The Default Position: A Fading Freedom
Historically, what a tenant did inside their own rental home was considered part of their private life, and smoking was no exception. In the absence of a specific clause in the rental agreement, a tenant was generally permitted to smoke. However, this 'default permission' is a relic of a bygone era. Today, it is exceedingly rare to find a modern rental contract that does not contain a 'no smoking' clause (rookverbod). The awareness of the health risks of second-hand smoke, combined with the significant and costly damage that smoke causes to a property's interior, has made the inclusion of a smoking ban standard practice for virtually all landlords and housing corporations in the Netherlands.
While you might occasionally find a listing that explicitly states 'smoking allowed' (roken toegestaan), this is a true rarity, often found only in properties managed by very old-school private landlords. You should operate under the assumption that smoking is forbidden in every property unless you are explicitly told otherwise. The absence of a 'no smoking' sign or clause in a modern listing is more likely an oversight than a sign of permission. Even if a contract remains silent on the issue, causing damage due to smoking could still lead to financial penalties, making it a risky activity regardless of the contractual terms.
The 'No Smoking' Clause (Rookverbod): How Strong Is It?
The legal standing of a 'no smoking' clause in a Dutch rental contract is a fascinating and evolving area of law, mirroring the debates around the 'no pets' clause. Like the pet ban, a smoking ban can be seen as an infringement on the tenant's right to a private life. Some court rulings have indeed sided with tenants, deeming a complete ban on a legal activity within one's own home to be unenforceable. A tenant could argue that they are free to do as they please, as long as they return the property in its original condition at the end of the lease.
However, the legal argument for landlords is significantly stronger when it comes to smoking than it is for pets. A well-behaved pet does not inherently cause damage to the property. Smoking, by its very nature, always causes damage. The tar and nicotine create a sticky film on all surfaces, leading to permanent discoloration of walls, ceilings, and woodwork. The odor deeply penetrates textiles, carpets, and even drywall, and is notoriously difficult to eradicate. Because this damage is a certainty, not a risk, many judges are now more inclined to uphold 'no smoking' clauses. A landlord can convincingly argue that the clause is necessary to protect the value and condition of their property, which is a reasonable business interest.
Damage, Deposits, and The Financial Reality
Regardless of the fine legal arguments about whether a 'no smoking' clause is enforceable, the financial reality of smoking indoors is brutally clear and serves as the ultimate deterrent. The damage caused by smoke is absolutely not considered 'normal wear and tear' (normale slijtage). When a tenant who has been smoking moves out of a property, they will be held fully liable for the costs of restoring it to a smoke-free condition. This is not a simple matter of a new coat of paint.
Restoration requires washing all surfaces with specialized industrial cleaners to remove the tar film. It often requires multiple coats of stain-blocking primer before painting, significantly increasing the cost. All curtains, carpets, and upholstered items may need professional, deep-odor removal, or even complete replacement. The landlord is entitled to use the tenant's entire security deposit (borg) to cover these extensive costs. If the deposit is insufficient, they can—and often will—sue the tenant for the remaining amount. The potential bill for remediating smoke damage can easily run into many thousands of euros. Therefore, the most practical advice is simple: do not smoke inside your rental property. The potential financial consequences are severe and far outweigh any perceived freedom.
