Assessment of Building Permits

Applications for building permits on the BES islands (Bonaire, Sint Eustatius, and Saba) are assessed under Article 2.10 of the Act on Public Housing, Spatial Planning and Environmental Management BES (Wet volkshuisvesting, ruimtelijke ordening en milieubeheer BES). In summary, five requirements must be met to receive a building permit:

1) The construction plan complies with the BES Building Decree (BES Bouwbesluit) (technical building requirements).

2) The construction is not in conflict with a spatial development plan (for Bonaire: the Spatial Development Plan Bonaire (Ruimtelijk Ontwikkelingsplan Bonaire)).

3) No monument permit is required, or such permit has been granted.

4) The construction plan does not conflict with reasonable requirements of aesthetics, insofar as an aesthetics memorandum (welstandsnota) applies.

5) The construction plan complies with the provisions of the building and housing regulation (bouw- en woningverordening).

If a building permit meets these five criteria, the permit must be granted. If the permit fails to meet any of these criteria, the permit must be denied.

Thus, the assessment consists of two tests:

1) a technical test (how the construction is carried out), and

2) a spatial planning test (whether the construction plan may be realized at this location according to the spatial development plan).

The BES Building Decree

The BES Building Decree (BES Bouwbesluit) contains provisions for construction and for the use of buildings on Bonaire, Sint Eustatius, and Saba.

For new development, technical requirements apply, but these are often formulated in very general terms. The details are largely left to the islands themselves.

An example of such a general formulation is Article 2.1 of the BES Building Decree:

“A structure has a construction that is sufficiently resistant to combined permanent load, variable load, and wind.”

Naturally, the practical implementation may differ per island. For Saba and Sint Eustatius, stricter requirements may apply due to hurricane risks, while this is less relevant on Bonaire. The islands are therefore expected to further specify these requirements themselves, for example through the building and housing regulation.

Conflict with the Spatial Development Plan

A spatial development plan also contains rules regarding construction, such as the maximum building height, the percentage of a plot allowed to be built, the location of buildings, and possibilities for deviations from the rules of the spatial development plan.

Bonaire has a spatial development plan. Sint Eustatius has had a spatial development plan since 21 September 2023 and for Saba, a spatial development plan is in preparation.

A building permit must comply with the rules in the spatial development plan, unless the Executive Council is, under the plan, authorized to deviate from them, and wishes to do so.

Monument Permit

For protected monuments, in addition to a building permit, a monument permit is required. This follows from the Monuments Act BES (Monumentenwet BES) and the local ordinances based on this act. In the case of work on historic or old buildings it is always important to check whether the building is designated as a monument. Additional rules may then apply regarding alteration or demolition.

Conflict with Reasonable Aesthetic Requirements

The Island Councils may adopt an aesthetics memorandum (welstandsnota) with rules concerning the appearance of structures. These may concern the use of color, design, or integration with the surroundings.

Currently, there are no aesthetics memoranda applicable on the BES islands, so construction plans cannot be assessed on this aspect.

Building Regulations

Bonaire and Sint Eustatius have building and housing regulations (bouw- en woningverordeningen). A building permit must also comply with the requirements set out in these regulations. This regulation also contains technical requirements, as well as requirements in which way an application needs to be filed.

The judgment of the Court of Bonaire concerned the question whether the Executive Council was allowed to use an old Curaçao decree to impose technical requirements, such as minimum wall or ceiling height, as a ground of the technical assessment of a building permit. The Court ruled this was not permitted. The BES Building Decree (BES Bouwbesluit) does not contain a provision requiring a minimum wall height. The building and housing regulations contain no such requirement either. Further requirements may be established by island decree, but such decree has never been made. An informal practical rule may not substitute for a formally adopted island decree.

Conclusion

This judgment, rendered in 2025 and not officially published, is of great importance for the BES islands. The judgment of the Court of Bonaire brings a significant change for the application and assessment of building permits: only technical requirements explicitly laid down in the BES Building Decree (BES Bouwbesluit) or the building and housing regulations (bouw- en woningverordening) may be used in the assessment of an application. If such provision is absent, the Executive Council may not impose additional or informal technical requirements (such as minimum ceiling height, dimensions, or fire safety requirements), nor can the permit be denied or amended on that basis.

