Applicable limitation provision for ZV and OV premiums

October 29, 2026

Introduction

On 27 October 2026, the Court of First Instance of Sint Maarten (the “Court”) rendered judgment in a civil objection proceedings that revolved around the question of which statutory limitation period applies on the collection of premiums for the sickness insurance (“ZV”) and the accident insurance (“OV”): the limitation period of the Collection Ordinance (in Dutch: ‘Invorderingsverordening’) or that of the National Ordinance on Collection (in Dutch: ‘Landsverordening invordering’). We successfully represented the plaintiff in these proceedings. As a result, the right to enforce collection of the Social and Health Insurances Implementing Body (in Dutch: ‘Uitvoeringsorgaan Sociale Ziektekosten Verzekering’, “USZV”) was declared time-barred.

What was at issue in these proceedings?

In 2016, the USZV imposed additional assessments ZV/OV totaling XCG 700.000,-. An objection was filed, after which the USZV did not issue its decision on the objection until October 2019, upholding the original decision (i.e., the additional assessments). After this decision, the USZV did not take any other collection measures up until February 2024. Afterwards, a writ of execution (in Dutch: ‘dwangschrift’) was served at the end of February 2024. Invoking the limitation period before the USZV was to no avail, so our client was compelled to initiate these proceedings before the Court.

The dispute therefore centered on the question whether the USZV’s right of collection had become time-barred. The USZV invoked Article 10 of the Collection Ordinance, whereas our client invoked Article 13 of the National Ordinance on Collection.

Under Article 10 of the Collection Ordinance, the limitation period starts on the date of the assessment (or decision on the objection) or of the last served act of enforcement, and is completed five years later. Article 13 of the National Ordinance on Collection, by contrast, provides that the limitation period commences at the beginning of the calendar year in which the assessment became collectible, and is likewise completed five years later. To illustrate:

It follows from the above that successfully invoking the National Ordinance on Collection means that the writ of execution, issued in February 2024, has become time-barred. The Court agreed with this view and based its judgment on the wording of the law, its legislative history and the structure of the relevant legislation, which in our view is correct. The Court therefore concluded that the USZV’s right of (enforced) collection had become time-barred.

Significance of the judgment for practice

To our knowledge,  there was no case law that explicitly ruled on the applicable limitation provision for ZV and OV premiums up until this judgment. This judgment finally sheds light on the matter. So, even though an assessment, to which the limitation provision of Article 13 of the National Ordinance on Collection applies, becomes collectible on 31 December of a given calendar year, the limitation period is calculated from 1 January of that calendar year, and is completed five years later. This judgment recognizes the importance of the correct application of the correct provision, as it may well result in savings of XCG 700,000 (approx. USD 390,000).

Please note that this judgment is still open to appeal. Stay tuned for our next Tax Instant News on this matter should there be any further developments.

How can we assist you?

Thanks in part to the synergy between the tax advisors and attorneys at HBN Law & Tax, we are able to address matters at the intersection of tax law and civil law, including but not limited to limitation periods, in an integrated manner and, where necessary, to follow up through litigation. If you are dealing with a similar matter, please do not hesitate to contact us.