This article examines the subsidy rules as they have developed since the introduction of the subsidy title into the General Administrative Law Act (GALA) fifteen years ago. What did experts at that time consider to be the most important parts of the subsidy title and what were their expectations in that regard? We will consider, for certain selected topics, which main developments have taken place in legal practice over the past fifteen years, based mainly on an analysis of the case law. The most important features and trends will be outlined in this article. Finally, we will consider whether these features and trends can teach us anything about (the development of) the GALA that may still be relevant for the legislator today, when designing general rules of administrative law.

In 1998 a chapter on administrative enforcement was added to the GALA (in the so-called third Tranche). This contribution reflects on the legislative aims of this Tranche; to what extent these aims have been attained and what important developments have occurred since. As the third Tranche has led to little reform, a brief review will suffice. The developments after the third Tranche are discussed extensively, concerning both the third Tranche - amongst others the obligation in principle to enforce ('beginselplicht tot handhaving') - and reparatory sanctions since the fourth Tranche (2009), which amongst others regulated the execution of administrative reparatory sanctions and added regulation on administrative fines (a punitive sanction). Additionally, more general provisions of administrative law enforcement are discussed. The development of administrative enforcement are reflected against general developments in administrative law, such as harmonization and the increase of litigation. Lastly some bottlenecks will be noticed and solutions proposed.

With the aim to reduce administrative burden for supervised many inspections are 'deduplicated': similar groups of citizens are treated similarly and similar activities are carried out in the same way within one organization. Deduplication should increase flexibility within the inspection as inspectors are able to fulfill their job in any domain. Deduplication is based on the fulfillment of two conditions. The first is that the enforcement tools, or the powers that perform these inspections, are not too different. The second relates to the use of these instruments that has to be somewhat uniform as well. These conditions are assessed in a case study of the Transport and Water Management Inspectorate. It is concluded that in particular the style of rule enforcement differs and is not easy to standardize.

This publication discusses all aspects of causal connection between damages and unlawful governmental decisions.