Background · 1 April 2026 · Scarce licences and coffeeshops
In almost every municipality with coffeeshops, the policy contains one sentence that is rarely explained: there may be no more than X coffeeshops. That number is almost never underpinned by current research. It has grown historically, been carried over from an earlier policy paper, or copied from a comparable municipality.
Around that sentence, a legal debate has emerged in recent years about scarce licences: if there are more interested parties than places, must the municipality allocate, draw lots and periodically redistribute? That is the wrong first question. The first question is why there is a maximum at all.
This article sets out the chronology, states what the case law actually decided, shows how the VNG [Association of Netherlands Municipalities] guidance follows the same order, and ends with our conclusion.
Chronology
2016
The Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State formulates the starting point for scarce licences in the case concerning an amusement arcade in Vlaardingen: if an administrative body grants a limited number of places, it must offer equal opportunities and organise the process transparently. This is the framework to which later discussions refer.
13 September 2023
The Division rules that a tolerance declaration (gedoogverklaring) for a coffeeshop is not a licence within the meaning of the Services Directive (ECLI:NL:RVS:2023:3431). This means the allocation rules from that directive do not automatically apply to coffeeshops.
2024
The BCD begins systematically pointing municipalities and the VNG to the underlying justification for maximum-number systems: what problem does the cap solve, what facts support it, and when was it last reviewed? In letters and meetings, one point is central: capping is a policy choice, not a legal obligation.
October 2024
The VNG publishes its guidance on scarce licences (Handreiking Schaarse vergunningen). It does not start with allocation, but with the policy choice: first the question of whether a restriction is necessary and proportionate, only then the question of how to allocate.
30 April 2025
The Division rules in the Heerlen case (ECLI:NL:RVS:2025:1925). The Services Directive is held not to apply; the duration of the tolerance declaration is, however, addressed. The ruling is therefore mainly relevant to how long a tolerance declaration may run — not to any duty to allocate.
16 September 2025
The BCD addresses the Amersfoort municipal council on coffeeshop policy and the justification for the maximum. The message: oversight of quality and surroundings is possible without a numerical ceiling.
12 December 2025
The Midden-Nederland District Court rules (ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2025:7604) on factual scarcity and the status of tolerance declarations. Here too: factual scarcity is not the same as a scarce licence in the legal sense.
2026
The conversation shifts from 'must we draw lots?' to 'can we explain our maximum?'. The BCD works out the line in guidance for municipalities, with a checklist and the alternative: setting standards instead of capping.
Case law and legal framework
Vlaardingen amusement arcade
ABRvS 2016
The starting point for equal opportunities where there is a limited number of places. It concerns how you allocate if you allocate — not whether you must restrict.
A tolerance declaration is not a licence within the meaning of the Services Directive
ABRvS 13 September 2023, ECLI:NL:RVS:2023:3431
This ruling is the core of the dossier: the allocation rules of the Services Directive do not automatically apply to coffeeshop tolerance declarations.
Heerlen
ABRvS 30 April 2025, ECLI:NL:RVS:2025:1925
The Services Directive does not apply; the case does concern the limited duration of the tolerance declaration. This ruling is regularly interpreted more broadly than it is in public debate.
Factual scarcity is not a scarce licence
Rb. Midden-Nederland 12 December 2025, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2025:7604
The fact that there are more interested parties than places does not automatically turn the tolerance declaration into a scarce licence with an attendant duty to allocate.
The VNG guidance
The VNG guidance on scarce licences (October 2024) follows the same order we maintain in our letters: first the policy choice, then the allocation.
That is not a detail. Whoever starts with allocation treats the maximum as a fact of nature. Whoever starts with the policy choice must explain what problem the cap solves — and that is precisely the question that remains unanswered in most coffeeshop policy papers.
- Is the restriction necessary for a legitimate purpose?
- Is it proportionate, and has a less far-reaching alternative been assessed?
- Is the justification current and testable?
What a maximum does in practice
A numerical ceiling does not steer towards quality. It freezes a situation. Whoever is in, stays in; whoever wants to add quality cannot get in; and the municipality retains no instrument to improve business operations.
This becomes visible in business succession. The continuity of a tolerated business then depends on a number nobody can explain any more, rather than on whether the operation is sound.
The alternative: setting standards instead of capping
Setting standards means: imposing requirements on the operation rather than on the number. Think of distance requirements, opening hours, requirements for security and supervision, administration and management of the surrounding area.
That gives the municipality more control, not less. A standard works continuously and applies to every shop; a maximum works only once and says nothing about how the business is run.
- Requirements for business operations, administration and integrity
- Requirements for safety, supervision and the surrounding area
- Enforceable standards instead of a number in a policy paper
Our conclusion
The legal debate on scarce licences is narrower for coffeeshops than it is often presented: a tolerance declaration is not a licence within the meaning of the Services Directive, and factual scarcity does not give rise to an independent duty to draw lots or periodically redistribute.
What does remain is the administrative question: why is there a maximum, and can the municipality explain it? Our conclusion is that oversight is better served by setting standards than by capping.