Amsterdam not allowed to ban Airbnb rentals in three neighborhoods: Council of State
The municipality of Amsterdam was not allowed to ban vacation rentals in specific neighborhoods in 2020, the Council of State ruled in an appeal filed by the city. The Netherlands’ highest administrative court thereby confirmed the lower court’s ruling.
The ban on holiday rentals in the Red Light District and the southern part of the canal belt was intended to reduce the nuisance caused by tourists and increase the quality of life for locals in the city center. Amsterdam Gastvrij, an interest group for holiday rentals, filed a lawsuit against the plan and won. The court ruled that Amsterdam based the ban on the Housing Act, but the law did not offer that possibility.
The municipality appealed, and the Council of State now also ruled against it. According to the Council of State, the municipality can only use the Housing Act to ban holiday rentals “if there are good reasons for doing so, which are related to the purpose and purport of the Housing Act.”
The Council of State called the ban on Airbnb and other holiday rentals in the Burgwallen Oude Zijde, Burgwallen Nieuwe Zijde, and Grachtengordel-Zuid neighborhoods a disproportionate measure. According to the Council of State, the city should “first have investigated whether less far-reaching measures could be taken to achieve the intended goal. It has not been shown that the city has done this.”
If the city wants to implement a ban in the future, it must first demonstrate that it has tried all other less far-reaching measures, and these were insufficient. According to the Council of State, Amsterdam could have improved the quality of life in the neighborhoods concerned by, for example, only issuing a certain number of permits for holiday rentals or by banning them in the zoning plan.
The municipality of Amsterdam told Parool that it would study the ruling and see what it meant for its policy against illegal rental and housing fraud.
Maarten Bruinsma of Amsterdam Gastvrij is not surprised that the Council of State ruled in its favor. “It is hard to understand why the municipality appealed,” he told the newspaper. This was an unnecessary and costly experiment that damaged the credibility of the municipality.”