If the Executive Council does wish to apply additional technical requirements, these must first be formally enacted through regulations, not through policy or customary practice.

For contractors, developers, and clients, it is thus advisable to always check which technical requirements are imposed in a building permit, and whether these requirements have a legal basis. If they lack such legal basis, they cannot be enforced through the permit. Naturally, they may still be agreed on contractually between parties.

This makes the permitting process more transparent and predictable for all parties involved in the construction sector on the BES islands.

Do you have questions about your (application of a) building permit? Or are technical requirements being imposed that are practically unfeasible or financially undesirable? Contact our administrative law specialist Paul de Lange
E: lange@vaneps.com
T: +599 701 1030.

Fictional refusal
A fictional refusal arises when an administrative authority fails to decide in time. Under the law, failing to decide in time on an application or on an objection is treated as a refusal. An objection or an appeal can then be filed against that refusal. This is subject to deadlines. If an appeal has been filed, the court will generally set a deadline for the government authority to decide. If the government authority does not do so, the court may impose a penalty payment (dwangsom).

BES Islands and Sint Maarten
On the BES Islands and in Sint Maarten, it is possible to initiate proceedings regarding a fictional refusal before the court within six weeks after the decision period has expired. This is strictly regulated on the BES Islands and in Sint Maarten. These six weeks are a hard deadline: if you are late, the court will dismiss the request. This means that, although the government authority is still formally required to decide, it can no longer be compelled by the court. This makes it very important to keep a close watch on decision deadlines.

A few common examples are: applying for a nature permit, applying for a building permit, or obtaining a decision on an objection. When do these time periods start to run? For a building permit, the period starts when the application is complete. On Bonaire, Sint Eustatius, and Saba, it is often assumed that an application is complete only once the fees (the costs of the permit) have also been paid. The official period for deciding on a building permit is sixteen weeks after receipt of the application. If the administrative authority timely notifies that it needs more time, it may extend the decision period by no more than eight weeks.

In practice—particularly on Bonaire—it regularly happens that the government authority does not send a letter stating that the decision has been postponed. That means the decision period has not been extended by eight weeks. In that case, calculate: a 16-week decision period + 6 weeks to file an appeal against the fictional refusal (total 22 weeks). Within 22 weeks after submitting the application, the Court must be asked to order the government authority to decide on the application. Unfortunately, many people miss this deadline. The result is that permit applications remain pending for months, if not years, and there is no longer any way to force the government authority to decide. This is particularly important because various reports on Bonaire show that serious backlogs have developed in permit issuance.

For many applications relating to land to be developed, the government has not decided on the application for years. By filing an appeal against the fictional refusal, this process can be accelerated.

Other important time limits are a request under the Public Access to Government Information Act BES (Wet openbaarheid van bestuur): 3 weeks, and a decision on an objection against a government decision: 4 months. Note: specific statutes may contain different time limits.

Curaçao
In Curaçao, a fictional refusal works slightly differently than on the BES Islands. A decision must be made within a reasonable time, and an appeal must be filed within a reasonable time to compel that decision to be made. If legislation includes a time limit within which the decision has to be made, the end of that time period is the start of the appeal period. In cases where there is no time limit, the question is “what is a reasonable time?”. This depends on the type of administrative decision. A simple permit or a simple request will take a few weeks. If it is more complex and requires a lot of information, it will take a few months. Sometimes a decision period is set out in policy. This requires assessment of the specific application.

An appeal against the failure to make a decision is, in principle, not subject to a specific deadline, in light of Article 16a of the National Ordinance on Administrative Litigation (Landsverordening administratieve rechtspraak), but it may not be filed unreasonably late. This means that, in any event, it may not be filed later than one year after the decision should have been made.

The deadlines that are important to keep an eye on are therefore: 1) what is the statutory deadline? 2) if there’s no statutory deadline, what is a reasonable time given the complexity of the application? 3) until when is it not unreasonably late to file an appeal?

Aruba
In Aruba, the system differs from Curaçao and the BES. Where there is a special statutory arrangement with a legal decision period, a decision must be made within that period. Under Article 9(2) of the National Ordinance on Administrative Litigation of Aruba, where there is no statutory decision period, the period is also deemed to have expired twelve weeks after the application is submitted.

