Background · 15 February 2026 · Residence criterion (I-criterion)
The residence criterion — the I-criterion for short — provides that a coffeeshop may sell only to residents of the Netherlands. It is part of the AHOJGI tolerance criteria under the Opium Act Directive, but whether it is enforced is a municipal choice.
As a result, practice varies sharply between municipalities: from strict checks in border regions to non-enforcement across most of the country.
Chronology
16 December 2010
The Court of Justice of the EU rules in the Josémans case (C-137/09): distinguishing by place of residence at coffeeshops is permitted, given the aim of combating drug tourism and public order problems.
2012–2013
The I-criterion is incorporated nationally into the Opium Act Directive. In practice it is actively enforced mainly in border regions; elsewhere enforcement receives low priority.
WODC research
Research into municipal coffeeshop policy maps how many municipalities have incorporated the criterion into policy and how many actually enforce it. The picture: inclusion in policy says little about practice.
Current practice
In border municipalities, the criterion leads to identity checks at the door, affecting business operations and raising the question of where non-residents then buy their cannabis.
Case law and legal framework
Josémans
CJEU 16 December 2010, C-137/09
Distinguishing by place of residence in access to coffeeshops is permissible. This is the foundation underlying the I-criterion.
Opium Act Directive
AHOJGI criteria
The I-criterion sits alongside the other tolerance conditions. Enforcement is a power, not an automatic obligation.
What the criterion does and does not solve
The criterion can reduce drug tourism in a specific city. It does not resolve where the demand goes: it shifts to street dealing or to other municipalities.
The I-criterion is therefore mainly an instrument for local nuisance control, not an answer to the supply side of the market.
Our conclusion
Our conclusion is that the I-criterion is only defensible as a local instrument with a demonstrable nuisance problem, and that enforcement must then be consistent and workable.
A criterion that is in policy but not enforced delivers no safety gain, while it does put businesses in an uncertain position.