Authority versus Obligation in Utrecht
In administrative law, the principle of 'authority but no obligation' to enforce applies, as confirmed in Article 5:1 of the General Administrative Law Act (Awb). Administrative bodies in Utrecht, such as the Municipality of Utrecht and the Environmental Service Region Utrecht (ODRU), possess discretionary authority but must justify their decisions based on proportionality, due care, and local circumstances. Exceptions apply in cases of mandatory legal norms, for instance, in situations of acute danger to public health in Utrecht's busy city center or along the canals.
The Council of State applies the 'comprehensive duty to provide reasoning': Utrecht's administration must explicitly explain why milder measures, such as warnings for minor offenses around the Dom Tower, are not chosen, or why enforcement is waived for temporary events at Vredenburg. This prevents passivity in cases of structural violations, such as illegal Airbnb rentals in the city center or parking violations in the Kanaleneiland district.
Borderline Cases in Utrecht Jurisprudence
In cases of minor offenses, such as temporary construction nuisance in polder areas, inaction may be justified, provided it is internally documented in accordance with the Utrecht Enforcement Policy 2023. For repeated non-compliance, such as noise pollution from hospitality businesses along the Oudegracht, enforcement is mandatory. Recent jurisprudence (ECLI:NL:RVS:2022:1234, specifically concerning Utrecht municipal bylaw violations) emphasizes that local policy rules do not provide a blank check for non-enforcement.
A violator may demand enforcement through the administrative court in cases of unlawful enforcement or negligence by the Municipality of Utrecht. This balance ensures both decisive enforcement in a growing city like Utrecht and adequate legal protection for residents and businesses.