No appeal is available against that fictional refusal; instead, an objection must be filed. The objection period is not six but eight weeks, calculated from the date on which the decision should have been made.

Strategies in cases of urgency
If there is an urgent need to obtain a decision, and you cannot wait until a substantive decision is made, and an objection has already been filed or an appeal has already been lodged against the failure to decide, it is possible to request a preliminary relief (voorlopige voorziening).

The court may grant preliminary relief if the disadvantage resulting from the absence of a decision is so disproportionate, compared to having to wait for a substantive decision, that it cannot reasonably be required of the applicant. This may not be merely a financial disadvantage, but acute financial difficulties and irreversible harm may contribute to urgency. A preliminary injunction is case-specific; therefore, seek legal advice in time. In cases involving an objection or an appeal against a fictional refusal, there are therefore also options to obtain an expedited decision in pressing circumstances.

Checklist Create a checklist for each application:
– What is the deadline before which a decision must be made on the application?
– If no deadline is specified, Aruba applies 12 weeks; on the other islands, a decision must be made within a reasonable time. This depends on the complexity of the application. If it is a simple application, the period will be a matter of weeks. Eight to twelve weeks is a good guideline. If it is more complex, a few months applies.
– On the BES Islands and in Sint Maarten, file an appeal against the failure to decide in time within six weeks and ask the court to set a deadline. In Curaçao: file an appeal as soon as possible (ensure it is not unreasonably late). In Aruba: file an objection against the failure to decide in time.
– If there is urgent need and a substantive decision cannot be awaited, preliminary relief may be requested. The court may then order that a decision be made very quickly or impose another measure (for example, temporarily allowing an activity to be carried out).

Please note that specific regulations apply to many permits and applications, and these may differ from the usual system for failure to decide in time.

Questions, or is a decision deadline about to expire? Contact our administrative law specialist Paul de Lange
E: lange@vaneps.com
T: +599 701 1030.

Enforcement action

A government body may—and in many cases must—act when there is a violation of rules. This may include, for example, building without a building permit, or using land without permission or in violation of the spatial development plan. Courts often formulate the starting point as follows:

“In light of the general public interest served by enforcement, where a statutory provision has been violated, the administrative authority that has the power to act by means of an administrative enforcement action (last onder bestuursdwang) or an order subject to a penalty (last onder dwangsom) must, as a rule, make use of that power. Only under special circumstances may the administrative authority be required to refrain from doing so. This may be the case where there is a concrete possibility of legalization. Further, enforcement action may be so disproportionate in relation to the interests it serves that, in that specific situation, enforcement should be refrained from.”

There are, therefore, a number of reasons why the government cannot take enforcement action in every case. The two most important are: 1) a concrete possibility of legalization (concreet zicht op legalisatie); 2) proportionality (evenredigheid).

For a concrete possibility of legalization, it depends on which rule has been violated. In some cases, such as construction matters, the government must first investigate on its own initiative whether a permit can be granted. If the government does not do so, that can be a reason to challenge an enforcement decision. For other violations, it may be necessary to submit a permit application, and the government must be willing to cooperate in granting that permit.

Another important reason to refrain from enforcement is where enforcement action in the specific circumstances would be disproportionate. For example, where the violation is limited, or where the objective of enforcement can also be achieved through a less intrusive measure. In practice, this is not readily accepted.

Steps the government may take

If the government becomes aware of a violation, it can send supervisory officials/inspectors (toezichthouders) to establish the violation. In many cases you must cooperate with supervision, but you are allowed to ask for identification, the purpose of the visit, and the statutory/legal basis. Depending on the violation, these officials may request information or enter locations. If they conclude that there is a violation, a order subject to a penalty or an administrative enforcement action may be imposed.

Order subject to a penalty (last onder dwangsom)

A government body may impose an order subject to a penalty. If it determines that there is a violation of a statutory provision – for example, building without a permit, using land in conflict with the spatial development plan, or operating a business without the required permits – then it may take enforcement action. Usually, it does so by imposing an order subject to a penalty. The order describes what the violation is and what must be done to undo/remedy it (for example, stop the use of a building or plot or remove a part of a building or an object). If you do not comply within the specified time, the penalty payment may be collected. If the violation has still not been remedied afterward, a new (possibly higher) penalty payment in an order subject to a penalty may follow, or administrative enforcement action may still be applied.

