Answer to questions from member Inge van Dijk (CDA)

2023Z07768 (submitted May 1, 2023) Questions from member Inge van Dijk (CDA) to the Secretary of State for Finance about the messages “Couple from Nijverdal is right by a judge: State acted unlawfully against victims of the affair benefits” and “After the blow in Almelo, tax authorities also get slammed by Rotterdam court in benefits affair”

1 Are you familiar with the two recent rulings of the Almelo and Rotterdam courts that ruled in civil cases that the State acted unlawfully towards parents in the benefits affair? 1) 2)

Yes.

2 How many lawsuits are currently pending and is it known when rulings are expected?

Three more lawsuits are pending before the civil courts, in which the parents have requested a declaration of law. In these cases, the State will recognize that acts were acted unlawfully with regard to decisions for which the UHT offered compensation. If claimants withdraw the cases in this regard, it will probably not come to a ruling.

The hearing at the Breda District Court on 11 May last did not take place because the plaintiff withdrew the case after the State acknowledged to the plaintiff that Tax Authority/Surcharges had acted unlawfully in the past for the decisions for which the UHT offered compensation in this individual case.

3 Do the statements apply to all affected parents in the benefits affair or a specific part?

By definition, rulings only apply to the parties conducting the proceedings. Nevertheless, the State will not try to show that the Surcharges Department has taken sufficient account of the principle of proportionality in decisions for which the UHT has offered compensation in the past. The State will therefore recognize the illegality of the decision for this and similar future cases.

4 Is it true that the judge has thus paved a new way to compensation for allowance parents, namely through a civil procedure instead of the recovery operation and the administrative court?

Parents have always had the right to go to civil court. That's no different from these statements. The starting point for the administrative procedure was and still is that compensation is generously paid and the full damage is reimbursed.

5 Is it already clear what these statements mean for the compensation that parents receive in these cases?

The State acknowledges to these parents that unlawful action was taken with regard to the order for which the UHT issued compensation. To do so, the State wishes to compensate for the full damage, as it does for all decisions for which the UHT has offered compensation. (The parents' representatives) will be contacted to discuss the sequel. Under the CWS, the parents in these cases will also have to make it plausible what their damage has been in these cases.

6 In your opinion, what exactly is the difference between the rulings of the civil lawsuit in relation to how compensation from the affected parents has been viewed so far?

Through the Recovery Operation Allowances, affected parents can be generously compensated in an accessible way and be reimbursed for full damage. In the repair operation, the determination is also in line with civil compensation law. In civil law, the burden of proof of whether there is damage and its extent lies with the affected parent. The affected parent must then demonstrate causality, imputability and relativity. This is dealt with generously in the recovery operation.

7 Can you identify the possible consequences of these statements for affected parents and how this may affect recovery surgery?

Beneficiaries have always had the option of holding the State liable for a certain act. That does not make these statements different. The recovery operation has been set up to compensate affected parents, where the full damage will be reimbursed. For affected parents, it is not necessary to also hold the State liable through civil law.

8 In your opinion, do these statements also offer opportunities to establish more streamlined compensation under civil law?

In principle, each claim for damage will have to be assessed on its own merits. These statements do not make that different. However, we are continuously looking at how the provision of additional compensation within the recovery operation can be accelerated. In addition, the Recovery Operation Allowances works in accordance with the frameworks of the Actual Damage Committee; this already offers streamlined compensation.

9 Is it possible to answer these questions before May 18 so that they can be involved in the “Unprecedented Injustice” committee debate on May 23?

Yes.

1) Tubantia or April 25, 2023

2) AD or April 26, 2023

Note: These questions are intended to supplement previous questions concerning member Leijten (SP), submitted 1 May 2023 (question number 2023Z07763) and by member Omtzigt (Omtzigt), submitted 1 May 2023 (question number 2023Z07764)