Integrity investigation and termination of a youth care framework agreement
The provisional relief judge in Amsterdam dismissed the claims of a youth care foundation that had sought to reverse the termination of its framework agreement. The municipality was entitled to terminate because the foundation had failed to report integrity risks involving affiliated parties and had not sufficiently cooperated with the investigation. Care providers must keep their business records in order and report integrity risks proactively.
Municipality of Amsterdam terminates youth care framework agreement
The provisional relief judge in Amsterdam has dismissed the claims of Stichting Verenigd Jeugdhulp (SVJ) against the Municipality of Amsterdam. In preliminary relief proceedings (kort geding), SVJ sought to compel the municipality to continue performing the framework agreement for specialist youth care. The judge held that the municipality had terminated on justified grounds - partly because SVJ had failed to report integrity risks involving affiliated parties and had insufficiently cooperated with the integrity investigation.
SVJ is a partnership between Boomerangzorg and Multi Plus Zorg B.V. (MPZ) that provides specialist youth care on behalf of the Municipality of Amsterdam. The framework agreement has been in place since 2021 and was extended until 31 December 2026. In 2025 alone, the municipality paid SVJ more than €10.2 million for the care of approximately 66 clients.
In early 2025, the municipality launched an integrity investigation under the Integrity and Agreements Policy Rule (Beleidsregel Integriteit en Overeenkomsten, BIO). The trigger: two 2023 judgments of the Amsterdam District Court, from which it followed that Boomerangzorg's contracting parties - the football club Amsterdam Gencler Birligi (AGB) and Stichting Forniamo - had received public funds without those funds actually being spent on care. A director of Stichting Forniamo had been dismissed and given a professional ban for financial mismanagement. That director had transferred large sums of money to companies owned by himself and family members, without any clear consideration in return.
The municipality sent Boomerangzorg a questionnaire containing 41 questions. Of those 41 questions, according to the municipality only eight were answered summarily. On 18 July 2025 the municipality announced its intention to terminate. SVJ submitted a written response (zienswijze), but this did not lead to any revision. On 29 January 2026 the municipality terminated the framework agreement with effect from 1 June 2026, imposed a freeze on new client intake and informed third parties of the termination.
Insufficient cooperation with the integrity investigation
The provisional relief judge began by noting that, under the ARVODI general terms and Article 22.6 of the conditions, the framework agreement could be terminated "at any time". The question was therefore not whether the municipality was permitted to terminate, but whether it had done so on justified grounds and in a careful manner.
The judge found that it had. SVJ had failed to report the integrity risks involving affiliated parties, even though Articles 9 and 24 of the framework agreement required this. The fact that AGB - the football club from the 2023 judgment - was by then no longer affiliated with SVJ made no difference. An affiliated party is, after all, also a party that has been involved in performing the agreement in the past.
The second ground for termination also held up. SVJ and Boomerangzorg had not cooperated fully, nor upon first request, with the BIO investigation. Questions the municipality had put and which were easy to answer went unanswered - in the judge's view evidently because SVJ and Boomerangzorg did not have proper business records. For example, an extract from the shareholders' register was missing, and no time specifications had been provided for work that Stichting Forniamo and AGB had charged to Boomerangzorg. The director who attended the hearing even acknowledged that no attendance lists or time records were kept.
The defence that the municipality had acted contrary to the general principles of good administration failed. The municipality had given ample opportunity to answer questions, granted extensions on several occasions, announced its intention to terminate in advance and given SVJ the opportunity to submit a written response. The decision was sufficiently reasoned. Nor did the termination take effect immediately - the framework agreement largely continued until 1 June 2026.
The judge expressly placed the integrity investigation in the context of the sums involved: more than €10.2 million in public funds for 66 clients in a single year. The municipality is required to handle those funds with the utmost care and must be able to establish beyond doubt that the money genuinely benefits youth care.
How do you prevent your framework agreement from being terminated over integrity risks?
This judgment makes clear that, where integrity risks arise in youth care, municipalities need not wait for criminal convictions. Two civil judgments concerning affiliated parties were sufficient grounds for a BIO investigation, and the failure to cooperate adequately with that investigation justified termination. For care providers, the message is: make sure your business records are in order and report integrity risks involving affiliated parties proactively. Anyone who fails to do so hands the municipality a ground for termination on a plate.
The standard the judge applies is also striking. The provisional relief judge expressly weighs the public interest - the transparent spending of care funds - in the balance. The fact that a termination has drastic consequences for the care provider and the clients does not make the termination careless if the municipality has followed an orderly procedure. The message: anyone working with public money must be able to withstand a robust integrity investigation.
Frequently asked questions
What is an integrity risk and how must it be reported?
An integrity risk is an indication that money is not being spent as intended or that fraud is taking place. In this case, earlier judgments concerning affiliated parties fell into this category. Framework agreements usually oblige you to report integrity risks as soon as you become aware of them. Better a false alarm than reporting nothing - silence hands the municipality a ground for termination.
Can a municipality simply terminate a framework agreement?
The framework agreement in this case provided for termination "at any time", but that does not mean it can be terminated arbitrarily. The municipality must terminate on justified grounds and follow a careful process: questionnaires, granting extensions, announcing an intention, an opportunity to respond. Carelessness or insufficient reasoning renders the termination invalid.
What happens if you do not cooperate with an integrity investigation?
A lack of cooperation can itself constitute a ground for termination. Questions that could easily be answered but remain unanswered - because your business records are missing - demonstrate negligence. For care providers with large contracts this is disastrous: contracts worth millions can be dissolved because basic data was not collected.
ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2026:1790, Amsterdam District Court, 25 February 2026.
Cited case law
District Courts: ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2026:1790