Rotterdam District Court, 11 February 2026, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2026:1245
Facts
The employee, who had worked as a youth care worker since 2002 and had extensive experience and a good track record, was summarily dismissed on 16 October 2025.
The reason for the dismissal was that she had, on several occasions, accessed electronic patient files (EPD) without authorisation of clients who were not part of her team and with whom she had no treatment relationship. There was no business need for this access.
It was relevant that the employee was personally involved with these files. They concerned young people who were in some way linked to her son, including in connection with a criminal case in which she herself was involved. Earlier in 2025, her son had been threatened with a firearm by one of these young people. The employee stated that this incident had had a major emotional impact on her and that she suffered from severe PTSD and anxiety symptoms. Out of this fear, she wanted to check in the files whether the young person concerned was in her vicinity.
When consulting the EPD, the employee deliberately selected false reasons for access in the system in order to obtain the information. She also failed to report (in good time) her personal involvement in a number of these files.
The employee ultimately accepted the summary dismissal itself, but claimed the statutory transition payment, fair compensation, and compensation for irregular termination.
Ruling
According to the subdistrict court, accessing the EPD without a business reason is not permitted. The employee was aware of this but nevertheless made the wrong choices. In assessing the consequences of those wrong choices, however, it is not sufficient to look only at this conduct in isolation, as the employer appears to have done by proceeding directly to summary dismissal. The subdistrict court emphasised that all the circumstances of the case must be weighed together.
Based on all the circumstances of the case, the subdistrict court ruled that summary dismissal was too severe a measure. It weighed heavily that the employee had herself sought internal help from the employer, including by requesting guidance from a trauma psychologist. She had therefore not deliberately concealed her personal situation and her involvement in the files concerned from the employer.
According to the subdistrict court, the employer had assessed the situation too one-sidedly and had too quickly reached for the most severe measure: summary dismissal. It had not been shown that the employee had obtained information from the files that had caused, or could have caused, (potentially) significant damage to the employer or to the young people involved. This meant the dismissal was not justified.
The employer must pay the employee part of the statutory transition payment, fair compensation, and compensation for irregular termination (total amount X gross).
What does this mean for employers?
Normally, unauthorised access to the EPD provides grounds for summary dismissal. Due to the employee’s long and good track record and the distressing cause (a threat against the employee’s child), the subdistrict court departed from this line of case law in this particular case.
This ruling shows that a breach of internal rules does not automatically have to lead to a valid summary dismissal. The court weighs all the circumstances of the case, with the proportionality of the measure being decisive.
For employers, this means they must conduct a careful investigation, apply the principle of hearing both sides, and also consider less far-reaching measures. Employers who proceed too quickly to summary dismissal run the risk of the court intervening, with possible financial consequences.
Do you have questions about unauthorised access to files by an employee? Please feel free to contact one of our employment lawyers.
Click here for the full ruling (in Dutch).
