Netherlands: No Study Costs Clause for Mandatory Education

The Supreme Court has answered preliminary questions regarding the validity of study cost clauses (in Dutch: studiekostenbeding) in connection with the Professional Training for Lawyers (in Dutch: Beroepsopleiding Advocaten). A study cost clause means that, under certain conditions, an employee must reimburse his employer for study costs that the employer has incurred on his behalf. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Professional Training for Lawyers falls under the category of training that is necessary for the performance of the duties of a trainee lawyer. Employers are therefore obliged to enable trainee lawyers to follow this training program and offer it free of charge.

When an employee undertakes training at the employer’s expense or during working hours, the parties may agree on a so-called study costs clause. Until August 2022, Dutch law contained no specific statutory provisions governing such arrangements, and their validity was shaped by case law. In the Muller/Van Opzeeland judgement, the Supreme Court ruled that a study costs clause is only valid if:

• the employer benefits from the training for a defined period,
• the repayment obligation decreases as the employee remains longer in service, and
• the financial consequences are clearly explained.

This legal framework changed with the introduction of Article 7:611a of the Dutch Civil Code (in Dutch: Burgerlijk Wetboek) on 1 August 2022, which implements the EU Directive on Transparent and Predictable Working Conditions. Under this provision, any training required for the performance or continuation of the job must be paid for by the employer and take place during paid working hours.

Against this background, a dispute arose between a law firm and a trainee lawyer over the validity of a study costs clause after the employee was dismissed during the period in which the training costs were to be repaid under the clause. The subdistrict court found the study costs clause void, rejecting the employer’s claim for reimbursement. On appeal, three preliminary questions were referred to the Dutch Supreme Court regarding the interpretation of Article 7:611a of the Civil Code, which sets out the employer’s duty to provide necessary training.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Professional Training for Lawyers qualifies as training necessary to perform the duties of a trainee lawyer. Employers must therefore enable and pay for this training under Article 7:611a, and any repayment clause is invalid. The Court emphasized that this interpretation aligns with the EU Directive on Transparent and Predictable Working Conditions, which requires mandatory training to be provided free of charge. It was therefore unnecessary to rely on the Lawyers Act or Lawyers Regulation as a separate legal basis.

Key Points for HR

Because of how the process of forming a government works in the Netherlands, it is not certain that all proposed changes will be implemented. However, it shows the intentions of the biggest party in the Netherlands and the direction of possible changes in the future.