On 21 November, the Dutch Supreme Court handed down its judgment in a dispute concerning a mandatory field to provide an e-mail address in an online objection form. The central question was whether the mandatory provision of an e-mail address is equivalent to an acknowledgement by an addressee that they can be reached through electronic means within the meaning of Article 2:14 of the Dutch General Administrative Law Act. 

The case concerned additional parking tax assessments by the municipality of Leiden. The plaintiff had lodged an objection against the assessments via a digital contact form and filled in the mandatory fields, including the field requesting his e-mail address. The tax inspector sent the decisions regarding objection to this e-mail address. When the plaintiff later lodged another objection, the tax inspector declared it inadmissible, and the district court of The Hague ruled that the appeal period had expired following the announcement of the decisions regarding objection had been announced to the plaintiff by e-mail. 

The plaintiff appealed against the district court's ruling, arguing that he had not received the decisions regarding his objection. He claimed that he had not given the tax inspector permission to provide the decisions by e-mail and that such permission could not be inferred from the mere completion of a mandatory field in the contact form.

According to Article 2:14 of the General Administrative Law Act, an administrative body may send messages electronically insofar as the addressee has indicated that they are sufficiently reachable through this method. This notification can be 'more or less explicit', so long as it is clear to which messages or exchange this notification refers, which electronic means the addressee expressed being open to and at which (electronic) address they are able to receive electronic messages. Moreover, an administrative body may explicitly ask the addressee whether they can be reached by electronic means and whether they wish to continue communication through those means. A practical example is the “Berichtenbox” app of MijnOverheid, where citizens can indicate from which administrative bodies they wish to receive electronic communications. 

According to the Dutch Supreme Court, the fact that an e-mail address is known to an administrative body is insufficient to infer that an addressee is also reachable through that address. Similarly insufficient is the fact that an addressee submits an electronic request, and in that process, provides his e-mail address. The Dutch Supreme Court considers it relevant that the form does not state that by filling in the mandatory field, the addressee agrees that communication about a procedure on objection will take place via e-mail from thereon out. The fact that the form states that confirmation of receipt will be sent by e-mail to the disclosed email address does detract from this. The Dutch Supreme Court considers the appeal to be well-founded and refers the case back to the district court of The Hague for further consideration.

The judgment is relevant in the context of mandatory fields for certain data points in online forms. The judgment of the European Court of Justice in the Mousse case of January 2025 shows that mandatory fields for personal data are only permitted if they are objectively necessary. Although the Dutch Supreme Court remains silent on this point, it is doubtful whether a mandatory field for the email address in this case was permissible considering the principle of data minimisation.