 2020-123 of 24 December 

2020 and 2023-120 of 16 November 2023. 

38 

 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

that the buses concerned meet the legal requirements of accessibility for wheelchairs. 172 
This finding was confirmed in 2024 by the Court of Appeal of The Hague.173 Previously, in 
2022, the Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden found that the owner’s association of an 
apartment  building  could  lawfully  require  the  removal  of  all  objects,  including  electric 
wheelchairs,  from  the  building’s  common  spaces  because  of  the  fire  hazard  involved. 
Although  the  court  recognised  that  the  requirement  to  remove  the  wheelchairs 
disadvantaged  persons  with  disabilities,  it  found  that  the  owner’s  association  could 
reasonably allow the prevention of fire hazard to prevail. In coming to this decision, it took 
into account that the removal of the wheelchairs had been recommended by the local fire 
brigade.174 

There  are,  moreover,  limits  to  what  can  be  expected  of  the  duty  bearer.  The  efforts 
required to provide accommodation may be considered disproportionate,175 or a possibility 
for accommodation may simply not be available as was the case in the above-mentioned 
case concerning the placement of electric wheelchairs in an apartment building. Also, both 
the NIHR and the courts have held on occasion that the duty bearer had fulfilled the duty 
of reasonable accommodation by offering a reasonable alternative.176  

f) 

Duties to provide reasonable accommodation in respect of other grounds 

In the Netherlands, there is no legal duty to provide reasonable accommodation in respect 
of other grounds than disability and chronic illness in the public and/or the private sector.  

The  ETC/NIHR  has,  on  several  occasions,  implicitly  construed  a  duty  of  reasonable 
accommodation  in  respect  of  religion.  These  concerned  cases  where  the  applicants  had 
suffered discrimination because they had not been permitted to express their religion, for 
example by wearing a headscarf or by choosing not to shake hands with a person of the 
opposite sex.177 Two additional cases were decided in 2023, one concerned a woman who 
did not want to work on Sundays and the other concerned students who trained as beauty 
specialists  and  who  would  be  required  to  take  off  their  headscarves  in  order  to  act  as 
models for each other.178 In these cases the NIHR did not (expressly) rely on the concept 
of  reasonable  accommodation,  instead  it  assessed  whether  there  existed  indirect 
discrimination. However, both cases involved the question of whether the employer or the 
school should have treated certain individuals differently because of their religious beliefs. 
In  determining  whether  a  refusal  to  treat  them  differently  amounted  to  indirect 
discrimination,  the  NIHR  paid  much  attention  to  investigating  the  possibility  and 
proportionality of measures of accommodation.  

Meanwhile the same approach is not always followed by the courts, which often allow more 
leeway  for  employers  to  refuse  to  accommodate  religious  expressions.179  In  2020, 

172  NIHR Opinion 2020-107 of 7 December 2020. See also NIHR Opinion 2022-49 of 10 May 2022, concerning a 
man in a wheelchair who had been denied access to a local bus service during the COVID-19 pandemic. The 
bus company successfully relied on the health and safety exception by pointing out that many of the 
(elderly) volunteers running the bus service belonged to a high risk group for COVID-19, and that it was not 
possible for the volunteers to maintain the required one and a half metres distance while fastening 
wheelchairs in the bus. The NIHR nevertheless found that the bus company had discriminated against the 
applicant by not informing him of alternative transport options and because his complaint was treated with 
insufficient diligence. 

173  Court of Appeal of The Hague 12 March 2024, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2024:352. 
174  Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden 20 December 2022, ECLI:NL:GHARL:2022:10932. The case arose 
after the applicants brought a claim under civil law, asking the court to annul or invalidate the decision of 
the owner’s association. It is noteworthy that, in this civil law context, the Court of Appeal held that its task 
was to provide a marginal review of the reasonableness of the association’s decision rather than the strict 
review applied by the NIHR. 

175  E.g. NIHR Opinion 2017-41 of 4 April 2017; NIHR Opinion 2023-84 of 8 August 2023. 
176  NIHR Opinion 2021-106 of 30 July 2021; Central Netherlands District Court 1 March 2023, 

ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2023:4197. 

177  E.g. ETC 2006-202, NIHR 2016-45, NIHR 2017-135, NIHR 2020-96. 
178  NIHR Opinion 2023-23 of 23 February 2023 and NIHR Opinion 2023-76 of 5 July 2023. For details of both 

cases see the case law section (12.2) of this report. 

179  See notably Central Appeals Tribunal (Centrale Raad van Beroep) 7 May 2009, ECLI:NL:CRVB:2009:BI2440. 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

however,  a  district  court  held  that  an  employer  had  acted  negligently  by  not  allowing  a 
Muslim woman to wear a long headscarf (khimar).180 Although the court did not expressly 
refer to the concept of  reasonable accommodation, it did reproach the employer for not 
investigating whether accommodating measures (e.g. a different type of khimar or working 
elsewhere in the organisation) could have provided a solution. 

180  District Court Amsterdam 10 January 2020, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2020:575. 

40 

 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

3  PERSONAL AND MATERIAL SCOPE  

3.1  Personal scope 

The author is not aware of any relevant case law concerning discrimination stemming from 
or involving the use of artificial intelligence and/or automated systems. 

3.1.1  EU  and  non-EU  nationals  (Recital  13  and  Article  3(2)  Directive  2000/43 

and Recital 12 and Article 3(2) Directive 2000/78) 

In  the  Netherlands,  there  are  no  residence  or  citizenship/nationality  requirements  for 
protection  under  the  relevant  national  laws  transposing  the  directives.  The  principle  in 
Dutch  law  is  that  ‘all  persons  in  the  Netherlands  shall  be  treated  equally  in  equal 
circumstances’, as provided for in Article 1 of the Constitution. Thus, the protection against 
discrimination  provided  by  equal  treatment  legislation,  criminal  law,  civil  law  and 
administrative  law  covers  any  person  on  the  territory  of  the  Netherlands.  This  wide 
personal scope means that, in principle, migrants, regardless of their immigration status, 
are protected by the broad range of non-discrimination law if they encounter discrimination 
on grounds of, for instance, their race or ethnic origin, or their religion.181  

However,  whereas  irregularised  migrants  are  not  expressly  excluded  from  the  scope  of 
Dutch  anti-discrimination  law,  they  are  excluded  from  legal  employment182  and  are  not 
entitled to public services such as housing, healthcare or social protection.183 It follows that 
they  do  not  have  legal  access  to  many  of  the  fields  in  respect  of  which  the  anti-
discrimination legislation applies. Limitations also exist with regard to the rights of migrants 
with temporary residence permits: their access to employment and public services depends 
on the purpose for  which they have been admitted. These legislative  restrictions  on the 
rights  of  (irregularised)  migrants  are  not  themselves  subject  to  the  equal  treatment 
legislation  as  the  GETA  covers  nationality  discrimination  only  in  horizontal  relationships 
(see section 4.4 below).  

3.1.2  Natural and legal persons (Recital 16 Directive 2000/43) 

a) 

Protection against discrimination 

In  the  Netherlands,  the  personal  scope  of  anti-discrimination  law  does  not  cover  legal 
persons  for  the  purpose  of  protection  against  discrimination.  Only  natural  persons  are 
protected. This follows from the wording of Articles 1 GETA, 1 DDA and 1 ADA (‘where one 
person  is  treated  less  favourably,  etc…’)  as  well  as  the  legislative  history  of  the  GETA, 
where the Government explained that the definition of ‘distinction’ in Article 1 GETA refers 
to making a distinction between persons.184  

However, where a group of natural persons is collectively subject to discrimination (e.g. 
when an association of professionals, a political party or a religious organisation is refused 
a  contract  for  hiring  a  meeting  room  in  a  hotel),  their  organisation  may  be  seen  as  the 
rights  holder,  according  to  the  ETC  and  NIHR  in  a  number  of  Opinions.185  The  relevant 
cases all concerned access to and supply of goods and services. In 2018 the NIHR found 
the GETA to be applicable in a case where a bank refused to open a bank account for a 

181  See, for example, NIHR Opinion 2016-83 of 28 July 2016. 
182  Article 2(1) Aliens Employment Act (Wet arbeid vreemdelingen), Staatsblad 1994, 959, entered into force 1 

September 1995. 

183  Article 10(1) Aliens Act 2000 (Vreemdelingenwet 2000), Staatsblad 2000, 495, entered into force 1 April 
2001. The second paragraph contains some exceptions concerning, including emergency healthcare and 
legal assistance. 

184  Tweede Kamer 1991-1992, 22 014, No. 5, p. 87-88. 
185  E.g. ETC Opinions 1996-110 and 1998-31 and NIHR Opinions 2013-94 and 2014-109. In addition, there is a 
possibility for associations to act on behalf of victims of discrimination when this is a (statutory) goal of their 
organisation, see section 6.2 of this report for more details.  

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

not-for-profit organisation.186 The request to open an account had been made by one of 
the organisation’s board members, who claimed that she had been discriminated  against 
because of her foreign-sounding surname. Although the bank account had been formally 
requested by the organisation, the NIHR agreed that the discrimination claim  related to 
the applicant in her capacity as a natural person and was therefore admissible. Finally, in 
one case, the ETC allowed a company to submit a complaint against a customer.187  

There are no indications that the personal scope of Dutch equal treatment legislation, as 
regards the distinction between natural and legal persons, falls short of what is required 
by the directives.  

b) 

Liability for discrimination 

In the Netherlands, the personal scope of anti-discrimination law covers natural and legal 
persons for the purpose of liability for discrimination (GETA, ADA and DDA, Article 1). This 
means that both natural and legal persons can be held accountable for discrimination. 

3.1.3  Private and public sector including public bodies (Article 3(1)) 

a) 

Protection against discrimination 

In the Netherlands, the personal scope of anti-discrimination law covers the private and 
public sectors, including public bodies, for the purpose of protection against discrimination 
(GETA,  ADA  and  DDA,  Article  1).  The  GETA  does  not  apply  to  legal  relationships  within 
religious communities or to religious functions (Article 3 GETA). 

b) 

Liability for discrimination 

The  personal  scope  of  anti-discrimination  law  covers  the  private  and  public  sectors, 
including public bodies, for the purpose of liability for discrimination (GETA, ADA and DDA, 
Article 1). The GETA does not apply to legal relationships within religious communities or 
to religious functions (Article 3 GETA). 

3.2  Material scope 

The author is not aware of any relevant case law concerning discrimination stemming 
from or involving the use of artificial intelligence and/or automated systems in the 
domains covered in this section. This is not to say that AI or automated systems are not 
used by public or private bodies acting in these domains, nor that this does not result in 
discrimination, as is illustrated by the examples provided in sections 3.2.5 and 3.2.8. 
However, such systems tend to function ‘behind the scenes’ and hence can be invisible to 
the individuals who are affected by the resulting decisions. This likely explains the lack of 
case law. 

3.2.1  Conditions for access to employment, to self-employment or to occupation, 
including  selection  criteria,  recruitment  conditions  and  promotion, 
whatever  the  branch  of  activity  and  at  all  levels  of  the  professional 
hierarchy (Article 3(1)(a))  

In the Netherlands, national legislation prohibits discrimination in relation to conditions for 
access to employment, to self-employment or to occupation, including selection criteria, 
recruitment conditions and promotion, whatever the branch of activity and at all levels of 
the  professional  hierarchy  for  the  five  grounds  (i.e.  race,  religion  and  belief,  political 
opinion,  hetero-  or  homosexual  orientation  and  sex  (including  gender  identity,  gender 
expression and sex characteristics)) and in both the public and private sectors, as described 
in the directives. 

186  NIHR Opinion 2018-145 of 27 December 2018. 
187  ETC Opinion 2003-142.  

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

Article 5(1) GETA prohibits discrimination in the context of employment. It provides that 
no unlawful distinctions be made in the following areas: 

a. 
b. 

c. 
d. 
e. 
f. 

advertisements for employment and procedures leading to the filling of vacancies;  
employment of a worker via an employment agency or job placement (inserted by 
the EC Implementation Act); 
the commencement or termination of an employment relationship; 
the appointment and dismissal of civil servants;  
terms and conditions of employment; 
permitting  employees  to  receive  education  or  training  during  or  prior  to  the 
employment relationship; 
promotions; 

g. 
h.  working conditions (inserted by the EC Implementation Act).  

The ADA and DDA have counterpart provisions in Articles 3 and 4 respectively. Both public 
and  private  sector  labour  relations  are  covered.  The  central  norm  (the  prohibition  of 
discrimination)  applies  to  the  entire  employment  process,  i.e.  from  the  moment  of  a 
vacancy being published until the termination of an employment relationship.188 

Article 6 GETA provides that, ‘it shall be unlawful to make distinctions with regard to the 
conditions for and access to the liberal professions and with regard to pursuing the liberal 
professions or for development within them’. Identical provisions are included in Article 4 
ADA and Article 5 DDA. The term ‘self-employment’ is not used in the articles mentioned, 
which instead speak of the ‘liberal professions’ (vrije beroepen). However, the legislative 
history  of  the  ADA  confirms  that  the  term  ‘liberal  profession’  covers  all  employment 
relationships  where  a  relationship  of  authority  between  the  employer  and  employee  is 
absent.189  This  includes  the  more  traditional  ‘liberal  professions’  such  as  doctors  and 
notaries as well as freelancers and entrepreneurs working in any other field.190 Given this 
explanation, it can be assumed that ‘occupation’ is also covered by Articles 6 GETA, 4 ADA 
and 5 DDA. 

For persons with disabilities  or chronic illness,  a major barrier  to access to employment 
may consist of being asked about their physical or medical condition during the selection 
procedure and their answers leading to a decision not to appoint them. In 2012 the law 
was  amended  in  order  to  make  the  regulations  in  this  regard  stricter  and  to  create  the 
possibility  for  a  complaints  procedure  at  the  national  level.191  In  particular,  from  that 
moment it was prohibited for persons other than the medical expert involved in assessing 
an employee’s health to ask questions about or enquire in any other way into the state of 
health of the employee or that employee’s medical history.  

A monitoring process conducted in 2021 further showed that people with a ‘non-western’ 
migration background are at a disadvantage in the employment field. Amongst other things 
they have to wait longer before finding a job and before obtaining a permanent contract 
and  they  are  paid  less  than  people  who  do  not  have  a  ‘non-western’  migration 
background.192  This  example  shows  that,  although  Dutch  legislation  complies  with  the 
directives, this proves insufficient to actually prevent discrimination from taking place in 
the employment field. 

In 2019, the Minister of Social Affairs and Employment presented a legislative proposal to 
oblige  employers  and  intermediary  agencies  to  develop  policies  for  non-discriminatory 

188  Explanatory Memorandum to the DDA, Tweede Kamer 2001-2002, 28 169, No. 3, p. 34. The same applies 

in the context of the ADA and the GETA. 

189  Tweede Kamer 2001-2002, 28 170, No. 3, p. 22. 
190  See also, for example, NIHR Opinions 2012-122 and 2017-81.  
191  Medical Examinations Act (Wet aanscherping medische keuringen) Staatsblad 2012, 146.  
192  Gielen, M. et al (2021), Monitor gelijke kansen en evenredige posities op de arbeidsmarkt, ongeacht 

migratieachtergrond (Monitor of equal opportunities and equal positions on the labour market, regardless of 
migration background), Significant, 5 November 2021, published as Annex to Tweede Kamer 2021-2022, 
29 544, No. 1081. 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

recruitment and selection procedures.193 This obligation would be subject to enforcement 
by the labour inspection agency (Inspectie SZW). The proposal was adopted by the Second 
Chamber  of  Parliament  in  March  2023  but  was  rejected  by  the  Dutch  Senate  (Eerste 
Kamer) in March 2024, after the liberal party (VVD) withdrew its support.194 

The  NIHR  regularly  receives  complaints  about  racial  or  ethnic  discrimination  from 
applicants who were rejected when applying for a job under their own name and invited 
for an interview when they applied under a ‘white’ Dutch name. Such situation tests are 
accepted  by  the  NIHR  as  evidence  of  direct  racial  or  ethnic  discrimination  and  result  in 
findings of unlawful discrimination unless the employer can prove that the rejection was 
based on reasons other than the applicant’s racial or ethnic origin.195 The NIHR applies a 
strict approach in these cases. For example, the fact that the employer has previously hired 
people  of  different  racial  or  ethnic  origin  does  not  suffice  to  rebut  the  presumption  of 
discrimination  established  by  the  situation  test.196  The  NIHR  also  holds  that  selection 
procedures  must  be  transparent,  systematic  and  able  to  be  monitored  to  avoid 
discrimination.  It  follows  that  the  presumption  of  discrimination  is  not  rebutted  by  the 
employer’s statement that the procedure has been sloppy (rather than discriminatory).197  

3.2.2  Employment  and  working  conditions,  including  pay  and  dismissals 

(Article 3(1)(c)) 

In  the  Netherlands,  national  legislation  prohibits  discrimination  in  working  conditions 
including  pay  and  dismissals,  for  all  five  grounds  (i.e.  race,  religion  and  belief,  political 
opinion,  hetero-  or  homosexual  orientation  and  sex)198  and  for  both  public  and  private 
employment.  The  relevant  provisions  are  Article  5(1)(c)-(e)  and  (h)  GETA,  Article  4(b), 
(c), (e) and (h) DDA and Article 3(c)-(e) and (h) ADA. 

The  prohibition  of  discrimination  in  relation  to  employment  and  working  conditions  is 
interpreted  by  the  NIHR,  in  a  longstanding  line  of  case  law,  as  including  a  duty  for 
employers to ensure a ‘working environment free  from discrimination’ (discriminatievrije 
werkomgeving).199  This  entails  an  obligation  to  ensure  that  persons  subject  to  the 
employer’s authority refrain from discriminatory acts. Where an employer knows or should 
have known that an employee has experienced discrimination at the hands of colleagues 
or third parties (clients), they must take adequate measures.200 Such measures must be 
proportionate to the severity of the discriminatory acts.201 

3.2.3  Access  to  all  types  and  all  levels  of  vocational  guidance,  vocational 
training,  advanced  vocational  training  and  retraining,  including  practical 
work experience (Article 3(1)(b)) 

In  the  Netherlands,  legislation  prohibits  discrimination  in  vocational  training  outside  the 
employment  relationship,  such  as  adult  lifelong  learning  courses  or  vocational  training 
provided by technical schools or universities.  

All  three  equal  treatment  laws  (GETA,  ADA  and  DDA)  contain  prohibitions  against 
discrimination with respect to enabling employees to receive education or training during 
or prior to the employment relationship. The relevant provisions are Article 5(1)(f) GETA 

193  Act on the supervision of equal opportunities in recruitment and selection procedures (Wet toezicht gelijke 

kansen bij werving en selectie), Tweede Kamer 2020-2021, 35 673, No. 2. 

194  A flash report was published on this development; see https://www.equalitylaw.eu/downloads/6100-

netherlands-act-against-labour-market-discrimination.  

195  E.g. NIHR Opinion 2021-70 of 7 June 2021 and NIHR Opinion 2021-101 of 27 July 2021. 
196  E.g. NIHR Opinion 2021-101 of 27 July 2021. 
197  E.g. NIHR Opinion 2021-70 of 7 June 2021. 
198  In the GETA, ‘sex’ also covers gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics. 
199  See also section 2.6 on harassment. 
200  E.g. NIHR Opinion 2020-86 of 13 October 2020; NIHR Opinion 2022-12 of 22 December 2022. 
201  NIHR Opinion 2023-70 of 26 June 2023. 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

(which prohibits discrimination based on race, religion and belief, political opinion, hetero- 
or homosexual orientation and sex),202 Article 3(f) ADA and Article 4(f) DDA. 

Discrimination by providers of vocational training and professional guidance is prohibited 
in  Article  7  GETA,  Article  5b  DDA  and  Article  5  ADA.  Both  Article  7  GETA  and  Article 5b 
DDA prohibit (in brief): distinctions made with regard to the supply of or access to goods 
or services, including all forms of education,203 and with regard to vocational orientation 
and advice or information relating to the choice of an educational institution or career. The 
provisions furthermore specify that the prohibition applies to distinctions made: 

a. 
b. 
c. 

d. 

in the course of carrying on a business or exercising a profession;  
by a public service;  
by  institutions  that  are  active  in  the  field  of  housing,  social  services,  healthcare, 
cultural affairs or education; or  
by private persons not engaged in carrying on a business or exercising a profession 
in so far as the offer is made publicly. 

Article 5 ADA prohibits distinctions on the ground of age with regard to: 

a.   access  to  and  the  provision  of  vocational  orientation  and  advice  or  information 
relating to career choice (loopbaanoriëntatie en beroepskeuzevoorlichting); and 
b.   education aimed at entering and functioning in the labour market (onderwijs gericht 

op toetreding tot en functioneren op de arbeidsmarkt).  

Subsection (b) covers education and training that form the final stage prior to entering the 
labour market, including retraining and further training courses.204 In practice, this covers 
practical education (praktijkonderwijs, which forms part of secondary education); technical 
and  vocational  training  for  16  to  18-year-olds  (middelbaar  beroepsonderwijs);  technical 
and  vocational  training  for  those  aged  18+  (hoger  beroepsonderwijs)  and  university 
education. Adult lifelong learning courses are not mentioned specifically but are covered 
by Article 5 ADA as well. Subsections (a) and (b) of Article 5 ADA are not aimed at a specific 
group.  The  norm  therefore  applies  to  ‘everyone’  working  within  these  institutions.  With 
regard  to  subsection  (b),  this  includes  ‘public  education,  private/belief-based  education 
and education that is not publicly funded’.205  

Whereas Article 3(1)(b) of the Employment Equality Directive only prohibits discrimination 
at the stage of ‘entry to’ vocational training, Dutch equal treatment legislation covers the 
entire path from registration until the termination of the education or training.206 The scope 
of the Dutch legislation is therefore broader than that of the Directive. The NIHR regularly 
decides  on  applications  by  individuals  who  claim  discrimination  in  relation  to  vocational 
education.207 Although it is not very  common for such cases to  come before the courts, 
some case law is available.208 

Although  the  Dutch  legal  framework  against  discrimination  in  the  field  of  vocational 
education and guidance complies with the directives, the reality on the ground does not 
always  reflect  legal  non-discrimination  standards.  Studies  show  that  ethnic  minority 
students, in particular, face discrimination in finding internships to help prepare them for 

202  In the GETA, ‘sex’ also covers gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics. 
203  The material scope of the GETA and DDA covers the entire field of education, including primary and 

secondary education. These acts thus offers wider protection than the directives.  

204  Explanatory Memorandum to the DDA, Tweede Kamer 2001-2002, 28 169, No. 3, p. 38.  
205  Explanatory Memorandum to the DDA, Tweede Kamer 2001-2002, 28 169, No. 3, p. 37. 
206  This follows from the formulation of the legislative provisions. See, in addition, Explanatory Memorandum to 

the DDA, Tweede Kamer 2001-2002, 28 169, No. 3, pp. 37-38.  

207  See, for example, NIHR Opinion 2016-77 of 12 July 2016; NIHR Opinion 2018-103 of 15 October 2018 and 

NIHR Opinion 2021-71 of 8 June 2021.  

208  See, for example, Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State 30 August 2023, 

ECLI:NL:RVS:2023:3307 (failure to provide reasonable accommodation to a student who missed exams 
because of a medical injury – no discrimination on the ground of disability).  

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

the  labour  market.209  In  2018  the  Ministry  of  Education  launched  a  policy  initiative  to 
promote  equal internship opportunities, including by  raising awareness  of (unconscious) 
bias  amongst  employers  and  educational  institutions  and  by  lowering  the  threshold  for 
students to report experiences of discrimination210 In 2020, the Amsterdam district court 
held an employer liable under labour law for dismissing a young Muslim woman from her 
traineeship because she chose to wear a khimar (long headscarf). The court found that the 
employer had acted with ‘serious negligence’ by dismissing the applicant on discriminatory 
grounds.211  

3.2.4  Membership  of,  and  involvement  in,  an  organisation  of  workers  or 
employers,  or  any  organisation  whose  members  carry  on  a  particular 
profession,  including  the  benefits  provided  for  by  such  organisations 
(Article 3(1)(d)) 

In the Netherlands, national legislation prohibits discrimination in relation to membership 
of and involvement in workers’ or employers’ organisations as formulated in the directives 
for all five grounds (i.e. race, religion and belief, political opinion, hetero- or homosexual 
orientation and sex)212 and for both private and public employment.  

Article 6a(1) GETA provides: 

‘It  shall  be  unlawful  to  make  distinctions  with  regard  to  the  membership  of  or 
involvement  in  an  employers’  organisation  or  trade  union,  or  a  professional 
occupational  organisation,  as  well  as  with  regard  to  the  benefits  which  arise  from 
such membership or involvement.’ 

Article 5a DDA and Article 6 ADA are identical to this provision. 

3.2.5  Social protection, including social security and healthcare (Article 3(1)(e) 

Directive 2000/43) 

In  the  Netherlands,  national  legislation  prohibits  discrimination  in  social  protection, 
including social security and healthcare, as formulated in the Racial Equality Directive. 

Discrimination  in  the  field  of  social  protection,  including  social  security,  is  prohibited  in 
Article 7a GETA. This extension to social protection is restricted to discrimination on the 
ground  of  racial  or  ethnic  origin.  However,  discrimination  in  the  field  of  healthcare  and 
(social) housing is prohibited by Article 7 GETA, which covers the entire field of goods and 
services and extends to all grounds listed in that Act (i.e. race, religion and belief, political 
opinion, hetero- or homosexual orientation, sex,213 nationality and marital status). Article 
7(1)(c) GETA specifies that the provision covers discrimination by institutions working in 
the  field  of  housing  and  healthcare.  Protection  against  disability  discrimination  in  social 
housing and healthcare is guaranteed in Article 5b(1)(c) DDA.  

No  specific  provisions  exist  regarding  age  discrimination  in  social  protection  or 
discrimination on the ground of religion or belief, sexual orientation or disability in social 
protection  other  than  healthcare  or  housing.  Claims  of  discrimination  in  these  fields/on 
these  grounds  would  have  to  be  assessed  under  the  more  general,  constitutional  and 

209  E.g. ROA (2018) MBO stages en de migratieachtergond van studenten (MBO internships and student’s 

migration background), 2018/17; KIS (2018), Gelijke kansen op gelijke stages. Een vervolgonderzoek naar 
stagediscriminatie (Equal opportunities for equal internships. A follow-up study of discrimination in 
internships). 

210  Tweede Kamer 2019-2020, 31 524, No. 443. 
211  District Court of Amsterdam 10 January 2020, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2020:575. 
212  In the GETA, ‘sex’ also covers gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics. 
213  In the GETA, ‘sex’ also covers gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics. 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

international  prohibitions  of  discrimination,  in  particular  Article  14  ECHR  and  Article  26 
ICCPR.214  

In recent years, it has come to light that several elements of Dutch social security/social 
protection schemes (potentially) involve structural discrimination, notably on the ground 
of racial or ethnic origin. Some key issues are addressed below. 

Case law on racial or ethnic discrimination in relation to residence requirements 

Several Dutch social security schemes differentiate in one way or another on the ground 
of place of residence. One example is the General Pensions Act (Algemene Ouderdomswet) 
which stipulates a reduction of state pension benefits for beneficiaries who lived outside 
the Netherlands for one or more years between the ages of 15 and 65. Another example 
is the General Act on Child Benefits (Algemene Kinderbijslagwet) which provides that no 
benefits  are  payable  for  children  whose  place  of  residence  is  not  in  the  Netherlands.215 
These  residence  requirements  lead,  with  some  regularity,  to  claims  of  indirect 
discrimination on the ground of nationality and/or racial or ethnic origin.  

In  2012  the  NIHR  found  that  the  residence  requirement  in  the  General  Pensions  Act 
amounted to indirect differential treatment on the ground of racial or ethnic origin (albeit 
objectively justified).216 Meanwhile, the courts  tend to  refrain  from establishing whether 
there is indirect racial or ethnic discrimination and move directly to the issue of justification 
(‘if there is indirect discrimination on the ground of nationality or racial/ethnic origin it is 
in  any  case  objectively  justified’).217  This  is  problematic  because  a  finding  of  indirect 
discrimination  on  the  ground  of  racial  or  ethnic  origin  would  mean  that  the  RED  is 
applicable, and should moreover result in stricter scrutiny under Article 14 ECHR and the 
case  law  of  the  ECtHR  (e.g.  Biao/Denmark,  ECtHR  24 May 2016,  application  No. 
38590/10).  In  the  opinion  of  the  author  of  this  report,  by  not  determining  whether  a 
measure results in a particular disadvantage for a group based on racial or ethnic origin, 
the  courts  do  not  give  full  effect  to  the  RED,  at  least  in  cases  where  racial  or  ethnic 
discrimination is explicitly claimed.218 

Investigations into foreign assets of social assistance recipients 

Another recurring issue in case law on social assistance concerns investigations into  the 
foreign assets of people with a migration background. Under Dutch law, eligibility for social 
assistance  is  restricted  to  persons  who  do  not  have  other  means  of  subsistence.  The 
municipalities,  which  are  responsible  for  social  assistance,  are  competent  to  investigate 
whether the information provided by recipients of social assistance regarding their income 
and  other  means/assets  is  correct.  In  this  context,  municipalities  regularly  conduct 
investigations abroad to determine whether welfare recipients possess real estate or other 
financial  assets  in  foreign  countries.  During  these  so-called  ‘thematic  investigations’ 
(themacontroles)  municipalities  have  relied  on  risk  profiles  to  select  social  assistance 
recipients with specific national origins (amongst other criteria).  

Similar  investigations  are  conducted  by  the  SVB  (Sociale  Verzekeringsbank),  the 
administrative body responsible for the payment of state pensions and other benefits, in 
relation to ‘supplementary pension benefits’ (aanvullende inkomensvoorziening ouderen). 
These (means-tested) benefits are granted to people who do not receive a full state pension 

214  See, for example, District Court of Amsterdam 1 November 2018, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2018:7835 (age 

discrimination, social assistance – no violation) and Central Appeals Tribunal (Centrale Raad van Beroep) 9 
July 2019, ECLI:NL:CRVB:2019:2263 (age discrimination in relation to income supplement – no violation).  

215  Subject to the provisions of Regulation 883/2004 on the coordination of social security. 
216  NIHR Opinion 2012-129 of 27 July 2012. 
217  Central Appeals Tribunal 22 February 2013, ECLI:NL:CRVB:2013:BZ2161; Central Appeals Tribunal 1 April 

2016, ECLI:NLCRVB:2016:1225; Central Appeals Tribunal 16 July 2021, ECLI:NL:CRVB:2021:1772. 

218  This is not always the case, sometimes discrimination is claimed without specification of the discrimination 
ground(s), or only on the basis of nationality and/or place of residence. See, for example, Central Appeals 
Tribunal 14 February 2019, ECLI:NL:CRVB:2019:510. 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

because they  spent part of their lives between the ages  of 16 and 65 living outside the 
Netherlands.  Many  recipients  of  ‘supplementary  pension  income’  are  former  labour 
migrants. The practice of thematic investigations by municipalities and the SVB has given 
rise to numerous claims by people who claim to have been selected for investigation on 
the basis of their national origin.  

Since 2015 the Central Appeals Tribunal (Centrale Raad van Beroep) has developed a line 
of  case  law  setting  out  the  conditions  under  which  investigations  into  foreign  assets  of 
recipients of social assistance are justified. It is notable that in this case law only the non-
discrimination provisions of Article 14 and Article 1 Protocol 12 ECHR are invoked. The RED 
is not referred to, which may be due to the fact that the GETA (which implements the RED) 
is not generally applicable to the field of social security, and courts (and applicants) are 
more familiar with the guarantees in the ECHR. The case law allows municipalities and the 
SVB  to  use  the  criterion  ‘of  non-Dutch  origin’  in  risk  profiles,  in  combination  with  other 
criteria such as age and ‘travelling patterns’.219 According to the Central Appeals Tribunal, 
persons who are not of Dutch origin have lived part of their lives in a country other than 
the  Netherlands  and  are  therefore  more  likely  to  have  assets  in  a  foreign  country.220 
Administrative bodies may also apply different risk profiles to persons of Dutch and non-
Dutch origin.221 The Tribunal did not qualify ‘being of non-Dutch origin’ as a racial or ethnic 
criterion to which the RED or the ‘very weighty reasons’ test of Article 14 ECHR would have 
applied.  

Although municipalities and the SVB may select persons who are not of Dutch origin, they 
may  not  select  persons  of  a  specific  foreign  origin  (e.g.  Moroccan  or  Turkish  origin). 222 
However, they may focus their investigation  on persons  of a particular national origin if 
this  forms  part  of  a  phased  investigation  in  which  different  countries  of  origin  are 
investigated in sequence.223 It is not clear whether such ‘sequential selection’ (gefaseerd 
onderzoek) is only allowed if the municipality intends to investigate all countries of origin 
or if it is enough that several countries of origin have been or will be investigated. 

The Central Appeals Tribunal upheld a municipal practice to investigate foreign assets of 
residents who had stated their intention to return to their country of origin (Turkey). 224 It 
also  allowed  an  investigation  whereby  the  frequency  and  duration  of  stays  abroad  was 
used as a risk indicator (all recipients of social assistance who had been abroad for more 
than 30 days or more than twice per year were investigated).225 In both cases, the Tribunal 
dismissed  the  applicants’  arguments  that  the  applied  selection  criteria  were  (indirectly 
discriminatory) on the ground of racial or ethnic origin. 

It  is  doubtful  whether  the  above-mentioned  uses  of  origin-related  criteria  by  Dutch 
administrative bodies and the case law of the Central Appeals Tribunal are compatible with 
Article 3(1)(e) RED. In the Jyske Finans and Maniero judgments the CJEU gave a narrow 
interpretation of the ground of ‘racial or ethnic origin’.226 According to this interpretation, 

219  It is not clear from the case law how ‘being of non-Dutch origin’ is determined. This is most likely by country 
of birth. Country of birth was explicitly used as a selection criterion in Central Appeals Tribunal 28 August 
2018, ECLI:NL:CRVB:2018:2702. See also Central Appeals Tribunal 15 June 2021, 
ECLI:NL:CRVB:2021:1498 and Central Appeals Tribunal 12 October 2021, ECLI:NL:CRVB:2021:2621, where 
the Tribunal decided that the selection of beneficiaries on the ground that they had stayed abroad for longer 
periods of time at a specified address was not discriminatory as the selection criterion was not related to 
racial or ethnic origin. 

220  Central Appeals Tribunal 14 April 2015, ECLI:NL:CRVB:2015:1229. 
221  Central Appeals Tribunal 23 June 2020, ECLI:NL:CRVB:2020:1431 and ECLI:NL:CRVB:2020:1335. 
222  Central Appeals Tribunal 12 December 2017, ECLI:NL:CRVB:2017:4327 and Central Appeals Tribunal 14 

August 2018, ECLI:NL:CRVB:2018:4329. 

223  E.g. Central Appeals Tribunal 6 August 2019, ECLI:NL:CRVB:2019:2611 and Central Appeals Tribunal 17 

March 2020, ECLI:NL:CRVB:2020:835. 

224  Central Appeals Tribunal 19 October 2021, ECLI:NL:CRVB:2021:2622. For further details, see the European 
network of legal experts in gender equality and non-discrimination (2023) Country report 2023 on non-
discrimination for the Netherlands. 

225  Central Appeals Tribunal 26 September 2023, ECLI:NL:CRVB:2023:1912. 
226  Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), 6 April 2017, Jyske Finans A/S, C-668/15, 

ECLI:EU:C:2017:278, 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

‘ethnic origin’ is determined through a combination of objective and subjective factors and 
the single criterion of a person’s country of birth cannot be decisive  in establishing their 
ethnic origin.227 Moreover, the CJEU determined that indirect discrimination on the ground 
of racial or ethnic origin can only be taken to occur where  the disadvantage incurred by 
the  allegedly  discriminatory  measure  is  suffered  by  a  person  or  persons  belonging  to  a 
particular ethnic group.228 This would seem to imply that the criterion ‘of non-Dutch origin’ 
is indeed not a racial or ethnic criterion, as held by the Central Appeals Tribunal. However, 
the CJEU requires a concrete, contextual analysis to determine whether a measure affects 
any particular ethnic group. This follows from the judgments in Jyske Finans and Maniero, 
where the CJEU clarified that the establishment of a presumption of indirect discrimination 
must be based on a specific, concrete comparison rather than a general, abstract one.229  

Although in Jyske Finans the criterion ‘country of birth outside the EU/EFTA’ did not indicate 
any particular ethnic group, this may be different depending on the circumstances of the 
case. For example, in a municipality where 90 % of the population of non-Dutch origin is 
of  Moroccan  origin,  the  general  criterion  ‘non-Dutch  origin’  would  still  impose  a 
disadvantage  on  a  particular  ethnic  group.  This  happened  in  at  least  one  of  the  cases 
decided  by  the  Central  Appeals  Tribunal,  where  application  of  the  ‘non-Dutch  origin’ 
criterion  (together  with  the  criteria  of  age,  travel  behaviour  and  ‘indications  of  fraud’) 
resulted in a selection consisting of 15 people of Turkish origin, between 30 and 40 people 
of Moroccan origin and around 10 people of Central and Eastern European origin.230  

In summary, Dutch case law suggests that there are cases where the general criterion of 
‘non-Dutch origin’ results in indirect discrimination on the grounds of racial or ethnic origin, 
as defined by the CJEU, because it has the effect of putting particular ethnic groups at a 
disadvantage. In the view of the author this raises issues of compliance with the RED.231 

Moreover, in most  of the  cases that  have come before the Central Appeals Tribunal the 
thematic  checks  conducted  by  Dutch  municipalities  or  the  SVB  were  not  directed  at 
‘persons of non-Dutch origin’ but at a specific ethnic group (most often people of Turkish 
origin) or in some cases at several groups (e.g. people of Turkish and Moroccan origin).232 
Both  the  Turkish  and  Moroccan  communities  are  amongst  the  largest  ethnic  minority 
groups  in  the  Netherlands  and  members  of  these  groups  are  known  to  experience 
discrimination  on the grounds of ethnic  origin in various fields of daily life.233 While it is 
true that the Central Appeals Tribunal found the targeting of specific ethnic groups to be 
contrary to the prohibition of racial and ethnic discrimination if it is not part of a ‘phased 
investigation’ in which other ethnic groups are also included (see above), CJEU case law 

https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=189652&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mo
de=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1934758 and CJEU, 15 November 2018, Heiko Jonny Maniero, C-
457/17 ECLI:EU:C:2018:912, 
https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=207787&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mo
de=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1934957. 

