In the fight against the current MRB rules for old-timers, Lady Justice has given a sensitive tick to the old-timer supporters. The plaintiffs in the first two test trials, which were brought against the State by the Autobelangen Foundation, were unsuccessful. It is striking that the rejection of the claim in the second trial process has already been substantiated by the court of Haarlem. The way in which that has been raised raises many questions. The old-timer supporters still have to wait for the reasons why the Breda District Court ruled against Arjan Lenoir and Stichting Autobelangen in the first trial. Wouter van Embden remains combative: “We do not give up. In addition, we are continuing to strengthen ties with politics to fight for the interests of old-timer drivers. ”
Hobbymig use no argument
The motives behind the rejection of the claim by the court in Haarlem are, incidentally, of a curious and bold character. In March, the case of Mr. van Balen. He did not pay motor vehicle tax for his Landrover Defender Diesel until January 1, 2014. After the introduction of the current rules, he fell among the owners who suddenly had to pay a lot of money, because only motor vehicles on Diesel with an age of 40 were exempt from MRB from the beginning of last year. Van Balen did not fall under that category. That he used his LaRo as a hobby object was no reason for a review in court. “The way in which the car is used makes no difference. The holder of such a vehicle is of course free to propose alternatives to the legislator in order to be able to bring about an amendment to the law. ” The court also paid attention to the freedom of choice with regard to hobby use. “The owner is free to give up the hobby. After all, it is not a basic necessity of life. ” The statements in relation to hobby use are striking. It is precisely this use that is an important condition for the preservation of the heritage, yet the basic starting point. This in turn is being flouted because, according to the Haarlem court, the current regulation is primarily intended to “discourage the use of old-timers”.
Increasing the burden
The court also discussed the impact of the increase in the burden on diesel owners. The claimant, who served the interests of all dieselold timers taxed since 1 in January 2014 in this case, will pay € 460 to MRB per quarter from last year. The court ruled that this substantial increase in burden was not disproportionately high and therefore reasonable. "There is no excessive burden." It is remarkable that there is no lower limit to that phenomenon.
No principle of equality with different fuel types
Furthermore, the judgment showed that the difference in fuel type does not comply with the principle of equality "The choice for this environmental-inspired distinction is furthermore at the discretion of the legislator and not the court or the individual taxpayer." In particular, the latter sentence indicates that legislation and application do not go hand in hand and that laws in the Netherlands are apparently interpreted freely. And with regard to the principle of equality: hobby riding and daily use are apparently considered the same, but the age of petrol, diesel and LPG variants is not.
Breda: statement without motivation
Where the court in Haarlem gave openness, the colleagues in Breda shrouded themselves. Arjan Lenoir was brought to justice in Breda on 26 February, on behalf of the owners of vintage cars on petrol - the transitional arrangement objects - to fight against the current MRB rules. That case was also lost. Everyone is in the dark about the motives for not honoring the requirements. Car interests: "It will take at least two weeks for us to get a decent motivation, that's how our lawyers told us." At least it is remarkable that the statement is announced without any motivation. It seems that the court in Breda is awaiting the progress of the other proceedings.
Car interests naturally reacted disappointed. "It is quite remarkable that the inadequacy of the drafting of legislation is not addressed."
Rules are freely interpretable principles
At the moment, Autobelangen is still waiting for the ruling on the oldtimers on LPG. In addition, the lawsuit for gasoline cars from 1987 is due next week. The final piece within the test processes will follow later. Then the diesels built before 1987 are central. Whatever the course of the court cases will be, the impression cannot be taken away that there is a gap between actual legislation and implementation. In the Netherlands, rules are no more than freely applicable starting points.
The full verdict in Mr. van Balen - Haarlem lawsuit - you can read here.