RFC-002: Bevoegdheid (Authority) in Machine-Readable Law

Context

When representing laws and regulations in machine-readable format, we need to capture who has the authority (bevoegdheid) to make binding decisions.

Observed Patterns

In Wet op de Zorgtoeslag (BWBR0018451):

• Article 1(1)(a) defines “Onze Minister” (responsible minister)
• Article 5 defines “Dienst Toeslagen” as executing authority

In Regeling Standaardpremie (BWBR0050536):

• The preamble names the Minister and cites article 4 of the Wet op de zorgtoeslag and articles 18d and 18e of the Zorgverzekeringswet as grounds, but the authority to set the standard premium (standaardpremie) comes from article 4 of the Wet op de zorgtoeslag. A ministerial regulation carries out a delegation granted elsewhere; the preamble records that delegation, it does not create it. This is the pattern described in RFC-003.
• The delegation is narrow. Article 4 Wzt covers the standard premium only; the administrative-law premium (bestuursrechtelijke premie) of articles 18d and 18e of the Zorgverzekeringswet rests on its own delegation, in a different act, and is owed to the CAK.

In Wet langdurige zorg (BWBR0035917):

• Article 2.1.3: Sociale verzekeringsbank, insurance determination (vaststelling verzekering)
• Article 3.2.3: CIZ, indication decision (indicatiebesluit)
• Article 3.3.3: Zorgkantoor, personal care budget (persoonsgebonden budget)
• Article 4.2.1: Wlz-uitvoerder, duty of care (zorgplicht). An obligation rather than an authority. It produces factual acts (feitelijke handelingen), and nothing in the article grants the power to take a decision.
• Article 5.1.1: Zorginstituut Nederland. Chapter 5 is titled “Het Zorginstituut” and its first paragraph “Taken”. The article charges the Zorginstituut with promoting lawful and efficient execution by the Wlz-uitvoerders and the CAK, and with the uniform interpretation of the insured package (verzekerd pakket). Lid 3 allows it to lay down policy rules (beleidsregels) on that, which is why the article keeps a competent_authority. It is not supervision (toezicht) in the sense of chapter 5 Awb. Supervision in that sense sits elsewhere, for example with the IGJ over care providers (article 10.4.1).
• Article 6.1.1: CAK. Chapter 6 is titled “Het CAK” and its first paragraph “Instelling en taak”. The article establishes the CAK as a legal person and settles its seat, the composition of its board, representation in and out of court, and the non-application of article 15 of the Kaderwet zelfstandige bestuursorganen. The tasks, and with them the authority, follow in article 6.1.2.
• Article 7.1.1: CIZ. Mirrors 6.1.1 lid for lid; the authority to take indication decisions is in article 7.1.2(1)(a).

The Problem

One law can have multiple competent authorities for different actions. The model has to record which authority belongs to which article, because the law grants authority article by article. For example, a law might grant authority to:

• A minister for policy decisions
• An agency for individual decisions (beschikkingen)

Objection and appeal (bezwaar en beroep) are a separate question, handled in RFC-008; the courts are not administrative bodies and fall outside competent_authority altogether. Administrative appeal (administratief beroep) is different: there an administrative body decides under an authority of its own, and that body can carry a competent_authority.

Additionally, some authorities are categorical rather than specific. For example, the College of Mayor and Aldermen (college van burgemeester en wethouders) applies to all 340+ municipalities, not a single entity.

Attribution, Mandate, Delegation

Three routes lead to a body exercising authority, and they leave different traces in the law text.

Attribution (attributie) creates the authority and assigns it in one move. The law names the holder, so the article itself tells you who is competent. Article 5(1) of the Wet op de zorgtoeslag charges the Dienst Toeslagen with executing the act; the same holds for the inspecteur in the tax acts, and for the SVB, UWV and CAK.

Mandate (mandaat) leaves the authority where it is and allows another body to exercise it in the holder’s name (art. 10:1 Awb). Legally the minister takes the decision. Mandate is arranged in a mandate decree (mandaatbesluit) rather than in the law, so it is normally invisible to a reader of the law text, and this is the common arrangement for implementing bodies: the IND decides on residence permits, while article 14 of the Vreemdelingenwet 2000 grants the power to Onze Minister. A law can also fence mandate in: article 7.1.2(4) Wlz allows mandate for indication decisions only to someone working under the CIZ’s responsibility.

Delegation (delegatie) transfers the authority itself, and the receiving body exercises it under its own responsibility (art. 10:13 Awb). Delegation requires a statutory basis, so it is visible in the law text.

Decision

1. Article Level

Define competent_authority at the article level (in machine_readable), not at document top-level.

A document-level field would have to be read off the preamble, which is the wrong place to look. The preamble of the Regeling Standaardpremie names the Minister without granting anything; the grant is article 4 of the Wet op de zorgtoeslag. Article level keeps the field where the law puts the authority.