227  CJEU, 6 April 2017, Jyske Finans A/S, C-668/15, ECLI:EU:C:2017:278, 

https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=189652&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mo
de=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1934758, paras 19-20. 

228  CJEU, 15 November 2018, Heiko Jonny Maniero, C-457/17 ECLI:EU:C:2018:912, para 47. 
229  CJEU, 15 November 2018, Heiko Jonny Maniero, C-457/17 ECLI:EU:C:2018:912, para 48. 
230  District Court of The Hague 7 July 2020, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2020:6148. Following the case law of the Central 

Appeals Tribunal, the court did not find any discrimination. The possibility of indirect discrimination against a 
particular national origin was not assessed. 

231  A contextual assessment as described here would also allow reconciling the CJEU judgments in Jyske Finans 
and Maniero with the EctHR Grand Chamber’s judgment in Biao/Denmark. In that case, the Grand Chamber 
found that ‘Danish citizens of foreign origin’ did constitute an ethnic group (ECtHR (GC) 24 May 2016, 
application No. 38590/10). Following Article 6(3) TEU and Article 52(3) CFR, this interpretation by the 
ECtHR is relevant to the interpretation of EU law and should be taken into account when determining the 
meaning of ‘racial or ethnic origin’ in the RED. 

232  See e.g. Central Appeals Tribunal 12 December 2017, ECLI:NL:CRVB:2017:4327 (Turkish and Moroccan 
origin); Central Appeals Tribunal 14 August 2018, ECLI:NL:CRVB:2018:4329 (Turkish origin); Central 
Appeals Tribunal 23 June 2020, ECLI:NL:CRVB:2020:1335 (Turkish origin). 

233  European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2017), Second European Union Minorities and 

Discrimination Survey. Main Results, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, Figure 4 (p. 
26). 

49 

 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

on this point is lacking. It is therefore unclear whether the CJEU would agree that a phased 
investigation involving sequential targeting of particular ethnic groups remains within the 
parameters of the RED and, if so, whether it would agree with the Tribunal’s approach to 
establishing whether the targeting in fact did form part of a phased investigation. It is not 
clear whether the standard set by the Central Appeals Tribunal requires that municipalities 
must,  in  the  end,  include  all  countries  of  origin  in  their  investigations.  If  this  is  not  the 
case,  there  is  a  chance  that  municipalities  will  continue  to  focus  their  investigations  on 
people who belong to specific ethnic minority groups, which in the view of the author would 
be contrary to the RED. 

Finally,  the  author  of  this  report  is  not  convinced  by  the  Central  Appeals  Tribunal’s 
reasoning that it is not discriminatory to start an investigation into the foreign possessions 
of welfare recipients intending to return to their country of origin. The Tribunal’s reasoning 
is based on the lack of a suitable comparator, as only foreign-born welfare recipients can 
return to their country of origin. However, a (hypothetical) comparison could be made with 
Dutch-born  welfare  recipients  who  move  to  a  foreign  country  (e.g.  France,  Spain  or 
Portugal). It is unclear why the likelihood of a person having assets in a foreign country 
would be higher  if the  destination country is the person’s  country of  origin (but not, for 
example,  in  the  case  of  a  Dutch-born  welfare  recipient  moving  to  France,  Spain  or 
Portugal).  

Childcare benefits scandal 

that 

it  became  known 

In  2020 
the  Dutch  Tax  Agency/Benefits  Office 
(Belastingdienst/Toeslagen)  had  wrongly  accused  thousands  of  families  of  fraud  with 
childcare benefits and forced them to repay large sums of money, in many cases resulting 
in huge debts and severe suffering.234 This scandal became known as the childcare benefits 
scandal (Toeslagenaffaire). Apart from particularly harsh enforcement practices by the Tax 
Agency and a lack of access to justice for those affected, the  childcare benefits  scandal 
also involved discriminatory treatment. In 2020, a report by the Data Protection Authority 
(Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens) established that the Tax Agency had unlawfully kept records 
on dual nationality of benefits recipients and used nationality as a risk indicator to detect 
fraud.235 Parents affected by the childcare benefits scandal have also reported differential 
treatment on account of their dual nationality as well as the use of discriminatory language 
by  Tax  Agency  employees.236  In  May  2022,  the  state  secretary  responsible  (Marnix  van 
Rij) acknowledged the occurrence of institutional racism within the Tax Agency. 237 At that 
time, the Dutch Government had already announced several measures to prevent (further) 
discrimination.238  

Several  of  the  parents  affected  by  the  childcare  benefits  scandal  made  complaints  of 
discrimination  to  the  NIHR.  The  first  three  cases  were  decided  by  the  equality  body  in 
2023.  It  found  in  each  case,  based  on  statistical  evidence,  that  there  had  been  indirect 
discrimination of parents with a migration background and hence on the ground of racial 

234  Victims are reported to have lost their jobs and homes as a result of their financial troubles. In October 
2021, Statistics Netherlands reported that between 2015 and 2020 at least 1 115 children of families 
affected by the childcare benefits scandal were placed in foster care, see: https://www.cbs.nl/nl-
nl/maatwerk/2021/47/uitsplitsing-uithuisplaatsingen-toeslagenaffaire. 

235  Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens (2020), Belastingdienst/Toeslagen. De verwerking van de nationaliteit van 
aanvragers van kinderopvangtoeslag (Tax Office/benefits. The use of nationality when processing child 
benefit applications), July 2020, available at 
https://autoriteitpersoonsgegevens.nl/sites/default/files/atoms/files/onderzoek_belastingdienst_kinderopva
ngtoeslag.pdf.  

236  Tweede Kamer 2020-2021, 35 510, No. 4, p. 13. 
237  NOS Nieuws (2022) ‘Cabinet acknowledges institutional racism within part of Tax Agency: ‘Many have been 
affected’ (Kabinet erkent institutioneel racisme bij deel fiscus: ‘Heeft velen pijn gedaan’), 30 May 2022, 
https://nos.nl/artikel/2430805-kabinet-erkent-institutioneel-racisme-bij-deel-fiscus-heeft-velen-pijn-
gedaan.  

238  Tweede Kamer 2020-2021, 35 510, No. 4, pp. 14-15. For a detailed overview of the proposed measures see 
the European network of legal experts in gender equality and non-discrimination (2023) Country report 
2022 on non-discrimination for the Netherlands, section 3.2.6. 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

or ethnic origin.239 In 2024, the NIHR decided another seven cases relating to the childcare 
benefits scandal, five of which resulted in a finding of indirect discrimination on the ground 
of racial or ethnic origin.240 In each case (from both 2023 and 2024), the NIHR analysed 
the files provided by the  Tax Agency/Benefits  Office detailing the actions that had been 
taken with regard to the applicant to determine their entitlement to the benefits received 
and,  where  such  entitlement  was  found  to  be  lacking,  to  reclaim  benefits  previously 
granted. These analyses show that decision making by the Tax Agency/Benefits Office is a 
largely  automated  process,  with  civil  servants  using  computer  systems  to  process 
information  from  different  sources  (e.g.  income  tax  data  and  information  on  childcare 
providers); notify changes relevant to a person’s eligibility (e.g. a change in income or a 
reduction  of  the  amount  of  childcare  provided);  and  produce  decisions  on  eligibility  and 
the amount of benefits to be granted. In none of the cases examined by the NIHR did the 
equality body find evidence of direct discrimination (e.g. benefits recipients being selected 
for additional controls because of their nationality or ethnic origin). Instead, in each case, 
a  presumption  of  indirect  ethnic  discrimination  was  found  on  the  basis  of  statistical 
evidence showing that people with a migration background had a higher chance of being 
negatively affected by the controls and enforcement policies  of the Tax Agency/Benefits 
Office  regarding  childcare  benefits.  After  establishing  a  presumption  of  indirect 
discrimination, in most cases the NIHR found that at least some of the actions taken by 
the  Tax  Agency/Benefits  Office  in  the  process  of  reviewing  the  applicant’s  eligibility  for 
benefits or the recovery of benefits for which no eligibility could be established had been 
unduly harsh and/or had gone beyond what was necessary to  prevent fraud and ensure 
the lawful allocation of public resources. In two of the seven cases decided in 2024, the 
NIHR found that all the actions taken by the Benefits Office were objectively justified. 

Housing benefits 

In November 2024, the NIHR issued an Opinion in the case  of a  woman whose housing 
benefits had been denied and reclaimed after her foster child, who was living with her, was 
wrongfully classified as not having legal residence.241 The decision on the housing benefits 
was taken automatically by the Tax Agency/Benefits Office (Dienst Toeslagen) following a 
notification  from  the  Personal  Records  Database  that  the  child’s  residence  status  had 
changed  to  ‘code  98’,  which  indicates  the  absence  of  legal  residence.  After  the  woman 
objected to the decision to withdraw her housing benefits, the Tax Agency/Benefits Office 
contacted the Immigration and Naturalisation Service (Immigratie- en naturalisatiedienst) 
which confirmed that the code had been wrongfully entered and that the foster child held 
a  valid  residence  permit.  The  mistake  was  corrected;  however,  in  the  meantime,  the 
woman had experienced severe financial difficulties due to the denial of housing benefits. 
The NIHR held, first of all, that the rule according to which housing (and other) benefits 
are withdrawn if the recipient is living together with a person without legal residence was 
indirectly discriminatory on the ground of racial or ethnic origin because it could reasonably 
be assumed that it would predominantly affect persons of non-Dutch origin. Next, the NIHR 
found that this effect could not be objectively justified in the case at hand. Considering the 
far-reaching consequences of a denial (and recovery) of housing benefits for the applicant’s 
financial position, and the fact that it was known that ‘code 98’ was sometimes issued by 
mistake, the Tax Agency/Benefits Office acted disproportionately by automatically stopping 
the benefits without first checking whether the foster child did indeed lack legal residence.  

Fraud detection in relation to study grants 

In 2023, investigative journalists revealed that students with a migration background had 
a significantly higher chance of being targeted for fraud controls in relation to study grants 

239  NIHR Opinions 2023-101, 2023-102 and 2023-103 of 2 October 2023. For further details see the case law 

section (12.2) at the end of this report and section 2.5.1 above on statistical evidence. 

240  NIHR Opinions 2024-51 of 12 June 2024; 2024-77 of 6 September 2024; 2024-80 of 23 September 2024; 
2024-83 of 4 October 2024; 2024-84 of 17 October 2024; 2024-96 of 21 November 2024 and 2024-102 of 6 
December 2024. The two cases were no discrimination was found are 2024-83 and 2024-96. 

241  NIHR Opinion 2024-94 of 15 November 2024. 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

for students who live away from home.242 Two reports published in 2024 confirmed that 
bias against students with a ‘non-European migration background’ was indeed present in 
various  stages  of  the  fraud  detection  process.243  One  factor  resulting  in  indirect 
discrimination was that use was made of an automated risk profile that targeted students 
enrolled  in  secondary  vocational  education  (middelbaar  beroepsonderwijs)  as  well  as 
students whose address was relatively close to that of their parents. The bias was further 
reinforced by the fact that students with a ‘non-European migration background’ were more 
likely to be manually selected for control after their risk score was determined based on 
the risk profile.244 

The author of this report is not aware of any cases in which the courts or the NIHR were 
asked to establish discrimination as a result of the fraud controls. This is probably due to 
the  fact  that  the  discriminatory  effects  of  the  controls  were  recognised  and  further 
investigated  by  the  Ministry  of  Education,  which  subsequently  pledged  to  review  the 
decisions resulting from the controls and compensate affected students.245 Still, in October 
2024 (before the compensation was announced), the Overijssel district court overturned 
an administrative decision requiring a student to pay back her study grant following a fraud 
control.  According  to  the  court,  the  fact  that  it  was  established  that  the  fraud  detection 
process had been indirectly discriminatory meant that the findings of the control could not 
be used as evidence to support the decision to withdraw the study grant.246 

a) 

Article 3(3) exception (Directive 2000/78) 

Dutch law does not rely on the Article 3(3) exception. As mentioned, under Article 7a of 
the GETA, the extension to social protection is restricted to racial discrimination (with the 
exception of healthcare and social housing). The other grounds are only protected by the 
general constitutional and international prohibitions of discrimination, as mentioned above.  

3.2.6  Social advantages (Article 3(1)(f) Directive 2000/43) 

In  the  Netherlands,  national  legislation  prohibits  discrimination  in  social  advantages,  as 
formulated  in  the  Racial  Equality  Directive  in  Article  7a  GETA.  This  explicit  provision  on 
social advantages is  restricted to discrimination on the ground of  racial or ethnic  origin, 
but  here  again  the  other  grounds  can  rely  on  the  more  general,  constitutional  and 
international prohibitions of discrimination.247 In addition, protection against discrimination 
on the grounds of religion or belief, sexual orientation and disability may be available under 
Article 7(1) GETA and Article 5b DDA where social advantages overlap with the provision 
of goods and services. This ties in with the Government’s view that the notion of ‘social 
advantages’  refers  to  advantages  of  an  economic  and  cultural  nature,  which  may  be 
granted  by  both  public  and  private  entities.  These  may  include  student  grants,  public 
transport  reductions  and  reductions  for  cultural  or  other  events.  Advantages  offered  by 
private entities are, for example, reductions to entry prices for cinemas and theatres for 
certain categories of visitors.248  

242  See: https://www.platform-investico.nl/onderzoeken/de-discriminerende-fraudecontroles-van-duo. 
243  PriceWaterhouseCoopers  (2024),  Controls  on  abuse  of  study  grants  for  students  living  away  from  home 
(Onderzoek misbruik uitwonendenbeurs) (study commissioned by the Ministry of Education), PWC 26 January 
2024,  published  as  Annex  to  Tweede  Kamer  2023-2024,  24  724,  No.  220;  Algorithm  Audit,  Preventing 
prejudice.  Addendum  (Vooringenomenheid  voorkomen.  Addendum  (study  commissioned  by  the  Executive 
Agency for Education (Dienst Uitvoering Onderwijs)), May 2024, published as Annex to Tweede Kamer 2023-
2024, 24 724, No. 240. 

244  Algorithm  Audit,  Preventing  prejudice.  Addendum  (Vooringenomenheid  voorkomen.  Addendum  (study 
commissioned by the Executive Agency for Education (Dienst Uitvoering Onderwijs)), May 2024, published as 
Annex to Tweede Kamer 2023-2024, 24 724, No. 240, p. 8. 

245  See: https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/actueel/nieuws/2024/11/11/gecontroleerde-oud-studenten-met-

uitwonendenbeurs-krijgen-geld-terug.  

246  District court Overijssel 29 October 2024, ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2024:5627. 
247  See, for example, Court of Appeal of The Hague 25 September 2019, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2019:2541 (age 

discrimination in relation to tax advantages). 

248  Explanatory Memorandum to the EC Implementation Act, Tweede Kamer 2002-2003, 28 770, No. 3, p. 15.  

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

3.2.7  Education (Article 3(1)(g) Directive 2000/43) 

In the Netherlands, national legislation prohibits discrimination in education, as formulated 
in the Racial Equality Directive, in Article 7 GETA. The GETA is integrally applicable to all 
aspects of education, including all types of schools. Article 7 applies to all grounds covered 
by the GETA, including racial or ethnic origin but also religion or belief, sex (which is also 
taken to refer to gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics)  and sexual 
orientation.  

Article 5b DDA prohibits discrimination in the field of education on the ground of disability. 
As  of  June  2016,  the  DDA  covers  the  entire  field  of  education,  including  primary  and 
secondary education.249 

Article 5 ADA prohibits distinctions on the ground of age with regard to vocational education 
and training (see section 3.2.3 above). 

In 2014 a law on special education for pupils and students with intellectual and physical 
disabilities, the Act on Tailored Education (Wet Passend Onderwijs), entered into force.250 
This act changed the way in which schools are compensated for the costs associated with 
teaching students with learning disabilities and includes severe austerity measures.  As a 
result of the Act, more pupils with intellectual and physical disabilities applied for admission 
to  mainstream  schools.  In  2015,  the  Children’s  Ombudsman  (Kinderombudsman) 
published a report in which the new law was severely criticised.251 Since then a large-scale 
evaluation  project  was  initiated  to  closely  monitor  developments  and  new  policy 
initiatives.252 Policy aims of recent years have included improving the connection between 
education  and  healthcare  for  pupils  with  disabilities  and  ensuring  adequate  care 
arrangements  within  schools  as  well  as  education-oriented  care  for  children  unable  to 
attend school.253  

a) 

Trends and patterns regarding Roma pupils 

In the Netherlands, there are no clearly discernible patterns of segregation of Roma pupils, 
which is not to say that discrimination does not occur. According to a report from 2024, 
respondents from Roma and Sinti communities indicate that most children attend primary 
education, but are often harassed and do not feel safe, which is an important reason for 
them to be absent or not stay in school. Respondents from primary schools indicate that 
many Roma and Sinti pupils still start school with a deficit of linguistic and social skills, but 
that  the  situation  is  improving  as  a  result  of  efforts  made  by  parents  and  schools.  As 
regards  secondary  education,  Roma  and  Sinti  pupils  are  gradually  increasing  their 
participation in more theoretically oriented (‘higher level’) education. Parents indicate that 
Roma and Sinti children face discrimination in the form of being advised to follow education 
below their capabilities.254 

249  Act to implement the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Wet van 14 april 2016 tot 

uitvoering van het op 13 december 2006 te New York tot stand gekomen Verdrag inzake de rechten van 
personen met een handicap (Trb. 2007, 169)), Staatsblad 2016, 215. 

250  Act of 11 October 2012 concerning the amendment of several acts regarding education (Wet van 11 oktober 

2012 tot wijziging van enkele onderwijswetten in verband met een herziening van de organisatie en 
financiering van de ondersteuning van leerlingen in het basisonderwijs, speciaal en voortgezet speciaal 
onderwijs, voortgezet onderwijs en beroepsonderwijs), Staatsblad 2012, 533. 

251  The report is available at: www.dekinderombudsman.nl/ul/cms/fck-

uploaded/2015.KOM014.Werktpassendonderwijs.rapport.pdf. 

252  Dertiende voortgangsrapportage passend onderwijs (Thirteenth progress report on tailored education), 

Tweede Kamer 2018-2019, 31 497, No. 310; Derde meting monitor Passend Onderwijs in het MBO (Third 
monitor on tailored education in vocational education), published as Annex to Tweede Kamer 2018-2019, 
31 497, No. 331. 

253  Tweede Kamer 2019-2020, 31 497 and 31 839, No. 334. 
254  Seidler, Y., Khajavi-Zijlstra, J., van Leeuwen, R., van der Schans, K., van Eerten, J.J. and Sam, N. (2024), 
Monitor on Social Inclusion (5th edition) (Monitor Sociale Inclusie (meting 5)), Risbo/Labyrinth March 2024, 
published as Annex to Tweede Kamer 2023-2024, 32 824, No. 433. 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

While case law is sparse, an older Opinion of the Equal Treatment Commission (currently 
the  NIHR)  concerned  the  board  of  an  association  of  14  (Christian)  primary  schools  that 
used a quota of 15 % per institution for pupils who speak Dutch as a second language, in 
order  to  combat  segregation  (the  measure  was  not  explicitly  targeting  Roma  and 
Travellers,  but  also  children  with  a  migration  background).  This  admissions  policy  was 
deemed to be unlawful indirect discrimination against Roma and Sinti communities, on the 
ground of racial or ethnic origin.255  

3.2.8  Access  to  and  supply  of  goods  and  services  which  are  available  to  the 

public (Article 3(1)(h) Directive 2000/43) 

In the Netherlands, national legislation prohibits discrimination in access to and the supply 
of  goods  and  services,  as  formulated  in  the  Racial  Equality  Directive.  This  is  covered  in 
Article 7(1) GETA, which provides: 

‘It  is  unlawful  to  make  a  distinction  in  offering  goods  or  services,  in  concluding, 
implementing  or  terminating  agreements  thereon,  and  in  providing  educational  or 
career guidance if such acts of making a distinction are committed: 

a. 
b. 
c. 

d. 

in the course of carrying on a business or practising a profession; 
by the public sector; 
by  institutions  which  are  active  in  the  fields  of  housing,  social  services  or 
welfare, healthcare, cultural affairs or education; or 
by  private  persons  not  engaged  in  carrying  on  a  business  or  practising  a 
profession, insofar as the offer is made publicly.’ 

This  applies  to  all  grounds  covered  by  the  GETA,  including  religion  or  belief,  sex  (which 
also can be taken to refer to gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics) 
and sexual orientation. Article 7(1) GETA does not cover unilateral administrative decisions 
and acts. 

Since June 2016, discrimination in access to and the supply of goods and services is also 
prohibited in relation to disability. The relevant provision is Article 5b(1) DDA. Failure to 
adapt  goods  or  a  service  to  meet  the  needs  of  persons  with  disabilities  is  a  form  of 
discrimination under Article 5b(1) in connection with 2 DDA (see also section 2.6, under 
e), above). 

Age  discrimination  in  the  field  of  access  to  and  the  supply  of  goods  and  services  is  not 
prohibited under Dutch equal treatment legislation. Claimants can rely on the general non-
discrimination  provisions  in  the  Dutch  Constitution  and  international  treaties,  notably 
Article 14 ECHR and Article 26 ICCPR. 

The NIHR is regularly asked to give opinions on alleged discrimination in the field of goods 
and services, including on the ground of racial or ethnic origin.256 In 2024, the NIHR issued 
several  Opinions  concerning  (alleged)  discrimination  resulting  from  a  bank’s  policies  to 
ensure  compliance  with  international  sanctions  regimes.257  In  both  cases,  the  bank  had 
used an automated system to select transactions with a (relatively) high risk of being in 
breach of sanctions legislation. As a result, the applicants were asked to provide additional 
information  and/or  their  transactions  were  blocked.  The  NIHR  found  in  both  cases  that 
there had been indirect discrimination on the ground of racial or ethnic origin, because the 
criteria  used  to  select  suspect  transactions  –  in  particular  (partial)  overlap  between  the 
names of the persons involved in the transactions with the names of people included on 
sanctions  lists  –  predominantly  affected  persons  of  non-Dutch  origin.  Several  reports 

255  See ETC Opinion 2003-105. 
256  E.g. NIHR Opinion 2021-105 of 29 July 2021 (supply of services, a client of a bike repair shop was denied a 
loan bike because of her skin colour) and NIHR Opinion 2021-107 of 2 August 2021 (supply of goods, a 
client of a construction store was harassed by a security guard because of his ethnic origin). 

257  NIHR Opinions 2024-62 and 2024-63 of 25 July 2024. 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

published  in  2024  highlight  the  risks  of  discrimination  by  banks  as  a  result  of  efforts  to 
comply  with  sanctions  regulations  as  well  as  anti-money  laundering  and  financing  of 
terrorism regulations, often with the help of automated systems/artificial intelligence (see 
section 11.2 on other issues of concern).  

a)  Distinction between goods and services available publicly or privately 

In the Netherlands, national law distinguishes between goods and services available to the 
public (e.g. in shops, restaurants and banks) and those that are only available privately 
(e.g. those restricted to members of a private association).  

Article 7(3) GETA stipulates that the prohibition of discrimination does not apply to goods 
and services provided in the course of carrying on a business or practising a profession or 
by  private  persons  not  engaged  in  carrying  on  a  business  or  practising  a  profession, 
provided that the following conditions are met: 

a. 

b. 

c. 

the  legal  relationship  between  the  provider  and  the  person  seeking  access  to  the 
good or service is of a private nature; 
the  distinction  is  based  on  a  characteristics  relating  to  religion  or  belief,  political 
opinion, sex, nationality, hetero- or homosexual orientation or marital status; and 
the distinction is justified by a legitimate aim and the means to achieving that aim 
are appropriate and necessary. 

The exception of Article 7(3) GETA results from a balancing of interests of the constitutional 
right  to  freedom  of  association  and  the  right  to  equal  treatment.  It  follows  from  Article 
7(3)(b) that the exception does not apply to distinctions that are based on racial or ethnic 
origin. 

A similar exception is not included in the DDA. 

3.2.9  Housing (Article 3(1)(h) Directive 2000/43) 

In the Netherlands, national legislation prohibits discrimination in the area of housing, as 
formulated in the Racial Equality Directive. Housing is covered under Article 7(1) GETA and 
also under Articles 5b(1) and 6a-c DDA. Thus it covers all grounds (i.e. race, religion and 
belief, political opinion, hetero- or homosexual orientation, sex,258 nationality and marital 
status)  except age. The duty to make  reasonable accommodation in  relation to housing 
only exists in the case of disability discrimination. An exception to this duty applies if the 
accommodation  would  require  building  or  reconstruction  work  in  or  around  residential 
premises (Article 6c of the DDA).  

The  prohibition  of  discrimination  applies  to  all  aspects  of  housing.  The  Rotterdam  Act 
(Rotterdamwet),259  which  grants  local  authorities  the  right  to  refuse  to  let  subsidised 
houses  in  certain  areas  to  low-income  households  in  order  to  avoid  the  emergence  of 
‘ghettos’,  has  now  been  in  place  for  several  years  and  has  not  been  found  to  be 
discriminatory.260 A complaint regarding this type of policy was brought to the European 
Court of Human Rights, but the Grand Chamber ruled that the policy did not violate the 
ECHR.261  

258  In the GETA, ‘sex’ also covers gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics. 
259  Act of 20 December 2005, Staatsblad 2005, 726.  
260  Although the ETC (now the NIHR) thought that it could amount to indirect discrimination on grounds of race 
as people of non-Dutch or more generally non-western origin would be particularly affected. See Advice 
2005/03.  

261  EctHR (GC) 6 November 2017, Garib v. The Netherlands (application No. 43494/09). 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

In  2018,  situation  testing  initiated  by  a  group  of  journalists  brought  to  light  a  high 
prevalence of discrimination in housing against people with a migration background.262 In 
2019  the  Government  strengthened  its  efforts  to  combat  discrimination  in  the  housing 
market.263  In  2020/2021  a  large  scale  investigation,  including  3 000  situation  tests  and 
mystery calls, was conducted at the request of the Government. This investigation showed 
that  8 %  of  men  and  7 %  of  women  with  a  foreign  (Polish  or  Moroccan)  surname 
experienced  discrimination  in  the  housing  market  because  of  their  ethnic  origin.  The 
investigation  also  showed  that  86 %  of  real  estate  agents  were  prepared  to  accept 
discriminatory  requests  by  landlords.264  Following  the  publication  of  these  results,  the 
Minister of the Interior  announced that  she would step up measures to  raise awareness 
amongst landlords and real estate agents, and that situation tests and mystery calls would 
continue to be performed regularly to monitor the occurrence of discrimination and to deter 
discriminatory behaviour. The minister asked the State Commission against Discrimination 
and Racism, which was established in July 2022, to further investigate the occurrence of 
discrimination in the housing market and suggest possible policy measures.265 

In  March  2023  the  Dutch  legislator  adopted  the  Act  on  good  landlordship  (Wet  Goed 
verhuurderschap).266  The  act  enables  municipalities  to  require  that  landlords  establish 
procedures to prevent discrimination. Through this instrument, landlords can thus be made 
aware  of  the  risk  of  discrimination  and  be  compelled  to  consider  which  practices  or 
procedures  result  in  discrimination.  In  this  way,  the  Act  can  potentially  contribute  to 
eliminating root causes of structural discrimination. In addition to preventing discrimination 
the proposal aims to improve the housing situation of labour migrants. Before the Act was 
adopted the NIHR published a reaction to the legislative proposal that was overall positive, 
but also mentioned several recommendations to make the act more effective at combating 
discrimination.267  

a) 

Trends and patterns regarding housing segregation for Roma 

In the Netherlands, there are patterns of housing segregation and discrimination against 
the Roma. Roma and Traveller people tend to live in caravans or trailers that are situated 
in  officially  designated  ‘trailer  parks’  (woonwagenkampen).  The  lack  of  systematic  data 
makes it difficult to give exact numbers on the housing situation of Roma and Travellers, 
but  it  has  been  observed  that  a  shortage  of  caravan  sites  makes  it  impossible  or  very 
difficult  for  family  members  to  live  in  the  same  encampment,  something  of  paramount 
importance to Roma and Sinti.268  

In  2018,  following  concerted  efforts  by,  among  others,  the  NIHR  and  the  National 
Ombudsman,269 the Minister of the Interior issued a new policy framework on housing for 

262  Elibol, R. and Tielbeke, J. (2018) ‘Onderzoek discriminatie woningmarkt. Rachid is ook gewoon een nette 
jongen’ (‘Investigation of discrimination in the housing market. Rachid is just an ordinary, decent man’), 
Groene Amsterdammer 28 March 2018: www.groene.nl/artikel/rachid-is-ook-gewoon-een-nette-jongen. 

263  Tweede Kamer 2019-2020, 32 847, No. 577. 
264  Tweede Kamer 2020-2021, 32 847 and 30 950, No. 743. 
265  See: https://www.staatscommissietegendiscriminatieenracisme.nl/over-ons.  
266  See: Staatsblad 2023, 103. 
267  See: NIHR (2021) ‘Advies over het wetsvoorstel Goed verhuurderschap’ 

https://publicaties.mensenrechten.nl/publicatie/6130e7d85d726f72c45f9cf0. 

268  See the Social Inclusion Monitor of 2018, which also indicates that many differences also exist between 

Roma. Y. Seidler et al (2018) Monitor Sociale Inclusie: meting 3. Tweede vervolgmeting naar de woon- en 
leefomstandigheden van Roma en Sinti in Nederland (Social inclusion monitor: measurement 3. Second 
follow-up measurement of the housing and living situation of Roma and Sinti in the Netherlands) (report 
commissioned by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment), Rotterdam: Risbo BV/Erasmus Universiteit 
Rotterdam, available at 
https://www.eerstekamer.nl/overig/20181116/monitor_sociale_inclusie_meting_3/meta.  
269  Nationale Ombudsman (2018), Woonwagenbewoner zoekt standplaats. Een onderzoek naar de 

betrouwbaarheid van de overheid voor woonwagenbewoners (Trailer resident seeks trailer site. An 
investigation into the reliability of the public authorities for trailer inhabitants): 
www.nationaleombudsman.nl/system/files/bijlage/DEF%20Rapport%202017060%20Woonwagenbewoner%
20zoekt%20standplaats.pdf. 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

Roma, Sinti and Travellers.270 The framework aims to prevent discrimination against Roma, 
ensure their cultural rights and provide legal security in the area of housing. It contains 
guidelines  for  municipal  authorities,  which  are  in  charge  of  housing  policies  at  the  local 
level.  More  specifically  the  policy  framework  requires  municipalities  to  give  Roma  more 
space  to  live  according  to  their  own  cultural  identity  and  to  ensure  they  have  the 
opportunity to acquire a place to live on a trailer park within a reasonable timeframe. Most 
importantly, municipalities are no longer allowed to pursue policies aimed at the eventual 
disappearance of trailer parks (so-called ‘extinction policies’). 

Although the adoption of the policy framework represented an important step forward, as 
of 2024, the issue of the  shortage of  caravan sites had not  yet been  resolved.  A report 
commissioned by the National Coordinator against Discrimination and Racism found that 
the previous ‘extinction policies’ had been replaced by ‘deferment policies’ and that, over 
a five-year period, only 50 new caravan sites had been established, whereas at least 4 000 
were needed.271 According to the same report, over 40 % of Dutch municipalities had not 
inventoried the need for caravan sites within their borders, although this was prescribed in 
the 2018 policy framework. 

Another problem observed in the report is that municipalities propose ‘innovative’ housing 
solutions for Roma, Sinti and Travellers, such as ‘tiny houses’ and stacked caravans, which 
the latter often perceive as insulting considering the historical context of forced adjustment 
to ‘regular’ housing. Finally, the report found that in many municipalities, inhabitants of 
caravans  are  not  entitled  to  buy  or  rent  their  own  caravan  site,  which  in  turn  makes  it 
difficult for them to obtain a mortgage to make the caravans more sustainable. 

The report offers a number of recommendations, including a stronger role for the national 
Government;  availability  of  funding  to  make  caravans  sustainable;  and  increasing 
knowledge of Roma, Sinti and Traveller culture among civil servants, as well as combating 
anti-Gypsyism.  In  April  2024,  the  Government  submitted  a  legislative  proposal  to 
strengthen its grip on housing (Wet versterking regie volkshuisvesting) which, it stated, 
should  also  enable  it  to  take  a  stronger  steering  role  as  regards  the  establishment  of 
caravan  sites.272  As  at  the  cut-off  date  for  this  report,  the  bill  was  still  pending  before 
Parliament.273 

The duty to enable Roma and Travellers to live in accordance with their cultural traditions 
is also emphasised in case law and in the Opinions of the NIHR. In 2021 the District Court 
of the Central Netherlands found that a municipality had acted unlawfully (in breach of the 
prohibition of discrimination in Articles 8 and 14 ECHR) by concluding an agreement with 
a group of Traveller families that stipulated that the amount of places on the site where 
they lived could never grow beyond the existing number.274  

Before the adoption  of  the new policy  framework  the  NIHR had already found that local 
policies aiming to eventually put an end to ‘trailer parks’  amounted to discrimination  on 
the ground of race.275 To decide whether local authorities have made sufficient efforts to 
create enough caravan sites the NIHR compares the waiting period for a caravan site in 
the municipality concerned to the waiting period for social housing.276 If the waiting period 
for a caravan site is ‘substantially longer’ the municipality will need to show that concrete 
actions are being taken to increase the availability of caravan sites. If no action plan exists 

270  Beleidskader Gemeentelijk woonwagen- en standplaatsenbeleid (Policy framework for municipal trailer and 

campsite policy): https://vng.nl/publicaties/beleidskader-gemeentelijk-woonwagen-en-standplaatsenbeleid.  
271  Teodorescu,  D.,  de  Vries,  F.  and  van  Kan,  A.  (2024),  Van  uitsterf-  naar  uitstelbeleid  (From  extinction  to 
deferment  policy  –  exploration  and  recommendation  commissioned  by  the  National  Coordinator  against 
Discrimination and Racism). 

272  Tweede Kamer 2023-2024, 30 950, No. 365. 
273  Tweede Kamer, file no. 36 512. 
274  District Court of the Central Netherlands 27 October 2021, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2021:5210. 
275  E.g. NIHR Opinions 2014-165, 2014-166 and 2014-167; NIHR Opinion 2016-22, NIHR Opinion 2017-55 and 

NIHR Opinions 2017-136 and 2017-137. 

276  E.g. NIHR Opinion 2021-124 of 14 October 2021; NIHR Opinion 2023-129 of 7 December 2023; NIHR 

Opinion 2024-97 of 22 November 2024; NIHR Opinion 2024-109 of 19 December 2024. 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

or if such a plan is not being implemented this will result in a finding of discrimination. 277 
In a case from 2024, the district court of The Hague followed the NIHR’s approach when 
deciding that the municipality of The Hague  had taken insufficient action to  establish an 
adequate  number  of  caravan  sites.  Interestingly,  however,  the  court  reasoned  that  the 
waiting  period  for  caravan  sites  had  to  be  compared  with  the  waiting  period  for  social 
housing at the ground level, as the amount of public space required for caravan sites is 
larger  than  for  stacked  housing.278  The  district  court  issued  a  declaration  that  the 
municipality was acting in contravention of the prohibition of discrimination and ordered it 
to  establish, within five years, a waiting period for caravan sites  comparable to that for 
social housing at the ground level. 