Administrative enforcement action (last onder bestuursdwang)

A government body may also impose an administrative enforcement order. This means that the government itself ends the violation, for example, by demolishing something that was built without a permit. In principle, a period must be given within which the person concerned can end the violation themselves, because under administrative enforcement, in addition to the costs of the action itself, the costs of official/administrative support may also be charged to the violator.

In an exceptional, urgent situation (under strict conditions), the administrative body may intervene immediately (emergency administrative enforcement; spoedbestuursdwang). The decision has to be put in writing afterward, and the costs may be recovered from the violator.

Building freeze (bouwstop)

A special instrument that is often used is the building freeze order. On the BES islands, a building freeze order may be imposed if it is necessary to immediately halt works. The aim is to prevent the illegal situation from expanding in scope. This also allows time to investigate whether legalization is possible or whether further enforcement is necessary. Measures may also be taken to prevent or end risks to health or safety. In practice, this often begins with an oral instruction that construction works must be stopped immediately, followed later by a written decision. In that case, ask immediately for written confirmation.

Because a building freeze halts construction, there is often urgency: downtime typically involves high costs. If you want to resume construction, it may be necessary to promptly file an administrative objection (bezwaar) or appeal (beroep) against the construction stop order and submit a request for interim relief (voorlopige voorziening; suspension). The court may suspend the building freeze (in whole or in part) after weighing the interests of the builder and the government and giving a preliminary view on lawfulness of the building freeze. Building in violation of a building freeze can lead to (additional) enforcement action and costs.

Decision in writing

If a government body takes enforcement action, this must be communicated in writing. This means the government must describe what the violation is, what must be done to end the violation, by what date this must be done, and the amount of the penalty payment and/or that administrative enforcement action will be applied. It is important to file an objection or appeal in time. Always check the decision to see which legal remedy is available and what deadline applies (often: six weeks). In urgent cases, interim relief may also be appropriate. During interim relief, the court is asked to temporarily suspend the decision.

Have you been confronted with an order subject to penalty, administrative enforcement action, or a building freeze?

Checklist (do this immediately):

1) Note the compliance period (begunstigingstermijn) and the legal-remedies deadline (rechtsmiddelentermijn) stated in the decision.

2) Gather permits, photographs, and correspondence.

3) Request the file and assess whether legalization is possible.

Paul de Lange (administrative law specialist)
T: +5997011030
E: lange@vaneps.com

We extend our sincere thanks to our clients and peers who participated in the Chambers research and whose feedback has been instrumental in this outcome. Interviewees have commended the firm for “Reliability, timely delivery of feedback, a great understanding of the law and sound advice on complex matters are evident within the team at VANEPS.”, “The lawyers are up to date on what is going on in the sector the client operates in, enabling them to give the best guidance.” and “The law firm is easily able to manage complex cross-border matters due to its knowledge and experience.”

In addition to the firm’s Band 1 ranking, seven lawyers have been individually recognised for their expertise:
– Focco Lunsingh Scheurleer has once again been ranked in Band 1;
– Roderik van Hees, Rogier van den Heuvel and Tjarda Tazelaar have retained their positions in Band 2;
– Diek Fabius has been ranked in Band 3;
– Tom Peeters has again received Spotlight rankings in respect of his exceptional work in Bonaire and Aruba;
– Randolph van Eps continues to be recognised as a Senior Statesperson.

These rankings reflect the collective dedication and effort of the VANEPS team, operating from our offices in Curaçao, Bonaire, Sint Maarten, and Amsterdam to serve clients worldwide.

Chambers and Partners is an independent research organisation that conducts rigorous, global evaluations of law firms and lawyers based on extensive interviews with clients and peers.

We are grateful for this continued affirmation of our standing and look forward to serving our clients with the same level of commitment in the year ahead.

