In the Nederlands Dagblad, Hans Dammingh explains the contrast.

Derk Venema Derk Venema
• 2n• 2nd
Philosopher and legal scholarPhilosopher and legal scholar
6 months • Edited • 6 months • Edited •

In the Nederlands Dagblad, Hans Dammingh explains the contrast between the hearings of Rotterdam judge Cooijmans and the chairman of the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State Van Ettekoven by the Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry on Fraud Policy. It was indeed disconcerting to hear how this chairman, who, by the way, was assisted (!) , failed to acknowledge in clear language what his Department had done to make the unreasonable and disastrous policy of the Tax Authority/Allowances legally unassailable: first invent a legal obligation for the BD/T to recover all the allowance even in the event of minor deficiencies, then declare those decisions unverifiable, do not produce properly motivated template statements, and finally ignore all alarm signals for years. For example, the benefits scandal largely became a judicial scandal. The civil court has now found that, as a result, there was no “sufficient guarantees” court before the administrative court in those years: ECLI:NL:RBOVE: 2023:1459, paragraph 4.32.
The chairman also did not know exactly how this could have happened: he was not present when important discussions were held about the allowance cases, and does not get any further than expressing suspicions. Even afterwards, he apparently did not find it necessary to be informed of the results of those meetings. People wonder how he then came to his opinion in the allowance cases that he dealt with himself. It is also questionable whether the chairman was the right person to interview.
In any case, it is a shame that the PEC was unable to blow away the persistent smokescreen.

https://lnkd.in/ei9fggkC

Date

21 April 2024

Author (s)

research

Source

No items found.

Readers' comments

No items found.