Following  the  adoption  of  the  policy  framework,  the  NIHR  continues  to  be  asked  on  a 
regular basis to decide on complaints relating to the housing needs of Roma and Travellers. 
Besides the availability of caravan sites and the procedures for distributing such sites, the 
case law addresses aspects such as maintenance obligations for caravan sites,279 and the 
possibility to obtain building insurance for a caravan280 or a loan for its renovation.281 In 
addition,  the  fact  that  a  person  is  living  in  a  caravan  can  in  itself  be  a  reason  for 
discrimination.  An  NIHR  Opinion  from  2024  concerned  a  situation  where  a  carpet  shop 
required  persons  living  in  ‘movable  objects’,  including  caravans,  to  pay  the  full  price  in 
advance  whereas  for  other  people  a  50%  deposit  was  required.282  The  justification  put 
forward by the shop owner in this case was to prevent the risk of clients not paying for 
their purchases; however, the owner did not provide any evidence to show that this risk 
was  indeed  higher  for  people  living  in  caravans.  The  NIHR  held  that  there  existed  no 
objective  justification  for  the  difference  in  treatment,  which  therefore  amounted  to 
discrimination. 

277  NIHR Opinion 2021-124 of 14 October 2021, para 6.10; NIHR Opinion 2023-63 of 8 June 2023; NIHR 
Opinion 2023-117 of 14 November 2023; NIHR Opinion 2024-97 of 22 November 2024; NIHR Opinion 
2024-109 of 19 December 2024. 

278  District court of The Hague 29 May 2024, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2024:7830. 
279  NIHR Opinion 2023-87 of 14 August 2023.  
280  NIHR Opinion 2022-152 of 15 December 2022; NIHR Opinion 2023-96 of 12 September 2023. 
281  E.g. NIHR Opinions 2022-147, 148 and 149 of 8 December 2022.  
282  NIHR Opinion 2024-45 of 6 June 2024. 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

4  EXCEPTIONS 

4.1  Genuine  and  determining  occupational  requirements  (Article  4  Directive 

2000/43, Article 4(1) Directive 2000/78) 

In  the  Netherlands,  national  legislation  provides  for  an  exception  for  genuine  and 
determining occupational requirements. 

In the GETA, the exception for genuine occupational requirements (‘GOR exception’) only 
exists for the grounds of race and sex. As far as race is concerned, Article 2(4) GETA reads:  

‘The prohibition of making distinctions  on the grounds  of race as it is  contained in 
this Act, shall not apply:  

a. 

b. 

in cases where a person’s racial appearance is a determining factor, provided 
that the aim is legitimate and the requirement is proportionate to that aim; 
if  the  distinction  concerns  a  person’s  racial  appearance  and  constitutes,  by 
reason of the nature of the particular occupational activity concerned, or of the 
context  in  which  it  is  carried  out,  a  genuine  and  determining  occupational 
requirement, provided that the objective is legitimate and the requirement is 
proportionate to that objective.’283 

In contrast to Article 4 of Directive 2000/43/EC, which speaks of a characteristic related to 
racial or ethnic origin, the Dutch provision specifies that only outward racial appearances 
can constitute genuine occupational requirements.284 This means that ‘race’ as such is not 
regarded as a permissible ground for a particular distinction.285 Only physical features (skin 
colour, hair type, etc) may form the basis for a distinction, to the exclusion of sociological 
differences. The GETA does not, for example, allow a care institution which looks after the 
well-being  of  young  offenders  of  Moroccan  origin  to  express  in  a  job  advertisement  a 
preference for a social worker of Moroccan origin.286 

The  Governmental  Decree  on  Equal  Treatment  of  1994  exhaustively  indicates  which 
professional activities are covered by the exception of Article 2(4).287 These are:  

a. 

The profession or activity of actor, dancer or artist insofar as the profession or activity 
relates to the performance of a certain role (elaboration of subsection b); 

b.  Mannequins,  models  for  photographers,  artists,  etc.  insofar  as  requirements  can 
reasonably be imposed on outward appearances (elaboration of subsection b).  

Article 5(2) GETA allows institutions founded on religious or political principles or schools 
founded on the basis of religion to impose requirements in relation to the occupancy of a 
post  which,  in  view  of  the  organisation’s  purpose,  are  necessary  to  uphold  its  founding 
principles. When the GETA was adopted, this provision was not rationalised by the idea of 
‘genuine  occupational  requirements’.  Instead  it  was  regarded  as  necessary  in  order  to 
reconcile  the  constitutional  right  to  equality  with  other  constitutional  rights,  namely  the 
freedom  of  religion  and  the  freedom  of  education,  as  well  as  the  freedom  of  political 
opinion. However, in 2015 Article 5(2) GETA was amended and the text is now closer to 

283  Subsection b was inserted by the EC Implementation Act. With this amendment the Government intended to 
follow the wording of the directive more closely. See Explanatory Memorandum to the EC Implementation 
Act, Tweede Kamer 2002-2003, 28 770, No. 3, p. 10. However, prior to implementation the ‘genuine 
occupational requirement exception’ was also covered by the more general wording of subsection a of 
Article 2(4).  

284  Explanatory Memorandum to the EC Implementation Act, Tweede Kamer 2002-2003, 28 770, No. 3, p. 10. 
285  Gerards, J. H. and Heringa, A. W. (2003), Wetgeving gelijke behandeling (Equal treatment legislation), 

Deventer, Kluwer, p. 129.  
286  See ETC Opinion 1997-51.  
287  Governmental Decree on Equal Treatment (Besluit Gelijke Behandeling), Staatsblad 1994, 657, last 

amended in 2012, see Staatsblad 2012, 565.  

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

that of Article 4(1) Directive 2000/78/EC.288 The current wording of the provision states 
that the institutions mentioned above may differentiate on the ground of religion or belief 
(or  political  opinion)  if  such  characteristics  amount  to  genuine,  legitimate  and  justified 
occupational requirements, in view of the institution’s religious or political principles, and 
the distinction does not go further than is necessary to ensure respect for those principles 
and does not result in differential treatment on any other ground mentioned in Article 1 
GETA. Any distinction based on this exception needs to be closely linked to the nature and 
content of the job in this particular context (of an institution of a specific religious faith).289 
This means that only functions that are related to the ‘mission’ of the organisation can be 
exempted from the prohibition of discrimination (i.e. the exception is not applicable when 
it concerns a gardener for a church). It is also a requirement that the organisation applies 
a consistent policy in this respect.290 See section 4.2 below for more details. 

The GOR exception is not included in the DDA. This is because the Dutch legislature could 
not  envisage  a  scenario  in  which  ‘disability’  would  constitute  a  genuine  occupational 
requirement.291 An amendment submitted by a Member of Parliament in this respect was 
rejected.292  

Since the ADA contains an objective justification exception for both direct and indirect age 
discrimination (Article 7(1)(c) ADA), the legislature considered it unnecessary to include 
the GOR exception.  

4.2  Employers  with  an  ethos  based  on  religion  or  belief  (Article  4(2) 

Directive 2000/78) 

In  the  Netherlands,  national  law  provides  for  an  exception  for  employers  with  an  ethos 
based on religion or belief. 

Article 5(2) GETA provides that the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of religion 
or belief or political opinion in the field of employment does not apply to a) employers with 
an  ethos  based  on  religion  or  belief,  b)  faith-based  schools  and  other  educational 
institutions  and  c)  institutions  based  on  a  political  ideology,  provided  that  several 
conditions are met. The exception only applies in cases where, by reason of the nature of 
the activities concerned or of the context in which they are carried out, the religion, belief 
or political opinion of the person who is subject to the difference in treatment constitutes 
a genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirement, having regard to the ethos 
of  the  organisation.  The  difference  in  treatment  must  moreover  not  go  beyond  what  is 
necessary  to  require  individuals  working  for  the  organisations  concerned  to  act  in  good 
faith and with loyalty to the organisation’s ethos. Finally, the difference in treatment may 
not result in unjustified discrimination on another ground. 

It can be seen that, as regards distinctions on the grounds of religion or belief, Article 5(2) 
closely follows the wording of Article 4(2) Directive 2000/78, but is not exactly the same.  

Typical  cases  that  have  come  before  the  ETC  and  NIHR  concern  schools  and  other 
organisations based on a Christian denomination that require their personnel to adhere to 
the specific tenets of the denomination concerned and act accordingly. Article 5(2) GETA 
is interpreted strictly by the NIHR. The organisation has to show that its identity is indeed 

288  Act of 21 May 2015 amending the General Equal Treatment Act to eliminate the ‘sole-ground construction’ 

in the General Equal Treatment Act (Wet van 21 mei 2015 tot wijziging van de Algemene wet gelijke 
behandeling in verband met het annuleren van de enkele-feitconstructie in de Algemene wet gelijke 
behandeling), Staatsblad 2015, 200. 

289  It may be useful to note that the exception thus does not apply to ‘ordinary’ private companies such as 
involved in the Achbita case; CJEU, 14 March 2017, Achbita v. G4S, C-157/15, ECLI:EU:C:2017:203, 
https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=188852&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mo
de=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1935398.  

290  These criteria were explained by the ETC in Opinion 1996-118. 
291  Explanatory Memorandum to the DDA, Tweede Kamer 2001-2002, 28 169, No. 3, p. 35.  
292  Amendement Terpstra, Tweede Kamer 2001-2002, 28 169, No. 11.  

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

manifested  in  its  actual  practice  and  is  consistently  upheld.  It  must  also  show  that  the 
requirements  are  necessary  to  fulfil  the  specific  function  held  by  the  employee  in  the 
organisation. For example, the Salvation Army could refuse to employ a man as a salary 
administrator  for not adhering to the Christian religion as the job also included external 
contacts and contacts with colleagues in which this was a functional requirement.293  

Although  formally  not  an  exception  to  the  prohibition  of  discrimination,  it  should  be 
observed  that  the  GETA  does  not  apply  to  legal  relationships  within  churches  or  other 
religious communities or associations of a spiritual nature and excludes the application of 
equal  treatment  norms  to  ‘ministers  of  religion’,  as  these  are  considered  to  be  internal 
affairs (Article 3 GETA). The rationale for this restriction of the GETA’s scope of application 
lies in the protection of the constitutional right of freedom of religion and in the division 
between church and state.  

Article 3 GETA reads: 

‘This Act does not apply to: 

legal  relations  within  religious  communities, 

a. 
associations thereof and within other associations of a spiritual nature; 
b. 

the office of minister of religion.’ 

independent  sections  or 

Only purely internal affairs of religious organisations are covered by this exception. Thus, 
for example, the employment relationship between a gardener and a religious community 
is  not  exempted.  The  more  the  legal  relationship  is  disconnected  from  the  rationales  of 
freedom of religion and the division between church and state, the less likely it  is to be 
considered a purely internal affair.294  

- 

Conflicts between rights of organisations with an ethos based on religion or belief and 
other rights to non-discrimination 

In the Netherlands, there are specific provisions and case law relating to conflicts between 
the rights of organisations with an ethos based on religion or belief and other rights to non-
discrimination in the context of employment. Specific provisions in this area are Articles 3 
and 5(2) of the GETA, which have been discussed above.  

In the Netherlands, the now abolished ‘sole-ground construction’ (enkele-feitconstructie), 
previously included in Article 5(2), played an important role with regard to the question of 
whether  a  Christian  school  may  lawfully  refuse  to  employ  a  cohabiting  homosexual  in  a 
teaching position. While the ‘sole ground’ that a person is homosexual could not lead to 
the refusal to employ such a person or to dismiss them, the situation might be different if 
‘additional  circumstances’  were  taken  into  account.  This  could  be  any  ‘behaviour’  inside 
and/or outside the school from which it is apparent that the teacher does not subscribe to 
the  particular  religious  belief  or  even  contests  this  belief  openly.  The  wording  of  Article 
4(2) of Directive 2000/78/EC seemed not to permit that ‘additional circumstances’ play a 
material role unless such circumstances coincide with the organisation’s religion or belief.  

As  a  reaction  to  the  European  Commission’s  infringement  procedure  against  the 
Netherlands, where this issue was mentioned by the Commission,295 and after several bills 
and  advice  from  various  NGOs,  the  Council  of  State  and  the  ETC,  the  ‘sole  ground 

293  NIHR Opinion 2015-68; for a sample of older cases see e.g. ETC 2000-67, 2003-145, 2005-102, 2006-218, 

2006-93, 2012-68, 2013-36.  

294  Gerards, J. H. and Heringa, A. W. (2003), Wetgeving gelijke behandeling (Equal treatment legislation), 

Deventer, Kluwer, p. 105.  

295  Letter dated 31 January 2008 (No. 2006-2444), with reference to the infringement procedure of 

18 December 2006, infringement No. 2006/2444. Article 5(2) GETA was mentioned, however, in the end the 
Commission did not ask the Government to change this provision.  

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

construction’  was  finally  abolished  in  2015.296  The  new  text  of  Article  5(2)  GETA 
corresponds more closely to the wording of Article 4(2) of Directive 2000/78/EC. The NIHR 
applied the amended provision and held that the refusal of an employer to accept a person 
for an internship because they are homosexual constitutes direct discrimination for which 
no justification can be put forward under the GETA.297  

4.3  Armed  forces  and  other  specific  occupations  (Article  3(4)  and  Recitals  18 

and 19, Directive 2000/78) 

In the Netherlands, national legislation does not provide  for an exception for the armed 
forces  in  relation  to  age  or  disability  discrimination.  Article  17  of  the  ADA  enshrined  an 
exception (which was of a temporary kind): until 1 January 2008, the ADA did not apply 
to military service. There have never been any limitations to the scope of the DDA and the 
GETA concerning the armed forces. 

4.4  Nationality discrimination (Article 3(2)) 

a)  Discrimination on the ground of nationality 

In  the  Netherlands,  national  law  does  not  include  exceptions  relating  to  difference  of 
treatment based on nationality. Article 1 of the Constitution provides that, ‘all persons in 
the  Netherlands  shall  be  treated  equally  in  equal  circumstances’.  Protection  against 
discrimination  offered  by  Article  1  of  the  Constitution,  by  criminal  law,  by  civil  law  and 
under the equal treatment legislation is not tied to any nationality requirement. 

In  the  Netherlands,  nationality  (as  in  citizenship)  is  explicitly  mentioned  as  a  protected 
ground  in  Article  1,  first  sentence  and  (b)  and  (c)  GETA.  The  Act  thus  goes  beyond  the 
requirements  stemming  from  the  directives.  The  material  scope  of  the  prohibition  of 
nationality discrimination is, in principle, the same as for the other grounds covered by the 
GETA (with the exception of race). However, Article 2(5) enshrines some exceptions: the 
prohibition  on  the  grounds  of  nationality  shall  not  apply  if  the  distinction  is  based  upon 
generally  binding  rules  (i.e.  legislation,  including  statutory  acts  as  well  as  lower 
regulations)  or  on  written  or  unwritten  rules  of  international  law.298  Moreover,  the 
prohibition  does  not  apply  in  cases  where  nationality  is  a  determining  factor  (e.g. 
nationality  requirements  imposed  upon  players  for  the  national  football  team).299 
Nationality discrimination includes stateless status.  

b) 

Relationship between nationality and ‘race or ethnic origin’ 

In  the  GETA  nationality  and  race  (racial  or  ethnic  origin)  are  mentioned  as  separate 
discrimination  grounds.  However,  in  practice  differential  treatment  on  the  ground  of 
nationality  may  often  result  in  indirect  discrimination  on  the  ground  of  racial  or  ethnic 
origin. The legislative history of the GETA shows that the ground of nationality was included 
at  the  instigation  of  civil  society  organisations,  notably  the  National  Bureau  for  the 
Elimination  of  Racism  (Landelijk  Bureau  Racismebestrijding),  to  ensure  that  nationality-
based distinctions could not be used as a guise for racial discrimination.300 Yet it was also 
considered  that  in  some  contexts  distinctions  based  on  nationality  are  legitimate. 
Therefore, in respect of direct nationality discrimination, more exceptions (or justifications) 
are allowed. In cases where indirect discrimination on the ground of racial or ethnic origin 
is suspected, the regular objective justification test applies.  

296  Act of 21 May 2015, Staatsblad 2015, 200. For the parliamentary debate see Tweede Kamer 2010-

2011/2013-2014, 32 476, Nos. 1-11.  

297  NIHR Opinion 2016-10 of 16 February 2016. 
298  See e.g. ETC 1997-13, 1998-81 and 2002-61. 
299  See e.g. ETC 1996-77.  
300  Notably Tweede Kamer 1990-1991, 22 014, No. 4 and Tweede Kamer 1992-1993, 22 014, No. 36. 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

There is an overlap between nationality and racial or ethnic origin in the context of indirect 
discrimination. Sometimes, a case of direct nationality discrimination can be qualified as a 
case of indirect racial discrimination. Because both grounds of discrimination are covered 
in the GETA, this does not cause great difficulties in the case law. However, for racial or 
ethnic origin, the scope of the prohibition of discrimination is wider as it also includes social 
protection (Article 7a GETA.) As discussed in section 3.2.5 above, case law in the fields of 
social security and social protection shows that courts do not always clarify whether they 
consider  differences  in  treatment  to  be  based  (indirectly)  on  racial  or  ethnic  origin;  this 
includes some cases where the formal criterion for distinction is nationality. 

The NIHR seems to equate the concepts of national origin and ethnic origin as well as those 
of ethnic origin and race.301 

4.5  Health and safety at work (Article 7(2) Directive 2000/78) 

In the Netherlands there are exceptions in relation to disability and health and safety  at 
work as allowed under Article 7(2) of the Employment Equality Directive. The exception is 
laid down in Article 3(1) DDA, which reads: 

‘The prohibition of making a distinction shall not apply if: 

a. 
b. 

the distinction is necessary for the protection of safety and health; 
the distinction relates to a regulation, standard or practice which is aimed at 
creating  or  maintaining  specific  provisions  and  facilities  for  the  benefit  of 
persons with disabilities or chronic illness. […]’ 

Article  3(1)(a)  DDA  must  be  interpreted  narrowly.  It  follows  from  the  legislative  history 
that  a  high  threshold  is  set  for  successful  reliance  upon  this  exception.  If  an  employer 
claims that a distinction on the ground of disability is necessary for reasons of health or 
safety, they must duly substantiate their claim.302 If there is a possibility of removing the 
risk  by  means  of  an  effective  accommodation,  the  exception  cannot  be  relied  upon.303 
However,  where  the  health  or  safety  risk  has  been  adequately  substantiated  and  no 
effective  accommodation  is  available  the  employer  can  successfully  rely  on  the 
exception.304 

Under the Working Conditions Act and under civil labour law, the employer has a duty to 
eliminate  or  reduce,  as  far  as  possible,  any  risk  to  the  health  and  wellbeing  of  their 
employees.  It  is  not  fully  clear  whether  this  legislation  allows  an  employer  to  exclude  a 
person with disabilities on the ground that the work will pose a risk to that person’s own 
health  or  safety  (but  not  the  health  and  safety  of  others).  Neither  is  it  clear  whether 
persons with disabilities can decide for themselves that they wish to accept such a risk. 
Moreover, it is not clear whether the employer would be excluded from liability should the 
individual with disabilities suffer harm in such circumstances. Further judicial interpretation 
is therefore needed. 

No  exception  regarding  health  and  safety  is  included  in  the  GETA.  However,  safety  and 
security  issues  may  come  to  the  surface  in  the  ‘objective  justification  test’  for  indirect 

301  For two cases in which the (former) ETC concluded that a distinction on the ground of national origin 

amounted to direct discrimination on the ground of racial or ethnic origin, see Opinions 2011-97 and 2011-
98. 

302  The NIHR applies a strict test, see e.g. Opinions 2016-9 of 11 February 2016 and 2020-116 of 15 December 
2020. For a discussion of the application of the health and safety exception outside the field of employment 
see section 2.6.e). 

303  E.g. NIHR Opinion 2016-9 of 11 February 2016 and Opinion 2020-77 of 1 September 2020. 
304  E.g. NIHR Opinion 2023-34 of 16 March 2023. 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

discrimination  cases.  For  example,  a  prohibition  of  headscarves  during  gymnastics  for 
reasons of health and safety can be objectively justified.305  

There has been some debate in the past on whether the lack of a specific health and safety 
exception is a shortcoming of the GETA, in particular in relation to blood donations by men 
who  have  sex  with  men.306  In  the  past,  the  NIHR  held  that  this  constituted  indirect 
discrimination based on sexual orientation, which could be justified based on reasons of 
public health. In 2021, however, the NIHR overruled its own previous decisions and held 
expressly  that  the  exclusion  constituted  direct  discrimination  based  on  sexual 
orientation.307  It  reasoned  in  that  case  that  no  request  had  been  made  to  set  aside  the 
closed system of exceptions for compelling reasons of public health, meaning that the case 
concerned unacceptable direct discrimination. Nevertheless, as the need for a public health 
exception only surfaces sporadically, an amendment of the GETA has so far been deemed 
unnecessary by both the NIHR and the Government.308 

4.6  Exceptions  related  to  discrimination  on  the  ground  of  age  (Article  6 

Directive 2000/78) 

4.6.1  Direct discrimination 

a) 

Exceptions to the prohibition of direct discrimination on the ground of age 

In the Netherlands, national law provides for specific exceptions for direct discrimination 
on the ground of age. 

Section 3 of the ADA is entitled ‘Exceptions to the prohibition of making distinctions’. Within 
this Section, Article 7 is entitled ‘Objective justifications’. It follows that the ADA does not 
draw a clear distinction between ‘exceptions’ and ‘justifications’. 

Article 7(1) ADA reads:  

‘The prohibition of making a distinction shall not apply if the distinction:  

a. 

b. 

c. 

is based on employment or labour market policies to promote employment in 
certain age categories, provided such policies are laid down by or pursuant to 
an Act of Parliament;  
relates  to  the  termination  of  an  employment  relationship  with  a  civil  servant 
because  the  person  concerned  has  reached  the  pensionable  age  under  the 
General Old Age Pensions Act (AOW), or a more advanced age laid down by or 
pursuant to an Act of Parliament or agreed between the parties;  
is  otherwise  objectively  justified  by  a  legitimate  aim  and  the  means  used  to 
achieve that aim are appropriate and necessary.’ 

305  The ETC (now the NIHR) applies this exception (strictly) including in the context of religious discrimination, 
where sometimes it is argued that a prohibition of the Islamic headscarf must be allowed for reasons of 
safety. See e.g. ETC 2011-195.  

306  See ETC Opinions 2006-20 and 2007-85, in which the ETC deemed a measure which rejects homosexual 
blood donors to be legally justified, in spite of the lack of a legal provision to justify directly a distinction 
based on sexual orientation because of public health risks. In its third evaluation report, the ETC suggested 
the inclusion of a general exception on public health and security in the equal treatment legislation (ETC 
(2011) Third evaluation report (2004-2009), p. 8).  

307  See NIHR Opinion 2021-64 of 27 May 2021. 
308  See Evaluatie Wet College voor de rechten van de mens (Evaluation of the NIHR Act), Tweede Kamer 

2017-2018, 34 338, No. 3, p. 11. In NIHR Opinion 2015-46, the NIHR moreover found that the protection of 
public health could no longer justify differential treatment of homosexual men in relation to blood donations 
(in doing so it seems to be stricter than Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) 12 June 2015, Léger, 
C-528/13, ECLI:EU:C:2015:288, 
https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=164021&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mo
de=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1935545.  

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

For the purposes of this report, the provisions of Article 7(1)(a) and (b) are understood as 
exceptions whereas Article 7(1)(c) is understood as a justification and will be discussed in 
the following subparagraph. 

The exception in Article 7(1)(a) ADA corresponds to Article 6(1)(a) of the Directive. In the 
Netherlands,  special  benefits  in  the  field  of  vocational  education  are  available  to  people 
under 30 years of age with a view to promoting their position on the labour market. Such 
benefits are compatible with the justification ground in Article 7(1)(a) ADA, provided that 
they are based on a statutory act (see section 4.6.2). 

The exceptions in Article 7(1)(a) and (b) ADA apply to direct as well as indirect distinctions 
on the ground of age. They do not apply with regard to harassment (Article 7(2) ADA). 

b) 

Justification of direct discrimination on the ground of age 

In the Netherlands, national law provides for justifications for direct discrimination on the 
ground of age. As mentioned above, Article 7(1)(c) ADA provides that distinctions based 
on age may be objectively justified by a legitimate aim, provided the means used to achieve 
that  aim  are  appropriate  and  necessary.  Unlike  Article  6(1)  of  Directive  2000/78, 
Article 7(1)(c) ADA does not explicitly list any potential legitimate aims.  

Both the NIHR and the courts apply the test as prescribed in Article 7(1)(c) ADA.309 Case 
law shows that there exists a variety of situations in which direct distinctions on the basis 
of  age  are  considered  objectively  justified.  For  example,  an  employment  agency  was 
allowed to mediate exclusively for people who had reached the statutory pensionable age 
because  the  weak  labour  market  position  of  the  group  concerned  provided  an  objective 
justification.310  Also allowed were a pension scheme that required older participants to pay 
higher contributions,311 and a temporary Government scheme, introduced to support self-
employed persons whose income had dropped as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, that 
excluded claimants who had reached the state pension age on the ground that they could 
rely on a state pension.312  

Finally, direct discrimination on the ground of age may be objectively justified when it aims 
to grant preferential treatment to a disadvantaged age group (see  section 5 on  positive 
action).  

c) 

Permitted differences in treatment based on age 

In  the  Netherlands,  national  law  permits  differences  in  treatment  based  on  age  for  any 
activities within the material scope  of Directive 2000/78/EC.  As mentioned above under 
section  4.6.1.a,  Article  7(1)(a)  and  (b)  of  the  ADA  enshrines  two  exceptions  that  are 
deemed a priori to be ‘objectively justified’ because, according to the  Government, they 
are closely linked to the justifications mentioned in the directive. 

Subsection (a), which transposes Article 6(1) of the Directive, provides that the prohibition 
of age discrimination does not apply if the distinction is based on employment or labour 
market  policies  that  are  aimed  at  promoting  labour  market  participation  of  certain  age 
categories, provided that such policies have a legal basis in a statutory act.  

Subsection  (b)  provides  that  the  prohibition  of  age  discrimination  does  not  apply  if  the 
distinction regards the termination of the employment relationship with a civil servant, by 

309  See, for example, NIHR 2020-84 and 2020-103. For case law from the courts see, for example, Central 

Appeals Tribunal 18 July 2016, ECLI:NL:CRVB:2016:2614 and Supreme Court 24 January 2020, 
ECLI:NL:HR:2020:114. 
310  NIHR Opinion 2018-107. 
311  District Court of Gelderland 18 August 2021, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2021:4492. 
312  District Court of East-Brabant 14 October 2021, ECLI:NL:RBOBR:2021:5447 and District Court of Zeeland-

West-Brabant 24 May 2022, ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2022:2851. The scheme was known as the Tijdelijke 
overbruggingsregeling zelfstandige ondernemers. 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

reason of having reached either the statutory pensionable age or a higher (not lower)313 
age,  provided  this  higher  age  has  a  legal  basis  in  a  statutory  act  or  has  been  mutually 
agreed by the parties involved.  

d) 

Fixing of ages for admission to occupational pension schemes 

In  the  Netherlands,  national  law  allows  occupational  pension  schemes  to  fix  ages  for 
admission  to  the  scheme  and  entitlement  to  pension  benefits,  taking  up  the  possibility 
provided for by Article 6(2). This possibility is laid down in Article 8 ADA, which provides 
as follows: 

‘1. 

2. 

3. 

For  the  purpose  of  this  provision  a  pension  scheme  is  defined  as:  a  pension 
scheme for the benefit  of  one  or  several persons, exclusively  related to their 
activities conducted in an enterprise, branch of industry, professional branch or 
public service, additional to statutory social security schemes and, in case of a 
scheme for a single person, not established by that person. 
The  prohibition  of  making  a  distinction  does  not  apply  to  fixed  ages  for 
admission  to  a  pension  scheme  or  to  fixed  ages  for  entitlement  to  pension 
benefits  within  a  pension  scheme,  including  the  fixing  of  different  ages  for 
admission  and  entitlement  for  employees  or  for  groups  or  categories  of 
employees. 
The prohibition of making a distinction does not apply to the use of age criteria 
in actuarial calculations in the context of pension schemes.’ 

The Directive states that the exception made by Article 6(2) may not lead to discrimination 
on the ground of sex. This clause has not been added to the Dutch ADA. However, this is 
regulated in the sex-discrimination legislation (see Article 12b and 12c ETA). 

4.6.2  Special conditions for younger or older workers  

In the Netherlands, there are special conditions set by law for younger workers in order to 
promote their vocational integration. Article 7(1)(a) ADA enshrines an exception for policies 
that are aimed at the promotion of labour market participation by certain age categories 
(see section 4.6.1. above).  

In  the  Netherlands  special  benefits  in  the  field  of  vocational  education  are  available  to 
people under 30 years of age with a view to promoting their position in the labour market. 
These benefits include the possibility of deducting study costs from tax payments as well 
as  the  availability  of  study  grants  and  facilities  for  students  with  disabilities.  In  the  De 
Lange  judgment  (C-548/15)  the  CJEU  considered  that  the  Dutch  tax  advantages  for 
students under 30 fell within the scope of Article 3(1)(b) Employment Directive (access to 
vocational  training)  and  that  such  advantages  were  justified  in  view  of  the  objective  of 
‘promoting the position of young people on the labour market’ and therefore compatible 
with the exception of Article 6(1)(a) of the Directive.314 The same justification was accepted 
by the Dutch courts with regard to other facilities that are only available to people under 
30,  in  particular  study  grants  and  the  option  to  use  publicly  funded  sign  language 
interpreters.315 

Under Article 31(5) of the Participation Act,316 if a recipient of social assistance is younger 
than 27, any remuneration received for voluntary work will be deducted from their social 
assistance benefits. A young woman affected by this provision claimed that it amounted to 
age discrimination. However, the Central Appeals Tribunal considered that the distinction 

313  It follows from the Explanatory Memorandum that subsection b does not apply to dismissals based on 
reaching a pensionable age which is lower than 65 years. See Explanatory Memorandum to the ADA, 
Tweede Kamer 2001-2002, 28 169, No. 3, p. 32. 

314  CJEU, judgment of 10 November 2016, de Lange, C-548/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:850. 
315  District Court of Amsterdam 16 October 2017, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:7691; Central Appeals Tribunal 8 

September 2017, ECLI:NL:CRVB:2017:3229. 

316  Participation Act (Participatiewet), Staatsblad 2003, 375. 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

was objectively justified as a means to  encourage  people under 27 not to rely on social 
assistance. The Tribunal referred to the legislative debate where it was stated that people 
in this age category are not meant to ‘stand on the sideline’.317 

4.6.3  Minimum and maximum age requirements 

In  the  Netherlands,  there  are  no  exceptions  permitting  minimum  and/or  maximum  age 
requirements  in  relation  to  access  to  employment  and  training.  However,  this  could  be 
possible on the basis of a broad reading of the exception under Article 7(1)(a) or  on the 
basis of Article 7(1)(c) ADA (general possibility of an objective justification). 

4.6.4  Retirement  

a) 

State pension age 

In the Netherlands, there is a state pension age at which individuals must begin to collect 
their  state  pensions.  The  statutory  pensionable  age  used  to  be  65,  but  has  been  raised 
gradually from 2013 onwards. According to Article 7a(1) of the General Pensions Act, the 
general pensionable age in 2022 was 66 years and seven months.318 This will be raised to 
67 years in 2025 and in accordance with general increases in life expectancy as of 2026.  

If  an  individual  wishes  to  work  beyond  the  state  pension  age,  the  pension  cannot  be 
deferred. Every citizen receives a state pension on the basis of the General Pensions Act 
(Algemene Ouderdomswet) from the statutory pensionable age onwards. 

An individual can collect a pension and still work, as the right to receive a state pension at 
the statutory pensionable age is independent of the question of whether the person has 
(or has had) a paid job. In 2015, the rules on working after reaching the pensionable age 
were simplified. The Ragetlie rule (Article 7:667(4) Civil Code) (which provides that a fixed-
term  contract  replacing  a  permanent  contract  within  six  months  with  the  same  (or 
subsequent) employer does not end by operation of the law), no longer applies when the 
employment contract ends after the individual reaches the statutory pensionable age. This 
means that it is possible to agree upon a fixed-term contract for employees having reached 
the pensionable age, even if such an employment contract succeeds a permanent contract. 

b)  Occupational pension schemes 

In the Netherlands, there is no standard age when people can begin to receive payments 
from  occupational  pension  schemes  and  other  employer-funded  pension  arrangements. 
The age at which benefits can be collected under these schemes depends on the conditions 
under which such schemes are contractually agreed.  

If an individual wishes to work longer, payments from such occupational pension schemes 
can be deferred. Some schemes are more flexible than others as far as an individual’s wish 
to work longer is concerned.  

An individual can collect a pension and still work. It is possible for an individual to collect 
a pension under the occupational pension scheme and on top of that to have other income, 
e.g. from a paid job. 

c) 

State imposed mandatory retirement ages 

In the Netherlands, there is no state-imposed mandatory retirement age. However, Dutch 
labour law provides that an employer may validly terminate an employment contract when 
the employee reaches the state pension age, or any age limit provided in the employment 
contract (Article 7:669(4) Civil Code).  For some professions age limits are  laid down by 

317  Central Appeals Tribunal 16 November 2021, ECLI:NL:CRVB:2021:2841. 
318  General Pensions Act (Algemene Ouderdomswet), Staatsblad 1956, 281. 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

statutory  law  (e.g.  for  judges)  or  by  a  professional  organisation  (e.g.  the  National 
Organisation of General Practitioners). While there is no specific legal provision requiring 
such age limits to be objectively justified, it is the author’s assumption that the courts may 
be asked to decide on their compatibility with the prohibition of discrimination (including 
the  general  non-discrimination  provisions  of  Article  1  Dutch  Constitution  and  Article  1 
Twelfth  Protocol  ECHR),  in  which  case  a  justification  will  have  to  be  provided  by  the 
respondent party. 

d) 

Retirement ages imposed by employers 

In  the  Netherlands,  national  law  permits  employers  to  set  retirement  ages  (or  ages  at 
which the termination  of an  employment contract is possible) by contract and  collective 
bargaining.  

included 

in  collective 

limits  are  regularly 

Age 
labour  agreements  (collectieve 
arbeidsovereenkomsten). While there is no specific legal provision requiring such age limits 
to be objectively justified, it is the author’s assumption that the courts may be asked to 
decide on their compatibility with the prohibition of discrimination (including the general 
non-discrimination provisions of Article 1 Dutch Constitution and Article 1 Twelfth Protocol 
ECHR), in which case a justification will have to be provided by the respondent party. In 
2021, the Central Appeals Tribunal decided that the mandatory retirement age for judges 
(70) was objectively justified under Article 6(1) of the Employment Equality Directive.319   

Many employment contracts contain an automatic dismissal clause, which stipulates that 
the  contract  ends  automatically  upon  the  employee  reaching  the  statutory  pensionable 
age. There have been many legal proceedings on the question of whether these dismissal 
clauses are valid, but in 2012 it was decided by the Dutch Supreme Court that they are, 
even in the case of a permanent employment contract.320 Since 2015, Article 7:669(4) of 
the  Civil  Code  specifies  that  employers  may  terminate  the  employment  contract  if  the 
employee has reached the statutory pensionable age or a contractually agreed retirement 
age. 

Article 7(1)(b) ADA, moreover, reads as follows: 

‘The prohibition on the making of a distinction shall not apply if the distinction: 

(b) relates  to  the  termination  of  an  employment  relationship  because  the  person 
concerned  has  reached  pensionable  age  under  the  General  Old  Age  Pensions  Act 
(AOW), or a more advanced age laid down by or pursuant to an Act of Parliament or 
agreed between the parties; (...).’ 

The Government holds the view that this exception is fully in compliance with the Directive. 
This  view  has  not  been  contested  in  Parliament  or  in  academic  literature,  as  far  as  the 
author of this report is aware.  

e) 

Employment rights applicable to all workers irrespective of age 

The law on protection against dismissal and other laws protecting employment rights apply 
to all workers irrespective of age, even if they remain in employment after attaining  the 
pensionable age or any other age.321 As long as someone is an employee with a permanent 
contract,  they  are  protected  by  Dutch  labour  law  and  by  the  ADA,  regardless  of  age. 

319  Central Appeals Tribunal 12 August 2021, ECLI:NL:CRVB:2021:1803. See European network of legal 

experts in gender equality and non-discrimination, flash report (Netherlands) ‘Ruling by Central Appeals 
Tribunal of 12 August 2021’, 15 September 2021, https://www.equalitylaw.eu/downloads/5495-
netherlands-ruling-by-central-appeals-tribunal-of-12-august-2021-ecli-nl-crvb-2021-1803-92-kb.  

320  Supreme Court 13 July 2012, ECLI:NL:HR:2012:BW3367. 
321  This is without prejudice to the fact that the employer may terminate the employment contract if the 

employee has reached the statutory pensionable age or a contractually agreed retirement age as mentioned 
above under section 4.6.4.d. 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

Employees  with  temporary  contracts  have  no  protection  against  dismissal  when  the 
contract  ends.  However,  it  is  prohibited  not  to  renew  a  temporary  contract  on 
discriminatory grounds, including age (Article 3(c) and (d) ADA). It should be noted that 
employers who allow people who have reached the statutory pensionable age to continue 
working for them do so mostly on the basis of a temporary contract.  

f) 

Compliance of national law with CJEU case law 

In the Netherlands, national legislation is in line with the CJEU case law on age regarding 
mandatory retirement. 

