The rules of the expat scheme (former 30% ruling) live on paper — but how strictly they bite becomes visible in court. Here are a few decisions from 2026 that caught our eye — not an exhaustive overview, just cases that show where applications genuinely stand or fall. In plain English, with the official case numbers (ECLI) if you want to read the originals on rechtspraak.nl.
1. The 150 km test is measured, not negotiated
An employee could not show that, in the 24 months before starting work in the Netherlands, they had lived more than 150 km from the Dutch border for more than 16 months. The court's conclusion was mechanical: not an 'incoming employee', so no scheme (Rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabant, 4 June 2026, ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2026:4931).
The takeaway: the look-back period is a factual test. What decides it is not your story but your evidence — where your residence history places you, month by month.
2. The salary test looks at what was agreed at the start…
A helicopter pilot signed a combined training-and-employment contract. At the moment of signing, the expected annual wage exceeded the salary norm — and that, the court held, is what counts. Salary requirement met, scheme granted (Rechtbank Noord-Holland, 23 April 2026, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2026:4689).
The takeaway: the assessment moment is the start of the employment contract, based on the wage agreed and expected then. A well-drafted contract that documents the annual wage clearly can make the difference.
3. …which is exactly why zero-hours contracts fail it
Same test, opposite outcome: an employee on a zero-hours contract had no fixed agreed wage at the start of employment — so it could not be established that the salary norm was met. No scheme (Rechtbank Noord-Holland, 5 February 2026, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2026:2541).
The takeaway: flexible contracts and the expat scheme rarely mix. If the scheme matters to you, the contract needs a fixed wage that meets the norm from day one.
4. An internship in the Netherlands can cost you the scheme
The applicant had already done an internship in the Netherlands before the employment started, and the court found it plausible that they were already living here when the job began. Conclusion: not recruited from abroad, conditions not met (Rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabant, 19 May 2026, ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2026:4381).
The takeaway: this confirms what we flag in our overview of rejection grounds — students and interns who stay on to work in the Netherlands are a high-risk group for the recruitment condition. If this is your path, have the timeline reviewed before applying.
A note on reading case law
These are first-instance rulings by a district court (rechtbank), which can still be appealed — and every judgment turns on its specific facts. What they offer is direction, not guarantees. If one of these situations resembles yours, that's a reason to have your file looked at, not to draw your own conclusion either way.
This article provides general information, not legal advice, and reflects the rules at the time of writing. Thresholds and rules change — for advice on your specific situation, get in touch.