Handhavend optreden

Een overheidsorgaan mag, en in veel gevallen moet, optreden als zich een overtreding van regels voordoet. Dat kan bijvoorbeeld het bouwen zonder bouwvergunning zijn, of het gebruiken van gronden zonder toestemming of in strijd met het ruimtelijk ontwikkelingsplan. De rechter formuleert dit uitgangspunt vaak als volgt:

“Gelet op het algemeen belang dat gediend is met handhaving, zal in geval van overtreding van een wettelijk voorschrift het bestuursorgaan dat bevoegd is om met een last onder bestuursdwang of een last onder dwangsom op te treden, in de regel van deze bevoegdheid gebruik moeten maken. Slechts onder bijzondere omstandigheden mag van het bestuursorgaan worden gevergd dit niet te doen. Dit kan zich voordoen indien concreet zicht op legalisatie bestaat. Voorts kan handhavend optreden zodanig onevenredig zijn in verhouding tot de daarmee te dienen belangen dat van optreden in die concrete situatie behoort te worden afgezien.”

Er zijn dus wel een aantal redenen waarom de overheid niet in alle gevallen kan optreden. De twee belangrijkste redenen zijn: 1) concreet zicht op legalisatie; 2) evenredigheid.

Bij concreet zicht op legalisatie ligt het eraan welke regel is overtreden. In sommige gevallen, zoals bij bouwen, zal de overheid eerst zelf moeten onderzoeken of er een vergunning verleend kan worden. Doet de overheid dat niet, dan is dat een reden om een besluit tot handhavend optreden aan te vechten. Bij andere overtredingen kan het noodzakelijk zijn om een vergunningaanvraag in te dienen, en de overheid moet aan die vergunning willen meewerken.

Een andere belangrijke reden om van handhaving af te zien, is dat handhavend optreden in het concrete geval onevenredig is. Het gaat er bijvoorbeeld om dat de overtreding beperkt is, of dat het doel van handhaving ook met een minder ingrijpende maatregel kan worden bereikt. In de praktijk wordt dit niet snel aangenomen.

Stappen van de overheid

Als de overheid weet heeft van een overtreding kan zij toezichthouders sturen om de overtreding te kunnen constateren. In veel gevallen moet worden meegewerkt aan toezicht, maar u mag wél vragen naar legitimatie, het doel van het bezoek en de wettelijke grondslag. Zo kunnen toezichthouders, afhankelijk van de overtreding, om informatie vragen of plaatsen betreden. Komen deze toezichthouders tot de conclusie dat er sprake is van een overtreding, dan kan een last onder dwangsom of een last onder bestuursdwang worden opgelegd.

Last onder dwangsom

Een overheidsorgaan mag een last onder dwangsom opleggen. Als een overheidsorgaan constateert dat sprake is van een overtreding van een wettelijke bepaling, bijvoorbeeld het bouwen zonder vergunning, het gebruiken van gronden in strijd met het ruimtelijk ontwikkelingsplan, en het uitvoeren van een bedrijf zonder de vereiste vergunningen, dan kan een overheidsorgaan handhavend optreden. Meestal doet het overheidsorgaan dat door het opleggen van een last onder dwangsom. Daarbij wordt omschreven wat de overtreding is en wat moet worden gedaan om de overtreding ongedaan te maken (bijvoorbeeld het gebruik staken of iets verwijderen). Als niet binnen een bepaalde tijd daaraan wordt voldaan, dan zal een dwangsom kunnen worden ingevorderd. Is de overtreding daarna nog niet opgeheven, dan kan een nieuwe (eventueel hogere) last onder dwangsom volgen of kan alsnog bestuursdwang worden toegepast.

Last onder bestuursdwang

Een overheidsorgaan mag ook een last onder bestuursdwang opleggen. Dat betekent dat de overheid de overtreding zelf ongedaan maakt, bijvoorbeeld het zelf afbreken van iets dat gebouwd is zonder vergunning. Daarbij moet in beginsel wel een termijn worden gegeven waarbinnen iemand zelf de overtreding ongedaan kan maken, omdat bij bestuursdwang naast de kosten van de handeling zelf ook de kosten van ambtelijke ondersteuning in rekening kunnen worden gebracht bij de overtreder.

Bij een uitzonderlijk, zeer spoedeisende situatie (onder strenge voorwaarden) mag het bestuursorgaan direct ingrijpen (spoedbestuursdwang). Daarna wordt het besluit op schrift gesteld en kunnen de kosten op de overtreder worden verhaald.