4.6.5  Redundancy 

a) 

Age and seniority taken into account for redundancy selection 

In  the  Netherlands,  national  law  permits  age  or  seniority  to  be  taken  into  account  in 
selecting  workers  for  redundancy.  The  Explanatory  Memorandum  to  the  ADA  explicitly 
mentions that the use of the ‘last in, first out principle’ (which works to the advantage of 
older  workers)  could  be  objectively  justified  under  Article  7(1)(c)  of  the  Act.  This  is, 
however, not the principle provided by Dutch labour law, which by default stipulates that 
the employer, in case of a collective dismissal, should select redundant employees on the 
basis of a balancing principle, the ‘mirror image rule’ (afspiegelingsbeginsel), requiring that 
account be taken of the age balance of the workforce.322  

b) 

Age taken into account for redundancy compensation 

In the Netherlands, national law provides compensation for redundancy. A major overhaul 
of  Dutch  labour  law  in  2015  introduced  a  system  of  ‘transitional  severance  pay’ 
(transitievergoeding).323  In  this  system,  the  compensation  is  solely  based  on  the 
employee’s number of years of service. The system reduces inequalities between older and 
younger employees, although a difference remains. 

A  recurring  issue  in  case  law  concerns  clauses  in  social  plans  (drawn  up  after  re-
organisations)  that  exclude  workers  who  have  reached  the  (statutory  or  contractual) 
pensionable  age  from  eligibility  for  redundancy  compensation  or  whereby  such 
compensation is capped at the income that the worker would have earned upon reaching 
the  (statutory  or  contractual)  pensionable  age.  In  2018,  the  Supreme  Court  held  that 
exclusion  of  workers  who  have  reached  the  statutory  pensionable  age  from  transition 
severance  pay  was  objectively  justified.  The  Court  explicitly  considered  the  issue  in  the 
light of Directive 2000/78/EC and assessed whether the exclusion served a legitimate aim 
and was appropriate and necessary to achieve that aim. To this end, the Supreme Court 
considered that transition severance pay is meant to support employees who depend on 
paid  work  to  provide  for  themselves  and  that  this  does  not  apply  to  people  who  have 
reached the statutory pensionable age and become eligible for pension benefits.324  

Some  years  later  the  Supreme  Court  refined  the  test  to  be  applied.325  While  confirming 
that  distinctions  on  the  ground  of  age  must  have  a  legitimate  aim  and  meet  the 
requirements of appropriateness and necessity, the Supreme Court held that a certain level 
of  deference  is  required  regarding  distinctions  in  social  plans  that  are  the  result  of 
negotiations  and  a  balancing  of  interests  by  the  social  partners  (employers  and  trade 
unions). In the case at hand the Supreme Court judged that the scrutiny performed by the 
Court of Appeal had been too intense. As regards the appropriateness of the distinction, 
the  Court  of  Appeal  should  have  limited  itself  to  assessing  if  it  was  not  ‘manifestly 
unsuitable’ to meet the aims pursued. Concerning necessity, the criterion to be applied is 

322  Article 11 Dismissal Decree 2015 (Ontslagregeling 2015), Staatscourant 2015, 12685. 
323  Labour and Security Act (Wet Werk en Zekerheid), Staatsblad 2014, 216.  
324  Supreme Court 20 April 2018, ECLI:NL:HR:2018:651. 
325  Supreme Court 24 January 2020, ECLI:NL:HR:2020:114.  

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

whether the disputed measure does not go further than is needed to meet the aims pursued 
and does not cause ‘excessive disadvantage’ to the persons concerned. The Supreme Court 
also held that, in assessing the appropriateness and the necessity of the measures at stake, 
the Court of Appeal should have taken account of each of the legitimate aims pursued by 
the  social  plan.  In  its  decision  the  Court  of  Appeal  had  only  looked  at  the  aim  of  equal 
distribution of means in relation to the employees who were dismissed, while it had not 
taken into account the aims of limiting the financial consequences of the re-organisation 
for the company and its remaining employees  and of limiting the financial  disadvantage 
for  employees  who  had  lost  their  jobs.  The  test  formulated  by  the  Supreme  Court  has 
subsequently been followed by the lower courts.326 

In 2022 the Central Appeals Tribunal and various lower courts decided cases in which age 
discrimination  was  claimed  because  redundancy  pay  schemes,  other  than  the  transition 
severance  pay  discussed  above,  ended  when  the  recipients  reached  the  age  of  65.  The 
applicants in these cases claimed that the redundancy pay schemes  should be extended 
because the state pensionable age, which used to be 65 years, had been  raised. In the 
case  before  the  Central  Appeals  Tribunal  it  was  held  that  there  had  been  no  age 
discrimination  because  the  applicants,  former  pilots  with  the  National  Police  force,  all 
received the same amount of redundancy pay  regardless of the age at which they were 
dismissed.327 Meanwhile, the District Court of the Central Netherlands decided in another 
case (not concerning police pilots) that the age limit of 65 had been reasonably chosen by 
the employer when the redundancy pay scheme was set up, on the assumption that this 
was the age at which the applicant would become eligible for a state pension. It found that 
the ‘pension gap’ faced by the applicant did not result from the redundancy pay scheme 
but from the adjustment of the state pensionable age, for which the employer could not 
be held accountable.328 

4.7  Further exceptions necessary in a democratic society: Public security, public 
order,  criminal  offences,  protection  of  health,  protection  of  the  rights  and 
freedoms of others (Article 2(5) Directive 2000/78) 

In the Netherlands, national law  does not include exceptions that seek to rely on Article 
2(5) of the Employment Equality Directive.  

Dutch equal treatment legislation does not include exceptions that are aimed at protecting 
any of the interests mentioned in Article 2(5) of the Employment Equality Directive (public 
security, public order, criminal offences, protection of health and protection of the rights 
and freedoms of others) and that were not already discussed in the previous sections.  

Some  of  the  exceptions  previously  discussed  aim  to  protect  interests  that  overlap  with 
those mentioned in Article 2(5) of the Employment Equality Directive and could therefore 
be  understood  as  implementing  that  provision  as  well.  This  is  true  of  the  exception  laid 
down in Article 3(1)(a) DDA (exception for health or safety measures, discussed in section 
4.5) and the exceptions laid down in Articles 3 and 5(2) GETA (discussed in  section 4.2) 
which were included to ensure respect for the fundamental right to freedom of religion and 
can therefore be understood as exceptions aimed at protecting the rights and freedoms of 
others. However, Articles 3(1)(a) DDA and Articles 3 and 5(2) GETA do not expressly state 
that exceptions to the prohibition of discrimination as meant by these provisions must be 
laid down by national law.  

Finally, the measures to which Article 2(5) of the Employment Equality Directive refers will 
normally  be  covered  by  the  general  exceptions  allowing  for  objective  and  reasonable 

326  Court of Appeal of Den Bosch 28 January 2020, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2020:247; Court of Appeal of Arnhem-

Leeuwarden 24 November 2020, ECLI:NL:GHARL:2020:9672; District Court of Amsterdam 26 July 2021, 
ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2021:3883; Court of Appeal of Amsterdam 13 June 2023, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2023:1375. 
327  Central Appeals Tribunal 2 June 2022, ECLI:NL:CRVB:2022:1237. A similar decision was taken in District 

Court of North Holland 24 March 2022, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2022:7577. 

328  District Court of the Central Netherlands 4 May 2022, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2022:1920. 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

justification  in  the  case  of  indirect  discrimination  on  the  grounds  mentioned  in  that 
Directive (as well as direct discrimination on the ground of age). See Articles 2(1) GETA, 
3(2) DDA and 7(1)(c) ADA. 

4.8  Any other exceptions 

In the Netherlands, other exceptions to the prohibition of discrimination (on any ground 
covered by this report) provided in national law are the following:  

1. 

Article 5(2a) GETA allows municipalities to make distinctions on the ground of religion 
or belief in the employment of civil servants working for the civil registry who make 
distinctions in the exercise of their function, unless the latter distinctions are based 
on generally binding legislation. This exception allows municipalities to refrain from 
employing civil registry servants who refuse to marry or register same-sex couples 
because of their religious or philosophical beliefs.  

2.   Article 5(3) GETA contains an exception for employment relationships that are of a 
private nature. This would include, for example, employment in private households. 
Insofar as it is relevant for this report, the exception states that the prohibition of 
discrimination in the field of employment does not apply to distinctions that are based 
on  religion  or  belief,  racial  or  ethnic  origin  or  hetero-  or  homosexual  orientation, 
provided that the characteristic concerned, by reason of the nature of the particular 
occupational  activities  concerned  or  of  the  context  in  which  they  are  carried  out, 
constitutes  a  genuine  occupational  requirement  that  moreover  serves  a  legitimate 
aim and is proportionate to that aim.  

3.   Article 7(3) GETA, concerning the provision of goods and services, also contains an 
exception  relating  to  the  private  nature  of  the  legal  relationship  concerned  (for 
example, a woman who rents out a room in her own house may lawfully require that 
the  person  who  rents  the  room  is  a  woman).329  It  is  expressly  stated  that  the 
exception  may  only  be  relied  upon  if  the  aim  is  legitimate  and  if  the  means  are 
appropriate and necessary. The exception does not apply to the ground of racial or 
ethnic origin.330 

4.   Article  7(2)  GETA  grants  faith-based  educational  institutions  and  educational 
institutions based on a philosophical belief (which are generally funded by the state 
on an equal basis with state schools) the freedom to  refuse to admit pupils on the 
ground of their religious or philosophical convictions. This freedom is subject to strict 
requirements,  to  the  effect  that  the  differentiation  must  be  essential  for  the 
educational  institution  to  be  able  to  maintain  its  faith-based  or  philosophical 
character. Educational institutions may not refuse to admit pupils because of their 
sexual orientation.  

5.   The internal affairs of associations fall outside  the scope of the  GETA. This follows 

from the legislative history and is not explicitly provided for in the GETA.331 

329  This topic was discussed in great detail in the second evaluation report about the functioning of the GETA. 
See Hertogh, M.L.M. and Zoontjens, P.J.J. (eds.) (2006), Gelijke behandeling: principes en praktijken. 
Evaluatieonderzoek Algemene wet gelijke behandeling (Equal treatment: principles and practice. Evaluation 
report on the General Equal Treatment Act), Nijmegen, Wolf Legal Publishers, pp. 175-216. 

330  The current provisions were adopted in 2011 after an infringement procedure by the Commission. The 

former provisions included broader exceptions than EU law allows for. 

331  This topic was discussed in great detail in the second evaluation report about the functioning of the GETA, 

Hertogh, M.L.M. and Zoontjens, P.J.J. (eds.) (2006), Gelijke behandeling: principes en praktijken. 
Evaluatieonderzoek Algemene wet gelijke behandeling.  

71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

5  POSITIVE ACTION (Article 5 Directive 2000/43, Article 7 Directive 2000/78) 

a) 

Scope for positive action measures 

In the Netherlands, positive action is permitted in national law in respect of sex, racial or 
ethnic  origin  and  disability.  The  relevant  provisions  are  Article  2(3)  GETA  and 
Article 3(1)(c) DDA.  Positive  action  is  not  (expressly)  permitted  in  respect  of  religion  or 
belief, age or hetero- or homosexual orientation. 

The Government defends the limitation of positive action measures to the grounds of racial 
and ethnic origin and disability with the argument that these grounds relate to structural 
disadvantages in society. Structural disadvantage is defined as ‘suffering disadvantages in 
several  social  fields  at  the  same  time  which  are  not  temporary  in  nature’.332  The  Dutch 
definition leaves limited room for positive action policies and programmes, since it does 
not  allow  measures  which  aim  to  prevent,  in  addition  to  removing  or  reducing 
disadvantages.333  

Article 2(3) of the GETA reads as follows: 

‘The prohibition of discrimination, as laid down in this Act, does not apply to specific 
measures  granting  preferential  treatment  to  women  or  to  persons  belonging  to 
particular  ethnic  or  cultural  minority  groups  in  order  to  reduce  or  eliminate  actual 
disadvantages  related  to  the  grounds  race  or  sex  provided  that  the  resulting 
distinction stands in a reasonable relationship to that aim.’ 334 [author’s translation] 

Starting from this legal definition, the NIHR has developed a set of criteria that must be 
met if a positive action is to be lawful. These criteria are the following: 

a. 
b. 
c. 

d. 
e. 

a legitimate aim; 
a demonstrable disadvantage;  
careful application – this entails that a candidate belonging to the target group may 
only be selected after the suitability of all candidates has been objectively assessed, 
including those not belonging to the target group; 
proportionality; 
transparency/foreseeability  –  it  must  be  clear  from  the  job  advertisement  that 
positive action measures are taken and that all candidates may apply to the position 
concerned. 335 

Article 3(1)(c) DDA enshrines a positive action exception to the prohibition of discrimination 
on the ground of disability. The conditions are the same as under the GETA. 

According  to  the  standards  set  by  the  ETC/NIHR,  any  policy  by  which  a  company  or 
organisation strives for proportional representation of various ethnic groups in proportion 
to their presence in society is seen as direct discrimination. When the aim of such a policy 
is simply achieving ‘proportionality’  or  ‘diversity’ (i.e. when the aim is not to put people 
belonging  to  an  under-represented  or  systematically  disadvantaged  group  in  a  better 
position), the equality body will not apply the positive action exception and the policy will 
be considered unlawful.336 However, other cases show that the equality body is not always 
as strict. In two cases where a city council asked explicitly for members of ethnic minorities 

332  See Tweede Kamer 2001-2002, 28 169, No. 5, p. 17. 
333  See Explanatory Memorandum to the EC Implementation Act, Tweede Kamer 2002-2003, 28 770, No. 3, 

p. 9.  

334  The concept of ‘ethnic or cultural minority group’ is not defined in Dutch law, but it is usually applied as 

‘being of non-western origin’. 

335  For a recent application of these criteria see NIHR Opinion 2022-40 of 28 April 2022; see also NIHR Opinion 

2023-94 of 30 August 2023. 

336  See ETC Opinions 1998-105 and 2012-50. 

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

to apply for jobs as social workers and excluded people of Dutch origin, it ruled that the 
preferential treatment of ethnic minorities was allowed.337  

The NIHR accepts that an employer who seeks to rely on the positive action exception for 
racial or ethnic origin is not obliged to provide statistical data to substantiate the under-
representation of particular groups in the workforce, taking into account that such data are 
not  always  available  because  Dutch  law  does  not  allow  registration  of  racial  or  ethnic 
origin.338  Moreover,  where  the  positive  action  policy  applies  to  a  single  vacancy,  the 
existence of a disadvantage can also be demonstrated by means of more general facts.339  

In  its  third  evaluation  report,  published  in  2011,  the  ETC  concluded  that  the  provisions 
concerning  positive  action  in  the  GETA  and  DDA  were  adequate  and  did  not  require 
revision.  The  equality  body  defended  its  restrictive  interpretation  of  the  positive  action 
exception  with  reference  to  CJEU  case  law  and  maintained  that,  when  overcoming 
structural  disadvantages  of  certain  groups  is  deemed  necessary,  general  social  policy 
measures should be developed to address these disadvantages effectively.340 However, in 
December  2012  the  NIHR  applied  a  less  strict  criterion  and  accepted  ‘exceptional 
circumstances’ in a sex discrimination case.341  

As far as the DDA is concerned, in addition to the positive action measures set out in Article 
7(1) of the Employment Equality Directive, there are also general supportive measures for 
persons with disabilities, as set out in Article 7(2) of the Directive. This provision has been 
transposed  by  Article  3(1)(b)  DDA,  which  enshrines  the  possibility  of  supportive  social 
policies  for  persons  with  disabilities.  In  contrast  to  ‘positive  action  measures’,  these 
measures are not time-restricted. In recent years, the Government has introduced several 
supportive measures designed to promote the (re)integration of  persons with disabilities 
into society.  

The ADA does not contain a positive action exception clause,342 but since unequal treatment 
on the ground of age may be objectively justified in any case the defence that the unequal 
treatment is in fact a positive action measure may be put forward and will be tested in the 
same way as described above.343 

b)  Quotas in employment for persons with disabilities 

In the Netherlands, national law provides for quotas for the employment of persons with 
disabilities. To encourage employers to employ persons with disabilities, concrete targets 
for job creation for this category of workers were set in 2015: the private sector is to create 

337  ETC Opinions 1999-31 and 1999-32. 
338  NIHR Opinion 2022-40 of 28 April 2022. For further details, see the European network of legal experts in 

gender equality and non-discrimination (2023) Country report 2023 on non-discrimination for the 
Netherlands, section 5.a. 

339  NIHR Opinion 2023-94 of 30 August 2023. See also NIHR Opinion 2023-8 of 24 January 2023 (concerning 

sex discrimination). 

340  ETC (2011) Third evaluation report (2004-2009). On p. 71 the report mentions the relevant CJEU case law: 
CJEU, judgment of 17 October 1995, Kalanke v Freie Hansestadt Bremen, C-450/93, ECLI:EU:C:1995:322, 
https://curia.europa.eu/juris/showPdf.jsf?text=&docid=99475&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&
occ=first&part=1&cid=1935814; CJEU, 11 November 1997, Marschall, C-409/95, ECLI:EU:C:1997:533, 
https://curia.europa.eu/juris/showPdf.jsf?text=&docid=43455&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&
occ=first&part=1&cid=1936287; CJEU, 28 March 2000, Badeck, C-158/97, ECLI:EU:C:2000:163 
https://curia.europa.eu/juris/showPdf.jsf?text=&docid=45195&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&
occ=first&part=1&cid=1936747; CJEU, 19 March 2002, Lommers, C-476/99 ECLI:EU:C:2002:183, 
https://curia.europa.eu/juris/showPdf.jsf?text=&docid=47197&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&
occ=first&part=1&cid=1937192 and CJEU, 30 September 2004, Briheche, C-319/03, ECLI:EU:C:2004:574, 
https://curia.europa.eu/juris/showPdf.jsf?text=&docid=49543&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&
occ=first&part=1&cid=1937692. 

341  NIHR Opinion 2012-189 of 12 December 2012. 
342  One might read a positive action exception in Article 7(1) of the ADA, which states: ‘The prohibition of 

discrimination shall not apply if the discrimination: a) is based on employment or labour market policies to 
promote employment in certain age categories, provided such policies are laid down by or pursuant to an 
Act of Parliament.’ 

343  See, for an example, NIHR Opinion 2023-94 of 30 August 2023.  

73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

100 000  additional  jobs  by  2026,  the  public  sector  25 000.344  These  targets  apply  to 
employers with over 25 employees in both the public and private sectors. The target group 
of  this  legislation  consists  of  people  with  ‘employment  disabilities’  (arbeidsbeperkten). 
These are people who, because of an illness or disability, have trouble finding or keeping 
a job that would allow them to earn at least  the minimum wage or who require support 
that regular employers are unable to offer.345 

If employers do not meet these targets a ‘quota charge’ (quotumheffing) may be levied. 
While the private sector has thus far succeeded in creating the required number of extra 
jobs, this has not been true for the public sector. As a consequence, the quota charge was 
introduced  for  this  sector,  taking  effect  as  of  1  January  2018.346  In  April  2019  the 
Government and education sectors agreed to jointly step up their efforts to create more 
public sector jobs for persons with disabilities.347  

An evaluation of the quota system conducted in 2019 confirmed that up to the end of 2018 
the  targets  for  job  creation  were  met,  largely  on  account  of  the  private  sector. 348  The 
positive results were partly ascribed to the favourable economic climate. It was observed 
that the setting of targets had also increased awareness of the need to make jobs available 
to persons with disabilities.349 However, at an earlier stage the Government had already 
announced  that  doubts  existed,  including  among  some  of  the  social  partners,  as  to  the 
effectiveness of the quota charge as an instrument to stimulate the creation of additional 
jobs  in  the  public  sector.350  A  law  was  adopted  to  de-activate  the  quota  charge  until  1 
January 2022.351 This period was subsequently extended to 1 January 2026.352 Meanwhile 
a simplification of the quota system legislation was announced for 2022 but the legislative 
proposal has been delayed due to overburdening of several of the administrative  bodies 
involved because of the COVID-19 pandemic.353 At the time of writing this report a proposal 
was pending before the Second Chamber of Parliament to simplify both the target system 
(banenafspraak) and the quota charge.354 According to the proposal, the quota charge will 
not be re-introduced until the new target system is introduced, even if that occurs after 1 
January 2026.355 

344  Act putting in place an agreement on jobs and quota for people with a disability in employment (Wet 

banenafspraak en quotum arbeidsbeperkten), Staatsblad 2015, 154. 

345  See https://www.uwv.nl/particulieren/arbeidsbeperkt/index.aspx. The target group is defined in Article 38b 

Act on the financing of social insurance schemes (Wet financiering sociale verzekeringen), Staatsblad 
2005,36.  

346  This is done by a ministerial decree (ministeriële regeling). The quota charge amounts to EUR 5 000 for 

each ‘missing’ job, see Regeling activering quotaheffing, Staatscourant 2017, 58942: 
https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/stcrt-2017-58942.html.  

347  Tweede Kamer 2018-2019, 34 352, No. 165. 
348  Eerste Kamer 2019-2020, 33 981, O. See also Tweede Kamer 2018-2019, 34 352, No. 166. 
349  Eerste Kamer 2019-2020, 33 981, O. 
350  Tweede Kamer 2017-2018, 34 956, No. 3. 
351  Act of 13 November 2019, Staatsblad 2019, 440.  
352  Art. IIIg of the Act on the implementation of a broad offensive (Wet uitvoering breed offensief), Staatsblad 

2022, 499. 

353  Tweede Kamer 2020-2021, 35 394, No. 19, pp. 2-3. 
354  Tweede Kamer, file no. 36 449. 
355  Tweede Kamer 2023-2024, 36 449, No. 3, p. 4. 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

6  REMEDIES AND ENFORCEMENT  

6.1  Judicial  and/or  administrative  procedures  (Article  7  Directive  2000/43, 

Article 9 Directive 2000/78) 

a) 

Available procedures for enforcing the principle of equal treatment 

In  the  Netherlands,  the  following  procedures  exist  for  enforcing  the  principle  of  equal 
treatment: judicial procedures (criminal, administrative and civil) and alternative dispute 
resolution,  namely  the  procedure  before  the  equality  body,  the  NIHR.  In  principle,  the 
procedures for employment in the public and private sectors are the same. 

The principle of non-discrimination can be enforced by means of criminal law procedures. 
Prosecution under criminal law is only possible if the discriminatory behaviour falls under 
one of the provisions of the Criminal Code. These provisions mostly concern hate speech 
(see the introduction to this report) but they also cover discriminatory acts committed in 
the  performance  of  someone’s  office,  job  or  enterprise  (Articles  137g  and  429quater 
Criminal  Code).  The  term  ‘office’  was  added  in  1991  to  include  discrimination  by  public 
servants.356  

For the purposes of criminal law, ‘discrimination’ is defined in Article 90quater (based on 
Article  1  CERD)  as  ‘any  distinction,  exclusion,  restriction  or  preference  which  has  the 
purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an 
equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, 
cultural or any other field of public life’. Transgressions of the equal treatment legislation 
(GETA, ADA and DDA) cannot be prosecuted under criminal law. 

The  following  paragraphs  leave  aside  criminal  law  offences  and  concentrate  on  civil  law 
equal treatment norms and their enforcement. 

The  GETA,  DDA  and  ADA  do  not  entail  compulsory  judicial  procedures.  If  discrimination 
occurs in the sphere of private employment, civil (labour) law procedures apply. If it occurs 
in public employment, the procedures of administrative employment law apply. The civil 
courts  also  have  competence  in  cases  in  which  discriminatory  contractual  agreements 
(goods and services supplied by private parties or the Government) are concerned. Outside 
the area of contract law, an instance of discrimination (e.g. harassment) can be considered 
as  tort  and  be  dealt  with  in  a  civil  law  court  procedure.  The  administrative  courts  have 
competence  with  respect  to  public  employment  contracts  (civil  servants)  and 
administrative  decisions.357  Government  actions  can  also  be  considered  as  tort 
(onrechtmatige overheidsdaad) in which case a civil court is competent to hear the case.358  

In addition to this, the equal treatment legislation provides for a special (non-compulsory) 
procedure  before  the  NIHR,  which  has  a  section  that  deals  with  complaints  about 
discrimination. The NIHR is a quasi-judicial body that issues non-binding opinions. After it 
has  issued  an  opinion,  a  complaint  may  still  be  lodged  before  a  conventional  civil/ 
administrative court if the applicant wishes to obtain a binding judgment. The NIHR is a 
low-threshold body and no legal representation is required.  

b) 

Barriers and other deterrents faced by litigants seeking redress 

Costs 

The costs facing litigants seeking redress are limited, as it is not mandatory to instruct a 
lawyer for proceedings in civil law, administrative law or with the NIHR. For civil law and 

356  Staatsblad 1991, 623. 
357  However, it should be borne in mind that, in principle, ‘unitary legislative acts’ (eenzijdig 
overheidshandelen) are not covered by the equal treatment legislation, see section 3.2.1. 

358  Such cases are based on Article 6:162 of the Civil Code. 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

administrative law court procedures there is a system of free legal aid for people on very 
low  incomes.  It  should  be  noted,  however,  that  this  system  is  under  pressure  from 
economic  cutbacks.  A  survey  of  ‘social  lawyers’  (social  advocaten),  published  in  2020, 
showed that many of them are struggling to make ends meet and an increasing number 
of social lawyers have quitted their role or are considering doing so.359 It is unclear whether 
a new system of legal aid, which is in preparation and should become operational in 2024, 
will succeed in turning the tide. 

In 2022, a district court ruled that a legal aid payment (toevoeging) should not have been 
denied to a lawyer in a case concerning possible racial profiling by municipal authorities in 
the context of social assistance. The Legal Aid Council (Raad voor de Rechtsbijstand) had 
refused the payment on the ground that the case was not so  complex as to require the 
involvement of a lawyer and that the legal issues at stake did not involve ‘a societal interest 
affecting  large  groups  of  people’.  In  the  judgment,  the  district  court  referred  to  the 
childcare benefits scandal to hold that it should not be assumed that citizens were able to 
come  up  against  discrimination  by  Government  entities  without  legal  assistance. 
Additionally, the court stated that it was ‘unfitting, in a society where the right of minorities 
are  visibly  and  increasingly  coming  under  pressure’,  to  hold  that  a  case  concerning 
potential  discrimination  by  administrative  organs  did  not  involve  a  relevant  societal 
interest.360  

The procedure before the NIHR is free  of  charge.  However,  fees to gain access to  court 
procedures  have  been  increased  in  recent  years.  Many  commentators  fear  that  this  will 
raise the threshold for victims, including of discrimination, seeking redress in court. 

Time limits  

Administrative  law  procedures:  Article  6:7  of  the  General  Act  on  Administrative  Law 
(Algemene wet bestuursrecht) provides that, in principle, an appeal must be lodged within 
six weeks of the day after the day on which the contested decision was delivered.  

Civil  law  procedures:  in  case  of  a  discriminatory  dismissal  or  dismissal  related  to 
victimisation, proceedings before the  civil  court (kantonrechter) must  be initiated within 
two  months  of  the  termination  of  the  employment  contract  (Article  7:686a(4)(a) 
with 7:681(1)(c) Civil Code). A procedure based on tort law must be initiated before the 
general five-year limitation period under Article 3:310 of the Civil Code has expired.  

NIHR  procedures:  Article  12(1)(c)  of  the  NIHR  Act  only  sets  the  requirement  that  a 
complaint must be lodged within a reasonable period. 

Accessibility 

There  are  no  specific  legal  rules  requiring  courts  or  the  NIHR  premises  to  be  physically 
accessible  for  persons  with  disabilities;  general  rules  about  accessibility  apply  to  these 
buildings.  Neither  is  it  specified  anywhere  that  information  must  be  provided  in  Braille. 
However, the information on the legal system that is provided on the internet and in special 
brochures  conforms  with  standards  set  by  blind  people’s  organisations.  No  special 
procedures  exist  for  dealing  with  individuals  with  a  learning  disability.  There  is  no  legal 
obligation to provide sign language interpreting. However, in 2021 legislation was adopted 
stating that the competent minister is obliged to conduct a policy to stimulate the use of 
sign language interpreting in relation to public speeches made by members of the cabinet 
and in administrative and judicial communication.361  

359  Vereniging Sociale Advocatuur Nederland (Netherlands Association of Social Lawyers) (2020), ‘VSAN-

enquete aanleiding tot opstellen Zwartboek’, www.vsanadvocaten.nl, 27 November 2020. 

360  District court of Amsterdam 23 September 2022, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2022:6985. 
361  Act of 16 March 2021, Staatsblad 2021, 165, https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/stb-2021-165.html.  

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

People who feel they have been discriminated against may submit a complaint to the NIHR 
in writing (Article 10 NIHR Act). For non-Dutch speakers this is not always an easy task 
and therefore it is possible to lodge the complaint during an interview at the NIHR office. 
By analogy, special measures could be taken for people with a disability. 

c) 

Number of discrimination cases brought to justice 

In  the  Netherlands,  statistics  on  the  number  of  court  cases  related  to  discrimination 
brought to justice are available. However, this only applies to cases that are brought under 
criminal  law.  Discrimination  cases  that  are  brought  before  the  civil  and  administrative 
courts are not registered as such (see also under d) below).  

The  National  Expertise  Centre  on  Discrimination  (Landelijk  Expertise  Centrum 
Discriminatie,  LECD),  which  forms  part  of  the  Public  Prosecution  Service  (Openbaar 
Ministerie),  publishes  statistics  on  criminal  discrimination  cases, 
including  both 
discrimination  offences  (hate  speech,  hate  crime  and  unequal  treatment)  and  regular 
offences committed with a discriminatory motive. At the time of writing this report, figures 
for 2024 were not yet available. In 2023, 211 discrimination offences were submitted to 
the  Public  Prosecution  Service,  as  well  as  324  offences  with  a  discriminatory  motive.362 
This is a clear increase  from 2022 (144 discrimination offences and 273 offences with a 
discriminatory motive). Of the discrimination offences registered in 2023, 48 % concerned 
antisemitism. According to the report, this sharp increase is explained by a large number 
of cases concerning antisemitism by football hooligans in the Rotterdam area.363 Otherwise, 
the majority of discrimination offences (29 %) concerned discrimination on the ground of 
racial or ethnic origin, followed by sexual orientation (17 %). The majority of registered 
discrimination offences occurred in a sports context, another 28% of offences occurred in 
public spaces. The largest category of regular offences with a discriminatory motive (39 %) 
also  concerned  the  discrimination  ground  of  racial  or  ethnic  origin,  followed  by  sexual 
orientation (36 %) and antisemitism (15 %).364 The LECD reports also include information 
on  the  nature  of  offences,  numbers  of  offences  per  region  and  characteristics  of  the 
perpetrators. The LECD report over 2023 further mentions 92 court judgments in that year 
in cases involving discrimination offences.365 This number is comparable to that of previous 
years. No mention is made of the number of court judgments involving regular offences 
with a discriminatory motive. 

d) 

Registration of national court decisions on discrimination  

In the Netherlands, court decisions on discrimination are not registered as such.  

6.2  Legal standing and associations (Article 7(2) Directive 2000/43, Article 9(2) 

Directive 2000/78) 

a) 

Engaging in proceedings on behalf of victims of discrimination (representing them) 

In  the  Netherlands,  associations,  organisations  and  trade  unions  are  entitled  to  act  on 
behalf of victims of discrimination. Under Article 3:305a of the Civil Code interest groups 
in the form of an ‘association or foundation’ with full legal powers can take legal action in 
court  on  behalf  of  people  whose  (similar)366  interests  have  been  damaged;  i.e.  also  on 
behalf  of  victims  of  discrimination.  Article  3:305a  Civil  Code  applies  to  associations  and 
foundations under private law. Organisations seeking to take legal action on the basis of 
Article 3:305a Civil Code must be represented by an attorney. 

362  Openbaar Ministerie (2024), Strafbare discriminatie in beeld 2023. Overzicht discriminatiecijfers Openbaar 
Ministerie (Figures on discriminatory offences 2023. Overview of discrimination figures from the Public 
Prosecution Service).  

363  Openbaar Ministerie (2024), p. 4. 
364  Openbaar Ministerie (2024), p. 22. 
365  Openbaar Ministerie (2024), p. 19. 
366  That is, similar to the organisation. 

77 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

Public law organisations 

Besides private foundations and associations, public law organisations such as the state, 
local councils or public bodies like the Bar Association are entitled under Article 3:305b of 
the Civil Code to act on behalf of victims of discrimination. The article does not mention ‘in 
support’ of victims, only ‘on behalf’ of them, but entitles public bodies to act on behalf of 
victims, ‘insofar as these interests are entrusted to the particular organisation’. Protection 
against  discrimination  can  be  seen  as  an  important  general  task  of  most  public  bodies. 
However, the author of this report is not familiar with any such body taking specific legal 
action against discrimination.  

Before an organisation can act, two conditions must be met. First, the organisation must 
represent ‘similar interests’. This means that the interests represented must be similar to 
the interests of the organisation. Secondly, the organisation must (before taking the case 
to court) have tried to obtain satisfactory compensation or rebuttal from the perpetrator 
or  otherwise  have  tried  to  come  to  an  agreement  (see  Article  3:305a(3)(c)  and 
Article 3:305b(2) of the Civil Code).  

There are no associations or public bodies that have a specified legal  duty to take legal 
action  against  discrimination  or  to  act  on  behalf  of  victims  of  discrimination.  There  are 
some  organisations  (such  as  Art.1,  a  national  expert  centre  in  this  area  and  local  Anti-
Discrimination Facilities (ADVs)) which receive a subsidy from central or local government, 
provided  that  they  fulfil  the  function  of  assisting  victims  of  discrimination.  However,  it 
certainly cannot be regarded as a legal duty to initiate legal action on behalf of victims. 

b) 

Engaging  in  proceedings  in  support  of  victims  of  discrimination  (joining  in  existing 
proceedings) 

In  the  Netherlands,  associations,  organisations  and  trade  unions  are  entitled  to  act  in 
support of victims of discrimination, on the basis of Article 3:305a of the Civil Code. They 
do,  however,  need  authorisation  from  the  victim(s)  to  do  so.  The  same  conditions  as 
described above under a) apply. 

c) 

Actio popularis 

In the Netherlands, national law allows associations, organisations and trade unions to act 
in the public interest on their own behalf, without a specific victim to support or represent 
(actio popularis). 

These  cases  are  called  ‘general  interest  actions’  (algemeen  belangacties).  Even  if  no 
victims have come forward, or if victims are not known, this action is possible if it is in the 
public interest. This procedure is allowed under Articles 3:305a(1) and 3:305b(1) of the 
Civil Code (discussed above) and Article 1:2(3) of the General Act on Administrative Law. 
The law speaks of ‘bringing legal action to protect similar interests of other persons’. The 
interest  giving  rise  to  an  actio  popularis  may  be  quite  diffuse  (e.g.  ‘combating  racial 
stereotypes’). Case law shows that in practice it is difficult to meet the admissibility criteria 
for this type of action. Courts seem to be reluctant to grant admissibility without a specific 
victim being involved in the proceedings.367  

An actio popularis claim may be initiated by the same types of organisations (associations 
and  foundations)  as  mentioned  above  (under  a).  They  may  use  the  court  procedures 
(excluding criminal procedures), as described above and may seek the same remedies (i.e. 
injunctions,  legal  declarations  (verklaring  voor  recht)  or  pecuniary  damages,  if  the 
conditions are met). The burden of proof is also the same as in any other discrimination 

367  For a brief overview of relevant case law see: Strategic Interest Litigation Project (PILP) (2015) De 
ontvankelijkheid van belangengroepen bij rechtszaken (‘The admissibility of interest groups in legal 
proceedings’): https://pilpnjcm.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/De-ontvankelijkheid-belangengroepen-bij-
rechtszaken-26102015.pdf (only available in Dutch).  

78 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

case. These organisations also have the right to ask the NIHR to initiate an investigation 
into (alleged) discriminatory practices. Again, the organisation must have full legal powers 
and  it  must  follow  from  its  statutes  that  it  represents  the  interests  of  those  whose 
protection is the objective of the statutory equality acts (Article 10(2)(e) of the NIHR Act). 
However,  if  the  claim  mentions  specific  individuals  who  are  believed  to  have  suffered 
discrimination, the case can only be investigated by the NIHR if those individuals agree to 
it (Article 10(3) NIHR Act). 

A law that was adopted in 2019 has significantly increased the requirements to be met by 
foundations  or  associations  seeking  to  engage  in  strategic  litigation,  including  actio 
popularis.368  This  act  has  made  it  possible  for  such  foundations  or  associations  to  claim 
pecuniary  damages  on  behalf  of  victims,  whereas  previously  damages  could  only  be 
claimed  by  the  victims  themselves.  However,  foundations  and  associations  engaging  in 
collective action on the basis of Article 3:305a of the Civil Code now have to meet a series 
of conditions, including procedures for the representation of the persons on whose behalf 
they  are  acting,  and  a  generally  accessible  website  providing  information  about  the 
foundation or association itself, the proceedings it is  engaged in and the possibilities for 
membership.369 Additional requirements have also been introduced as to the admissibility 
of  collective  action  claims,  including  the  requirement  that  the  claim  must  be  sufficiently 
connected with the Dutch legal order.370  

Courts may accept collective action claims made by foundations or associations that do not 
meet  the  newly  imposed  requirements  if  the  claim  is  of  an  idealistic  (non-commercial) 
nature  and  the  financial  interests  involved  are  very  limited.  In  that  case,  however,  no 
pecuniary damages may be sought.371 

d) 

Class action 

In the Netherlands, national law allows associations, organisations and trade unions to act 
in the interest of more than one individual victim (class action) for claims arising from the 
same event.  

