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 17 januari 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:332 (Aanslag forensenbelasting. Gelijkheidsbeginsel) Belastingblad (BB), maart 2017, Afl. 7, BB 2017/142
Ruben Wiegerink Kroniek jurisprudentie belastingen lagere overheden 2016 Belastingblad (BB), februari en maart 2017, Afl. 5 en 6, BB 2017/100 en BB 2017/116
Ruben Wiegerink Noot bij Hof Arnhem-Leeuwarden 10 januari 2017, ECLI:NL:GHARL:2017:127 (Hoogte bouwleges leidt niet tot willekeurige of onredelijke belastingheffing) Belastingblad (BB), februari 2017, Afl. 5, BB 2017/106
Ruben Wiegerink Noot bij Hof Amsterdam 30 november 2016, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2016:5564 (Vertegenwoordiging in fiscale procedure door bestuurder) Belastingblad (BB), februari 2017, Afl. 4, BB 2017/95
Ruben Wiegerink Noot bij Hof Amsterdam 27 september 2016, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2016:4469 (Verordening parkeerheffingen. Bekendmaking) Belastingblad (BB), januari 2017, Afl. 1, BB 2017/14
Ruben Wiegerink Noot bij Rechtbank Midden-Nederland 15 september 2016, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2016:5372 (Precariobelasting gas- en elektriciteitsnetwerk. Privaatrechtelijke gedoogplicht) Belastingblad (BB), oktober 2016, Afl. 22, BB 2016/490
Ruben Wiegerink Noot bij Rechtbank Midden-Nederland 15 september 2016, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2016:5369 (Precariobelasting gas- en elektriciteitsnetwerk. Belanghebbende) Belastingblad (BB), oktober 2016, Afl. 22, BB 2016/489
Jacques Sluysmans, Ruben Wiegerink Onteigenen volgens de Omgevingswet: fundamentele kritiek op een fundamentele herziening De Gemeentestem (Gst.), september 2016, Afl. 7443, Gst. 2016/111
Jacques Sluysmans, Ruben Wiegerink Reactie op reactie Van der Veen De Gemeentestem (Gst.), september 2016, Afl. 7443, Gst. 2016/121
Ruben Wiegerink Noot bij Rechtbank Noord-Holland 1 augustus 2016, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2016:6394 (Wob-verzoek. Misbruik van recht. Omkering bewijslast) Belastingblad (BB), september 2016, Afl. 19, BB 2016/433
Ruben Wiegerink Noot bij Hof 's-Hertogenbosch 13 mei 2016, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2016:1889 (Wob-verzoek. Legesaanslag. Bevoegdheidsgebrek. Kostenvergoeding) Belastingblad (BB), september 2016, Afl. 18, BB 2016/406