4. The assessment
Urgent interest
The nature of a number of Rojalie's claims entails an urgent interest.
Declaration of nullity of meetings
However, no declaratory decisions, such as the annulment of decisions or meetings, can be taken in summary proceedings. The claim under 1. is therefore not admissible.
Claim for dismissal of the chairperson
The considerations under 4.2. also apply to the dismissal claimed under 2. The summary proceedings judge cannot grant this. Incidentally, Rojalie must submit such a proposal to the General Meeting of the HOA. The members can then decide on it.
The HOA is not a party
Rojalie has chosen to involve TG21 (= Mr. [A]) in these proceedings. Although Mr. [A] is the chairman of the HOA, the claims under 3., 4. and 5. are directed against the HOA. The summary proceedings judge cannot order TG21 to do anything that the HOA should do. For this reason alone, these claims must also be rejected.
Superfluous
In order to prevent a possible dispute against the HOA, the Court notes the following regarding claims 4. and 5.In the decision of April 29, 2025, of the HOA against Rojalie, the Court considered the following:2.22. The foregoing does not necessarily mean that the PFF no longer has to pay anything for the years 2012 to 2019. The VvE may still decide that it will bear certain costs of the RBCTA. It must then put this item on the agenda of a VvE meeting. It is then up to it to provide the owners with insight into which costs of the RBCTA it wishes to bear and why it believes that the joint owners should bear them. It is up to the owners jointly to decide on this. If it turns out that these are all expenses for the benefit of common areas, it would seem unreasonable for them to refuse to agree. Insofar as certain owners have already paid their share of those costs directly to RBCTA, they will of course not have to pay them again.
Contrary to what Rojalie claims, the HOA was therefore entitled to put this item on the agenda of the meeting of January 30, 2026.
Legal costs in the main action
Rojalie, as the unsuccessful party, will be ordered to pay the legal costs. These costs are estimated on the part of TG21 to date at Cg 1,500 (1.0 point in summary proceedings) in salary for TG21's representative.
The counterclaim
The claim for compensation for TG21 is admissible. The costs for a replacement airline ticket, WSPA invoice, and “lost vacation” are sufficiently substantiated and are not disputed. The claimed penalties will be rejected because it is not possible to link a claim for payment to a penalty (Article 611a(1) of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure).
Legal costs in the counterclaim
As the unsuccessful party, Rojalie will also be ordered to pay the legal costs in the counterclaim. These costs are estimated on the part of TG21 to date at Cg 750 (0.5 points in summary proceedings) in salary for TG21's representative.
5. The decision
The Court:
Ruling in summary proceedings:
in convention
dismisses the claims;
orders Rojalie to pay the costs of the proceedings, estimated to date at Cg 1,500 in the part of TG21;
in the counterclaim
orders Rojalie to pay TG21 the sum of USD 3,556.52;
orders Rojalie to pay TG21's legal costs, estimated to date at Cg 750;
declares part 5.4. of this judgment provisionally enforceable;
rejects the other claims.