This is called a ‘group action’ (groepsactie). This kind of legal action is possible if a group 
of  people  suffers  as  a  result  of  the  same  rules,  events  or  acts  and  if  a  foundation  or 
association brings one case on behalf of all of them (without specifying the names of the 
victims). Group actions may overlap with actiones populares and both are covered by the 
general  provisions  on  collective  actions  (Article  3:305a  Civil  Code  and  Article  1:2(3) 
General Act  on Administrative Law), both  of which have been discussed above.  The law 
speaks of ‘bringing legal action to protect similar interests of other persons’. 

The same types of organisations (associations and foundations) as described above have 
this  possibility.  They  may  use  the  court  procedures  (excluding  criminal  procedures)  as 
described above and may seek the same remedies. The burden of proof is also the same 
as in any other discrimination case. 

A report from 2024 confirms that the 2019 amendments to Article 3:305a Civil Code (see 
under c) have made it more difficult for NGOs and trade unions to engage in strategic 

368  Act on the settlement of damages in collective action cases (Wet afwikkeling massaschade in collectieve 

actie), Staatsblad 2019, 130. The Act entered into force on 1 January 2020. 

369  Article 3:305a(2) Civil Code.  
370  Article 3:305a (3) Civil Code. Article 3:305a (3)(b) specifies that the requirement of a sufficient connection 
with the Dutch legal order is met if the majority of the persons in whose interest the claim is made are 
usually resident in the Netherlands, or the person against whom the claim is made is usually resident in the 
Netherlands and additional circumstances indicate a sufficient connection with the Dutch legal order, or the 
claim concerns an event or events that have taken place within the Netherlands. 

371  Article 3:305a (6) Civil Code. 

79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

litigation (both actio popularis and class actions).372 The following difficulties are 
mentioned: 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

the  additional  admissibility  requirements  imposed  by  Article  3:305a  Civil  Code  for 
NGOs/trade  unions  to  be  able  to  claim  pecuniary  damages  impose  too  high  a 
threshold  for  several  public  interest  groups.  Moreover,  they  are  sometimes  also 
applied in cases in which no pecuniary damages are sought; 
the requirement that the organisation must be sufficiently representative of the group 
whose interests they are defending is proving to be a barrier to legal standing. While 
the  requirement  was  included  by  the  legislator  in  order  to  keep  out  commercial 
claims,  its  effect  is  to  (also)  exclude  groups  that  act  in  the  public  interest.  This  is 
attributed to the quantitative nature of the requirements; although clear guidelines 
are  lacking,  some  courts  require  applicants  to  provide  lists  of  signatures  or 
declarations of adhesion to vouch for their representative character; 
a lack of clarity concerning the legal interpretation of the admissibility requirements 
laid down in Article 3:305a Civil Code; 
since  2019,  the  judgment  in  a  collective  action  claim  is  legally  binding  on  persons 
who belong to the group that is represented, unless they have expressly opted out. 
However, where a claim is brought in the general interest this group is not always 
easy to define. For individuals who did not opt out, the binding nature of the judgment 
may form an obstacle to bringing another, individualised case if the collective action 
is not successful; 
where a claim is brought by an NGO and one or more individual claimants together, 
the  individual  claimants  are  often  considered  inadmissible  because  they  are 
presumed not to have an autonomous interest in winning the case. Such a declaration 
of inadmissibility can prove an obstacle if the case is continued before a human rights 
court  (notably  the  ECtHR),  because  there  the  NGO  is  not  admissible,  but  the 
individual will be considered as not having exhausted national remedies; 
overall, the report finds that the 2019 amendments have made it more burdensome 
for  NGOs  to  engage  in  public  interest  litigation.  The  procedural  requirements  are 
complicated and sometimes opaque, which means that the NGOs have to invest more 
time and expertise in dealing with procedural aspects, to the detriment of addressing 
substantive legal issues. 

6.3  Burden of proof (Article 8 Directive 2000/43, Article 10 Directive 2000/78) 

In  the  Netherlands,  national  law  requires  a  shift  of  the  burden  of  proof  from  the 
complainant to the respondent.  

Article 10(1) GETA reads as follows: 

‘If a person who considers themselves to have been wronged through “distinction” 
as  referred  to  in  this  Act  establishes  before  a  court  facts  from  which  it  may  be 
presumed  that  distinction  has  taken  place,  it  shall  be  for  the  respondent  to  prove 
that the contested act was not in contravention of this Act.’ 

The  equivalent  Articles  in  the  DDA  and  ADA  are  Articles  10(1)  and  (2)  and  12(1) 
respectively.  Subsequent  subsections  of  these  three  articles  provide  that  the  reversed 
burden of proof also applies in collective actions and general interest actions under Article 
3:305a of the Civil Code and Article 1:2(3) of the General Act on Administrative Law. These 
rules  apply  for  all  forms  of  discrimination,  including  harassment  and  instruction  to 
discriminate. However, these rules do not apply in the case of victimisation (see the next 
section of this report). 

372  The  report  is  available  here  (in  Dutch):  https://clara-wichmann.nl/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/De-

Obstakels-van-de-WAMCA-voor-Ideele-Acties-_BCW_PILP_Rapport_2024.pdf.    

80 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

6.4  Victimisation (Article 9 Directive 2000/43, Article 11 Directive 2000/78) 

In the Netherlands, there are legal measures of protection against victimisation. All three 
equal  treatment  acts  (GETA,  DDA  and  ADA)  protect  against  dismissal  related  to 
victimisation  and  other  forms  of  disadvantage  as  a  result  of  the  fact  that  a  person  has 
invoked a statutory equality act or has otherwise assisted in proceedings under these acts, 
for example, by means of a testimony. See Articles 8 and 8a GETA, Articles 9 and 9a DDA 
and Articles 10 and 11 ADA. 

Article 8 GETA reads as follows: 

‘If an employer terminates an employee’s contract of employment in contravention 
of Section 5, or on the ground that the employee has invoked Section 5, either in a 
court procedure  or otherwise,  or has assisted others in this  respect, Article 681 of 
Book 7 of the Civil Code applies.’  

The latter provision renders the termination voidable.373 

Article 8a(1) GETA reads as follows: 

‘It is unlawful to disadvantage persons because they have invoked this Act, either in 
or out of court, or have assisted others in this respect.’ 

The provision means that people who assist a victim of discrimination are also protected 
by Articles 8 and 8a GETA, not just the victims (the same applies in the context of the ADA 
and DDA). The prohibition of victimisation is absolute, i.e. no (objective) justification may 
be put forward.374 

The shifting of the burden of proof does not apply to victimisation, the applicable provisions 
are the general rules on the burden of proof as laid down in Articles 150-155 of the Code 
of  Civil  Procedure  (Wetboek  van  Burgerlijke  Rechtsvordering).375  According  to  Monika 
Ambrus, the ETC offered two ways for the claimant to prove that victimisation took place. 
First,  the  claimant  may  prove  that  the  complaint  about  discrimination  led  to  a  chain  of 
events that eventually resulted in disruption of the labour relationship or even termination 
of the employment contract; secondly, the claimant may prove that the complaint was the 
only reason for the dismissal.376  

In its 2011 evaluation report, the ETC stated that, in practice, the burden of proof is not 
too  arduous  for  the  complainant.  It  therefore  made  no  recommendations  to  change  the 
law on this point. Of the NIHR Opinions issued in 2022 concerning the grounds covered in 
this report, nine cases dealt with victimisation: seven in relation to race and two in relation 
to  religion.377  In  three  cases  the  victimisation  claim  was  successful.  In  2023  the  NIHR 
decided  eleven  claims  of  victimisation  in  relation  to  the  grounds  covered  in  this  report, 

373  The term ‘voidable’ (vernietigbaar) means that it is not automatically void but that this may be established 

during a court procedure.  

374  Ambrus mentions ETC Opinion 2006, 34, para. 3.19. See, cited in Ambrus, M. (2011) ‘The concept of 

victimisation in the racial equality directive and in the Netherlands: a means for effective enforcement of the 
right to equal treatment’ in Nederlands tijdschrift voor de mensenrechten/NJCM-bulletin, 2011 (1), pp. 9-
23, at p. 20.  

375  See also Ambrus, M. (2011) ‘The concept of victimisation in the racial equality directive and in the 

Netherlands: a means for effective enforcement of the right to equal treatment’ in Nederlands tijdschrift 
voor de mensenrechten/NJCM-bulletin, 2011 (1), pp. 9-23, at p. 20. 

376  Ambrus, M. (2011) ‘The concept of victimisation in the racial equality directive and in the Netherlands: a 

means for effective enforcement of the right to equal treatment’ in Nederlands tijdschrift voor de 
mensenrechten/NJCM-bulletin, 2011 (1), p. 21. 

377  NIHR Opinion 2022-158 of 22 December 2022; NIHR Opinion 2022-128 of 17 November 2022; NIHR 

Opinion 2022-121 of 25 October 2022; NIHR Opinion 2022-89 of 9 August 2022; NIHR Opinion 2022-64 of 
13 June 2022; NIHR Opinion 2022-50 of 12 May 2022; NIHR Opinion 2022-36 of 14 April 2022; NIHR 
Opinion 2022-12 of 22 February 2022; NIHR Opinion 2022/5 of 27 January 2022. 

81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

three  of  which  were  successful.378  In  the  absence  of  any  further  (qualitative)  analysis, 
these figures suggest that the burden of proof could present a (limited) obstacle to findings 
of victimisation.  

In 2008-2009, a study of the issue of victimisation was conducted on behalf of the ETC.379 
It  was  the  first  large-scale  research  into  this  topic  in  the  Netherlands.  Previous  smaller 
studies  had  shown  that  complaining  about  discrimination  often  led  to  serious  negative 
consequences,  but  also  that  many  victims  did  not  make  official  complaints  for  fear  of 
victimisation. These findings were confirmed. The researchers found that serious forms of 
victimisation occurred most often in cases of discrimination on the grounds of race, sex or 
disability, where they concerned discriminatory treatment in the workplace by colleagues 
and  direct  supervisors  and  where  the  claimant  was  in  an  isolated  position  at  work.  The 
report  shows  that  it  is  certainly  not  enough  to  have  established  a  prohibition  of 
victimisation, but that much more needs to be done in terms of having in place an informal 
complaints procedure, having counsellors in the workplace who can deal with complaints 
confidentially,  and  giving  training  to  people  working  for  personnel  departments  and 
managers.380 In 2019 a guideline was developed, at the request of the state secretary for 
Social  Affairs  and  Employment,  on  the  positioning  and  functioning  of  confidential 
counsellors to address undesirable behaviour within the workplace.381 

A rather narrow interpretation of the prohibition of victimisation was given by the District 
Court  of  Amsterdam  in  the  case  of  a  young  Muslim  woman  whose  traineeship  was  not 
continued after she refused to stop wearing a khimar (long headscarf). The employer had 
told  the  woman  that  she  had  ‘crossed  a  line’  by  reporting  her  situation  to  a  local  Anti-
Discrimination Service (see section 7 below) and that it would not continue the employment 
relationship  because  of  this.  In  an  otherwise  carefully  argued  judgment,  the  court 
considered that, despite this statement, the employer had given the woman ‘a last chance 
to adjust to a more neutral clothing style’ after she had reported her case to the equality 
body.  From  this  the  court  deduced  that  the  reporting  had  not  been  the  reason  for  not 
continuing  the  employment  relationship  and  therefore  the  employer’s  reaction  to  the 
reporting  did  not  constitute  ‘seriously  negligent  behaviour’  (the  court  did  find  that  the 
employer had been seriously negligent in failing to continue the employment relationship 
on discriminatory grounds – see also section 3.2.3 above).382 

6.5  Sanctions  and  remedies  (Article  15  Directive  2000/43,  Article  17 

Directive 2000/78) 

a) 

Applicable sanctions in cases of discrimination – in law and in practice 

NIHR 

The NIHR issues non-binding Opinions in which it declares if the disputed act is in breach 
of equal treatment legislation. It cannot impose fines or damages to be paid to the victim.  
Articles  11(2),  11(3)  and  13  of  the  NIHR  Act  mention  some  additional  measures  to  be 
applied  by  the  NIHR.  Under  Article  11(2),  the  NIHR  may,  in  its  Opinions,  make 
recommendations to the party found to have made an unlawful distinction. Under Article 
11(3)  the  NIHR  may  also  forward  its  findings  to  the  ministers  concerned,  and  to 
organisations of employers, employees, professionals and public servants, to consumers 
of goods and services and to relevant consultative bodies. Under Article 13(1), the NIHR 

378  A search was conducted in the NIHR database for the year 2023 with the keyword ‘victimisation’. Opinions 

concerning discrimination on the ground of sex or sexual harassment have not been included.  

379  See Van Genugten, M. and Svensson, J. (2010), Dubbel de dupe? Een studie naar de benadeling van 
werknemers die gelijke behandeling aan de orde stellen (Victim twice over? A study of disadvantages 
experienced by employees who raise the issue of equal treatment), University of Twente/ETC. 

380  In 2018 the NIHR dealt with three victimisation complaints, only one of which concerned a ground covered 

in this report. Victimisation was not considered to have been present (NIHR Opinion 2018-99). 

381  Leidraad voor het positioneren en functioneren van vertrouwenspersonen ongewenste omgangsvormen op 

het werk, published as Annex to Tweede Kamer 2019-2020, 25 883, No. 365. 

382  District Court of Amsterdam 10 January 2020, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2020:575. 

82 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

may  bring  legal  action  with  a  view  to  obtaining  a  court  ruling  that  a  particular  conduct 
contrary  to  the  relevant  equal  treatment  legislation  is  unlawful,  requesting  that  such 
conduct  be  prohibited  or  eliciting  an  order  that  the  consequences  of  such  conduct  be 
rectified.383 This power must be regarded in light of the fact that the NIHR’s Opinions are 
not  binding  (see  further  section  7.g).  If  a  case  is  brought  by  an  interest  group,  the 
sanctions under the GETA are similar. The measures that can be taken by the NIHR are 
the same for all discrimination grounds. 

Courts 

Any other sanctions in discrimination cases must be imposed by a court. In case of criminal 
offences, fines and sentences may be imposed by a criminal court. While it is not common 
in the Netherlands for situations of unequal treatment to be addressed through criminal 
law (as opposed to hate crime or hate speech, for which criminal law is the primary avenue) 
this  does  happen  occasionally.  In  2014,  for  example,  an  employer  was  sentenced  to  a 
community sentence and fined after mistakenly having sent a discriminatory email to a job 
applicant,384  and  in  2022  an  employer  was  made  to  pay  a  fine  of  EUR 175  for  having 
refused to hire a woman because of her headscarf. In the latter case, the employer also 
had to pay EUR 317.48 to compensate for the victim’s travel costs to the job interview and 
non-material damages.385 

In civil lawsuits, the main remedies to be granted by the courts  are a declaration of law 
(Article 3:302 Civil Code), an injunction to comply with existing legal obligations (Article 
3:296 Civil Code) and the award of pecuniary damages (Article 3:310 Civil Code). Some 
specific remedies also exist depending on the legal relationship concerned, for example in 
employment cases an employer may be held accountable to pay pecuniary damages, to 
take  preventive  measures  or  to  reinstate  an  employee  who  was  unlawfully  dismissed 
(Article  7:681  Civil  Code).  In  case  of  tort,  an  injunction  may  be  imposed,  as  well  as 
pecuniary sanctions. In case of collective actions, the courts may decide that the judgment 
is to be made public (Articles 3:305a(4) and 3:305b(2) Civil Code).  

In  administrative  procedures,  the  courts  can  annul  administrative  decisions  found  to  be 
contrary to the law (Article 8:72(1) General Administrative Law Act) and award pecuniary 
damages  in  respect  of  unlawful  administrative  decisions  or  other  unlawful  conduct  by 
administrative bodies (Article 8:88(1) General Administrative Law Act).  

In addition to the aforementioned sanctions, the following sanctions (to be applied by the 
courts) are specifically mentioned in the equal treatment legislation. According to Article 8 
GETA, Article 11 ADA and Article 9 DDA, discriminatory dismissals and dismissals related 
to  victimisation  are  ‘voidable’.  This  applies  to  both  public  and  private  employment.  The 
employee can ask the court to invalidate the termination of the contract and can thereupon 
claim wages. They can also request to be reinstated in the job or claim compensation for 
pecuniary damages under the sanctions of general administrative/ (labour) contract law or 
tort law. Contractual provisions which are in conflict with the GETA, the ADA and the DDA 
will be considered null  and void. This follows  from Article 9, Article 13 and Article 11  of 
these acts respectively. 

As follows from the foregoing, the applicable sanctions depend on the legislative provisions 
on  which  the  claim  is  based  and  on  the  court  before  which  the  action  is  brought.  No 
differentiation occurs depending on the discrimination ground at stake. 

383  This applies, unless the person affected by the alleged discriminatory conduct has imposed conditions 

(Article 13(2) of the NIHR Act). In theory this could amount to a court order, e.g. to make a desegregation 
plan for schools; however, the Dutch courts are very careful not to interfere with what they call the 
discretionary powers of the administration and the Government.  

384  District Court of Gelderland 27 August 2014, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2014:5457. 
385  District Court of Rotterdam 15 July 2022, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2022:6178. 

83 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

i) 

National  legislation  provides  for  preventive  and  socio-preventive  sanctions,  in 
particular injunctions or structural injunctions. 

As mentioned above, one of the remedies that can be claimed before the civil courts is an 
injunction  to  comply  with  existing  legal  obligations  (Article  3:296  Civil  Code).  This  is  a 
general  civil  law  remedy,  not  specific  to  the  field  of  equal  treatment  law.  If  the  court 
establishes that a particular measure or practice violates the prohibition of discrimination, 
it can issue an injunction to the respondent party to comply with non-discrimination law 
and hence put an end to the measure or practice. This could be understood as a (partly) 
preventive sanction. The content of an injunction is not limited to negative duties, if it is 
established that compliance with existing legal obligations requires the respondent party 
state  to  act  then  this  can  also  be  ordered  by  the  court.386  An  example  of  an  injunction 
granted  in  a  discrimination  case  was  an  injunction  given  by  the  Court  of  Appeal  of  The 
Hague to the Royal Border Police (Koninklijke Marechaussee) to stop using racial or ethnic 
criteria as risk indicators when selecting people for border checks.387 

The NIHR sometimes uses recommendations (see above) to propose measures or actions 
that  could  be  taken  by  the  respondent  party  to  prevent  further  discrimination.  As  an 
example, in its first Opinions concerning the childcare benefits scandal (see section 3.2.5) 
the NIHR issued a recommendation to the Tax Agency/Benefits Office to periodically assess 
the procedures and criteria used to control recipients’ entitlement to benefits in order to 
detect  potential  discriminator  effects.388  Specifically,  the  NIHR  recommended  that  the 
Impact  Assessment  Human  Rights  and  Algorithms389  be  used  to  assess  risks  of 
discrimination stemming from the use of algorithms. These recommendations can help to 
combat future discrimination; however, it should be recalled that, like the NIHR’s Opinions, 
they are non-binding. 

ii) 

There are sanctions specific for cases of collective redress (actio popularis or class 
actions). 

As mentioned above, in collective actions the courts may decide that the judgment is to be 
made  public  (Articles  3:305a(4)  and  3:305b(2)  Civil  Code).  Pecuniary  damages  may  be 
awarded in collective actions, but only if the applicant organisation(s) meet rather stringent 
requirement  concerning  inter  alia  their  governance  structure.  Otherwise,  there  are  no 
sanctions specific for cases of collective redress. 

iii) 

There are no sanctions in place to deal with cases of mass discrimination, particularly 
as a result of the use of AI or automated systems. 

The most apt remedy in such a case would appear to be a collective claim for damages on 
the basis of Article 3:305a Civil Code (see section 6.2).  

b) 

Pecuniary sanctions – maximum and average amounts 

In civil  court cases there is no ceiling for the amount of damages or  compensation that 
may  be  awarded.  Compensation  for  both  material  and  non-material  damages  can  be 
requested. The maximum amount of damages to be claimed before an administrative court 
is EUR 25 000, if the claim exceeds this amount the case will fall under the competence of 
the civil courts.390 In criminal procedures, the Public Prosecutor is bound to the level of the 
fines set out in the criminal law provisions concerning discrimination.  The maximum fine 

386  Supreme Court 20 December 2019, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:2006 (Urgenda). 
387  Court of Appeal of The Hague 14 February 2023, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2023:173. 
388  NIHR Opinions 2023-101, 2023-102 and 2023-103 of 2 October 2023. 
389  See:  Https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/rapporten/2021/02/25/impact-assessment-mensenrechten-
en-algoritmes. On this tool see the Country report 2022 on non-discrimination for the Netherlands, p. 12. 

390  Article 8:89(2) General Administrative Law Act (Algemene wet bestuursrecht), Staatsblad 1992, 315, 

entered into force 1 January 1994. This is the case unless the administrative decision concerned falls within 
the exclusive or final competence of the Central Appeals Tribunal or the Supreme Court, Article 8:89(1) 
General Administrative Law Act.  

84 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

to be imposed for discrimination committed in one’s office, profession or enterprise (Art. 
429quater Criminal Code) is EUR 10 300 (Art. 23(4) Criminal Code). 

The sanctions mentioned in the equal treatment legislation are not in terms of pecuniary 
damages but offer other ‘remedies’ (see above). 

c) 

Assessment of the sanctions 

It  is  rare  for  cases  of  unequal  treatment  to  be  addressed  by  means  of  criminal  law, 
therefore criminal sanctions are not often imposed. Although the Criminal Code does allow 
for prison sentences to be imposed in discrimination cases, the author is not aware of any 
cases in which this has occurred. 

In civil cases, pecuniary damages are not granted very often. This mainly occurs when, for 
example, a court agrees with a dismissal because the employment relationship has become 
unworkable  and,  in  that  case,  a  relatively  high  sum  can  be  set  to  compensate  for  the 
termination of the contract. The threshold for the award of non-material damages is high; 
a finding that an applicant has experienced racial discrimination is in itself insufficient to 
award such damages.391 

No information can be given on the topic of sanctions without an extensive examination of 
the case law of the district courts. Generally, such cases are not published in official law 
journals.  In  addition,  the  registration  of  cases  within  the  court  system  is  not  done 
systematically on the basis of the legal provisions at stake. Thus it might very well be that 
many cases are registered under the heading of a general provision like ‘breach of labour 
contract’ (with no specification about the reasons for this) or tort. Very generally speaking, 
it can be noted that Dutch courts are restrictive in granting damages that are not strictly 
material damages (e.g. unpaid wages). Non-material damages (e.g. hurt feelings) will only 
be compensated for minimally.  

On the question of whether the available sanctions have been shown to be – or are likely 
to  be  –  effective,  proportionate  and  dissuasive,  as  required  by  the  directives,  it  can  be 
observed that the sanctions do not seem to be very dissuasive. Neither the equality body, 
nor  any  other  institution  has  ever  properly  investigated  whether  they  are  effective  and 
proportionate. 

d) 

Enforcement and monitoring of the implementation of sanctions 

i) 

Courts and adjudicating bodies’ mechanisms to monitor or enforce their decisions  

If a fine is imposed by a criminal court and is not paid, as an ultimate remedy the person 
concerned can be detained (Article 24c Criminal Code). 

If a  respondent party  fails to comply  with a sanction imposed under  civil law, detention 
(lijfsdwang) is also possible as an ultimate remedy provided that the respondent party is 
a natural person. The detention can be ordered by a court at the claimant’s request (Article 
585(a) Code of Civil Procedure). Alternatively, in the case of non-compliance, the claimant 
can ask the court to impose a penalty payment (Article 611a(a) Code of Civil Procedure). 
Penalty payments can also be ordered against legal persons.  

The  Opinions  (and  recommendations)  of  the  NIHR  are  non-binding  and  therefore  not 
subject to enforcement. It is worth noting that the majority of discrimination cases in the 
Netherlands  are  brought  before  the  NIHR  instead  of  the  courts.  For  this  reason, 
enforcement of sanctions in relation to discrimination is not a very prominent topic in Dutch 
law. 

391  Court of Appeal of Den Bosch 11 June 2024, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2024:1892. For details on this case see the case 

law overview at the end of this report.  

85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

ii) 

Possibility  for  courts  and  other  adjudicating  bodies  to  retain  jurisdiction  after 
sanctions have been imposed  

In criminal cases, the verdict imposing the fine also states that detention will be imposed 
if the fine is not paid (Art. 24c Criminal Code). In civil cases, the initial court order provides 
the basis for execution of the sanction (the injunction or award of damages).  

iii) 

Further  steps/measures  courts  or  adjudicating  bodies  can  take  in  case  of  non-
compliance with the sanction 

If the court order is not complied with and the claimant seeks enforcement by means of a 
penalty  payment  or  even  detention  (see  above  under  ii),  a  new  court  order  must  be 
requested. 

iv) 

The burden of enforcing sanctions 

In  criminal  law,  sanctions  are  enforced  through  the  criminal  justice  system,  hence  the 
burden  is  on  the  State.  In  civil  law,  if  the  initial  court  order  is  not  complied  with,  it  is 
ultimately up to the claimant to request a penalty payment or that the respondent party 
be detained. 

86 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

7  BODIES  FOR  THE  PROMOTION  OF  EQUAL  TREATMENT  (Article  13 

Directive 2000/43) 

7.1  National equality bodies  

a)  General ‘architecture’ of equality bodies 

In  the  Netherlands,  there  are  two  types  of  equality  body  that  have  been  designated  as 
equality bodies under Article 13 Racial Equality Directive: at the national level there is the 
NIHR392  and  at  the  local  level  there  are  the  ADVs,  that  have  a  legal  basis  in  the  Act  on 
Local Anti-Discrimination Services (Wet gemeentelijke antidiscriminatievoorzieningen).393  

Besides these equality  bodies, there are the  National Coordinator against Discrimination 
and Racism (NCDR), the National Coordinator against Antisemitism (NCA) and the State 
Commission against Discrimination and Racism. The coordinators were appointed in 2021 
and  the  state  commission  in  2022,  all  in  an  effort  to  step  up  the  battle  against 
discrimination,  racism  and  antisemitism  in  the  Netherlands.  For  further  details  on  these 
bodies and their activities and competences, see section 9.1 of this report.  

b)  Designated bodies for the promotion of equal treatment irrespective of racial/ethnic 

origin according to Article 13 of the Racial Equality Directive 

NIHR 

In  addition  to  its  general  function  of  promoting  and  protecting  human  rights  in  the 
Netherlands (including the right of non-discrimination), the NIHR serves as a quasi-judicial 
body in the field of equal treatment. The material scope of the NIHR mandate covers all 
areas  covered by the  General Equal Treatment Act (GETA), the Disability Discrimination 
Act  (DDA)  and  the  Age  Discrimination  Act  (ADA),  that  is  grosso  modo  employment  and 
goods and services. In 2012, the NIHR assumed the tasks of the former Equal Treatment 
Commission  (ETC)  (Commissie  Gelijke  Behandeling),  which  served  as  the  first  officially 
designated  body  through  which  the  Government  implemented  Article  13  of  the  Racial 
Equality Directive.394 For the NIHR, its status as an equality body follows from the tasks 
assigned to it in Articles 9-13 NIHR Act. Other equal treatment acts also assign these tasks 
to the NIHR (see Article 12 DDA and Article 14 ADA).  

The Dutch Government established the NIHR after long discussions about the best way to 
implement the Paris Principles.395 The role of the former ETC regarding the examination of 
discrimination  complaints  was  fully  integrated  into  the  NIHR  and  as  such  has  not  been 
changed. The role of assisting victims was never part of the ETC’s work and is not part of 
the  work  of  the  NIHR,  because  it  is  deemed  to  be  incompatible  with  the  role  of 
independently  issuing  legal  opinions  about  discrimination  complaints.  The  NIHR  refers 
victims to the anti-discrimination services (see below) for such assistance.  

The complaints procedure before the NIHR is a low-threshold procedure that is accessible 
for all. Information on how to lodge a complaint is readily available on the NIHR website 

392  Act of 24 November 2011 containing the establishment of the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights (Wet 
van 24 november 2011, houdende de oprichting van het College voor de rechten van de mens); Staatsblad 
2011, 573. The Act entered into force on 1 October 2012. 

393  Act on Local Anti-Discrimination Services (Wet gemeentelijke antidiscriminatievoorzieningen), Staatsblad 
2009, 313. On the basis of this law, a Decree was adopted in which more detailed regulation of the local 
ADVs is laid down. It contains provisions concerning their independence, competence and procedures to be 
followed when the ADVs provide information and assist victims of discrimination (see Besluit gemeentelijke 
antidiscriminatievoorzieningen, Staatsblad 2009, 373). 

394  The provisions of the GETA in which the former ETC was regulated were repealed in the NIHR Act. Instead, 
these provisions are now included in a chapter of the NIHR Act: ‘Chapter 2: Investigations and findings 
relating to equal treatment’ (Articles 9-13). 

395  Principles relating to the Status of National Institutions Adopted by UN General Assembly resolution 48/134 

of 20 December 1993.  

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

or  can  be  obtained  by  contacting  the  NIHR’s  front  office  by  phone.396  The  procedure 
requires complainants to fill out an online form, after which they are contacted by an NIHR 
staff member to collect further information. People who are unwilling or unable to make 
use of the online form can contact the NIHR by phone to discuss alternative options. Both 
parties are normally invited to an oral hearing before the NIHR decides on the complaint. 
The  procedure  is  free  and  legal  representation  is  not  required.  However,  free 
representation is available from the ADVs. 

The  NIHR  building  is  accessible  to  persons  with  disabilities.  Anyone  who  is  unable,  for 
medical or other substantive reasons, to attend a hearing at the NIHR building may make 
a request to attend via a video link.397 Parties must make their submissions in Dutch (or, 
exceptionally, in English) but if a party requires the assistance of an interpreter in order to 
attend the hearing, the NIHR will provide  one.398 The rules of procedure do not indicate 
whether this includes sign language interpreters, nor do they contain a general provision 
on reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities.  

The NIHR is centrally located (in the city of Utrecht) and can be reached from almost any 
place in the Netherlands within three hours of travel. Its visibility is primarily guaranteed 
through the website (www.mensenrechten.nl). In terms of accessibility, the website meets 
the requirements of the Temporary Decree on digital accessibility of public bodies.399 

Local Anti-Discrimination Services 

In  addition  to  the  NIHR,  there  are  the  local  anti-discrimination  services  (ADVs).400 
According to the legislative history, the ADVs are equality bodies in the sense of Article 13 
Directive 2000/43/EC.401 All 342 municipalities are obliged to ensure that their inhabitants 
have access to an ADV. In practice many (smaller) municipalities do not have their own 
ADV but are served by a larger, regional ADV. Probably the largest ADV is RADAR, which 
serves 51 municipalities in the Rotterdam region with a total of 3.2 million inhabitants.402 
The  ADVs  have  two  legal  tasks:  to  assist  people  with  discrimination  complaints  and  to 
record all such claims and bring them to the attention of the Minister of the Interior and 
Kingdom Relations.403 The ADVs and the NIHR thus fulfil tasks that are closely related but 
not overlapping. 

As stated above, every municipality is obliged by law to grant its inhabitants access to an 
ADV,  which  means  that  everyone  in  the  Netherlands  can  report  an  incident  of 
discrimination and obtain assistance at the local level. Such assistance is provided free of 
charge. The Decree on local anti-discrimination services determines that the accessibility 
of ADVs must be guaranteed, but this is not further  specified.404 Article 7 of the Decree 
does provide that ADVs must offer the options of reporting incidents of discrimination by 
mail, electronically, by phone or in person. Because the ADVs exist at the municipal level, 

396  See: www.mensenrechten.nl. There is a ‘Report discrimination’ (‘Meld discriminatie’) button on the website’s 

homepage. People who click the button are then given a choice between reporting an incident of 
discrimination (‘Misstand melden’), which can also be done anonymously, or requesting an opinion from the 
NIHR (‘Oordeel aanvragen’). 

397  NIHR Rules of procedure (Procesreglement), Art. 11(d).  
398  NIHR Rules of procedure (Procesreglement), Art. 5. 
399  Temporary Decree on digital accessibility of public authorities (Tijdelijk besluit digitale toegankelijkheid 

overheid), Staatsblad 2018, 141. See https://www.mensenrechten.nl/toegankelijkheid.  

400  Act on Local Anti-Discrimination Services (Wet gemeentelijke antidiscriminatievoorzieningen), Staatsblad 
2009, 313. On the basis of this law, a Decree was adopted in which more detailed regulation of the local 
ADVs is laid down. It contains provisions concerning their independence, competence and procedures to be 
followed when the ADVs provide information and assist victims of discrimination (see Besluit gemeentelijke 
antidiscriminatievoorzieningen, Staatsblad 2009, 373). 

401  See: Tweede Kamer 2007-2008, 31 439, No. 3, p. 7. 
402  See: Https://radar.nl/over-radar/werkgebied-radar/. For an overview of ADVs see: 

www.discriminatie.nl/antidiscriminatiebureaus, last visited on 28 March 2023. It is not clear whether the list 
on this website is complete. 

403  Article 2(1) Act on Local Anti-Discrimination Services. 
404  Decree on Local Anti-Discrimination Services (Besluit gemeentelijke antidiscriminatievoorzieningen), 

Staatsblad 2009, 373, Art. 3.  

88 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

the procedures for reporting discrimination and requesting assistance may differ per ADV, 
within the limits set by national legislation.405 The same applies to their accessibility and 
visibility. 

A report from February 2023 flagged up a number of problems regarding the functioning 
of the ADVs, including problems regarding their overall visibility and accessibility.406 The 
report showed that many people in the Netherlands were not aware of the fact that they 
can report discrimination, or did not know where to report it. Issues regarding accessibility 
notably concern accessibility for people  with limited  Dutch proficiency. Apart from these 
issues,  it  was  noted  that  the  ADVs  are  not  formally  tasked  with  implementing  activities 
aimed  at  prevention  and  awareness  raising  and  that  they  are  not  equipped  to  address 
structural  discrimination.407  In  response  to  the  report,  the  Minister  of  the  Interior 
announced that the ADV structure would be revised and centralised in order to make the 
ADVs  more  effective.  This  should  result  in  better  visibility  and  accessibility  of  ADVs  and 
fewer  barriers  to  reporting  discrimination.408  According  to  the  most  recent  timeline 
proposed by the Government, legislation to amend the ADV structure would be proposed 
in autumn 2024 and the new structure would be implemented by 1 January 2027 at the 
latest.409 However, as at the cut-off date for this report, no legislative proposal had been 
published.  In  the  meantime,  as  of  1  January  2024,  the  ADVs  did  start  working  under  a 
common name: ‘Discriminatie.nl’. As of the same date, all ADVs can be found via a single 
website: www.discriminatie.nl.410  

7.2  Political, economic and social context of the designated bodies 

Overall there is political support for the NIHR, which is not to say that all political parties 
have  a  positive  attitude  to  it.  Right-wing  and  populist  parties  are  overall  (much)  less 
positive than parties at the other end of the political spectrum. This is particularly the case 
where  the  NIHR  gives  opinions  in  controversial  discrimination  cases  that  support  the 
complainant.411 

The most recent evaluation of the NIHR Act, conducted by the NIHR itself, was positive. Of 
particular  relevance  for  this  report  is  the  conclusion  that  the  equality  body  is  able  to 
effectively  fulfil  its  quasi-judicial  role,  with  its  Opinions  being  generally  perceived  as 
authoritative.412  

In  2023,  several  members  of  the  NIHR  reported  harassment,  discrimination  and 
favouritism by the Institute’s president and other members.413 An external committee of 
investigation, led by former minister for justice Winnie Sorgdrager, was appointed by the 
minister  of  Legal  Remedies.  The  committee  presented  its  report  in  July  2024.  It  found 
several deficiencies relating to the overall governance structure of the NIHR and the role 

405  Art. 2(2) Act on Local Anti-Discrimination Services provides that it is for the municipal councils to lay down 
rules on the organisation of ADVs and the way in which they fulfil their task of providing assistance to 
victims of discrimination.  

406  Van Beijnhem, R. et al (2023), Structure, tasks and financing of ADVs. An investigation into the local 

approach to discrimination in the Netherlands (Inrichting, takenpakket en financiering ADV’s. Een onderzoek 
naar de lokale aanpak van discriminatie in Nederland) (report commissioned by the Ministry of the Interior 
and Kingdom Relations), Berenschot 20 February 2023, published as Annex to Tweede Kamer 2022-2023, 
30 950, No. 335. 

