Court quashes two penalty orders against Dolfinarium
The Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal finds the justification for animal presentations and a concert insufficient.
The Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal has quashed two penalty orders against Dolfinarium. A third order, concerning contact between visitors and dolphins, remains in force.
The state secretary imposed the orders after inspections of three activities: animal presentations, a concert with dolphins and a programme in which visitors entered the water with dolphins. According to the ministry, the first two activities provided insufficient educational explanation and the organisers made animals perform unnatural actions on command.
The Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb) finds that the state secretary did not establish the relevant facts concerning the animal presentations and the concert properly and in a verifiable manner. According to the court, the video footage used was fragmentary. As no further investigation had been carried out, it could not be established that Dolfinarium had breached its zoo licence.
The tribunal reached a different conclusion regarding the programme involving visitors. During an inspection, it was established that a keeper instructed a dolphin to approach visitors so that they could touch the animal. According to the court, this breached the licence. This penalty order therefore remains legally valid.
The third penalty order ran until October 2025, and Dolfinarium did not have to pay any amount during that period. The ruling therefore mainly concerns the lawfulness of the measure imposed, not a new financial penalty for the park.
The ruling is final. In these cases, the CBb is the highest court. This brings to an end a legal dispute over how the authorities may use video footage and inspections to enforce the conditions of zoo licences.
The ruling follows an earlier interim decision in 2025, in which the CBb also found that video fragments alone were insufficient to establish breaches during shows. The new ruling is final and makes clear that interactions with visitors can be assessed separately. The debate over which animal presentations are educational and acceptable therefore continues outside these proceedings.
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- Two penalty orders were quashed because the facts had not been established sufficiently.
- An order concerning contact between visitors and a dolphin remained in force.
- The CBb is the final court in these cases.
- The ruling concerns licence enforcement, not a general ban on animal presentations.
Left
Arguments According to this approach, animal welfare should take precedence over entertainment. The authorities should not look only at the legal standard of proof, but should also set stricter limits on shows and touching as a precaution.
Values Animal welfare, precaution and limiting the commercial use of animals.
Consequences The left fears that operators will use legal uncertainty to continue controversial presentations.
Centre
Arguments Enforcement must be verifiable and legally rigorous. At the same time, licence conditions must be formulated clearly, so inspectors are not dependent on loose video fragments and companies know where they stand.
Values Legal certainty, independent scrutiny and workable regulation.
Consequences The centre expects better inspections, more complete case files and clear licences rather than general bans.
Right
Arguments A company must not be punished on the basis of incomplete evidence. According to this approach, education, care and visitor experience should retain room to operate as long as the licence permits them and breaches are proven individually.
Values Property, enterprise and proportionate government intervention.
Consequences The right fears that broad policy goals will be imposed through enforcement without the licence clearly providing a basis for them.
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 current ruling was checked directly against Rechtspraak, and the background against NOS. The text distinguishes between two quashed orders and one upheld order.
- confirmed The CBb quashed two penalty orders and upheld one. — Confirmed by Rechtspraak's official summary. source
- confirmed The video footage was insufficiently complete and verifiable for the two quashed cases. — This is the CBb's reasoning. source
- confirmed The order concerning a dolphin approaching visitors remained in force. — Confirmed by Rechtspraak. source
- confirmed Dolfinarium did not incur any penalty payments, and the third order ran until October 2025. — Explicitly stated in the official summary of the ruling. source
Editor's note
The current ruling comes from the CBb itself, while the earlier proceedings were independently reported by NOS. The ruling says nothing conclusive about animal welfare beyond the specific breaches of licence conditions.Sources
More on this in Dutch media
- NU.nl — „dolfinarium harderwijk”
- De Telegraaf — „dolfinarium harderwijk”
- AD — „dolfinarium harderwijk”