LexAgent

View saved version →

---
name: check-legal-claims
description: Check the legal claims in a document or text against the official Dutch and EU sources through LexAgent - a decision (besluit), objection (bezwaarschrift), contract, advice memo, letter or draft. Use when the user asks whether a text is legally correct, asks to verify or fact-check its legal statements or references, or asks "klopt dit?".
---

# Checking legal claims with LexAgent

Goal: for every legal claim in the text, a verdict that rests on the official source, so the user can
see at a glance what holds, what does not and what could not be checked.

## 1. List the claims

Go through the text and pick out each **legal claim**: a statement about what a rule says, requires or
allows, a reference to an article, regulation or ruling, a deadline or competence derived from law.
Facts about the case (names, dates, what someone did or plans) are not legal claims; skip them.
Quote each claim exactly as it appears, one sentence or clause at a time.

## 2. Verify each claim

For each claim, read the source that governs it with the LexAgent document tools, following the
`dutch-legal-research` skill: the article itself for the right peildatum, then case law where the
claim depends on interpretation. Check the reference too: an article number that moved or a
regulation that was repealed or replaced is a finding in itself.

Also check what a text must say but does not. For a decision (besluit) of a government body that is
at least:

- **Statement of reasons** (art. 3:46 and 3:47 Awb): the grounds and, where possible, the legal basis.
- **Objection clause** (art. 3:45 Awb): that objection or appeal is possible, the period, and the body
  to send it to. A wrong period is a claim to check; a missing body is an omission to report.

Report an omission as its own row, quoting the passage it should have been part of.

## 3. Give one verdict per claim

Use exactly one of these statuses:

| Status | Meaning |
|---|---|
| **Klopt** | The cited source supports the claim. |
| **Onjuist** | The cited source contradicts it. |
| **Twijfel** | Partly supported, depends on facts not in the text, or rests on a weaker source such as council information. |
| **Niet gevonden** | You searched the sources that should cover it and none supports it. |
| **Niet te controleren** | The governing source is not available through LexAgent (for example an omgevingsplan, or case law that is not in the open data). |

Klopt, Onjuist and Twijfel always carry the citation the document tool returned. Give a one- or
two-sentence explanation per claim in the language of the text, and for Onjuist the correct wording
or reference.

## 4. Report

Present a table (quote, status, explanation, source), followed by a short summary: the claims that
need attention first, then what could not be checked and why. Do not rewrite the user's document
unless asked.

View saved version →

---
name: dutch-legal-research
description: Answer questions about Dutch and EU law from the official sources through the LexAgent tools - national legislation (wetten.overheid.nl), local regulations (APV, verordeningen), official publications, Rechtspraak case law, EUR-Lex legislation, CJEU case law and council information. Use whenever the user asks what Dutch or EU law says, whether something is allowed or required in the Netherlands, which rule applies to a municipality or water board, or asks for case law, an article text or a citation.
---

# Dutch legal research with LexAgent

LexAgent's tools return the official texts; their descriptions and the server instructions explain
the mechanics (which identifier each tool takes, paging, `search_within`). This skill is about the
method: which sources to read, in what order, and how to report what they say.

## 1. Frame the question

Settle before searching, and ask only when it changes which source applies:

- **Level**: rijk (national law), gemeente, provincie or waterschap (local regulation), EU, or a
  combination. A location-bound activity often falls under a municipality *and* a water board.
- **Peildatum**: the date the law should be read for. Default to today and say so; for a past event
  read the text as it stood then (`in_force_on`, `version_date`).
- **What the user needs**: the rule itself, how courts apply it, or why it was made (legislative
  history, council decisions).

## 2. Read the binding text first

1. Find the regulation (`legislation-search`, `local-regulation-search`, `eu-law-search`).
2. Read the article itself with the matching `*-document` tool. Never state what an article says
   from memory or from a search snippet.
3. For an EU directive, follow the Dutch implementing measures to the national text.
4. Then case law, where interpretation matters: Rechtspraak (`case-law-*`) for Dutch courts, CJEU
   (`eu-case-law-*`) for EU law. Read the relevant passage before citing a ruling.
5. Official publications (Staatscourant, Kamerstukken, Gemeenteblad) and council information explain
   provenance and intent. They are context, not the rule in force; say so when you rely on them.

Search one concept at a time and vary the term after a miss rather than repeating the same call. When
a source that should govern the question is not available (an omgevingsplan, unpublished case law),
say that plainly instead of concluding that no rule exists.

Rules move. When an article you expected reads "vervallen", or a topic clearly continues outside the
regulation you are reading, find where it went before answering: a municipality moved permits and
terrace rules from its APV into a Verordening fysieke leefomgeving or the omgevingsplan, a national
rule may now sit in the Omgevingswet. Read that regulation too, for the same peildatum, and say which
regulation each part of the answer comes from. When comparing two dates, compare every regulation that
held the rule on either date, not only the one that holds it today.

## 3. Answer

- Lead with the answer, then the basis.
- Cite every legal statement with the `citation` the document tool returned (article, regulation,
  ECLI or CELEX, and the date or version), and link the official URL it carries.
- Quote decisive wording verbatim and briefly; paraphrase the rest.
- Separate what the text says from your reading of it, and name open points: facts you would need,
  conflicting rulings, a consolidation without legal effect, a fallback version a tool reported.
- Answer in the user's language; keep Dutch legal terms (bestemmingsplan, ingebrekestelling) where a
  translation would lose precision.
- This is legal information from public sources, not advice on the user's own case. When the stakes
  call for it, suggest having a lawyer review the conclusion, once and without boilerplate.