407  Van Beijnhem et al (2023), Structure, tasks and financing of ADVs. 
408  Tweede Kamer 2023-2024, 30 950, No. 354. 
409  Tweede Kamer 2023-2024, 30 950, No. 365. 
410  The website lists all ADVs that are members of Discriminatie.nl, the national umbrella organisation of ADVs. 
The Minister of the Interior announced that he would urge all ADVs to become members of the umbrella 
organisation, see Tweede Kamer 2023-2024, 30 950, No. 354, p. 3. 

411  See, for example, the newspaper article, AD (2017) ‘College voor de Rechten van de Mens ligt steeds weer 

onder vuur’ (‘The NIHR comes under attack time and again’), 26 November 2017, 
www.ad.nl/politiek/college-voor-de-rechten-van-de-mens-ligt-steeds-weer-onder-vuur~aabb31cd/. 
412  Netherlands Institute for Human Rights (2022), Evaluation of the NIHR Act over the past ten years 

(Wetsevaluatie Tien jaar College voor de Rechten van de Mens), Utrecht. 

413  Sietsma, S. and Meindertsma, B. (2023), ‘Crisis in top of human rights institute, whistleblowers made to 

leave’ (Crisis in top mensenrechtencollege, klokkenluiders moeten veld ruimen), NOS Nieuws 11 May 2023, 
https://nos.nl/artikel/2474741-crisis-in-top-mensenrechtencollege-klokkenluiders-moeten-veld-ruimen.  

89 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

played by its president. It did not find evidence of discrimination and concluded that the 
acts  complained  of  did  not  amount  to  structural  abuse  and  did  not  touch  on  the  public 
interest.414 After publication of the report, the NIHR president, who had already stepped 
down  temporarily  while  the  committee  of  investigation  was  doing  its  work,  resigned. 
Throughout 2024, the Institute was led by a president ad interim and functioned with only 
three members rather than the minimum of nine stipulated in the NIHR Act (see section 
7.4 below). Additional substitute members (see again section 7.4 below) were appointed 
to enable the NIHR to continue its quasi-judicial function. 

As  indicated  above  (section  7.1,  under  b),  the  functioning  of  the  ADVs  has  been  found 
lacking and the ADV structure is in the process of being revised.  

7.3  Institutional architecture 

In  the  Netherlands,  the  designated  body  (NIHR)  forms  part  of  a  body  with  multiple 
mandates. In addition to serving as the national equality body, the NIHR is the national 
human rights institute and is mandated to report on the implementation by the Netherlands 
of the CRPD. A full overview of the NIHR’s mandate is provided below.415 

1.  Opinions: giving opinions in cases relating to discrimination on the basis of equality 

2. 

3. 

4. 
5. 
6. 

7. 

legislation. 
Reporting: reporting and making  recommendations about the protection  of human 
rights, including the annual report on the human rights situation in the Netherlands 
to the Government and Parliament. 
Advice:  advising  the  Government,  Parliament  or  administrative  bodies  about  laws 
and regulations which relate directly or indirectly to human rights, either in response 
to a written request or proactively. 
Education: stimulating and coordinating education about human rights. 
Research: (stimulating) research into the protection of human rights. 
Collaboration:  structural  collaboration  with  social  organisations  and  national, 
European  and  other  international  institutions  working  in  the  field  of  fundamental 
rights. 
Encouragement: encouraging the Government to ratify, implement and comply with 
international human rights treaties and to remove reservations in such conventions, 
as well as encouraging the implementation of and compliance with binding decisions 
by  organisations  under  international  law  about  human  rights  and  encouraging 
compliance with European or international recommendations about human rights. 

8.  Monitoring the implementation of the CRPD. 

To  deal  efficiently  with  the  large  number  of  discrimination  complaints,  the  NIHR’s  non-
discrimination  mandate  is  executed  by  a  specific  department  under  the  responsibility  of 
one  of  the  two  vice  presidents.416  As  all  NIHR  members  are  collectively  responsible  for 
carrying out the broad mandate of the NIHR, none of them deal exclusively with the non-
discrimination mandate, although some spend more time on this than others.  The same 
holds  true  for  most  staff  members.  The  NIHR’s  substitute  members  (see  below)  are 
exclusively tasked with the non-discrimination mandate and do not participate in the other 
tasks of the Institute. The budget does not set aside a specified percentage of resources 
and budget for the equality mandate. 

The integration of the non-discrimination mandate of the former ETC into the much broader 
human rights mandate of the NIHR has inevitably led to a relative reduction in attention 
to  this  mandate  in  the  work  of  the  NIHR,  but  the  evaluation  of  the  NIHR  that  became 

414  See section 7.2 of this report.  
415  The listing reflects the mandate of the NIHR laid down in Article 3 NIHR Act. The task in relation to the 

CRPD is explained in more detail at https://www.mensenrechten.nl/themas/rechten-van-mensen-met-een-
beperking.  

416  The NIHR consists of three departments: Front office & opinions, Studies, recommendations and 

communications and the Operations staff department. 

90 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

available  in  2018  concluded  that  the  NIHR  found  ‘a  good  balance’  between  both 
mandates.417  A  positive  consequence  of  the  broader  mandate  regards  the  improved 
possibilities of linking non-discrimination to other human rights issues and thus addressing 
the wider context in which discriminatory attitudes and practices occur. Since 2016, the 
NIHR  has  devoted  specific  attention  to  its  non-discrimination  mandate  through  the 
‘Discrimination cases monitor’, which  is exclusively dedicated to its work as the national 
equality body.418  

As far as the ADVs are concerned, there is no legal provision that stands in the way of the 
ADV function being combined with other mandates. While the institutional architecture may 
vary,  it  appears  that  the  larger  ADVs  such  as  RADAR  and  Meldpunt  Discriminatie  Regio 
Amsterdam  focus  exclusively  on  the  non-discrimination  mandate.  However,  evaluations 
from 2017 and 2023  found that in some municipalities the ADV tasks  are performed by 
civil servants working under the responsibility of the local government.419 The potentially 
negative consequences of this arrangement for the impartiality of the bodies are discussed 
in the section below. 

7.4  Status of the designated bodies – general independence and resources 

a) 

Status of the bodies 

NIHR 

− 

Separate or other legal status or personality 

In terms of Dutch administrative law, the NIHR qualifies as an ‘independent administrative 
body’  (zelfstandig  bestuursorgaan).  Such  bodies  are  part  of  the  central  Government  (in 
this  case,  more  specifically,  the  Ministry  of  Justice  and  Security)  but  their  independent 
character  stems  from  the  fact  that  they  are  not  hierarchically  subordinate  to  the 
Government (on the independence of the NIHR, see under section 7.4.b below). The NIHR 
does not have legal personality but forms part of the legal person that is ‘the State’.  

Article  14(1)  of  the  NIHR  Act  prescribes  that  the  NIHR  has  a  minimum  of  nine  and  a 
maximum  of  12  members,  including  a  president  and  two  vice-presidents.  In  addition, 
substitute members may be appointed. The NIHR Act further stipulates the existence of an 
advisory  council,  which  advises  the  NIHR  on  its  strategic  planning.  The  advisory  council 
consists  (qualitate  qua)  of  the  National  Ombudsman,  the  chair  of  the  Data  Protection 
Agency, the chair of the Council for the Judiciary and a minimum of four and a maximum 
of eight members from civil society organisations concerned with the protection of one or 
more  human  rights,  from  organisations  of  employers  and  employees  and  from  the 
academic world.420  

− 

Selection of governing body 

The  NIHR  members  together  form  its  governing  body.  They  are  appointed  by  the 
Government following a proposal by the Minister for Justice and Security.421 Before making 
a proposal, the minister is advised on suitable candidates by the advisory council acting 
together with the NIHR. The advice must take account of the need for the NIHR to be an 
expert  and  independent  body  with  a  diverse  composition.  Article  16(3)  of  the  NIHR  Act 

417  Evaluatie Wet College voor de rechten van de mens (Evaluation of the National Institute of Human Rights 

Act), Tweede Kamer 2017-2018, 34 338 No. 3, p. 3. 

418  See section 7.10 below. 
419  Smit, W. et al (2017), Onderzoek naar de werking van ADV’s in de praktijk (Report on the functioning of the 

ADVs in practice), Amsterdam: Regioplan, available at: https://www.regioplan.nl/wp-
content/uploads/2018/10/16146-Eindrapport-Onderzoek-naar-de-werking-van-de-advs-in-de-praktijk-
Regioplan-29mrt17-BV.pdf, p. 47; Van Beijnhem et al (2023), Structure, tasks and financing of ADVs, p. 15. 

420  Article 15(1) and (2) NIHR Act. The appointment of advisory council members is regulated in Article 15(3) 

NIHR Act.  

421  The appointment procedure is laid down in Article 16 NIHR Act. 

91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

stipulates that vacancies for (substitute) members of the NIHR must be made public and 
brought to the attention of civil society organisations concerned with the protection of one 
or more human rights. Members (and substitute members) are appointed for a maximum 
term of six years, which is renewable (Article 17(2) NIHR Act).  

− 

Sources of funding 

The NIHR is fully funded by the central Government, primarily the Ministry of Justice and 
Security. It can independently allocate its resources to the various tasks imposed on it in 
the NIHR Act.422  

− 

Powers to recruit and manage staff 

The NIHR is supported by a staff bureau and is responsible for entering into and terminating 
employment  contracts  with  civil  servants  working  for  the  bureau  (Article  18  NIHR  Act). 
Employment conditions are similar to those of (other) civil servants in national and local 
government.  

− 

Accountability 

Provisions on the accountability of independent administrative bodies are laid down in the 
Framework  act  on  independent  administrative  bodies.  A  primary  mechanism  of 
accountability is the publication of an annual report, which is to be sent to the minister of 
Justice and Security and to Parliament.423 Article 21 of the NIHR Act adds that the annual 
report must include information on the investigations conducted by the NIHR, the advisory 
opinions it has issued as well as any other activities undertaken by it. It also stipulates that 
the  annual  report  must  be  published  and  sent  to  the  National  Ombudsman,  the  Data 
Protection  Authority,  civil  society  organisations  concerned  with  the  protection  of  one  or 
more  human  rights  and  other  advisory  bodies  concerned.  Independent  administrative 
bodies are further obliged, upon request, to provide information to the responsible minister 
where this is necessary for the latter to fulfil their function.424 This obligation also applies 
to the NIHR, however Article 20(2) of the NIHR Act specifies that there is no obligation to 
provide  information  on  ongoing  investigations,  including  investigations  into  individual 
complaints of discrimination (requests for an opinion). Finally, Article 22 of the NIHR Act 
provides  that  the  NIHR  must  report  every  five  years  to  the  Minister  of  the  Interior  and 
Kingdom Relations on the functioning of the NIHR Act and the equal treatment legislation 
(the  GETA,  ETA  and  Article  7:646  Civil  Code).425  The  minister  subsequently  reports  to 
Parliament (Article 23 NIHR Act). 

ADVs 

− 

Separate or other legal status or personality 

The  Act  on  local  anti-discrimination  services  (ADV  Act)  does  not  offer  much  in  terms  of 
legal standards or conditions that must be met by the ADVs. As explained in the previous 
subsections,  the  legal  form  of  the  ADVs  can  and  does  vary  across  municipalities.  ADVs 
often take the  form  of  non-governmental organisations  or private law foundations (with 
legal personality under private law), which are subsidised by local authorities to perform 
the  ADV  function.  However,  as  mentioned  in  section  7.3,  it  is  also  possible  for  the  ADV 
function  to  be  performed  by  civil  servants  working  at  the  level  of  local  government.  As 
previously  mentioned,  the  lack  of  uniformity  of  ADVs  has  been  found  to  hamper  their 
visibility and the ADV structure is currently in the process of being revised. As of 1 January 

422  See: https://www.mensenrechten.nl/over-ons/organisatie, last visited on 28 March 2023. 
423  Framework act on independent administrative bodies (Kaderwet zelfstandige bestuursorganen), Staatsblad 

2006, 587, Article 18. 

424  Article 20(1) Framework act on independent administrative bodies. 
425  Article 22 NIHR Act specifically mentions the GETA, ETA and Article 7:646 Civil Code. Articles 12 DDA and 

14 ADA extend the obligation to the functioning of the DDA and ADA.  

92 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

2024, all ADVs are working together in one umbrella organisation (Discriminatie.nl) (see 
section 7.1.b above). 

− 

Selection of governing body 

At present there are no dedicated rules as to how the governing body of each of the ADVs 
is  selected;  this  is  left  to  the  various  non-governmental  organisations  or  private  law 
foundations. 

− 

Sources of funding 

The ADVs are funded by the municipalities, which in turn receive financial support from the 
national Government. According to the 2023 report on the functioning of the ADVs,426 the 
current  means  of  funding  the  ADVs  constitutes  the  largest  obstacle  to  their  effective 
functioning. The contributions received by municipalities from the central Government are 
not earmarked and therefore the ADV budgets differ depending on the priority accorded to 
anti-discrimination  policy  (and  the  role  of  ADVs  therein)  in  different  municipalities.  This 
has  been  criticised,427  but  remains  the  policy.  In  2019,  the  Minister  of  the  Interior, 
responsible for the ADVs, declared that earmarking the contributions for ADVs would be 
contrary  to  the  principle  of  local  autonomy.428  In  addition  to  the  disparities  between 
municipalities caused by the existing funding mechanism, ADVs indicate that they spend a 
lot of time applying for funding.429 A solution proposed by the authors of the 2023 report, 
and endorsed by the Minister of the Interior, would be to no longer fund the ADVs via the 
municipalities but for the national Government to fund them directly.430 

− 

Powers to recruit and manage staff 

ADVs cannot rely on a specific legal competence to recruit and manage staff. Where the 
ADV  is  a  private  law  foundation,  its  powers  to  recruit  and  manage  staff  stem  from  the 
general provisions of civil law governing foundations (Article 2:285 and further of the Civil 
Code).  Where  the  ADV  function  is  performed  by  civil  servants,  the  decision  of  the 
municipality  (more  specifically,  the  college  of  mayor  and  aldermen)  to  assign  the  ADV 
function to a particular person or department within the municipal administration may be 
seen  as  the  equivalent  of  a  recruitment  decision.  Article  3  of  the  Decree  on  Local  Anti-
Discrimination Services does specify that ADVs must be organised in such a way that the 
expertise  of  so-called  ‘complaint  managers’  (klachtbehandelaren  –  ADV  staff  members 
tasked  with  providing  assistance  to  people  who  complain  about  discrimination)  is 
guaranteed.  The  Decree  also  contains  several  provisions  on  the  independence  of  ADVs 
which are discussed under section 7.4.b below.  

− 

Accountability 

426  Van Beijnhem et al (2023), Structure, tasks and financing of ADVs, p. 16. 
427  Smit, W. et al (2017), Onderzoek naar de werking van ADV’s in de praktijk (Report on the functioning of the 

ADVs in practice), Amsterdam: Regioplan March 2017, p. v. The report is available at: 
https://www.regioplan.nl/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/16146-Eindrapport-Onderzoek-naar-de-werking-
van-de-advs-in-de-praktijk-Regioplan-29mrt17-BV.pdf. 

428  Tweede Kamer 2019-2020, 30 590, No. 179, p. 3. For the present situation, see e.g. Huisman, C. (2023) 

‘Antidiscriminatiebureaus zoeken meer bekendheid en meer geld: “Gek dat zo’n groot thema zo onzichtbaar 
wordt afgehandeld”’ (ADVs are looking for more exposure and more money: ‘Odd that such a big issue is 
dealt with so invisibly’), De Volkskrant 21 March 2023, via: https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-
achtergrond/antidiscriminatiebureaus-zoeken-meer-bekendheid-en-meer-geld-gek-dat-zo-n-groot-thema-
zo-onzichtbaar-wordt-afgehandeld~b89fdadb/.  

429  Van Beijnhem et al (2023), Structure, tasks and financing of ADVs, p. 16. 
430  Tweede Kamer 2023-2024, 30 950, No. 354. 

93 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

In  terms  of  accountability,  Article  3(1)  ADV  Act  provides  that  the  college  of  mayor  and 
aldermen (the ‘municipal government’) must report annually to the Minister of the Interior 
and Kingdom Relations on the complaints registered by the ADV in their municipality.431 

b) 

Independence of the bodies 

NIHR 

Article  4  of  the  NIHR  Act  explicitly  stipulates  that  ‘The  Institute  is  independent  in  the 
performance  of  its  duties’.  The  NIHR  Act  contains  various  provisions  to  guarantee  this 
independence. The personal independence of the NIHR members and substitute members 
is largely regulated in Articles 17 and 17a. Amongst other things, these provisions stipulate 
that  (substitute)  members  are  appointed  for  a  (renewable)  maximum  term  of  six  years 
and that civil servants working under the responsibility of  Government ministers are not 
eligible  to  be  appointed.  Regarding  disciplinary  measures  (including  dismissals)  the 
provisions  of  the  Act  on  the  legal  status  of  members  of  the  judiciary  (Wet  rechtspositie 
rechterlijke ambtenaren) are made to apply to the (substitute) members of the NIHR as 
well. 

In terms of functional independence, Article 5 NIHR Act provides that the NIHR advise the 
Dutch  Government,  Parliament  and  relevant  administrative  bodies  on  (proposed) 
legislation not only on request but also of its own accord. Article 8(2) of the NIHR Act states 
that Government ministers must make themselves available to engage in discussion with 
the NIHR regarding investigations, reports, recommendations and advisory opinions by the 
NIHR that concern them. Article 20(1) of the NIHR Act stipulates that the Minister of Justice 
and Security has no competence to issue guidelines concerning the exercise by the NIHR 
of  its  functions.  It  was  already  mentioned  under  section  7.4.a  above  that  there  is  no 
obligation  for  the  NIHR  to  provide  information  to  the  Government  on  ongoing 
investigations,  including  investigations  into  individual  complaints  of  discrimination 
(requests for an opinion). Finally, Article 20(3)  of the NIHR Act ensures that opinions or 
other decisions issued by the NIHR in the exercise of its quasi-judicial function may not be 
quashed by the Government. 

It follows that rather strong legal guarantees exist regarding the independence of the NIHR, 
including in the exercise of its quasi-judicial function. It is the impression of the author of 
this report that the NIHR is also independent in practice.  

ADVs 

The  ADV  Act  provides  in  Article  2(1)(a)  that  it  is  the  task  of  the  ADVs  to  provide 
independent assistance to victims of discrimination. Article 2 of the Decree on  local anti-
discrimination  services  sets  out  guarantees  to  ensure  that  complaint  managers 
(klachtbehandelaren) are independent of the municipality serviced by the ADV for which 
they work. Thus, a complaint manager may not simultaneously be a member of the college 
of mayor and aldermen of that municipality or be hierarchically inferior to  the college in 
any other way. The latter provision was inserted in 2019 after an evaluation found that the 
requirement  of  independence  was  not  always  met,  as  in  some  municipalities  the  ADV 
function was performed by civil servants working for the same municipality.432 However, 
the 2023 report on the functioning of the ADVs (see section 7.1 above) signalled that the 
problem  persists.  In  addition,  ADVs  experience  a  lack  of  independence  vis-à-vis 

431  Article 13 of the Decree on local anti-discrimination services specifies the elements that must be included in 
the report, including the grounds of discrimination concerned, the fields in which the discrimination took 
place and how the complaints were dealt with. 

432  Smit, W. et al (2017), Onderzoek naar de werking van ADV’s in de praktijk (Report on the functioning of the 
ADVs in practice), Amsterdam: Regioplan, p. 47. The report is available at: https://www.regioplan.nl/wp-
content/uploads/2018/10/16146-Eindrapport-Onderzoek-naar-de-werking-van-de-advs-in-de-praktijk-
Regioplan-29mrt17-BV.pdf. 

94 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

municipalities  due  to  the  fact  that  they  receive  their  funding  via  the  municipalities  (see 
section 7.4.a above).433 

c) 

Resources 

NIHR 

− 

Annual budget  

After  an  initial  increase  in  budget  and  staff  for  the  NIHR  compared  to  the  resources 
allocated to the former ETC, in 2015 the budget for the NIHR was back to the level that 
was allocated to the former ETC, due to overall budget cuts during the economic crisis.434 
The NIHR has received additional funding to monitor the implementation of the CRPD since 
it was given this task in 2016. For 2023, the NIHR as a whole (not only the equality body 
mandate)  was  granted  a  budget  of  EUR 9 667 000.435  Information  for  2024  was  not 
available at the time of writing this report. 

− 

Share of annual budget dedicated to the equality body mandate 

No information is available in the annual plans and annual reports of the NIHR about the 
share  of  the  annual  budget  and  the  available  full-time  equivalent  staff  dedicated  to  the 
equality body mandate. 

It is the impression of the author of this report that the staff and budget available to the 
NIHR  allow  it  to  fulfil  the  tasks  assigned  to  it,  including  the  equality  body  mandate. 
However, expansion of its budget and/or staff would enable the Institute to conduct more 
in-depth investigations into the prevalence of complex or hidden forms of discrimination, 
including algorithmic discrimination.  

− 

Total number of staff 

In 2023, the NIHR had a staff of 77.6 full-time equivalent (FTE) for the Institute as a whole 
(not  only  the  equality  body  mandate).436  Information  for  2024  was  not  available  at  the 
time of writing this report. 

- 

Number of staff dedicated to the equality body mandate 

Unknown. 

ADVs 

− 

Annual budget 

An evaluation report published in 2017 stated that the financial support received by the 
municipalities  for  the  ADVs  did  not  match  the  increasing  costs  of  the  core  ADV  tasks 
(assisting  victims  and  registering  discrimination  complaints).  The  report  also  found  that 
differences in the functioning of ADVs, in particular the extent to which they are active in 
preventing  discrimination,  were  linked  to  varying  levels  of  financial  support.  The  2023 
report on the functioning of the ADVs states that, in 2021, the ‘indicative budget’ for ADVs 
was  raised  from  EUR 0.37  to  EUR 0.77  per  inhabitant  served  by  the  ADV.  However,  as 
explained under  section 7.4.a, the  contributions  received by municipalities  for the ADVs 

433  Van Beijnhem et al (2023), Structure, tasks and financing of ADVs, pp. 15-16. 
434  See the financial evaluation of the NIHR of November 2015, published as Annex to Tweede Kamer 2015-

2016, 34 338, No. 1.  

435  NIHR (2023) Year Plan 2023 (Jaarplan 2023), available at: 

https://publicaties.mensenrechten.nl/publicatie/118dc1a6-1863-4a00-ab45-04e7f0e8bbf0, p. 32. The 
amount mentioned in the text refers to the total of funds received by the NIHR in 2023. This amount 
matches the total amount spent (Year Plan 2023, p. 31). 

436  NIHR (2023) Year Plan 2023, p. 32. 

95 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

are not earmarked and there is no requirement for municipalities to spend any particular 
amount on the ADVs. As a result, some municipalities dedicate the indicated amount of 
EUR 0.77 per inhabitant to the ADVs, whereas for other municipalities the amount is less 
or even nothing at all.437 In 2023, the Government pledged an additional EUR 2.5 million 
per year to strengthen the activities of the ADVs aimed at preventing discrimination.438 

− 

Number of staff  

Aggregated  information  about  the  exact  number  of  staff  members  of  the  ADVs  is  not 
available. 

7.5  Grounds and fields covered by the designated bodies 

NIHR 

Under  its  non-discrimination  mandate,  the  NIHR  deals  with  all  discrimination  grounds 
mentioned in the GETA, DDA, ADA and Civil Code. Thus it covers racial or ethnic origin, 
religion or belief, political opinion, hetero- or homosexual orientation, sex,439 nationality, 
civil status, disability, age, ‘working time’ and ‘type of labour contract’. In the selection of 
its (substitute) members and supporting staff, the NIHR strives for sufficient diversity to 
ensure that relevant expertise regarding all grounds is present. 

The  NIHR  mandate  covers  the  fields  employment,  education  and  goods  and  services 
(including  housing  and healthcare)  for  all  the  grounds  mentioned  in  the  GETA  (racial  or 
ethnic origin, religion or belief, political opinion, hetero- or homosexual orientation, sex,440 
nationality and civil status) as well as for disability. It covers the field of social protection 
only in relation to the ground racial or ethnic origin. Age discrimination is covered only in 
the field of employment (including vocational education).441  

In its multi-annual strategic programmes, the NIHR indicates focus areas that may relate 
to  specific  discrimination  grounds.  For  the  period  2020-2023  the  NIHR’s  strategic 
programme  comprises  two  focus  areas,  namely  ‘digitalisation  and  human  rights’  and 
‘gender  equality  and  human  rights’.442  At  the  time  of  writing  this  report,  a  multi-annual 
strategic  programme  for  2024  and  beyond  had  not  yet  been  published.  However,  in  its 
annual plan for 2024, the NIHR announced that future focus areas would include income 
security  as  well  as  institutional  racism,  including  as  a  result  of  algorithmic  decision 
making.443  As far as the NIHR’s quasi-judicial function is concerned, the level of attention 
that  is  given  to  the  different  discrimination  grounds  is  determined  by  the  complaints 
received. As can be seen in section 7.10 below, the NIHR usually receives a relatively large 
number  of  complaints  relating  to  the  grounds  of  sex,  racial  or  ethnic  origin,  age  and 
disability. 

It is the impression of the author of this report that the attention paid by the NIHR to the 
different  grounds  of  discrimination  included  in  its  mandate  is  balanced  and  reasonably 
reflects  the  prevalence  of  different  forms  of  discrimination  in  Dutch  society.  Disability 
discrimination is receiving considerably more attention than before, in view of the NIHR’s 
mandate to monitor the implementation of the CRPD. Although strictly speaking this task 
is  separate  from  the  non-discrimination  mandate,  it  can  be  assumed  that  the  NIHR’s 

437  Van Beijnhem et al (2023), Structure, tasks and financing of ADVs, p. 16. 
438  Tweede Kamer 2023-2024, 30 950, No. 354, p. 3. This budget uplift was confirmed in Tweede Kamer 2023-

2024, 30 950, No. 365. 

439  In GETA, this includes sex characteristics, gender identity and gender expression. 
440  In GETA, this includes sex characteristics, gender identity and gender expression. 
441  Art. 10(1) NIHR Act, Art. 12 DDA and Art. 14 ADA. 
442  NIHR (2021) Annual report 2020 (Jaarverslag 2020), p. 10. The annual report is available at: 
https://publicaties.mensenrechten.nl/publicatie/94993e8f-83d9-4dcf-aaa0-ff6ee84555fd.  

443  NIHR (2023) Annual plan 2024, p.8, https://publicaties.mensenrechten.nl/publicatie/022d851e-fc41-40c9-

b6fa-c2644a275c48. 

96 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

mandate concerning the CRPD has resulted in an increase in both awareness and expertise 
in the field of disability discrimination.  

ADVs 

The mandate of the ADVs covers the same grounds and fields as that of the NIHR.444 For 
both ADV tasks, i.e. the  registration  of discrimination reports and assistance to victims, 
the level of attention that is given to each of the discrimination grounds is determined by 
the reports/complaints received. 

7.6  Competences of the designated bodies – and their independent and effective 

exercise  

a) 

Independent assistance to victims 

In  the  Netherlands,  the  NIHR  does  not  have  the  competence  to  provide  independent 
assistance to victims. The role of assisting victims is seen as being in conflict with the role 
of independently investigating individual complaints and giving an authoritative opinion on 
them. However, the local ADVs do fulfil this function.445 The role of these organisations is 
mainly  to  assist  victims  of  discrimination  and  to  monitor  developments  with  respect  to 
discrimination in society. They bring many cases of discrimination to the attention of the 
NIHR and the courts, including in the form of public interest actions or collective actions. 
They also set up situation testing processes, in order to bring systemic discrimination to 
light, especially in the area of cafés and nightclubs (see section 6.2 of this report).446  

It is the impression of the author of this report that, in general, the ‘assistance to victims’ 
competence  is  exercised  by  the  ADVs  in  an  effective  and  independent  manner.  Local 
variations do, however, exist, whereby generally speaking larger ADVs tend to have more 
expertise and are able to function more effectively than smaller ones.  

Of course, victims of discrimination may also seek assistance from third parties, notably 
law  firms,  but  there  is  no  specific  competence  or  arrangement  for  this.  Large  law  firms 
occasionally  engage  in  projects  to  provide  pro  bono  assistance  in  discrimination 
procedures.447  Also  worth  mentioning  is  PILP  (the  Public  Interest  Litigation  Project),  a 
collective of lawyers engaging in strategic litigation in the field of human rights, including 
discrimination.448 Although PILP’s focus is on strategic litigation and not on assistance to 
individual victims, the two are not always mutually exclusive. For example, in a case on 
ethnic profiling against the Dutch Border Police (Koninklijke Marechaussee) the claimants, 
who  were  legally  supported  by  PILP,  were  both  NGOs  acting  in  the  public  interest  and 
individuals who had been subjected to ethnic profiling.449  

444  Article 2(1)(a) Act on Local Anti-Discrimination Services. 
445  Article 2(1)(a) Act on Local Anti-Discrimination Services.  
446  The national expert centre Art.1 (www.art1.nl) supports the work of the local ADVs by, for example, offering 
training to ADV staff. Art.1 mainly has a role in monitoring developments in society with regard to (non-) 
discrimination and bringing instances of (structural) discrimination to the attention of the general public and 
politicians. The grounds covered are religion and belief, political opinion, hetero- or homosexual orientation, 
sex, nationality and civil (or marital) status, disability and age. 

447  One example is a cooperation between law firm Allen & Overy and Meldpunt Discriminatie Regio 

Amsterdam, the ADV for the region of Amsterdam, that was started in 2020, see: 
https://mdra.nl/samenwerking-met-allen-overy/.  

448  See: https://pilpnjcm.nl/en/about-pilp/.  
449  See Flash report Netherlands (2021) ‘Ruling by District Court of The Hague’, 14 October 2021, European 

network of legal experts in gender equality and non-discrimination, see: 
https://www.equalitylaw.eu/downloads/5526-netherlands-ruling-by-district-court-the-hague-of-22-
september-2021-ecli-nl-rbdha-2021-10283-95-kb. 

97 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

b) 

Independent surveys and reports 

In  the  Netherlands,  the  NIHR  has  the  competence  to  conduct  independent  surveys  and 
publish  independent  reports.450  The  NIHR  makes  extensive  use  of  this  competence.  In 
2021, for instance, it issued reports on the use of algorithms by municipalities and online 
job-advertising platforms and policy briefs on ethnic profiling and institutional racism.  

The NIHR engages in strategic planning by means of multi-annual programmes. For the 
period  2020-2023,  its  focus  was  on  digitalisation  and  gender  equality.451  Surveys  and 
reports  are  published  on  the  website  of  the  NIHR  and  are  often  referred  to  in  policy 
documents.452 The NIHR also reports on the human rights situation in the Netherlands to 
UN human rights treaty bodies in the context of treaty monitoring procedures. 

It is the impression of the author of this report that the NIHR effectively fulfils its reporting 
function in an independent manner. As far as the reporting function is concerned, no clear 
separation exists between the NIHR’s non-discrimination mandate and its mandate as the 
national human rights institute. While most reports are not linked to  specific complaints 
and  are  therefore  best  understood  as  falling  under  the  NIHR’s  general  human  rights 
mandate, this is not always the case. A clear example is the report that was published in 
2022 in the context of the childcare benefits affair (see section 3.2.6 above) and that was 
presented by the NIHR as the result of a ‘pre-investigation’ in relation to several individual 
complaints  received  by  the  equality  body  concerning  potential  discrimination  in  the 
allocation of childcare benefits. In the report the NIHR established that childcare recipients 
with  a  migration  background  were  more  likely  to  have  been  subjected  to  fraud  controls 
and  enforcement  by  the  Tax  Agency/Benefits  Department  and  concluded  that  these 
findings  could  serve  to  establish  a  presumption  of  discrimination  in  individual 
procedures.453  

The  ADV  Act  does  not  provide  ADVs  with  a  legal  competence  to  conduct  independent 
surveys and publish reports.  

Other organisations also report on the prevalence and causes of discrimination. The main 
(publicly funded) research institution in this regard is the Netherlands Institute for Social 
Research  (Sociaal  Cultureel  Planbureau,  SCP).  In  2013,  an  SCP  study  revealed  that 
harassment  at  work  is  one  of  the  greatest  problems  encountered  by  lesbian,  gay  and 
bisexual  people,454  followed  in  2015  by  a  report  on  labour  market  discrimination  in  The 
Hague.455 The SCP also reports on experiences of discrimination.456 

c) 

Recommendations 

In the Netherlands, the NIHR has the competence to make recommendations in the field 
of human rights, which includes discrimination issues. The NIHR Act distinguishes between 
the following tasks: 

450  Articles 3(a) and (b) and 4 NIHR Act. 
451  See: NIHR (2020) Strategic plan 2020-2023, https://publicaties.mensenrechten.nl/publicatie/3798cb93-

09f5-407b-a092-1abc688cff8d.  

452  See: www.mensenrechten.nl/nl/publicaties. 
453  See: NIHR (2022) Preliminary investigation into alleged discriminatory effects of the working methods of the 
Tax and Customs Administration, https://publicaties.mensenrechten.nl/publicatie/a356efac-8752-4843-
a86c-665bb0a98667.  

454  See the SCP (2014), Seksuele oriëntatie en werk. Ervaringen van lesbische, homoseksuele, biseksuele en 
heteroseksuele werknemers (Sexual orientation and work. Experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and 
heterosexual employees). In December 2013, the Minister of Education, Culture and Science sent a letter to 
Parliament on the topic of discrimination against LGBT employees, see Tweede Kamer 2013-2014, 30 420, 
No. 204. 

455  SCP (2015), Op Afkomst Afgewezen (Rejected due to origin): 

https://www.scp.nl/publicaties/publicaties/2015/06/17/op-afkomst-afgewezen. 

456  For the latest report see SCP (2020), Ervaren Discriminatie in Nederland (Experiences of discrimination in 

the Netherlands), available at: https://www.scp.nl/publicaties/publicaties/2020/04/02/ervaren-
discriminatie-in-nederland-ii. 

98 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

− 

− 

− 

− 

− 

making  recommendations  regarding  the  human  rights  situation  in  the  Netherlands 
(including the right to non-discrimination) (Article 3(b) NIHR Act); 
providing  advice  to  the  Government,  Parliament  and  other  relevant  administrative 
bodies on (proposed) legislation and policy in the field of human rights. This includes 
statutory acts and other types of legislation (e.g. Government decrees and municipal 
regulations),  the  NIHR  can  also  advise  the  Dutch  Parliament  and  other  relevant 
administrative bodies on proposals for binding decisions to be taken at the level of 
the EU or other international organisations (Articles 3(c) and 5 NIHR Act); 
promoting the ratification and implementation of and compliance with international 
human rights treaties and the removal of reservations to such treaties (Article 3(g) 
NIHR Act); 
promoting the implementation of and compliance with binding decisions on human 
rights by international governmental organisations (Article 3(h) NIHR Act); and 
promoting compliance with European and international recommendations regarding 
human rights (Article 3(i) NIHR Act). 

It  is  the  impression  of  the  author  of  this  report  that  the  NIHR  effectively  fulfils  its 
recommendation function in an independent manner.  

The ADV Act does not provide a power to issue recommendations. 

d) 

Prevention, promotion and awareness-raising 

The NIHR has the competence to engage in prevention, promotion and awareness-raising 
in the field of human rights, including equal treatment and non-discrimination. The NIHR 
Act distinguishes between the following tasks: 

- 

- 
- 

providing  training/education  (voorlichting)  and  stimulating  and  coordinating 
education in the field of human rights (Article 3(d) NIHR Act); 
stimulating research into human rights protection (Article 3(e) NIHR Act); and 
working  together,  on  a  structural  basis,  with  civil  society  organisations  and  with 
national,  European  and  international  institutions  concerned  with  human  rights 
protection, including by organising activities together with civil society organisations 
(Article 3(f) NIHR Act).  

It  is  the  impression  of  the  author  of  this  report  that  the  NIHR  effectively  fulfils  these 
functions  in  an  independent  manner;  indeed,  its  independence  does  not  seem  to  be 
disputed.  

One example of its activities in relation to prevention, promotion and awareness-raising is 
the  strategic  programme  ‘Getting  past  stereotypes’  (Vooroordelen  voorbij)  that  was 
launched in 2022 and ran until 2024. The programme combined training and education on 
the functioning of stereotypes and aimed to prevent discrimination by public bodies tasked 
with the implementation of Government policies (uitvoeringsorganen).457 

The  NIHR’s  annual  programmes  (jaarplannen)  indicate  that  NIHR  members  regularly 
participate in activities organised by stakeholders, including civil society organisations, in 
particular where such activities  relate to the focus areas  established in the multi-annual 
programme in force. The author of this report is not in a position to assess the quality of 
the cooperation between the NIHR and civil society organisations. 

The ADV Act does not provide a power to engage in prevention, promotion and awareness-
raising. Nevertheless, several (especially larger) ADVs do undertake activities in this field. 
For  example,  RADAR  offers  training  and  workshops  to  employers  on  how  to  prevent 
discrimination  and  promote  diversity  and  inclusion.  It  also  supports  civil  society 
organisations,  such  as  the  Rotterdam  platform  against  employment  discrimination 

457  See: NIHR (2023) Beyond prejudices: multi-year plan 2022-2024, 

https://publicaties.mensenrechten.nl/publicatie/1d451eba-0c9f-4dec-90a3-2b0fad9ddb1d.  

