A kantonrechter (subdistrict judge) in Amsterdam has for a second time found a costs clause in a Gemeente Amsterdam lease for a garden plot by a houseboat mooring unfair, and annulled it, according to a ruling of 16 October.
As a result, the city’s claim for €1,720 in extrajudicial collection costs was rejected.
The tenant was still ordered to pay €6,542.43 in rent arrears, €1,448.27 in statutory interest already due and €1,549.46 in legal costs.
A clause already struck down in 2024
According to the ruling, the city has leased the 264 square metre plot to the tenant since 1 August 2013, for use as a garden belonging to the mooring.
The clause, article 17.1 of the lease, makes the tenant pay all judicial and extrajudicial costs the landlord incurs after a default.
The court found it could leave a consumer facing unlimited costs, more than the law allows, and that it does not state clearly enough that the statutory rules on collection costs apply to consumers.
A ruling of 5 March 2024, in an earlier arrears case between the same parties, had already found the same clause unfair.
The court found that the lease has not been changed since then and still contains the clause.
Under the Dexia judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the city therefore still cannot fall back on the general Dutch rules on collection costs, the ruling states, and the earlier ruling does not change that.
Rent arrears still due
The claim was brought on the city’s behalf by the collection agency van Twuijver Incasso B.V. and covered invoices for 1 March 2020 to 1 March 2024.
The tenant, who represented himself, accepted that there were arrears but did not back up his challenge to the amount, the court found.
The court did award legal costs at the standard rate.
It noted that the Hoge Raad (the Dutch Supreme Court) asked the EU court a related question on legal costs on 4 July 2025, which has not yet been answered.
The ruling is immediately enforceable.
It does not say whether the city uses the same clause in other leases, or whether either party will appeal.
Source: Rechtbank Amsterdam, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2026:10349, published 23 October 2026