In the Netherlands, the government has a duty of care to protect citizens, businesses, and the environment against the adverse effects of spatial planning and environmental management measures. When government bodies—including municipalities, provinces, water authorities, Rijkswaterstaat, and their officials or regulators—fail to meet this duty, private parties and civil society groups can hold the state liable for damages suffered. Clients from the energy, real estate, and infrastructure sectors alike expect a predictable and lawful decision-making process; any allegation of financial mismanagement, fraud, bribery, money laundering, corruption, or violation of international sanctions by the government undermines that trust. Below, we discuss the six main categories of financial and economic crime and how they lead to government liability, compensation claims, and reputational damage in the field of environmental and spatial planning.
Financial Mismanagement
Financial mismanagement by a public authority may occur when budgets for environmental monitoring, remediation measures, or infrastructural integration are incorrectly determined, allocated, or spent. Examples include a water authority that consistently maintains insufficient reserves for flood protection, or a municipality that allocates soil investigation subsidies to unauthorized developers. Careless budgeting and non-transparent accounting can lead to unexpected levies or tax assessments by other governmental bodies, forcing businesses to incur additional costs. If such mistakes result from negligence or unlawful decision-making, the aggrieved company may hold the government liable based on tort (Article 6:162 of the Dutch Civil Code) or breach of contract in case of contractual agreements. In such cases, the government risks high compensation payments, legal costs, and the reputation of being an unreliable partner.
Fraud
Fraud within an enforcement or licensing authority severely undermines legal certainty. Examples include falsified environmental research in government-funded reports, manipulation of nitrogen emission measurements, or deliberate concealment of negative findings in environmental impact assessments. Once such practices are exposed—through whistleblower reports or Freedom of Information Act (WOB) procedures—the state may be compelled in summary proceedings to revise all related decisions and demonstrate compliance with all legal requirements moving forward. Meanwhile, projects are delayed, and developers claim government costs and lost profits caused by the fraudulent decision-making. The consequences extend beyond financial compensation to significant reputational damage for the responsible authorities.
Bribery
Bribery of civil servants or regulators in environmental and planning procedures results in voidable decisions, rendering the government jointly and severally liable for damages arising from unlawful permit issuance. For instance, a municipal project team might enforce zoning changes or permit relaxations for housing or industrial parks in exchange for payment. When a criminal investigation proves bribery, not only are all contested decisions annulled, but the victims can also claim compensation for delays, additional investigation costs, and lost development opportunities based on tort. The political and administrative consequences are severe: involved aldermen or council members resign, and public confidence in the municipality’s integrity policies is profoundly shaken.
Money Laundering
Enforcement of anti-money laundering regulations also plays a role in environmental and spatial projects whenever unexplained financial flows emerge in land transactions, remediation assignments, or subsidy schemes. If a municipality or water authority fails to detect or report suspicious transactions under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Act (Wwft), third-party investors may claim compensation when government intervention is delayed or permits are wrongfully granted. Liability may be based on a breach of the duty of care to exercise proper supervision. Projects can come to a halt due to reclaimed subsidies or frozen bank accounts, after which affected companies hold the state liable for incurred delay and interest costs, as well as reputational damage with financiers and market parties.
Corruption
Corruption in decision-making regarding environmental and spatial plans reflects a systemic exchange of favors between officials and market parties. It goes beyond isolated incidents of bribery and strikes at the heart of democratic accountability. When administrative commissioners or aldermen personally benefit from planning decisions—such as through side jobs with developers or favorable loans—interested parties and environmental organizations may petition the court for application of Article 6:162 of the Dutch Civil Code, citing a violation of the principles of good governance (Articles 3:4 and 3:41 of the General Administrative Law Act, Awb). This leads to the revocation of permits and substantial damage claims against the state, alongside significant administrative measures and potential anti-corruption investigations by the Fiscal Intelligence and Investigation Service (FIOD).
Violation of International Sanctions
Even in environmental projects with an international dimension, the Dutch government can be held liable if it undermines applicable sanctions regulations. Examples include issuing permits for transnational pipelines or landfills in cooperation with sanctioned entities. Violation of EU or UN sanctions leads to administrative fines and the revocation of subsidies. Private partners who suffer financial losses or are forced into breach of contract as a result may claim compensation from the state based on tort or breach of contract. Such claims not only entail direct compensation costs but also damage the international credibility of the Netherlands as a reliable rule-of-law country.