99 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

(010inclusief).458 In the 2023 report on the functioning of ADVs (see section 7.1) the lack 
of a legal obligation to engage in prevention and awareness raising was mentioned as a 
significant obstacle to the effective functioning of the ADVs in combating discrimination.459 

e)  Other competences 

Besides  the  competences  discussed  above,  the  NIHR  acts  as  a  quasi-judicial  body  in 
relation to discrimination complaints (see section 7.8 below). 

In addition to providing legal assistance to victims, the ADVs are responsible for registering 
and reporting on complaints of discrimination (Article 2(1)(b) ADV Act). 

7.7  Legal standing of the designated bodies 

In  the  Netherlands,  the  NIHR  has  legal  standing  to  bring  discrimination  complaints  on 
behalf of identified victim(s) and ex officio to court (Article 13 NIHR Act). The NIHR can 
make  three  types  of  claims:  a  declaration  that  the  allegedly  discriminatory  act  was 
unlawful; a prohibition on engaging in such an act; or an order to undo the consequences 
of an allegedly discriminatory act. A claim can only be made if the person affected by the 
disputed act does not object (Article 13(2) NIHR). To date the NIHR has not made use of 
its competence to bring discrimination cases before the courts.  

In  2016  the  NIHR  intervened  for  the  first  time  as  a  third  party  in  proceedings  at  the 
European Court of Human Rights through an amicus curiae submission, but this was not in 
a non-discrimination case.460 

The  ADVs,  at  least  to  the  extent  that  they  are  foundations  with  legal  personality  under 
private law (see section 7.4 above), can bring claims to court within the framework of the 
general rules of Dutch civil law concerning actions on behalf of victims and public interest 
actions  or  collective  actions  (see  section  6.2  above).  For  example,  the  ADV  RADAR  was 
one of the claimants in the case against the Dutch Border Police on ethnic profiling (see 
section 7.6.a above). However, no overall data on such actions are available. 

7.8  Dispute resolution 

a)  Quasi-judicial functions 

In the Netherlands, the NIHR is a quasi-judicial institution (Articles 3(a) and 10 NIHR Act). 
It cannot issue binding enforceable decisions. It can issue non-binding opinions.  

In  the  Netherlands,  there  is  no  separate  quasi-judicial  body/institution,  other  than  the 
NIHR, competent to decide on discrimination cases. The ADVs are not considered (quasi-) 
judicial institutions; for that reason, they are not discussed in this subsection. 

i) 

Power to impose sanctions  

The NIHR does not have the power to impose sanctions.  

NIHR  opinions  indicate  whether  or  not  the  defendant  has  acted  in  compliance  with  the 
Dutch equal treatment legislation. In addition, the NIHR may issue a recommendation to 
the  defendant  party  (Article  11(2)  NIHR  Act)  -  although  it  does  not  have  to.  The  NIHR 
occasionally  makes  use  of  this  competence,  for  example  by  indicating  to  the  defendant 

458  See: RADAR website: ‘Job market discrimination reports’, https://radar.nl/themas-

discriminatie/discriminatie-op-de-arbeidsmarkt/. 

459  Van Beijnhem et al (2023), Structure, tasks and financing of ADVs. 
460  ECtHR, Maassen v. The Netherlands, ECtHR 9 February 2021, application No. 10982/15; ECtHR, Zohlandt v. 

The Netherlands, ECtHR9 February 2021, application No. 69491/16 and ECtHR, Hasselbaink v. The 
Netherlands, ECtHR9 February 2021, application No. 73329/16. 

100 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

party what measures could be taken to prevent future discrimination. The NIHR also has 
the option of bringing its opinions to the attention of relevant Government ministers and 
organisations,  including  employer’s  organisations,  organisations  of  civil  servants  and 
consumer organisations (Article 11(3) NIHR Act). 

ii) 

Possibility to appeal 

No appeal is possible in relation to the opinions of the NIHR, but the fact that a case has 
been  decided  by  the  NIHR  does  not  prevent  the  complainant  from  introducing  a  claim 
before a court in order to obtain a binding judgment. 

iii) 

Implementation of non-binding opinions  

The Opinions of the NIHR are well respected. The NIHR keeps track of the follow-up to its 
Opinions in its annual ‘Discrimination cases monitor’ (see section 7.10 below). According 
to  this  monitor,  when  the  NIHR  issues  an  Opinion  in  around  four  out  of  five  cases  this 
results in a measure being taken by the defendant company or institution. This may be an 
individual  measure  (applicable  only  to  the  complainant,  for  example  an  apology),  a 
structural  measure  (such  as  an  adjustment  of  existing  procedures)  or  a  combination  of 
both.  The  most  recent  available  figures,  for  2024,  show  that  a  follow-up  measure  was 
taken in 81 % of cases.461 

b) 

Amicable settlements 

There are no legal provisions, in the NIHR Act or implementing legislation, establishing a 
competence for the NIHR to offer the parties to a discrimination complaint the possibility 
of seeking an amicable resolution. This does not mean that the NIHR cannot suggest that 
the parties seek an amicable settlement, for example where this has been offered by the 
defendant  and  the  NIHR  believes  that  a  settlement  could  be  in  the  interests  of  the 
complainant. However, no established procedure exists for this purpose. 

The ADVs are tasked with providing assistance to victims of discrimination. Such assistance 
can  consist  of  mediating  between  the  complainant  and  the  person  or  institution  that 
allegedly committed a discriminatory act. This possibility is expressly provided for in Article 
4(2)(c) of the Decree on local anti-discrimination services. Mediation by an ADV requires 
the consent of both the complainant and the defendant party and takes place after both 
parties have been given the opportunity to present their views (Article 11 Decree on local 
anti-discrimination  services).  No  legal  provisions  exist  regarding  the  coincidence  of 
procedures before the NIHR and the ADVs. However, it is understood that (attempts at) 
mediation by an ADV will normally take place before a complaint is submitted to the NIHR 
and  that  the  introduction  of  such  a  complaint  can  be  a  next  step  in  the  event  that  the 
mediation is not successful.  

7.9  Procedural safeguards 

In  the  Netherlands,  the  tasks  of  providing  assistance  to  persons  who  experienced 
discrimination and deciding on complaints of discrimination are allocated to different bodies 
(the  ADVs  and  the  NIHR).  Therefore,  there  is  no  need  for  safeguards  separating  the 
exercise of these functions within one and the same body.  

Procedural  safeguards  concerning  the  exercise  by  the  NIHR  of  its  quasi-judicial  function 
are  laid  down  in  the  Decree  on  the  procedure  for  the  investigation  of  discrimination 
complaints  (Besluit  werkwijze  onderzoek  gelijke  behandeling).462  The  Decree  contains, 
amongst  other  things,  guarantees  for  the  impartiality  of  NIHR  members  deciding  on 
discrimination  complaints  and  provisions  ensuring  ‘equality  of  arms’.  In  particular,  the 

461  Monitor Discriminatiezaken 2023 (Discrimination cases monitor 2023).   
462  Decree on the procedure for the investigation of discrimination complaints (Besluit werkwijze onderzoek 

gelijke behandeling), Staatsblad 2012, 394. 

101 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

Decree mentions possibilities of recusal and challenge in case of any prior involvement in 
the matter that could affect (objective) impartiality of the Chamber sitting in the case. 463 
Article 18 of the Decree stipulates that hearings held by the NIHR are public, unless weighty 
reasons exist to the contrary. 

The Decree on local anti-discrimination services provides that the ADVs must be impartial 
in the fulfilment of their tasks and that they must ensure that complaints of discrimination 
are not handled by staff members who have a personal interest in the case.464  

7.10 Data collection by the designated bodies  

a) 

Registration of complaints and decisions 

in  a  single  annual 

Since  2016,  data  regarding  reports  of  discrimination  to  various  bodies  are  published 
together 
in  [year]’ 
report  entitled 
(Discriminatiecijfers in [jaar]). This publication includes reports of discrimination made to 
the  police,  the  anti-discrimination  services  (ADVs),  the  reporting  point  for  internet 
discrimination (MiND in Dutch) and the NIHR. Since 2020, the report also includes reports 
of  discrimination  received  by  the  National  Ombudsman  and  the  Children’s  Ombudsman. 
This integrated reporting qualifies as a strong practice of Dutch anti-discrimination policy, 
as  bringing  together  information  from  different  actors  provides  better  insight  into  the 
occurrence of discrimination in the Netherlands. 

‘Discrimination  data 

Details on the number of complaints reported to the NIHR and the ADVs and the number 
of decisions taken by the NIHR are mentioned below. As regards general trends, the most 
recent  combined  report  (‘Discrimination  data  in  2023’)  mentions  that,  for  each  of  the 
bodies included, racial or ethnic origin is among the top  three discrimination grounds.465 
Nevertheless, 28 % of the reports made to the police and 14 % of the reports made to the 
reporting  point  for  internet  discrimination  related  to  sexual  orientation,  whereas  reports 
on disability were more common before the NIHR (24 %) and the ADVs (12 %).466 Both 
the police and the ADVs received (greatly) increased numbers of reports of antisemitism 
and anti-Muslimism discrimination, partly due to the Israel-Palestine conflict.467 In 2023, 
the  police  received  272  reports  of  discrimination  based  on  religion  (a  57 %  increase 
compared  to  2022),  of  which  94 %  concerned  anti-Muslim  discrimination:  62  reports 
concerned  discrimination  against  women  wearing  headscarves;  discriminatory  violence 
against Muslims was reported to the police 30 times in  2023, compared to four times in 
2022. More than half of these incidents concerned women wearing headscarves.468 

NIHR 

In the Netherlands, the NIHR registers the number of complaints of discrimination made 
and the decisions (by ground, field, type of discrimination, etc.). These data are available 
to  the  public.  The  NIHR  publishes  a 
‘Discrimination  cases  monitor’  (Monitor 
discriminatiezaken)  that  contains  data  on  the  number  of  questions  and  reports  of 
discrimination it received, requests for opinions, opinions issued and follow-up measures 
taken  by  defendant  parties.  The  monitor  includes  tables  in  which  the  data  are 
disaggregated by discrimination ground, field and the outcome of the complaints procedure 
(e.g.  opinion,  settlement,  complaint  withdrawn).  As  of  2023  the  ‘Discrimination  cases 

463  Decree on the procedure for the investigation of discrimination complaints, Article 3. 
464  Articles 2(5) and (6) Decree on local anti-discrimination services. 
465  Netherlands Government (2024) Discriminatiecijfers in 2023 (Discrimination data in 2023), p. 16, available 
at:  https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/rapporten/2024/04/19/rapport-discriminatiecijfers-in-2023. 
466  Netherlands Government (2024) Discriminatiecijfers in 2023 (Discrimination data in 2023), p. 16, available 

at: https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/rapporten/2024/04/19/rapport-discriminatiecijfers-in-2023. 

467  Netherlands Government (2024) Discriminatiecijfers in 2023 (Discrimination data in 2023), pp. 24-25, 

available at: https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/rapporten/2024/04/19/rapport-discriminatiecijfers-
in-2023. 

468  Netherlands Government (2024) Discriminatiecijfers in 2023 (Discrimination data in 2023), pp. 24-25, 

available at: https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/rapporten/2024/04/19/rapport-discriminatiecijfers-
in-2023. 

102 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

monitor’  is  in  the  form  of  an  online  dashboard.469  As  of  2024  the  dashboard  is  updated 
twice per year (previously this  was once per year).470 The NIHR website also includes  a 
database which allows searches for opinions by year, ground and/or field.471 

The tables below show the number of requests for ETC/NIHR opinions and the number of 
opinions issued.  

Number of requests for an ETC/NIHR Opinion472 
Year: 
2019 
2020 
2021 
2022 
2023 
2024 

Number of requests: 
541 
638 
739 
670 
580 
621 

In  2024,  the  majority  of  requests  related  to  discrimination  on  grounds  of  disability  and 
chronic  illness  (157  requests),  followed  by  sex  (113  requests)  and  race  (101  requests). 
Ten  requests  were  made  for  an  opinion  related  to  sexual  orientation,  37  requests  were 
made regarding the ground religion or belief and 32 relating to age. Many requests do not 
result  in  an  opinion,  they  may  be  declared  inadmissible,  closed  or  withdrawn  by  the 
claimant (sometimes after an agreement has been reached). 

2020 
N  % 

2021 
N  % 

Number of opinions per ground (one opinion may cover multiple grounds)473 
2024 
N 
38 
21 
12 
2 
1 
0 
2 
0 
0 
0 

2022 
2019 
N  % 
N  % 
34  24  35  28  39  25  38  24 
32  23  21  17  34  22  38  24 
9 
8 
8 
9 
1 
3 
1 
2 
1 
3 
1 
1 
1 
4 
4 
0 

2023 
N 
33 
35 
8 
6 
0 
0 
3 
0 
2 
6 

10 
10 
5 
0 
0 
0 
3 
6 

11 
9 
0 
4 
1 
1 
1 
0 

14 
12 
1 
2 
1 
2 
2 
0 

9 
7 
0 
3 
1 
1 
1 
0 

6 
6 
2 
1 
2 
1 
3 
0 

6 
6 
3 
0 
0 
0 
2 
4 

Sex 
Race 
Nationality 
Religion 
Sexual orientation 
Civil status 
Political opinion 
Belief 
Part-time / full-time 
Temp/perm. 
Employment 
Disability  /  chronic 
illness 
Age 
Total  number  of 
opinions: 

36  26  42  34  53  34  40  25 

35 

32 

22  15  12  10  14 

9 

10 

6 

140 

124 

156 

160 

11 
141 

1 
110 

ADVs 

The most recent report (‘Discrimination data in 2023’) shows that the number of reports 
of discrimination made to the ADVs rose quite starkly compared to 2022 (from 5 281 to 

469  See https://www.mensenrechten.nl/monitor-discriminatiezaken.  
470  See: NIHR (2024) ‘Discrimination Monitor 2023: much attention to refusal of assistance dogs and pregnancy 

discrimination’, 30 January 2024, 
https://www.mensenrechten.nl/actueel/nieuws/2024/01/30/discriminatiemonitor-2023-veel-aandacht-voor-
weigeren-assistentiehonden-en-zwangerschapsdiscriminatie. 

471  See the search page: https://oordelen.mensenrechten.nl/oordelen.  
472  The data concerning requests for opinions are taken from Monitor Discriminatiezaken 2024 | College voor de 

Rechten van de Mens, visited on 1 April 2025.  

473  The data in the table are taken from https://www.mensenrechten.nl/monitor-discriminatiezaken-

2024/oordelen-2024. As of 2023, the Monitor only indicates the absolute number of opinions that were 
given. 

103 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

6 351 reports), but remained lower than in 2021 when there were 6 922 reports.474 The 
distribution of reports according to discrimination grounds does not differ much from 2022. 
The largest share of reports made to the ADVs concerned racial or ethnic origin (49 %), 
followed by disability or chronic illness (12 %) and sex (10 %). Overall, 6 % of the reports 
made  to  the  ADVs  concerned  discrimination  on  the  ground  of  religion,  of  which  71 % 
concerned anti-Muslim discrimination, while 2 % of the total number of reports made to 
the ADVs concerned antisemitism.475 Lastly, for 449 reports more than one discrimination 
ground was registered. The most reported combinations of grounds include racial/ethnic 
origin + religion, racial/ethnic origin + sex, racial/ethnic origin + nationality, racial/ethnic 
origin + disability, racial/ethnic origin + sexual orientation and sex + sexual orientation. 476 

b) 

Equality data collection 

In the Netherlands, the NIHR and ADVs do not collect general equality data.  

Article 6 of the NIHR Act enables the NIHR to require any information or documents that 
it reasonably requires to fulfil its tasks and stipulates a general obligation (on ‘everyone’) 
to provide such information and documents, subject to limited exceptions (notably in the 
interest  of  national  safety  or  where  providing  such  information  would  breach  the 
requirements of professional secrecy). The information referred to in this provision includes 
equality data  collected  by other bodies, such as Statistics Netherlands (Centraal Bureau 
voor de Statistiek) and the Netherlands Institute for Social Research (Sociaal en Cultureel 
Planbureau).  

7.11 Roma and Travellers 

The  NIHR  does  not  treat  Roma  and  Travellers  as  a  specific  priority  issue.  A  possible 
explanation could be that the social situation of Roma and Travellers in the Netherlands 
may not be so precarious (compared to other European countries) that it demands priority 
treatment. This is not to say Roma are not on the agenda of the NIHR. In recent years a 
number of successful complaints have been brought to the NIHR, especially in the field of 
housing. In its opinions the NIHR has consistently held that the ‘extinction policy’ pursued 
by many municipalities constitutes discrimination on grounds of race and violates the GETA 
(see above, section 3.2.9). In 2018 the NIHR issued advice to the Minister of the Interior 
and Kingdom Relations concerning trailer facilities for Travellers.477 

474  Netherlands Government (2024) Discriminatiecijfers in 2023 (Discrimination data in 2023), p.56, available 
at: https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/rapporten/2024/04/19/rapport-discriminatiecijfers-in-2023. 

475  Netherlands Government (2024) Discriminatiecijfers in 2023 (Discrimination data in 2023), p. 20, available 

at: https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/rapporten/2024/04/19/rapport-discriminatiecijfers-in-2023. 

476  Netherlands Government (2024) Discriminatiecijfers in 2023 (Discrimination data in 2023), p. 26, available 

at: https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/rapporten/2024/04/19/rapport-discriminatiecijfers-in-2023. 

477  NIHR (2018) Advies aan minister van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties inzake Woonwagen- en 

standplaatsenbeleid, 28 March 2018, available at: 
https://mensenrechten.nl/nl/publicatie/5b46fcdf748c2212a54517da.  

104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

8 

IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES  

8.1  Dissemination  of  information,  dialogue  with  NGOs  and  between  social 

partners 

a)  Dissemination of information about legal protection against discrimination (Article 10 

Directive 2000/43 and Article 12 Directive 2000/78)  

The equality bodies described in section 7 (the ADVs and the NIHR) play a core role in the 
dissemination of information about legal protection against discrimination. Information can 
primarily be found on the NIHR website (see also section 7.1 above) and on the collective 
ADV website (www.discriminatie.nl).  

The latest annual programme (jaarplan) of the NIHR (for 2024) mentions several intended 
activities  concerning  dissemination  of  information  about  legal  protection  against 
discrimination.478  This  includes  information  about  the  standards  set  by  the  Dutch  equal 
treatment legislation. The activities include the publication of ‘thematic files’ on selected 
discrimination  issues  on  the  NIHR  website,  presentations  and  training  for  legal 
professionals  and  publication  of  news  items  on  the  NIHR  website  and  via  social  media 
channels, including on Opinions issued by the NIHR in relation to individual complaints.  

An evaluation of the ADVs conducted in 2017 concluded that they were not always easy to 
find. In more than half of the municipalities the ADV was not (clearly) mentioned on the 
municipality’s website. Since then, several practical measures have been implemented to 
increase  public  awareness  of  the  ADVs,  including  the  creation  of  a  single  website 
(discriminatie.nl).479 

b)  Measures to encourage dialogue with NGOs with a view to promoting the principle of 

equal treatment (Article 12 Directive 2000/43 and Article 14 Directive 2000/78)  

The Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations co-ordinates all activities in the area of 
equal  treatment/non-discrimination.  In  this  capacity  and  in  cooperation  with  other 
ministries  it  often  draws  on  the  work  and  activities  of  NGOs.  The  NIHR  also  plays  an 
important role in encouraging dialogue with NGOs with a view to promoting the principle 
of equal treatment. In the NIHR annual programme for 2024 these activities are mentioned 
in  a  rather  general  manner,  e.g.  ‘maintaining  close  contacts  with  various  human  rights 
organisations,  interest  groups  other  civil  society  organisations’  and  ‘fulfilling  a  platform 
function for parties within its network’.480  

c)  Measures to promote dialogue between social partners to give effect to the principle 
of  equal  treatment  within  workplace  practices,  codes  of  practice  and  workforce 
monitoring (Article 11 Directive 2000/43 and Article 13 Directive 2000/78) 

The  Ministry  of  Social  Affairs  and  Employment  is  responsible  for  activities  to  enhance 
compliance with the  equal treatment legislation in the workplace.  In  2022  it launched a 
new action plan against employment discrimination, to be implemented in 2022-2025.481 
The  action  plan  includes  various  measures  to  inform  social  partners  (employers  and 
employees) about existing legal standards in the field of equal treatment and to stimulate 
their involvement in the implementation of legal non-discrimination norms. Although these 
measures are not directly aimed at promoting dialogue between social partners, they are 
likely to enhance such dialogue. 

478  See NIHR (2024), Annual plan for 2024 (Jaarplan 2024), 

https://publicaties.mensenrechten.nl/publicatie/022d851e-fc41-40c9-b6fa-c2644a275c48,, p. 23-24.  

479  Tweede Kamer 2019-2020, 30 590, No. 179, p. 4. 
480  NIHR (2024), Annual plan for 2024, p. 27. 
481  Action Plan against Employment Discrimination 2022-2025 (Actieplan Arbeidsmarktdiscriminatie 2022-

2025), available at: https://open.overheid.nl/documenten/ronl-
f19d4284a21931ba972d8cc2458998bfa4f53146/pdf.  

105 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

In the Netherlands, dialogue between social partners is institutionally organised within the 
Social and Economic Council (Sociaal-Economische Raad, SER).482 The themes addressed 
by the Council include ‘Diversity and inclusion’ (Diversiteit en inclusie).483 Amongst other 
things, the SER provides advice and examples of good practice for employers on how to 
make their organisations more diverse and inclusive. In 2022, considerable attention was 
paid  to  gender  equality,  partly  following  the  introduction  of  legislation  on  board  room 
quotas. 

d) 

Addressing the situation of Roma and Travellers 

No  official  body  or  agency  exists  that  is  specifically  appointed  to  address  Roma  and 
Traveller issues at the national level. However, in 2009-2010 the Government initiated a 
mechanism  for  co-ordination,  mutual  support  and  exchange  of  information  between 
municipalities with a substantial number of Roma inhabitants.484 A set of policy measures 
was drafted by the Dutch Government in 2011 to foster the social inclusion of Roma and 
Sinti  people,  as  requested  by  the  European  Commission.  In  addition,  the  Dutch 
Government developed a qualitative monitoring instrument to measure the social inclusion 
of  Roma  and  Sinti  in  the  Netherlands:  the  Social  Inclusion  Monitor  (Monitor  Sociale 
Inclusie). This instrument includes indicators such as education, employment, healthcare, 
housing and dialogue with local authorities. This monitor is updated every few years. From 
the  latest  report  it  appears  that  Roma  and  Sinti  still  face  much  inequality  in  the 
Netherlands.485 

8.2  Measures  to  ensure  compliance  with  the  principle  of  equal  treatment 

(Article 14 Directive 2000/43, Article 16 Directive 2000/78) 

a) 

Compliance of national legislation (Articles 14(a) and 16 (a)) 

To the author’s knowledge there are no laws, regulations or administrative provisions in 
the Netherlands that are contrary to the principle of equal treatment, although this cannot 
be said with certainty where (potential) indirect discrimination is concerned. 

No specific measures have been taken to implement Article 14(a) Directive 2000/43/EC 
and Article 16(a) 2000/78/EC. However, any regulations or administrative provisions that 
are  contrary  to  the  norms  laid  down  in  the  equal  treatment  legislation  can  be  declared 
invalid  by  the  courts  because  of  their  incompatibility  with  statutory  legislation. 486  If  a 
provision contrary to the principle of equal treatment is laid down in a statutory act, it can 
be declared invalid if the courts find that the act is incompatible with the provisions of the 
equality directives or with non-discrimination provisions in international law (e.g. Article 14 
ECHR or Article 26 ICCPR). 

b) 

Compliance of other rules/clauses (Articles 14(b) and 16(b)) 

Article 9 GETA, Article 13 ADA and Article 11 DDA stipulate that ‘agreements’ (bedingen) 
that are in contravention of the equal treatment legislation are null and void. This also 
concerns collective agreements. The author of this report is not aware of any cases 
where agreements have been challenged on this ground. 

482  See the Act on the Social and Economic Council (Wet op de Sociaal-Economische Raad), Staatsblad 1950, 

K22. 

483  See: Social and Economic Council, ‘Diversity and inclusion’, https://www.ser.nl/nl/thema/diversiteit-en-

inclusie, last visited on 30 March 2023. 

484  See Tweede Kamer 2008-2009, 31 700 XVIII, No. 90. 
485  Seidler, Y., Khajavi-Zijlstra, J., van Leeuwen, R., van der Schans, K., van Eerten, J.J. and Sam, N. (2024). 
486  Dutch administrative law does not allow judicial review of legislation, however, the validity of a legislative 
act can be assessed in the course of administrative proceedings directed against administrative decisions 
based on that act. 

106 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

9  COORDINATION AT NATIONAL LEVEL 

9.1  Coordination at the governmental level 

The Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations has a coordinating role regarding Dutch 
anti-discrimination  policies  because  it  is  responsible  for  the  implementation  of  the 
Constitution,  which  in  Article  1  contains  a  general  non-discrimination  provision. 
Additionally,  many  other  ministries  are  involved  in  developing  legislation  and  policies  to 
combat discrimination. The division of tasks is organised in the following way: 

1. 

2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 

6. 

Constitution, General Equal Treatment Act, local anti-discrimination services (ADVs), 
general  coordination  of  anti-discrimination  policies:  Ministry  of  the  Interior  and 
Kingdom Relations.  
Equal treatment in employment: Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment. 
Age discrimination in employment: Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment. 
Disability discrimination: Ministry of Health, Wellbeing and Sport. 
Criminal law provisions regarding discrimination, anti-discrimination policies for the 
police/public prosecution: Ministry of Justice and Security. 
Discrimination  in  education,  education  for  children  with  a  disability,  equal 
opportunities  for  women  and  LGBTIQ  people:  Ministry  of  Education,  Culture  and 
Science.487 

In  recent  years,  several  new  institutional  arrangements  were  introduced,  reflecting  the 
increased  sense  of  urgency  in  Dutch  public  and  political  debate  regarding  the  need  to 
eliminate  racism  and  discrimination.  These  include  the  National  Coordinator  against 
Discrimination and Racism (Nationaal Coördinator tegen Discriminatie en Racisme, NCDR), 
whose  primary  task  is  to  propose,  in  cooperation  with  the  various  ministries  and  other 
stakeholders, a multi-annual action plan against discrimination and racism to be adopted 
by  the  Government  (see  section  9.2  below).  Information  on  the  NCDR’s  activities  is 
available  at  www.bureauncdr.nl.  The  NCDR  was  initially  instituted  for  a  period  of  three 
years, ending in October 2024, when a decision was to be taken on the continuation of this 
institution. Instead, in June 2024 the Minister of the Interior announced that the mandate 
of the NCDR would be extended to 31 December 2025, so that the new Government, which 
was  at  that  time  being  formed  following  the  general  elections  of  November  2023,  could 
decide on its future.488 In October, the results of an evaluation of the NCDR were published 
and  sent  to  Parliament.489  The  evaluation  report  mentions  a  number  of  possible 
improvements  to  the  functioning  of  the  NCDR,  but  found  that  virtually  all  stakeholders 
consider the NCDR to be of added value and support the extension of its mandate.  

The  Government  also  appointed  a  National  Coordinator  for  Antisemitism  (NCA)  This 
position was initially established for one year, but the Government later announced that it 
would  be  structurally  embedded  within  the  Ministry  of  Justice  and  Security.490  The  NCA 
acts  as  an  independent  advisor  to  the  Minister  of  Justice  and  Security  on  the  issue  of 
tackling  discrimination,  threats  and  intimidation  against  the  Jewish  community.  A  work 
plan for the period 2022-2025 was adopted in October 2022 (see  section 9.2 below).491 
Information on the NCA’s activities is available at www.ncab.nl.  

487  Emancipation is not defined, but in recent periods emphasis has been placed on promoting the norms and 
values of gender equality and LGBTIQ rights, including for women a focus on economic independence, 
‘women to the top’ and a socially safe environment, and for LGBTIQ people social acceptance, in particular 
in bicultural and religious communities. See Minister of Education, Culture and Science (2017), Opbrengsten 
Emancipatiebeleid 2013-2017 (Results of emancipation policy 2013-2017), 20 January 2017, 
http://www.vrouwenbelangen.nl/cms/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/kamerbrief-over-opbrengsten-
emancipatiebeleid-2013-2017-1.pdf.  

488  Tweede Kamer 2023-2024, 30 950, No. 409. 
489  Mack,  A.,  Tijl,  M.,  Veenstra,  M.  and  Scholten,  T.  (2024),  Evaluation  of  the  National  Coordinator  against 
Discrimination  and  Racism  (Evaluatie  Nationaal  Coördinator  tegen  Discriminatie  en  Racisme),  Amsterdam: 
Regioplan 2024, published as Annex to Tweede Kamer 2024-2025, 30 950, No. 425. 

490  Tweede Kamer 2022-2023, 30 950, No. 317. 
491  Published as Annex to Tweede Kamer 2022-2023, 30 950, No. 317. 

107 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

Lastly,  a  State  Commission  against  Discrimination  and  Racism  (Staatscommissie  tegen 
Discriminatie  en  Racisme)  was  established  in  2022.492  It  is  the  task  of  the  State 
Commission to instigate long-term, fundamental research into discrimination and racism 
and to provide Dutch anti-discrimination policy with scientific insights. Information on the 
website: 
available 
Commission’s 
www.staatscommissietegendiscriminatieenracisme.nl. 

activities 

on 

its 

is 

9.2  National Strategies and action plans 

A  national  action  programme  against  discrimination  was  in  place  between  2016  and 
2022.493 This action programme brought together under a single umbrella various existing 
programmes and plans to combat discrimination and exclusion. Although this is not stated 
anywhere  explicitly,  it  appears  that  the  National  programme  against  discrimination  and 
racism,  presented  by  the  National  Coordinator  against  Discrimination  and  Racism  (see 
above),  was  introduced  to  replace  the  national  action  programme  in  2022.494  The  first 
edition of this National programme was published in 2022, followed by an updated second 
edition  in  2023.495  Like  the  previous  programme,  the  National  programme  against 
discrimination  and  racism  brings  together  existing  and  new  measures  to  combat 
discrimination.  The  most  recent  programme  includes  different  chapters  focusing  on 
measures  to  prevent  discrimination,  measures  to  support  and  assist  people  who 
experienced  discrimination  and  measures  to  combat  and  punish  discrimination.  The 
measures  cover  various  fields  (including  education,  the  labour  market,  housing  and 
healthcare) as well as  various forms of discrimination relating to different discrimination 
grounds (e.g. anti-black racism, anti-Muslim discrimination, discrimination against LGBTIQ 
people,  etc).  The  programme  also  covers  discrimination  against  Roma  (anti-Gypsyism), 
which is not covered in a separate action plan. The programme does not (expressly) take 
an intersectional approach. 

The  NCDR  has  indicated  that  he  considers  the  National  programme  to  be  a  ‘living 
instrument’ (groeimodel).496 In 2023, 29 new measures or ‘reinforcements’ (versterkingen) 
were added to the programme. No new measures were added in 2024.  

The National programme against discrimination and racism  is put together by the NCDR 
with the input of civil society organisations as well as professional experts and individuals 
who are directly affected by discrimination. Much of this input is gathered through ‘town 
hall sessions’ held throughout the country. In addition, in 2023 the NCDR set up the Civil 
Society Inspirational Council (Maatschappelijke Inspiratie Raad) to channel the input from 
civil society organisations.497 

In  2023  the  NDCR  supplemented  the  National  programme  with  10  additional 
recommendations  on  which  no  agreement  (bestuurlijke  overeenstemming)  could  be 
reached with or within the responsible ministries, but which the NCDR himself considered 
necessary  to  effectively  counter  discrimination  and  racism  in  Dutch  society.498  These 
recommendations included the introduction of public sector equality duties, comparable to 
those  existing  in  the  United  Kingdom  and  Ireland;  the  creation  of  a  reporting  point  for 
students  who  experience  discrimination  in  the  search  for  an  internship;  countering 

492  Tweede Kamer 2021-2022, 30 950, No. 286. This development was previously signalled in the EELN’s 2022 

flash report ‘New institutional arrangements to tackle discrimination’, 
https://www.equalitylaw.eu/downloads/5685-netherlands-new-institutional-arrangements-to-tackle-
discrimination-93-kb. 

493  Nat¡onaal Actieprogramma tegen discriminatie (National action programme against discrimination), Tweede 

Kamer 2015-2016, 30 950, No. 84. 

494  Tweede Kamer 2021-2022, 30 950, No. 316. 
495  The 2023 programme is available at https://www.bureauncdr.nl/nationaal-programma-2023.   
496  Tweede Kamer 2021-2022, 30 950, No. 316. 
497  NCDR (2023) National Programme against Discrimination and Racism 2023, p. 29. Annex I lists all town hall 
sessions, expert meetings, roundtables and other meetings and seminars organised by the NCDR to gain 
input from stakeholders. Almost 50 such meetings were held in 2023.  

498  NCDR (2023) National Programme against Discrimination and Racism 2023, p. 27. The recommendations 

are listed on pp. 6-10.  

108 

 
 
 
  
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

discrimination in healthcare, in particular by addressing ethnic and cultural stereotypes in 
guidelines  for  medical  practitioners  and  strengthening  enforcement  of  the  obligation  for 
employers  to  reduce  the  work-related  mental  pressure  on  employees  by  preventing 
discrimination in the workplace. 

In  addition  to  the  National  programme  against  discrimination  and  racism,  the  following 
policies and strategies on anti-discrimination were in place in 2024: 

− 

− 

− 

− 

− 

the  Work  Plan  of  the  National  Coordinator  on  Antisemitism  for  the  period  2022-
2025;499 
the Strategy for Combating Antisemitism 2024-2030 of the National Coordinator on 
Antisemitism for the period 2022-2025;500 
the  Action  plan  against  employment  discrimination  for  the  period  2022-2025  (see 
section 8.1.c above); 
the Agenda against racism and discrimination  of the Ministry of Education, Culture 
and Science (OCW-agenda tegen racisme en discriminatie);501  
the Memorandum on Emancipation 2022-2025 (Emancipatienota 2022-2025) of the 
Ministry of Education, Culture and Science.502 

The Work Plan of the National Coordinator on Antisemitism for 2022-2025 consists of three 
pillars:  ‘monitoring  and  follow  up’;  ‘education  and  prevention’  and  ‘remembering  and 
celebrating’. Projects within these different pillars focus on training police officers and local 
authorities to recognise and combat antisemitism; an inventory of educational projects and 
materials, including on Holocaust education; protection of Jewish institutions and buildings 
against  physical  violence  and  the  promotion  of  Jewish  cultural  heritage.  The  Work  Plan 
states  that  the  NCA  consults  ‘on  a  regular  basis’  with  various  stakeholders,  including 
representatives of the Jewish community and civil society organisations.503 At the end of 
2024, the Work Plan was complemented with a Strategy for Combating Antisemitism 2024-
2030.  This  Strategy  encompasses  the  same  three  pillars  as  the  Work  Plan,  with  the 
difference  that  the  first  pillar  was  renamed  ‘protection,  monitoring  and  follow  up’.  The 
Strategy was adopted in the context of increased tensions, especially between Muslim and 
Jewish  population  groups,  following  riots  in  Amsterdam  in  November  2024,  involving 
supporters  of  Israeli  football  club  Maccabi  Tel  Aviv.504  Earlier  in  2024,  these  tensions 
already  built  up  around  several  pro  Palestine  demonstrations,  including  on  university 
campuses,  and  a  protest  against  the  presence  of  Israeli  President  Herzog  during  the 
opening of the National Holocaust Museum. The newly adopted Strategy aims to enhance 
existing measures against antisemitism, including through the creation of a Taskforce for 
Combating Antisemitism and an additional budget of EUR 4.5 million per year. 

Regarding discrimination against persons with disabilities, a programme called Unlimited 
Participation! (Programma Onbeperkt Meedoen!) was in place from 2018 until 2021. As of 
2022, measures to tackle  discrimination  against persons with disabilities are included in 
the National programme against discrimination and racism. Specific measures to address 
discrimination against persons with disabilities in the fields of employment and education 
are  included  in  the  above-mentioned  action  plan  against  employment  discrimination  for 
2022-2025  and  in  the  agenda  against  racism  and  discrimination  of  the  Ministry  of 
Education, Culture and Science. 

In January 2024 the Dutch Government adopted the National strategy for implementation 
of  the  CRPD.505  The  strategy  presents  a  number  of  objectives  to  increase  general 
accessibility and make Dutch society more inclusive for persons with a disability by 2040 

499  Published as Annex to Tweede Kamer 2022-2023, 30 950, No. 317. 
500  Published as Annex to Tweede Kamer 2024-2025, 30 950, 429. 
501  Tweede Kamer 2022-2023, 30 950, No. 318. 
502  Tweede Kamer 2023-2024, 30 420, No. 386. 
503  NCA (2022) Work Plan of the National Coordinator on Antisemitism for 2022-2025, p. 6. 
504  See: https://edition.cnn.com/2024/11/15/europe/amsterdam-violence-antisemitism-racism-xenophobia-

intl/index.html.  

