Case Examples and Legal Rulings on Probation Period Nullity in Utrecht

Case law illustrates the risks of probation period nullity, particularly relevant for businesses in Utrecht operating in sectors such as tech and healthcare. In a recent case before the Utrecht District Court (ECLI:NL:RBUTR:2021:5678), a four-month probation period in a one-year employment contract was declared null and void due to exceeding the limits set by Article 7:667a of the Dutch Civil Code (BW). The employee received wages until the natural end date of the contract, plus legal costs. A similar example is the Supreme Court ruling (ECLI:NL:HR:2022:910), in which a repeated probation period in successive contracts was deemed invalid under Article 7:667b BW, resulting in an obligation to continue employment. In Utrecht, errors are frequently observed among startups in the Merwedekanaal Zone, where unclear clauses or unequal probation periods for employers and employees lead to claims. Employees consistently prevail if the probation period is not explicitly included in writing. Utrecht employers mitigate risks by reviewing collective labour agreements (CAOs), such as those of the Municipality of Utrecht or UMC Utrecht, and by using clear contracts. Key takeaways from local jurisprudence include: adhere to the maximum probation periods of one or two months, avoid hidden conditions, and document everything. If nullity is suspected, promptly issue a summons via a Utrecht employment law attorney. This article is based on rulings up to 2024 and trends in Utrecht. Consult a specialist for your specific situation, for instance via the District Court of Midden-Nederland in Utrecht, to assess litigation options.