Part of: Residents criterion (I-criterion)
Who checks, how residence is established, and which sanctions follow a breach.
Two tracks: criminal and administrative
The I-criterion lives in two legal tracks. In criminal law it is a tolerance condition: those who comply are not prosecuted for selling softdrugs. Those who breach it lose that protection and can be prosecuted under the Opium Act.
Administratively it works through municipal coffeeshop policy and the enforcement arrangement. The mayor can act with a warning, an order subject to a penalty, temporary closure or — as a last resort — withdrawal of the tolerance statement. For drug premises there is also the closure power of article 13b of the Opium Act.
How is residence established?
In enforcing municipalities the coffeeshop checks at the door for a valid identity document combined with proof of address or registration: a BRP extract, a recent address confirmation or a document showing a home address. Coffeeshops may not keep their own membership records containing personal data — precisely the reason the private-club criterion was abandoned.
The check itself is carried out by the operator; supervision of it by municipal inspectors and police, usually through inspection visits and mystery-guest checks.
Stepped sanctions
Most enforcement arrangements use a step-by-step scheme: a warning or short closure on first finding, a longer closure on repetition, and withdrawal in case of structural breach. Because a coffeeshop holds a tolerance statement rather than a licence, legal protection on withdrawal differs from — and is often narrower than — that of ordinary hospitality businesses. See also our dossier on scarce permits.