505  Published as Annex to Tweede Kamer 2023-2024, 24 170, No. 309. 

109 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

and is meant to serve as a ‘compass’ for existing policies and actions. It is noteworthy that 
the NIHR is critical of the Government’s choice to focus on implementation of the CRPD in 
specific domains, which means that several treaty provisions are not addressed. The NIHR 
also  observed  that  the  CRPD  is  still  insufficiently  integrated  in  the  development  of 
legislation  and  government  policies.506  The  National  strategy  does  not  take  an  overall 
intersectional  approach,  although  in  the  focus  area  ‘safety  and  legal  protection’  legal 
protection against violence and abuse is mentioned as an objective specifically in relation 
to  people  with  a  disability  belonging  to  specific  groups  (women,  children  and  LGBTIQ 
people). 

A national plan on LGBTIQ equality was in place between 2019 and 2022 in the form of the 
‘Action  Plan  on  Safety  for  LGBTI  people’  (Actieplan  Veiligheid  LHBTI’s).507  Since  then, 
measures  to  tackle  discrimination  against  LGBTIQ  people  have  been  included  in  the 
National programme against discrimination and racism, as well as in the agenda against 
racism  and  discrimination  and  the  Memorandum  on  Emancipation  of  the  Ministry  of 
Education, Culture and Science.  

The  NIHR  commonly  provides  input  on  the  implementation  of  the  Government’s  anti-
discrimination policies. Such input is provided, for example, in the form of position papers 
or input for parliamentary debates.508 

506  Netherlands Institute for Human Rights (2024), Additional report to the UN CRPD (Aanvullend rapport aan het 

VN-Comité inzake de rechten van personen met een handicap), Utrecht. 

507  Tweede Kamer 2018-2019, 30 420, No. 303. 
508  See, e.g. the letter of the NIHR to the Parliamentary Committee on Social Affairs and Employment providing 

input for a debate on employment discrimination (including the action plan against employment 
discrimination), available at: https://publicaties.mensenrechten.nl/publicatie/a46d88a7-08a3-49e8-a43b-
a995f8442bca and the NIHR (2022) ‘Position paper for the roundtable conversation of the Parliamentary 
Committee of the Interior on the National Programme against Discrimination and Racism’, held on 14 
December 2022, available at: https://publicaties.mensenrechten.nl/publicatie/bbab664b-3bc2-4e6f-8e8e-
bf04ede13e01.  

110 

 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

10  CURRENT BEST PRACTICES 

- 

- 

- 

- 

The State Commission against Discrimination and Racism started a pilot for a self-
assessment tool for Government agencies to detect risks of discrimination embedded 
in  their  work  processes  and  organisational  culture.509  Three  Government  bodies 
participate  in  the  pilot:  the  municipality  of  Arnhem,  the  Executive  Agency  for 
Education (Dienst Uitvoering Onderwijs) and the Customs Agency (Douane); 
In  the  country  report  for  2024,  it  was  reported  that  the  NIHR,  the  National 
Coordinator  against  Discrimination  and  Racism  and  the  State  Commission  against 
Discrimination  and  Racism  had  advised  to  expand  the  scope  of  the  General  Equal 
Treatment  Act  (GETA)  to  cover  so-called  unilateral  Government  acts  (eenzijdig 
overheidshandelen).  At  present,  such  acts  are  only  covered  in  the  field  of  social 
protection and in relation to the discrimination ground of racial or ethnic origin. The 
proposed  expansion  would  make  it  easier  for  individuals  to  obtain  legal  protection 
against  discrimination  resulting  from,  for  example,  ethnic  profiling  and  other  law 
enforcement  practices,  and  to  combat  institutional  discrimination.  In  2024  the 
possibility  of  expanding  the  GETA  was  further  investigated  by  the  Minister  of  the 
Interior;510 
In the 2024 country report, it was reported that the Dutch Data Protection Authority 
(Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens) was expanded with a new directorate to monitor risks 
resulting  from  the  use  of  algorithms,  the  Directorate  for  the  Coordination  of 
Algorithms (Directie Coördinatie Algoritmes).511 In 2024 this Directorate presented 
its agenda for that year. Among the four priorities identified by the Directorate is the 
prevention  of  discrimination  through  algorithms.  Every  six  months  the  Directorate 
reports  on  prevailing  risks  and  effects  of  the  use  of  AI  and  algorithms  in  the 
Netherlands, including in relation to discrimination; 
In 2023 the Dutch Government decided to ratify the Optional Protocol to the CRPD 
and thus accept the right of individual petition.512 In 2024, the Government confirmed 
this intention and added that it would not opt out of the possibility to allow the treaty 
monitoring body to conduct an investigation of its own accord.513 However, as at the 
end of 2024, a ratification bill had not yet been sent to Parliament.514 

509  See: 

https://www.staatscommissietegendiscriminatieenracisme.nl/actueel/nieuws/2024/03/05/staatscommissie-
tegen-discriminatie-en-racisme-start-pilot-met-instrument-om-overheidsorganisaties-door-te-lichten-op-
discriminatie. The results of the pilot were published in 2025, hence after the cut-off date for this report.  
510  Tweede Kamer 2023-2024, 30 950, No. 365, p. 6. On 4 March 2025, hence after the cut-off date for this 
report, the Minister of the Interior announced that she expected to submit a legislative proposal for 
consultation at the beginning of 2026, see Tweede Kamer 2024-2025, 30 950, No. 436, p. 4. 

511  See: Https://www.autoriteitpersoonsgegevens.nl/actueel/algoritmetoezicht-ap-van-start.  
512  Tweede Kamer 2022-2023, 24 170, No. 284. 
513  Tweede Kamer 2023-2024, 24 170, No. 326, p. 5. 
514  Handelingen Tweede Kamer 34-25-28. 

111 

 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

11  SENSITIVE OR CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES515 

11.1 Potential breaches of the directives at the national level 

the accumulative conditions in the ‘harassment’ definition may be considered to fall 
short of the Directives’ non-regression clause (see section 2.4 of the report); 
arguably, the Dutch Government interprets the prohibition of an ‘instruction to make 
a  distinction’  unduly  narrowly,  including  in  relation  to  the  scope  of  liability  for  this 
type of discrimination (see section 2.5 of the report); 
the use of risk profiles which include the criterion of  ‘non-Dutch origin’ could be in 
contravention of Directive 2000/43/EC (see section 3.2.5 of the report); 
case law from the Dutch courts on residence requirements for social security show 
that  the  courts  do  not  always  establish  whether  the  use  of  such  requirements 
amounts  to  indirect  discrimination  on  the  ground  of  racial  or  ethnic  origin  before 
proceeding  to  the  question  of  justification.  By  failing  to  establish  whether  the 
residence  requirements  put  persons  of  a  racial  or  ethnic  origin  at  a  particular 
disadvantage, the courts do not give full effect to the Racial Equality Directive (RED) 
(see section 3.2.5); 
it is doubtful whether the sanctions imposed by Dutch courts in discrimination cases, 
in  particular  the  high  threshold  for  awarding  non-material  damages,  meet  the 
requirements of being ‘effective’, ‘dissuasive’ and ‘proportionate’ as required by EU 
law (see Section 6.5 of the report). 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

11.2 Other issues of concern 

The following key issues are of concern in the Dutch context, regarding the implementation 
and transposition of the directives. 

- 

Overall, Dutch legislation and policies in the field of anti-discrimination are of a high 
standard.  Since  2020,  several  developments,  including  the  Black  Lives  Matter 
protests  and  the  childcare  benefits  scandal  (see  section  3.2.6),  have,  moreover, 
fostered  awareness  of  structural  and  institutional  discrimination  and  led  to  an 
increased  sense  of  urgency  at  the  political  level  regarding  the  need  to  fight 
discrimination. Nevertheless, there is ample evidence that (structural) discrimination 
continues  to  be  prevalent  in  the  Netherlands.  Studies  and  reports  published  in 
2024516  document  the  discrimination  and  racism  experienced  among  people  of 
(South-)  East  Asian  origin,  including  in  employment  and  education;517  racism 
experienced  by  central  Government  employees;518  indirect  discrimination  against 
students with a non-European migration background in controls to detect fraud with 
study  grants;519  discrimination  in  employment  against  Muslim  women;520  unequal 
treatment  in  the  Dutch  criminal  justice  system  against  people  with  a  vocational 

515  The assessments and views expressed in both sections 11.1 and 11.2 reflect the author’s opinion. 
516  The following is a non-exhaustive overview of studies and reports concerning discrimination on the grounds 

and in the fields covered by this report.   

517  Feddes, A.R. et al (2024), Investigation into experiences of discrimination and racism among people of (South-
)East Asian origin in the Netherlands (Onderzoek naar ervaren discriminatie en racisme bij mensen met een 
(Zuid-)Oost-Aziatische  herkomst  in  Nederland)  (study  commissioned  by  the  Ministry  of  Social  Affairs  and 
Employment), University of Amsterdam/Fontys University of Applied Sciences, published as Annex to Tweede 
Kamer 2023-2024, 30 950, No. 362. 

518  Tweede Kamer 2023-2024, 30 950, No. 359. 
519  PriceWaterhouseCoopers  (2024),  Controls  on  abuse  of  study  grants  for  students  living  away  from  home 
(Onderzoek misbruik uitwonendenbeurs) (study commissioned by the Ministry of Education), PWC 26 January 
2024,  published  as  Annex  to  Tweede  Kamer  2023-2024,  24  724,  No.  220;  Algorithm  Audit,  Preventing 
prejudice.  Addendum  (Vooringenomenheid  voorkomen.  Addendum  (study  commissioned  by  the  Executive 
Agency for Education (Dienst Uitvoering Onderwijs)), May 2024, published as Annex to Tweede Kamer 2023-
2024, 24 724, No. 240. 

520  Blommaert,  L.,  Azabar,  S.,  Guerts,  N.,  Spierings,  N.  and  Thijssen,  L.  (2024),  Exploration  of  employment 
discrimination among Muslim women (Verkenning arbeidsmarktdiscriminatie moslima’s) (study commissioned 
by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment), Radboud Universiteit, 8 March 2024, published as Annex 
to Tweede Kamer 2023-2024, 29 544, No. 1244. 

112 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

- 

- 

- 

education  and/or  a  migration  background;521  experienced  discrimination  in 
employment  against  people  with  a  migration  background  and  people  of  colour; 522 
inequality and experienced discrimination of Roma and Sinti across societal domains 
(including in housing, education and access to goods and services);523 high rates of 
experienced  discrimination  among  several  migrant  minorities  (including  second 
generation  immigrants),  Muslims  and  non-binary/genderqueer  people524  and 
experienced discrimination among LGBTIQA+ people;525 
In recent years, political parties on the extreme right/populist far  right side  of the 
political spectrum (notably the Partij voor de Vrijheid (PVV), Forum voor Democratie 
(FvD)  and  JA21)  have  gained  increasing  support  and  have  become  an  established 
presence in the Dutch  political landscape. In the most  recent general elections (of 
November 2023) the PVV – a party with an explicitly nativist, anti-Muslim and anti-
immigrant agenda – became the largest party, with 37 out of 150 seats in the Second 
Chamber  of  Parliament.  As  already  noted  by  the  National  Coordinator  against 
Discrimination and Racism (NCDR) in 2023, the support for this and other far-right 
parties attests to the increasing normalisation of racist and xenophobic attitudes in 
the  Netherlands.526  This  trend  has  not  changed  in  2024;  rather,  it  has  been 
confirmed,  as  the  PVV  has,  since  July  2024,  become  a  member  of  the  governing 
coalition; 
A  bill  that  would  have  introduced  a  positive  duty  on  employers  and  intermediary 
agencies  to  develop  policies  for  non-discriminatory  recruitment  and  selection 
procedures  (Wetsvoorstel  toezicht  gelijke  kansen  bij  werving  en  selectie)  was 
rejected by the Dutch Senate (Eerste Kamer) in March 2024, after the liberal party 
(VVD) withdrew its support;527 
A report published in 2024 shows that approximately one out of every 10 people in 
the  Netherlands  experience  discrimination  in  their  dealings  with  banks  or  other 
financial institutions.528 People with a ‘non-western’ migration background, including 
Muslims, are most affected. The discrimination is mostly experienced in the form of 
excessive controls, following from institutional policies to prevent money laundering 
and financing of terrorism. A subsequent report by the Dutch Central Bank indicates 
that  a  lot  of  variation  exists  between  banks  in  terms  of  the  measures  they  have 
adopted in order to prevent discrimination resulting from anti-money laundering and 
terrorism-financing policies, and that anti-discrimination policies frequently address 
only  discrimination  that  occurs  in  the  workplace  and  not  discrimination  against 
clients.529  The  Dutch  Central  Bank  made  several  recommendations  to  strengthen 
anti-discrimination policies in the banking sector and committed to conducting follow 
up  research  on  the  issue.  The  Dutch  Government  expressed  its  concern  over  the 

521  Van der Burgh, R., Heilbron, B. and Kootstra, A. ‘I see no class’ (‘Ik zie geen klasse’), Investico/NOS op 3/De 

Groene Amsterdammer, 9 October 2024. 

522  Van de Gevel, M., van Rhemen, R., Yohannes, R., Yassine, D.,  de Winter-Koçak, S. and Felten, H. (2024), 
Workplace  barriers.  A  comparison  of  experiences  of  employees  with  or  without  a  migration  background 
(Barrières  op  de  werkvloer.  Ervaringen  van  werknemers  met  en  zonder  migratieachtergrond  vergeleken), 
Kennisplatform 
inclusief  samenleven  2024,  available  at  https://www.kis.nl/sites/default/files/2024-
09/423143_Barrieres-op-de-werkvloer.pdf.  

523  Seidler, Y., Khajavi-Zijlstra, J., van Leeuwen, R., van der Schans, K., van Eerten, J.J. and Sam, N. (2024). 
524  Statistics Netherlands (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek), Experiences of discrimination in the Netherlands 
in  Nederland),  13  December  2024,  available  at  https://www.cbs.nl/nl-

(Ervaren  discriminatie 
nl/longread/rapportages/2024/ervaren-discriminatie-in-nederland.  

525  Brammer et al, LGBTIQA+ monitor 2024 (Lhbtiqa+-monitor 2024), Panteia/Movisie/Ipsos I&O 2024, available 

at https://www.movisie.nl/sites/movisie.nl/files/2024-11/Lhbtiqa%2B%20monitor%202024.pdf.  

526  National Coordinator against Discrimination and Racism (2023), National Programme against Discrimination 

and Racism 2023, available at https://www.bureauncdr.nl/nationaal-programma-
2023/documenten/nationale-programmas/2023/12/12/nationaal-programma-2023, p. 21. 

527  A  flash  report  was  published  on  this  development;  see  https://www.equalitylaw.eu/downloads/6100-

netherlands-act-against-labour-market-discrimination.  

528  KPMG (2024), Investigation into experiences of discrimination of citizens in relation to services provided by 
banks and financial institutions (Onderzoek naar ervaren discriminatie van burgers bij de dienstverlening door 
banken en betaalinstellingen), 19 April 2024, published as Annex to Tweede Kamer 2023-2024, 32 013, No. 
289. 

529  De Nederlandsche Bank (2024), Combating discrimination by banks in controlling compliance with the Anti-
money laundering and terrorism financing act (Tegengaan van discriminatie door banken bij de naleving van 
de Wwft), Amsterdam.  

113 

 
- 

- 

- 

Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

findings.530  Among  several  other  measures,  the  Government  announced  that  the 
prevention  of  discrimination  would  be  a  matter  of  attention  during  the  ongoing 
revision of the sanctions legislation and implementing guidelines. It also stated that 
banks  would  be  encouraged  to  apply  available  safeguards  when  implementing  AI-
based solutions, including for the purpose of checking compliance with anti-money 
laundering and terrorism financing legislation;531 
Research  commissioned  by  the  Dutch  equality  body  (the  Netherlands  lnstitute  for 
Human  Rights)  and  published  in  2024  shows  that  digital  technologies,  including 
algorithms, are widely  used in the field  of  education, including primary, secondary 
and higher education.532 Applications include digital learning programmes that adapt 
the level of exercises to the performance of individual students, the use of ‘learning 
analytics’ to measure student progress and algorithms to support student placement 
in  secondary  schools.  The  NIHR  observes  that  the  use  of  such  technologies  offers 
advantages  but  can  also,  in  the  absence  of  adequate  testing  safeguards,  enhance 
existing  bias  for  example  against  pupils  with  disabilities  or  with  a  migration 
background; 
The great majority of people who experience discrimination in the Netherlands do not 
report it. A survey conducted by Statistics Netherlands shows that of all people who 
experienced discrimination in 2023, only 11 % made a report.533 Most people (42 %) 
who chose not to report an incident of discrimination did so because they believed 
that  reporting  would  not  help.  29 %  of  non-reporters  indicated  that  they  believed 
reporting was not very important or that they did not think about it. The report shows 
that there are no significant differences in reporting rates between different groups; 

In  its  most  recent  evaluation  of  the  Dutch  equal  treatment  legislation,  the  NIHR 
expressed  its  concern  about  the  fragmented  nature  of  this  legislation.534  Although 
the GETA provides a relatively uniform regime for discrimination on the grounds of 
(inter  alia)  racial  or  ethnic  origin,  religion  or  belief  and  sexual  orientation,  the 
discrimination grounds disability and age are covered by separate acts. In addition, 
several other acts and provisions form part of Dutch equal treatment law covering, 
inter alia, discrimination between part-time and full-time workers and workers with 
a  temporary  or  permanent  contract.  The  NIHR  speaks  of  a  ‘patchwork’  of  legal 
provisions, which renders Dutch equal treatment law less accessible both for people 
who experience discrimination and for actors who may be liable for discrimination. 
Furthermore,  the  ‘patchwork’  results  in  legal  complexity  as  the  scope  of  each  act 
cannot  always  be  readily  determined  and  legal  exceptions  and  possibilities  for 
objective justification of differential treatment may differ per ground. 

It  is  submitted  that  this  problem  is  somewhat  less  acute  where  the  discrimination 
grounds covered by the Racial Equality Directive and Employment Equality Directive 
are  concerned,  as  the  legal  frameworks  laid  down  in  the  GETA,  DDA  and  ADA  are 
largely  similar.  However,  the  NIHR  observes  that  integrating  the  existing  acts  and 
provisions  into  a  single  equal  treatment  law  would  also  provide  an  opportunity  to 
include  legal  developments,  at  the  Dutch  and  EU  levels,  that  occurred  after  the 
current  legislation  was  adopted.  In  this  respect  the  NIHR  mentions,  inter  alia,  a 
clarification  of  the  concept  of  ‘reasonable  accommodation  to  take  into  account  the 
ECJ’s judgment in HR Rail SA (C-485/20), a clarification of the terms ‘employment’ 
and ‘profession’ and codification of NIHR jurisprudence regarding the duty to prevent 

530  Tweede Kamer 2023-2024, 32 013, No. 289. 
531  Tweede Kamer 2024-2025, 32 013, No. 301. 
532  Smeets,  E.  et  al,  Algorithms  in  education.  An  investigation  commissioned  by  the  Netherlands  Institute  for 
Human Rights (Algoritmen in het onderwijs. Een onderzoek in opdracht van het College voor de Rechten van 
de Mens), KBA Nijmegen/ResearchNed 2024. 

533  Statistics Netherlands (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek), Experiences of discrimination in the Netherlands 

(Ervaren discrimination in Nederland), CBS 13 December 2024, para 3.8. 

534  Netherlands  Institute  for  Human  Rights  (2023),  Evaluation  of  the  equal  treatment  legislation  2017-2022 

(Evaluatie gelijkebehandelingswetgeving 2017-2022), Utrecht. 

114 

 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

- 

- 

discrimination  at  the  workplace  and  the  duty  to  effectively  treat  complaints  of 
discrimination;535 
In the same evaluation, the NIHR points out that it is, in principle, well-equipped to 
address processes of institutional discrimination, including algorithmic discrimination, 
because its investigative  competences  extend  beyond individual cases (see further 
section 7.6). The added value of these competences was clearly illustrated in relation 
to  the  childcare  benefits  scandal  (see  section  3.2.5),  where  a  statistical  report 
prepared  by  the  NIHR  itself  was  used  to  establish  a  presumption  of  indirect 
discrimination  in  several  individual  cases.  However,  the  Institute  indicates  that  it 
currently lacks the capacity to conduct such investigations on a regular basis;536 
The  Netherlands  does  not  have  a  legal  or  policy  framework  for  the  collection  of 
(disaggregated)  equality  data,  which  makes  it  more  difficult  to  monitor  the 
prevalence of discrimination and formulate adequate anti-discrimination policies. 

535  Netherlands  Institute  for  Human  Rights  (2023),  Evaluation  of  the  equal  treatment  legislation  2017-2022 

(Evaluatie gelijkebehandelingswetgeving 2017-2022), Utrecht, pp. 5-6. 

536  Netherlands  Institute  for  Human  Rights  (2023),  Evaluation  of  the  equal  treatment  legislation  2017-2022 

(Evaluatie gelijkebehandelingswetgeving 2017-2022), Utrecht, pp. 10-11. 

115 

 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

12  LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN 2024 

12.1 Legislative amendments 

None. 

12.2 Case law 

CASE LAW 

Racial or ethnic origin 

Relevant discrimination ground(s): Racial or ethnic origin 
Name of the court: Court of Appeals, Hertogenbosch 
Date of decision: 11 June 2024 
Name of the parties: N/A 
Reference number: N/A 
ECLI reference: ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2024:1892 
Link: https://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2024:1892  
Brief  summary:  Discrimination  on  the  ground  of  racial  or  ethnic  origin  in  housing  in  a 
case involving Travellers. The Court of Appeal confirmed that the municipality of Land van 
Cuijk acted unlawfully towards a Traveller by not making available sufficient caravan sites 
within  the  municipality  and  thus  not  offering  him  a  realistic  possibility  of  obtaining  a 
caravan  site.  This  amounts  to  discrimination  on  the  ground  of  racial  or  ethnic  origin. 
However, the Court of Appeal saw no grounds for awarding pecuniary damages. 

Two elements are of particular interest: 

- 

- 

One of the principal arguments in this case centred on whether the applicant could 
claim  to  be  a  Traveller  and  hence  could  claim  a  legitimate  interest  in  obtaining  a 
caravan site. The court of first instance accepted that the applicant was a Traveller, 
based on documents indicating that his grandfather had lived in a caravan for a brief 
period  of  time.  This  decision  was  disputed  by  the  municipality  on  appeal,  on  the 
ground  that  the  facts  as  established  did  not  suffice  to  identify  the  applicant  as  a 
Traveller.  The  Court  of  Appeal  then  allowed  the  applicant  to  present  additional 
evidence, which he did. While the Court of Appeal also accepted, on the basis of the 
additional evidence, that the applicant qualified as a Traveller, much of its analysis 
focuses  on  establishing  ‘objective  facts’  (in  particular,  whether  the  applicant’s 
grandfather  and  his  mother  had  in  fact  lived  in  a  caravan  and  had  an  ambulant 
lifestyle). The principle of self-identification was not mentioned and did not appear to 
form the basis of the Court’s analysis, even if the Court otherwise showed leniency 
towards the applicant and was willing to take account of the difficulties involved in 
establishing facts that occurred a long time ago; 
the applicant sought compensation for both material and non-material damages. The 
non-material  damages  were  claimed  as  compensation  for  the  fact  that  he  had 
suffered discrimination on the ground of racial or ethnic origin for an extended period 
of time (he had first approached the municipality to obtain a caravan site in 1997). 
While the Court accepted the existence of this discrimination, it considered the harm 
suffered by the applicant insufficient to order pecuniary damages. While recognising 
that  the  applicant  had  suffered  an  infringement  of  a  fundamental  right,  the  Court 
considered that this did not result in any established psychological illness; that the 
applicant was able to live in a caravan at least part of the time as a sub-tenant and 
was thus able to express his cultural identity; and that no intent or gross negligence 
could be established on the part of the municipality.  

116 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

Disability 

Relevant discrimination ground(s): Disability 
Name of the court: Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State 
Date of decision: 20 March 2024 
Name of the parties: N/A 
Reference number: N/A 
ECLI reference: ECLI:NL:RVS:2024:1154 
Link: https://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:RVS:2024:1154  
Brief  summary:  The  applicant  wished  to  study  medicine  at  Utrecht  University  and 
participated  in  the  school’s  decentralised  selection  process  (decentrale  selectie),  which 
included a knowledge and comprehension test. Based on the outcome of this test, she was 
ranked too low to be admitted to the course. The applicant claimed discrimination, stating 
that  due  to  chronic  illness  she  had  had  less  time  to  prepare  for  the  test  compared  with 
other  participants.  She  argued  that  the  university  should  have  offered  her  a  reasonable 
accommodation, for example in the form of an additional opportunity to take the test. The 
Administrative Jurisdiction Division rejected the claim, holding that – regardless of whether 
an additional opportunity would have qualified as a suitable accommodation to compensate 
for the disadvantage experienced by the applicant – providing such an opportunity would 
have imposed an unreasonable burden on the university. In reaching this conclusion, the 
Court  considered  that  the  selection  procedure  was  designed  so  that  all  candidates  were 
given a single opportunity, at the same moment, to participate in the test and that this 
was  done  in  part  to  create  equal  opportunities  for  all  candidates.  In  the  Court’s  view, 
spreading  the  selection  procedure  over  different  time  slots  would  have  implied  an 
interference with the interests of other participants. 

Relevant discrimination ground(s): Disability 
Name of the court: Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State 
Date of decision: 21 August 2024 
Name of the parties: N/A 
Reference number: N/A 
ECLI reference: ECLI:NL:RVS:2024:3410 
Link: https://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:RVS:2024:3410 
Brief  summary:  The  applicant  is  a  student  who,  due  to  her  medical  condition,  needs 
several accommodations to enable her to follow a law programme at a university for applied 
sciences  (hogeschool).  She  requested  seven  accommodations, 
including  online 
participation  in  classes,  additional  support  from  her  mentor  and  the  possibility  to  ask 
teachers questions by phone or email and to receive an answer within several days. Most 
of  these  accommodations  were  granted;  however,  this  did  not  apply  to  the  request  for 
online  participation  via  Teams.  Instead,  the  student  was  provided  with  a  Jabra  speaker 
that  would  allow  her  to  listen  in  on  the  classes,  without  asking  questions.  The 
Administrative Jurisdiction Division considered that online participation via Teams did not 
a priori qualify as an accommodation that imposed an unreasonable burden on the school. 
However,  where  there  was  a  choice  between  several  accommodations  that  could  each 
enable the applicant to pursue her studies, it was down to the school’s discretion to make 
this choice. In this regard, the Court also took into account that the applicant had chosen 
not to share any (further) information about her medical condition. As for the applicant’s 
argument that the speaker provided did not allow her to ask questions during classes, the 
Division held that she had not made use of the possibility (that had been granted to her) 
to  ask  questions  at  a  later  point,  nor  had  she  addressed  this  issue  with  the  school. 
Therefore, it had not been possible to assess whether the speaker, in combination with the 
possibility  to  ask  questions  at  a  later  point  provided  effective  accommodation  to  the 
applicant. Finally, the Division held that the student’s request to be assigned a different 
mentor did not qualify as a reasonable accommodation as it was not a measure that could 
prevent a difference in treatment between students with and students without a disability.  

117 

 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

Relevant discrimination ground(s): Disability 
Name of the court: Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State 
Date of decision: 28 August 2024 
Name of the parties: N/A 
Reference number: N/A 
ECLI reference: ECLI:NL:RVS:2024:3484 
Link: https://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:RVS:2024:3484 
Brief summary: The applicant is a student who has been diagnosed with attention deficit 
disorder (ADD), Crohn’s disease, dyslexia and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). He 
applied for a preparatory programme at Delft University that would enable him to enrol in 
an  applied  physics  masters  degree  programme.  Because  of  his  reduced  capacity,  he 
requested permission to take each course twice, with four exam attempts per course and 
without a final deadline for completion of the programme. While this request was denied, 
the student was granted several extensions, including an extra two years to complete the 
programme.  The  dean  responsible  for  the  programme  submitted  that  an  indefinite 
extension,  as  requested  by  the  applicant,  could  not  be  granted  because  the  knowledge 
gained during the programme had to be up to date, especially as it concerned a programme 
that aimed to prepare students for the applied physics masters. The applicant claimed that 
the university had failed to provide a reasonable accommodation as required by the DDA.  
The  Administrative  Jurisdiction  Division  established  that  the  regular  duration  of  the 
preparatory programme was two years, which already included additional time for students 
who were delayed due to personal circumstances. While the Court accepted that students 
who did not have the same disabilities or chronic illness as the applicant would be able to 
use this time more effectively, it did not follow the applicant’s argument that the term of 
two years was indirectly discriminatory for that reason. The Court further considered that 
the applicant had been able to request an extension, which had also been granted. In the 
Court’s  view,  the  refusal  to  grant  an  indefinite  extension  did  not  amount  to  a  failure  to 
provide reasonable accommodation as the extension (and the possibility of applying for a 
further  extension  if  that  were  to  prove  necessary)  effectively  addressed  the  applicant’s 
diminished capacity to study. 

Age 

Relevant discrimination ground(s): Age 
Name of the court: Court of Appeal, Arnhem-Leeuwarden 
Date of decision: 23 April 2024 
Name of the parties:  
Reference number: N/A 
ECLI reference: ECLI:NL:GHARL:2024:2885 
Link: https://deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:GHARL:2024:2885  
Brief  summary:  The  applicants  were  employed  as  assembly  workers  in  a  factory  that 
produced car engines. Until 1 January 2023, they worked in shifts, for which they received 
a supplement of 21 % on top of their regular salaries. When they reached the age of 60, 
the company decided that they were no longer eligible to work in shifts. The Court of Appeal 
found that this amounted to a direct difference in treatment on the ground of age. However, 
it  considered  the  difference  in  treatment  to  be  objectively  justified.  In  this  regard,  the 
Court held that the aim of reducing shift work for older employees was legitimate and that 
the elimination of shift work for employees over 60 was a suitable measure to achieve this 
aim. It also found the measure to be necessary and proportionate. It is noteworthy that, 
in determining the necessity of the measure, the Court explicitly took into account that it 
also served financial aims, and that alternative measures (such as changing from three to 
two shifts or letting employees decide whether or not they wanted to do shift work) would 
not yield the same financial benefits. It is not clear if the measure would  still have been 
considered necessary and proportionate if the only aim taken into account had been the 
protection of older workers. 

118 

 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

NIHR OPINIONS 

Racial or ethnic origin 

Relevant discrimination ground(s): Racial or ethnic origin 
Name of the court: Netherlands Institute for Human Rights 
Date of decision: 4 July 2024 
Name of the parties: N/A 
Reference number: NIHR Opinion 2024-57 
ECLI reference: N/A 
Link: https://oordelen.mensenrechten.nl/oordeel/2024-57  
Brief  summary:  A  boy  was  temporarily  unable  to  attend  school  because  of  conversion 
disorder  (a  neurological  disorder  whereby  certain  functions  such  as  seeing,  speaking 
and/or moving are temporarily disabled). It is unknown what caused this disorder in the 
boy’s case, but conversion disorder is commonly triggered by a very stressful experience. 
The boy’s mother was convinced that the disorder was caused by racist bullying of her son 
by  two  other  pupils.  She  claimed  that  the  school  had  failed  to  protect  her  son  against 
discrimination, and that it had not made sufficient efforts to enable his return to school by 
offering alternative learning solutions (eg online learning).  

The NIHR found that a presumption of discrimination could not be established. The mother 
and the school board disagreed over the seriousness of the alleged bullying and there was 
no evidence that that was what had caused the boy’s disorder, other than a suggestion by 
the boy’s doctor that this may have been the case.  The NIHR also found that the school 
had done everything that it could within the scope of possibility to enable the boy’s return. 

In this case, the mother had expressly claimed that the treatment of her son by the other 
pupils  and  the  school’s  reaction  were  expressions  of  institutional  racism.  The  NIHR 
recognised  that  institutional  racism  is  prevalent,  including  in  the  form  of  micro-
aggressions,  but  nevertheless  found  that  the  burden  of  proof  had  not  been  met  in  this 
case. The Opinion thus demonstrated the difficulty of proving discrimination in individual 
cases. An interesting point is that there was no mention of intersectionality either in the 
claim or its assessment. It is unclear from the case whether the boy’s disorder might have 
qualified as a disability. 

Disability 

Relevant discrimination ground(s): Disability 
Name of the court: Netherlands Institute for Human Rights 
Date of decision: 2 December 2024 
Name of the parties: N/A 
Reference number: NIHR Opinion 2024-98 
ECLI reference: N/A 
Link: https://oordelen.mensenrechten.nl/oordeel/2024-98  
Brief  summary:  An  employee  of  a  pharmaceutical  company  was  diagnosed  with  post-
COVID syndrome (long COVID) and was provided with a customised workload (aangepast 
werk) as part of his reintegration within the company. At the end of the year, he received 
a  performance  evaluation  that  marked  his  performance  as  ‘minimal/moderate’.  The 
employee  claimed  that  the  company  had  discriminated  against  him  on  the  ground  of 
disability/chronic illness by evaluating his performance even though he had been on sick 
leave for much of the year. He also claimed discrimination because the evaluation included 
elements of leadership and interpersonal interaction, while his performance in relation to 
these elements was negatively affected by his illness. The  NIHR’s Opinion is noteworthy 
because of its acceptance that long COVID qualifies as a chronic illness within the scope of 
the Dutch Disability Discrimination Act (DDA). In this regard, the NIHR considered that the 
employee  experienced  long-term  limitations  for  which  no  end  point  could  (as  yet)  be 
established. Furthermore, the Institute confirmed that the DDA does not impose a duty on 
employers to evaluate employees with a disability or chronic illness differently from other 

119 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

employees. In the case at hand, the NIHR established that the employer had adjusted the 
employee’s  tasks  to  match  the  restrictions  he  faced  due  to  his  illness,  and  that  his 
performance had been evaluated based on his execution of those tasks. In the NIHR’s view, 
this  did  not  amount  to  discrimination  on  the  ground  of  disability/chronic  illness.  The 
Institute did find, however, that the company had acted incorrectly in its treatment of the 
employee’s discrimination complaint. 

120 

 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

ANNEX 1: TABLE OF INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS 

Country:  
Date:   

The Netherlands 
1 January 2025 

Instrument  Date of 

signature  

Date of 
ratification 

Right of 
individual 
petition 
accepted? 

Deroga-
tions/ 
reserve-
tions 
relevant to 
equality 
and non-
discrimina-
tion 

04.11.1950 

31.08.1954  No 

Yes 

Can this 
instrument 
be directly 
relied upon 
in 
domestic 
courts by 
individuals
? 
Yes 

European 
Convention 
on Human 
Rights 
(ECHR) 
Protocol 12, 
ECHR 

Revised 
European 
Social 
Charter 
Internationa
l Covenant 
on Civil and 
Political 
Rights 
Framework 
Convention 
for the 
Protection of 
National 
Minorities 
Internationa
l Covenant 
on 
Economic, 
Social and 
Cultural 
Rights 
Convention 
on the 
Elimination 
of All Forms 
of Racial 
Discrimina-
tion 
ILO 
Convention 
No. 111 on 
Discrimina-
tion 

04.11.2000 

28.07.2004  No 

23.01.2004 

03.05.2006  No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

25.06.1969 

11.12.1978  No 

Yes 

Yes 

01.02.1995 

16.02.2005 

No  

NA  

Yes  

25.06.1969 

11.12.1978  No 

No 

Yes 

24.10.1966 

10.12.1971  No 

Yes 

Yes 

unknown 

15.03.1973  No 

NA 

Yes 

121 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country report - Non-discrimination – Netherlands – 2025 

Instrument  Date of 

signature  

Date of 
ratification 

Right of 
individual 
petition 
accepted? 

Deroga-
tions/ 
reserve-
tions 
relevant to 
equality 
and non-
discrimina-
tion 

26.01.1990 

06.02.1995  No 

No 

Can this 
instrument 
be directly 
relied upon 
in 
domestic 
courts by 
individuals
? 
Yes 

30.03.2007 

14.06.2016  No 

No537 

Yes 

Convention 
on the 
Rights of the 
Child 
Convention 
on the 
Rights of 
Persons with 
Disabilities  

537  The Dutch government announced its intention to ratify the Optional Protocol in May 2023, see Tweede 

Kamer 2022-2023, 24 170, no. 284. At the time of writing this report ratification had not yet taken place. 

122 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

In person 

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. 
You can find the address of the centre nearest you at:  
https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en.  

On the phone or by email 

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union.  
You can contact this service: – by freephone: 
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), –  
at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or – by email via: 
https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en. 

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

Online 

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available 
on the Europa website at: https://europa.eu/european- union/index_en.  

EU publications 

You can download or order free and priced EU publications from: 
https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple copies of free publications may 
be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre  
(see https://europa. eu/european-union/contact_en). 

EU law and related documents 

For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1951 in all the 
official language versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur- lex.europa.eu. 

Open data from the EU 

The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en) provides access to datasets 
from the EU. Data can be downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-
commercial purposes. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION