Background · 20 January 2026 · The Bibob Act and coffeeshops
Integrity screening belongs in a tolerated sector. The BCD is not opposed to Bibob — we oppose a screening process without deadlines, without insight and without workable legal protection.
For a business owner, a Bibob procedure often means months of uncertainty about whether the business can continue to exist, based on information they cannot fully see.
Chronology
Legal framework
The Public Administration Probity Screening Act (Wet Bibob) gives administrative bodies the power to screen integrity and request advice from the National Bibob Bureau (Landelijk Bureau Bibob).
Application to coffeeshops
The screening is applied as standard to applications, renewals and transfers of a tolerance declaration. A Bibob screening also applies within the closed coffeeshop chain experiment, both for operators and for designated growers.
Practical bottlenecks
Long processing times, limited access to the advice, and a heavy burden of proof concerning past business relationships make the procedure onerous, even where no wrongdoing is proven.
Case law and legal framework
Bibob Act
Legal framework for integrity screening
The Act grants a power, not an automatic obligation. The administrative body remains responsible for its own, reasoned assessment.
National Bibob Bureau
Advice and procedure
The Bureau advises; the decision remains with the administrative body. That distinction is decisive for legal protection.
What a fair screening requires
An integrity screening meant to strengthen trust in the sector must itself be testable: clear criteria, reasonable deadlines and access that makes objection genuinely possible.
The experiment shows that strict integrity requirements with transparent criteria can work. That is a usable model for regular policy.
- Clear criteria and a reasoned decision
- Reasonable and enforced deadlines
- Access that makes objection and appeal genuinely possible
Our conclusion
Our conclusion is that Bibob screening for coffeeshops can be improved: not less strict, but fairer.
Responsibility for the assessment lies with the administrative body, not with the advice. Anyone who takes that seriously reasons the decision themselves and keeps the procedure within a reasonable timeframe.