2. Object Structure

competent_authority is an object with:

• name: name of the authority (required)
• type: enum INSTANCE or CATEGORY (optional, defaults to INSTANCE)

3. Type Definitions

• INSTANCE: A specific organization (Dienst Toeslagen, CIZ, CAK, Sociale verzekeringsbank)
• CATEGORY: A category that must be resolved per context (College of Mayor and Aldermen (college van B&W), municipal council (gemeenteraad), provincial executive (gedeputeerde staten))

Why

Article-level authority makes sense because:

• One law can have 0..n competent authorities
• Different articles may have different authorities
• The law text itself defines where authority is granted

Object structure with type because:

• Distinguishes between specific instances and categories
• Explicit about what needs runtime resolution

Skip identifiers (OIN, TOOI) for now because:

• Multiple identifier systems exist
• Name is sufficient for MVP
• Can add identifiers later when requirements are clearer

Open Questions

• How much of mandate and delegation (mandaat/delegatie) does the model need? Mandate is arranged outside the law and delegation inside it, which suggests only delegation has to be modeled. Two things complicate that. The Awb uses “delegatie” more widely than the Aanwijzingen voor de regelgeving do: article 10:13 Awb defines it as transferring “de bevoegdheid tot het nemen van besluiten”, and afdeling 10.1.2 Awb governs the transfer of administrative authority generally, while the Aanwijzingen use the word for delegated rulemaking. A reader who knows one convention will misread the other. And a law can restrict mandate for a specific decision (art. 7.1.2(4) Wlz), which is a statement about the article that the model may want to record.
• How to handle # references for competent_authority? When competent_authority: '#bevoegd_gezag' references an output, the type (INSTANCE/CATEGORY) must be specified separately. This is awkward because the type isn’t part of the law being modeled; it’s metadata we’re adding. Some laws designate the “bevoegd gezag” themselves. Paragraph 5.1.2 of the Omgevingswet, titled “Reikwijdte aanvraag omgevingsvergunning en aanwijzing bevoegd gezag”, does exactly that for the environmental permit (omgevingsvergunning): article 5.8 makes the college of mayor and aldermen competent for a single-activity application, and articles 5.9 and following assign other bodies. Where a law does that, the reference points at a term the law already fixes, and the awkwardness shrinks to the laws that leave it implicit.
• Which body should competent_authority name under mandate? One answer, proposed in the review of #776 and not yet decided: where the law attributes, name the implementing body; where the law grants the power to a minister and an implementing body acts in mandate, name the minister, whoever signs the decision in practice. RFC-009 proposes acts_for for the engine side of the same question. The open questions on authority are collected in #1298.
• Is CATEGORY complete without the variable that points at the instance? The law usually says which member of the category is meant: article 40 of the Participatiewet makes competent the college of the municipality where the person concerned lives. type: CATEGORY records only the category and loses that pointer. Tracked in #1029.
• What does “a minister for policy decisions” in the problem statement mean? The review asked whether delegated rulemaking is meant. The original authors have not answered, so the example stays as written.
• Is resolving “Onze Minister” the same as establishing authority? The definition article says who the minister is; whether that minister is competent for a given act follows from the article that grants the power (article 14 Vreemdelingenwet 2000). competent_authority now carries both. Tracked in #1030.

References

• Issue #7: Good enough Language for 1st fase Editor and Engine
• PR #30 Discussion
• Art. 1:1 Awb (definition of administrative body (bestuursorgaan)). An organization or person granted statutory authority is an administrative body, so a competent authority will usually be one. Two limits. Article 1:1(2) excludes a list of bodies from the definition, among them the legislature, the chambers of the States General, bodies charged with adjudication, the Raad van State, the Algemene Rekenkamer, the Nationale ombudsman, the CTIVD and the TIB. And a body outside a legal person established under public law (a b-orgaan) qualifies through article 1:1(1)(b), which requires that it be vested with some public authority (met enig openbaar gezag bekleed); case law reads that as holding only in so far as it exercises that authority.
• Rules as Executed, section 4.3, the position paper on who interprets the law for execution and who publishes that interpretation
• Glossary of Dutch Legal Terms

Corrections

Factual errors corrected after acceptance. The decisions this RFC records are unchanged.

• 2026-09-25. Several examples and readings were corrected after a legal review. The Regeling Standaardpremie’s authority comes from article 4 Wzt, not from its preamble. Wlz 4.2.1 is a duty, not an authority. Wlz 5.1.1 charges the Zorginstituut with tasks, not with supervision in the sense of chapter 5 Awb, and lid 3 lets it lay down policy rules. Wlz 6.1.1 and 7.1.1 establish the CAK and the CIZ; their tasks are in 6.1.2 and 7.1.2. Zorgtoeslag “Onze Minister” is defined in article 1(1)(a), not 1a. The example list of authorities no longer mentions “a different body for appeals”; a paragraph now says where objection, appeal and administrative appeal are handled. A section explaining attribution, mandate and delegation was added, with the narrow scope of the delegation in article 4 Wzt (the administrative-law premium of Zvw articles 18d and 18e rests on its own basis), a paragraph on why the preamble is the wrong place to read authority from, and the limits of Awb 1:1 in the references. Which body to name under mandate, and the open questions on # references, CATEGORY and “Onze Minister”, are recorded as open questions. Source: review by Mariette Lokin, #776, worked out with the team.