New assessment framework for changes to personal data in the Dutch Population Register (BRP)

In its ruling of 22 October 2025, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division announced the revised assessment framework. The revised assessment framework contains a number of changes compared to the assessment framework set out in the Division’s ruling of 4 May 2022. The changes comprise the following five points.

1. Clarification of the concept of ‘further evidence’

The Administrative Jurisdiction Division has amended the framework for the ranking of source documents and clarified the concept of “further evidence”. It is not necessary to provide source documents of a higher order than the document or statement on the basis of which the previous registration took place in order for a request for rectification to be granted. Source documents of the same order may also be sufficient.

If further evidence, such as a DNA relationship test or a facial comparison test, is also provided with a request for rectification, it is not required that this evidence also form the basis of the source documents provided with the request for rectification.

2. Notarial statements under new assessment framework

The Administrative Jurisdiction Division has provided explanations about notarial declarations and, specifically for Chinese documents, about PSB declarations. When notarial declarations that do not indicate on which investigation or document they are based are assessed as “genuine” by the Documents Bureau, this does not mean that the notarial declaration has been drawn up in accordance with local regulations. A notarial declaration found to be genuine is therefore not automatically a C document. The Division has explained the steps citizens must take to submit PSB declarations in support of their rectification request. Citizens can request two identical PSB declarations, one of which is certified by the notary and retained. The applicant can then submit the original PSB declaration and a copy of the notarised PSB declaration to the board. A standalone original PSB declaration – i.e. without certification by the notary – cannot serve as a source document.

Partly in response to the contributions made by participants in the amicus curiae proceedings, the Division has clarified the evidential value of non-original hukou. Citizens cannot be expected to bring a hukou from China in violation of Chinese law. Authorities cannot therefore take the position that a hukou is not a source document simply because it has been submitted in copy form. All these points concern the question of whether a document should be regarded as a source document, and therefore the burden of proof lies in principle with the applicant.

3. Assessment framework for passports

The Division has clarified the assessment framework for passports. It also has amended the assessment framework for Chinese passports that replace a passport issued before 2012. If the board does not wish to follow the information from a passport that has been found to be genuine, it will have to demonstrate that no proper investigation has apparently taken place. Circumstances relating to the individual application, possibly in conjunction with doubts about general issuing practices, may be sufficient for this. The mere fact that a passport replaces a Chinese passport issued before 2012 is insufficient to conclude that there was clearly no proper investigation when the replacement passport was issued.

As considered in the 4 May ruling, the principle applies that the information in a passport issued by the competent authority must be assumed to be correct. This principle also applies to Chinese passports issued after 2012 that replace a passport from before 2012.

4. Evidential value of double legalisation

In response to the contributions of the amicus curiae proceedings, the Division saw fit to review the evidential value of double legalisation of documents. Double legalisation is no longer an indication that the content of the documents can be assumed to be correct. However, legalisation by foreign authorities may still be relevant to the authority of the person who drew up the document.

5. Proportionality principle

Finally, the Division explained how requests for rectification under the BRP Act relate to recent case law on the principle of proportionality. The Division found that the legislator had deliberately laid down strict rules for changing data in the BRP (Dutch Population Register). Circumstances such as the inability to obtain a travel document in the name of the alleged identity or the inability to claim benefits associated with the alleged age will therefore, as a rule, not lead to a successful appeal on the grounds of a violation of the principle of proportionality.

Do you have any questions about how these changes will affect you? Please contact us.