Bouwstop

Een bijzonder instrument dat vaak wordt ingezet is de bouwstop. Op de BES-eilanden geldt dat een bouwstop mag worden ingezet als het nodig is om werkzaamheden direct stil te leggen. Doel is om te voorkomen dat de illegale situatie verder in omvang toeneemt. Dan kan ook onderzocht worden of legalisatie mogelijk is of dat verdere handhaving nodig is. Ook kunnen mogelijk voorzieningen worden getroffen om gevaar voor de gezondheid of de veiligheid tegen te gaan of te beëindigen.  Vaak begint dit met een mondelinge mededeling dat bouwwerkzaamheden direct stil moeten worden gelegd, waarna later een schriftelijk besluit volgt. Vraag in dat geval meteen om een schriftelijke bevestiging.

Omdat een bouwstop de bouw stillegt, is er vaak sprake van spoed: stilstand brengt doorgaans hoge kosten met zich mee. Wilt u de bouw hervatten, dan kan het nodig zijn om snel bezwaar of beroep in te stellen tegen de bouwstop en een verzoek om voorlopige voorziening (schorsing) te doen. De rechter kan de bouwstop (gedeeltelijk) schorsen na een belangenafweging en een voorlopig oordeel over de rechtmatigheid. Bouwen in strijd met een bouwstop kan leiden tot (extra) handhaving en kosten.

Besluit

Als een overheidsorgaan handhaaft, moet dit schriftelijk worden medegedeeld. Dat betekent dat de overheid moet beschrijven wat de overtreding is, wat gedaan moet worden om de overtreding te beëindigen, voor wanneer dit moet gebeuren en wat de hoogte van de dwangsom is of dat dan bestuursdwang wordt toegepast. Het is belangrijk om tijdig bezwaar of beroep in te stellen. Controleer altijd in het besluit welk rechtsmiddel openstaat en welke termijn geldt (vaak: zes weken). Bij spoed kan ook een voorlopige voorziening aan de orde zijn, dan wordt de rechter gevraagd om het besluit tijdelijk buiten werking te stellen.

Bent u geconfronteerd met een last onder dwangsom, bestuursdwang of een bouwstop (Bonaire, Sint Eustatius of Saba)?

Checklist (doe dit direct):

1) Noteer de begunstigingstermijn en de rechtsmiddeltermijn uit het besluit.

2) Verzamel vergunningen, foto’s en correspondentie.

3) Vraag het dossier op en beoordeel of legalisatie mogelijk is.

Paul de Lange (administrative law specialist)
T: +5997011030
E: lange@vaneps.com

The Legal 500 is a renowned international research firm that evaluates law firms and individual lawyers based on independent research.

With over 85 years of experience, VANEPS provides specialized legal services to both local and international clients. Operating from offices in Amsterdam, Aruba, Bonaire, Curaçao, Sint Maarten and Suriname VANEPS also serves Sint Eustatius and Saba. VANEPS is a member of the Lex Mundi network, the world’s leading network of independent law firms.

The full results can be found here: L500 | Leading firms in Dutch Caribbean | Law firm and lawyer rankings from Legal 500 Caribbean guide | Firms

This landmark agreement not only preserves a vital industrial asset for the island but also safeguards jobs, promotes responsible development, and strengthens Bonaire’s position in regional energy storage and distribution. With a focus on ecological protection and community benefits, it’s a win for the local economy, the environment, and the future generations of Bonaire.

Our team that helped advising on this matter consisted of Mariette Steeg, Paul de Lange, Tom Peeters, Diek Fabius, Murielle Spithoven & Michiel Gorsira.

For more information please see: Curoil Bonaire Becomes New Owner of BOPEC Facilities – Curaçao Chronicle

Our team advising on this matter consisted of Tom Peeters, Mariette Steeg, Paul de Lange and Muriëlle Spithoven.

For more information please see: https://www.curacaochronicle.com/post/local/curoil-bonaire-signs-agreement-with-bopec-bankruptcy-trustee-for-facility-acquisition/

The team of VANEPS, consisting of Diek Fabius, Focco Lunsingh Scheurleer and Inge van Hees-Wolswijk, assists and advises Staatsolie as the mandated listing advisor and local legal adviser.