Owner demolishes frontage while squatters are still inside
Police attended premises on Stavangerweg in Groningen; squatters later left voluntarily.
An owner had part of a commercial property on Stavangerweg in Groningen demolished on Saturday while squatters were still inside. Police arrived with several units; no one was injured.
According to Hart van Nederland, the owner appeared at the property after it had been squatted the previous day. Heavy construction equipment was used to demolish part of the front façade while people were still inside the building. Police came to the site in large numbers to keep the situation under control.
A local news source reports that the owner had previously asked people to leave the building. According to police, the parties involved gave differing accounts of how long the squatters had been in the property and how the conflict had begun. As far as is known, police have not reported that anyone was arrested.
The squatters eventually left the property voluntarily. According to 112Vandaag, the Mobile Unit stood by as a precaution but did not need to be deployed. A municipal employee was also present. The owner later left the site with the excavator.
Squatting has been a criminal offence in the Netherlands since October 2010. An owner can file a police report and request an eviction. The Public Prosecution Service and police then decide whether a criminal-law eviction will take place. In addition, an owner can use the civil courts to demand that squatters leave.
Court practice shows that the ban on squatting does not automatically mean that every eviction may take place immediately. In August, the Amsterdam District Court rejected a request for a swift eviction because the urgent interest had not been sufficiently substantiated. The principle remained intact, however, that the owner must be able to retain access to the site and the buildings.
It is not yet known whether a police report has been filed concerning the demolition on Stavangerweg, whether the owner had the required authorisation, or whether police are launching a further investigation. The incident does show how quickly a conflict over property, vacancy and the right to a home can escalate before a court has substantively assessed the case.
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- An owner had part of a squatted property demolished while people were still inside.
- The squatters later left voluntarily and no one was injured.
- Squatting is a criminal offence, but evictions take place through the police, Public Prosecution Service or courts.
Left
Arguments Ownership does not give anyone carte blanche to set safety and the right to a home aside. The authorities must tackle vacant properties and ensure that conflicts are resolved through the courts.
Values The right to housing, legal protection, safety and tackling vacant properties.
Consequences Greater protection for squatters may delay proceedings, but reduces the risk of people taking the law into their own hands and of dangerous situations.
Centre
Arguments Squatting is prohibited, but owners must also comply with safety and permit regulations. A swift, independent procedure should determine who must leave and when.
Values The rule of law, proportionality, safety and enforceable regulation.
Consequences Clear procedures can prevent escalation, but require capacity from police, municipalities and courts.
Right
Arguments An owner must be able to use their property and act quickly against illegal occupation. Allowing squatted properties to remain occupied for a long time undermines property rights and the operation of the law.
Values Property, public order, enforcement and the owner's responsibility.
Consequences Faster evictions can keep conflicts brief, but without oversight there is a risk that private parties will test the boundaries themselves.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The factual description of the incident and the legal context are supported by local media and government sources. Unknown details about any police report, permits and further investigation are presented as uncertain.
- confirmed Part of a property on Stavangerweg in Groningen was demolished while squatters were still inside. — Reported by Hart van Nederland and 112Vandaag. source
- confirmed No one was injured. — Reported by Hart van Nederland and 112Vandaag. source
- confirmed The squatters left voluntarily. — Reported by 112Vandaag. source
- confirmed Squatting has been a criminal offence since October 2010. — Confirmed by the Rijksoverheid. source
- confirmed In August 2026, the Amsterdam District Court rejected a request for a swift eviction because the urgent interest was insufficient. — Recorded in the published judgment. source
Editor's note
The demolition, the presence of police and the voluntary departure were reported by several local sources. The identity of the owner, any police report and whether the demolition was lawful are not known.Sources
- Eigenaar pikt het niet dat pand gekraakt wordt en sloopt gevel — Hart van Nederland
- Eigenaar grijpt zelf in bij gekraakt pand en sloopt deel gebouw terwijl krakers binnen zitten — 112Vandaag
- Is een woning kraken strafbaar? — Rijksoverheid
- ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2026:8210 — Rechtspraak
More on this in Dutch media
- De Telegraaf — „groningen stefangerweg”
- AD — „groningen stefangerweg”
- de Volkskrant — „groningen stefangerweg”