Ruben Wiegerink
T+31 70 31 31 076
F+31 70 31 31 060
M+31 6 152 646 07

VCARD LinkedIn Rechtsgebiedenregister


Suzanne van den Berg
T +31 70 31 31 074

Ruben Wiegerink

Ruben combines many areas of expertise in his practice: he is both adviser and litigator in expropriation law, government private law, state aid law, and tax law. His know-how includes experience in State as well as local government taxes. Ruben is also admitted to the Dutch Supreme Court Bar Association.

Ruben’s Supreme Court experience is extensive. Before joining Van der Feltz, he was with Pels Rijcken for nine years, where his practice included Supreme Court litigation. Pels Rijcken is the “State Advocate”, i.e. the law firm representing the Dutch government. And before that, with the Supreme Court’s research centre for seven years.

Ruben enjoys being a sparring partner with fellow lawyers when they are considering Supreme Court appeals. He is convinced that it is essential to review all interests thoroughly and to determine the desired final outcome. Ruben is proactive when advising on the chances of success of a possible Supreme Court appeal. He also assesses the probability of a favourable outcome in the event the Supreme Court remits the case, and enables his clients to properly assess whether or not to lodge an appeal at the Supreme Court.

Ruben has an eye for detail, understands complex instructions and structures, and is always committed to maintaining the quality of his work at a high level. He works well within tight deadlines. In short, excellent legal service is second nature to him.

Industry focus

  • Government
  • Real Estate

Areas of expertise

  • Constitutional and Administrative Law
  • Expropriation
  • Liability and damages
  • Procurement and State Aid
  • Real Estate
  • Supreme Court litigation
  • Tax law


To illustrate Ruben’s practice:

  • Conducting a principal cassation procedure on a private-public cooperation between a project developer and a municipality. This concerned the explanation of an agreement about the construction of a residential area;
  • Proceeding in several instances on the levying of distribution tax on underground pipelines by a municipality. This included issues such as whether private law permission had been given for the presence of the pipelines, as a result of which the levy could not be imposed. The question was also answered whether the tariffs applied could be justified;
  • Proceedings for a municipality about the question of whether the municipality acted unlawfully by indicating, during a conversation with an entrepreneur, that the entrepreneur had to take measures, because otherwise his company had to be discontinued. This case dealt with all sorts of aspects of government liability and the overlapping with administrative law;
  • Advising on whether the municipal purchase of real estate above the market value would constitute impermissible state aid. Among other things, the various possibilities available to the municipality to prevent state support, including an appeal to the de minimis regulation, were discussed;
  • Conducting a procedure for De Nederlandsche Bank regarding levies with regard to financial supervision. The main question was whether the Financial Supervision Act (Wbft) and the implementing regulations based on it, provided for an authorization to impose taxes. In addition, aspects of European law were involved. The case led to the principal decision of the CbB of 18 September 2018, ECLI:NL:CBB:2018:475. The contested judgment was overturned.


  • Member of the Association of Dutch Supreme Court Civil Litigators
  • Member of the Association of Dutch Expropriation Lawyers
  • Member of the Dutch Expropriation Law Association
  • Member of the Dutch Association of Tax Law Specialists and Litigators
  • Member of the Association for Taxation Studies


Jahr wählen:
Name Titel Veröffentlicht in
Ruben Wiegerink Noot bij Hof Amsterdam 7 mei 2019, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2019:2448 (Nieuwe erfpachtregeling Amsterdam. Bezwaar tegen afwijzing verzoek om WOZ-beschikking terecht niet-ontvankelijk verklaard) Belastingblad (BB), oktober afl. 20, (BB) 2019/357
Ruben Wiegerink Noot bij Hof Arnhem-Leeuwarden 7 mei 2019, ECLI:NL:GHARL:2019:3987 (Legessanctie. Actualiseringsplicht bestemmingsplan verlengd tot twintig jaar op grond van Besluit uitvoering crisis- en herstelwet) Belastingblad (BB), augustus, afl. 16, BB 2019/295
Ruben Wiegerink Noot bij Hoge Raad 21 juni 2019 ECLI:NL:HR:2019:1016 (Opbrengstlimiet rioolheffing is niet overschreden. Baggerkosten en onderhoudskosten van oevers mogen worden meegenomen) Belastingblad (BB), augustus, afl. 16, BB 2019/293
Ruben Wiegerink Noot bij Rb. Midden-Nederland 27 mei 2019, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2019:2570, Belastingblad 2019/282 (Geen belang bij beroep omdat aanslag op grond van overeenkomst is gecompenseerd) Belastingblad (BB), juli, afl. 12, BB 2019/282
Ruben Wiegerink Noot bij HR 1 februari 2019 ECLI_NL_HR_2019_143 (Bekendmaking Uniforme Administratieve Voorwaarden voor de uitvoering van werken en van technische installatiewerken (UAV 2012)) Tijdschrift voor Bouwrecht (TBR), 2019, nr. 7, TBR 2019/101
Ruben Wiegerink Noot bij Rb. Gelderland 15 mei 2019, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2019:2075 (Geen bezwaarmogelijkheid tegen verrekening voorlopige teruggaaf. Rechtbank niet bevoegd te oordelen over afwijzing dwangsom) Belastingblad (BB), mei, Nr. 13, AWB 18/6130
Ruben Wiegerink Noot bij HR 26 april 2019 ECLI:NL:2019:2396 (Geen erfdienstbaarheid ontstaan door verjaring, zodat de gemeente precariobelasting mag heffen) Belastingblad (BB), juni, nr. 12, 2019/219
Ruben Wiegerink Belanghebbende krijgt geen dwangsom toegekend, omdat aannemelijk is dat verdagingsbrief (tijdig) naar het juiste adres is verzonden Belastingblad (BB), mei, Nr. 10, BB 2019/184
Ruben Wiegerink Noot bij HR 15 maart 2019, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:352 (Proceskostenvergoeding incidentele hoger beroep onjuist vastgesteld) Belastingblad (BB), april, nr. 9, BB 2019/166
Ruben Wiegerink Kroniek jurisprudentie belastingen lagere overheden 2018 Belastingblad (BB), april 2019, Afl. 6 & 7, BB 2019/99 en 2019/117
Ruben Wiegerink Noot bij Hoge Raad 15 februari 2019, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:142 (Netbeheerder belastingplichtig voor precariobelasting. Belastingplicht vergunninghouder is slechts om doelmatigheidsredenen) Belastingblad (BB), maart, Nr. 6, BB 2019/107
Ruben Wiegerink Noot bij Gerechtshof Den Haag 16 januari 2019, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:1990 (Bijwonen onderzoek ter zitting. Toch geen terugwijzing. Geen proceskostenvergoeding) Belastingblad (BB), maart, Nr. 6, BB 2019/112
Ruben Wiegerink Noot bij Rb Noord-Nederland 18 december 2018, ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2018:5217 (Toepassing hardheidsclausule is niet een voor beroep vatbaar besluit op grond van gesloten stelsel van rechtsmiddelen) Belastingblad (BB), februari, Nr. 7, BB 2019/123
Ruben Wiegerink Noot bij Rb Zeeland-West-Brabant 29 juni 2018, ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2018:3775 (Naheffingsaanslag parkeerbelasting is disproportioneel en onaanvaardbaar) Belastingblad (BB), februari, Nr. 5, BB 2019/89
Ruben Wiegerink Noot bij Rb Noord-Nederland 18 september 2018, ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2018:3708 (Procesbelang aanwezig? Geen proceskostenvergoeding ondanks schending hoorplicht) Belastingblad (BB), februari, Nr. 3, BB 2019/55