{"id":919,"date":"2026-01-15T12:10:23","date_gmt":"2026-01-15T11:10:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/littler.nl\/?p=919"},"modified":"2026-01-21T14:42:35","modified_gmt":"2026-01-21T13:42:35","slug":"recovering-study-costs-should-you-claim-back-study-costs-or-not","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/littler.nl\/en\/nieuws\/recovering-study-costs-should-you-claim-back-study-costs-or-not\/","title":{"rendered":"Should you claim back study costs or not?"},"content":{"rendered":"

In principle, employees who undergo compulsory training within the meaning of Article 7:611a of the Dutch Civil Code do not have to pay anything back; their employer bears all the costs of course fees, books, exams and the like. Yet many employers include a study costs clause in employment contracts, which states that the training is not compulsory and that employees will have to repay the costs on leaving employment. If it turns out that the training was in fact compulsory, the clause is null and void and the employer may not recover the costs from the employee.<\/p>\n

However, even if the training was not compulsory and the study costs clause is valid, the employer’s recovery claims are not necessarily successful in all instances, as is apparent from a recent judgment of the Overijssel District Court<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The issue
\n<\/strong>An administrative assistant agreed with her employer that she would take a Modern Business Administration course. They entered into a study costs agreement stating that the costs amounted to \u20ac5,758.30, that the employee would have to repay the full training costs on leaving employment, and that this was not ‘compulsory training’ within the meaning of Article 7:611a of the Dutch Civil Code.<\/p>\n

The employer decided not to extend the employment contract and wanted to set off the study costs (which had risen to \u20ac8,400) against the final settlement. The employee did not agree with this, arguing that the training had been compulsory or necessary for her.<\/p>\n

After the employment relationship ended, the employer claimed the remaining amount (which had not been offset in the final settlement) of the study costs from the employee, who in turn argued that the setoff was unjustified and claimed that this amount should be paid back.<\/p>\n

Court: the study costs clause was legally valid
\n<\/strong>The court ruled that it had not been established that the employee had undergone compulsory training within the meaning of the law. She had completed senior secondary vocational education appropriate for her job and the new course was not necessary for her to be able to do her job, nor was the training part of an improvement program. The fact that the employer had suggested she undergo training did not mean that it was compulsory for her to do so. As a result, the parties were at liberty to agree to a study costs clause.<\/p>\n

Who covers the study costs?
\n<\/strong>The court then assessed the study costs clause based on reasonableness and fairness and good employment practices, partly in the light of a Dutch Supreme Court judgment that had set conditions for study costs repayment schemes. Although the study costs agreement complied with those conditions on paper, the employer still could not rely on that judgment in this situation.<\/p>\n

The following circumstances weighed heavily in this regard:<\/p>\n