Court upholds ruling in TAS case: Jap-A-Joe is no longer director

By assessing the appeal, the court considered several grounds jointly, as they are closely interconnected. Central was the question of whether Jap-A-Joe was allowed to continue serving as director after the expiry of her statutory five-year term of appointment, on the basis of her employment contract for an indefinite period.

The court established that, under the Wet Telecommunicatievoorzieningen (Telecommunications Facilities Act), a TAS director is appointed for a period of five years. Jap-A-Joe was appointed to this position effective 20 October 2021. Her term of appointment therefore expired on 19 October 2026.

 No dismissal resolution required

An important part of the appeal concerned Jap-A-Joe’s position that a separate presidential dismissal resolution would be necessary to formally end her directorship.

The court does not follow this reasoning. According to the considerations pronounced, the appointment ends upon expiry of the term laid down in the original resolution. An additional dismissal resolution is not required for this.

Should written confirmation of the termination nevertheless be issued, it would, according to the considerations, merely have a confirmatory character. The termination of the directorship already follows from the expiry of the statutory appointment period.

Employment contract conflicts with the law

The court also addressed the employment contract that Jap-A-Joe entered into with TAS on 1 November 2021. This agreement was concluded for an indefinite period and contained provisions which, according to Jap-A-Joe, enabled her to continue as director.

The contract stipulated, among other things, that the director could continue performing her duties until another decision had been taken in accordance with the law. This provision was intended to prevent an administrative vacuum at TAS after the appointment period had ended.

However, the court rules that the contractual arrangement, insofar as it provides for continuation of the directorship after the statutory term, conflicts with the Wet Telecommunicatievoorzieningen.

The law itself provides for arrangements to ensure continuity of management when a director is absent.

According to Article 4, paragraph 2, management may in that case be taken over by an underdirector designated by the Raad van Commissarissen (Supervisory Board). When both the director and the underdirectors are absent, management is temporarily assumed by the Raad van Commissarissen.

According to the judicial assessment, the law therefore provides a measure to prevent an administrative vacuum.

Questions over conclusion of employment contract

Another important part of the assessment concerns the manner in which the employment contract with Jap-A-Joe was concluded.

Under the Wet Telecommunicatievoorzieningen, the employment conditions of the director and underdirectors are determined by the responsible minister, after the Raad van Commissarissen has been heard and the Raad van Ministers (Council of Ministers) has granted approval.

According to the considerations recorded during the ruling, the court established that it has not been shown that the required approval of the Raad van Ministers had been granted for the employment contract in question.

Nor has it been shown that TAS’s then president-commissaris had been authorised by the minister to sign the agreement on his behalf.

The employment contract was signed at the time by Jap-A-Joe and the then president-commissaris.

These circumstances play an important role in assessing the legal position relied upon by Jap-A-Joe.

The definitive legal validity of the employment contract is therefore not automatically established. In the [district court ruling of 26 October 2026](https://rechtspraak.sr/sru-k1-2026-4/?utm_source=chatgpt.com), it was already determined that the agreement would be provisionally suspended pending possible proceedings on the merits in which its legal validity would be decided.

Earlier underdirectorship also addressed

Jap-A-Joe’s earlier position as underdirector was also addressed during the hearing.

According to the recorded considerations, her former position as underdirector provides no automatic basis for claiming that position again after the expiry of her appointment as director.

The court took into account that she had been appointed director from her earlier position.

Earlier ruling remains in force

The appellate ruling confirms the earlier judgment by district court judge Robert Praag on Monday, 26 October.

The district court judge had then determined that Jap-A-Joe was no longer authorised to act on behalf of TAS. She was also ordered to leave the TAS building and transfer administrative responsibilities, documents and company assets to the Raad van Commissarissen.

In addition, the employment contract of 1 November 2021 was provisionally suspended until its legal validity is decided in separate proceedings on the merits.

Key News reported on this earlier ruling [on 26 October](https://keynews.sr/rechter-wijst-vorderingen-jap-a-joe-af-in-tas-conflict-rvc-krijgt-gelijk-over-overdracht/?utm_source=chatgpt.com).

Jap-A-Joe subsequently lodged an appeal. The court heard the case from Wednesday, 28 October, after which the legal representatives of the parties involved explained their positions. [Key News previously reported on the appeal hearing](https://keynews.sr/hoger-beroep-jap-a-joe-tegen-tas-vonnis-in-behandeling-advocaten-verwachten-spoedig-uitspraak/?utm_source=chatgpt.com).

With Friday’s ruling, the earlier judicial finding regarding the end of Jap-A-Joe’s directorship remains in force. TAS management is temporarily carried out in accordance with the statutory arrangement as long as no new director has been appointed.

The question of any employment-law claims Jap-A-Joe may still derive from her agreement can be assessed separately in proceedings on the merits.