The Hague District Court has issued a ruling under article 19 of the Awir.

Article 6 ECHR: 1. On 27 June 2014, the District Court in The Hague issued a ruling under article 19 of the Awir (ECLI:RBDH: 2014:8346). The Court has clearly stated that legal certainty prevents the tax authorities from revising an advance decision after the expiry of the period set out in article 19 Awir.

2. On 25 February 2015, your Department overturned the Court's ruling (ECLI:NL:RVS: 2015:586) and once again took the wrong position that the period in article 19 Awir is only a period of order.

3. With reference to the previous case law of Your Department, Your Department will settle the issue. Your Department does not acknowledge that the principle of legal certainty has been violated.

4. Bisgin is of the legitimate opinion that your Council's dual role precludes a fair procedure. It seems that your Council wants to rule the tax authorities at all costs and, to say the least, parties are not treated equally. The legal system, the intention of the legislator, the general principles of good administration and fairness and fairness are ignored without proper justification.

5. Bisgin therefore invokes Article 6 ECHR and asks your Department to review the procedure against the requirements of Article 6 ECHR for proceedings.

6. Your Department creates the appearance of partiality by not correctly applying laws and regulations to essential parts and not treating parties equally. There is therefore a fair procedure, nor the independence and impartiality of the judicial board.

7. Article 6 ECHR states that everyone has the right to have the case heard by an independent and impartial court when determining their civil rights and obligations.

8. Bisgin is aware of the fact that Article 6 ECHR only applies to disputes about rights and obligations that can be reasonably stated to be recognized under national law. If an interest is recognised as a right at the national level, Article 6 ECHR offers legal protection. In addition, it should be noted that it is not so much about the description of the law, but about the essential meaning of that right.

9. The rights and obligations in the context of obtaining childcare allowance are recognized by the government in the Netherlands and are legally laid down in the Wko and other laws or regulations.

10. I would like to point out to your Department that, based on the Procola judgment (ECHR September 28, 1995, NJ 1995, 667), your Council introduced a policy change to ensure that judges do not judge the cases on which they previously advised.

11. It is not clear to Bisgin which members of your Council advised under the Wko, a WOB request has been submitted for this, but your Council's site states that Mr. J.E.M. Polak is part of the Advisory Department of Your Council and is also chairman of the Administrative Law Division of your Council.

12. The fact that Article 6 ECHR is only now being invoked has to do with the fact that the aforementioned ruling of 25 February 2015 by Your Department makes it clear that Your Department has a hand over its head and, regardless of the correct and substantively well-motivated ruling of the Court in The Hague, with reference to its previous rulings, with the sole purpose of ruling in favour of the tax authorities, effectively annuls the ruling.

13. The Department leaves untouched that the law not only has no consequences for exceeding the period in article 19 Awir, but also not to the absence of an agreement and/or proof of the costs incurred.

14. The fact that, due to the trust placed in the tax authorities, the legislator has not included a provision to sanction the exceeding of the period set out in Article 19 Awir is also completely ignored.

15. After all, everything shows that Article 19 Awir is a fatal deadline and it cannot be the case that your Department leaves the tax authorities the space to exceed a legal period by more than 3, 4, 5 and sometimes even 6 years.

16. In the present case, the Court has failed to recognize that the legislator had no idea that the tax authorities may act in violation of Article 19 of the Awir. After all, the legislator has no consequences for exceeding the said period because it has placed great trust in the tax authorities and expected that the tax authorities would not make improper use of this article. The opposite, however, has proven to be the opposite.

17. The fact that Article 16 Awir offers the space to review an advance that has not yet been determined is correct, but Article 16 Awir only applies until the period in Article 19 Awir has expired. After the expiry of the period set out in article 19 Awir, article 16 Awir can no longer be used.

18. Your Department is acting in violation of Article 6 ECHR. The fact that Mr. Polak is chairman of Your Department and also participates in the Advisory Department indicates that the 1995 Procola judgment is being acted in violation of the 1995 Procola judgment.

19. It has now become known to Bishin that the Advisory Division of your Council deals with all its advice in plenary and, therefore, all members of the Advisory Division participate in advisory meetings on legislation, including those overseeing the Wkkp (current name Wko).

20. Even if your Council's statements are not clearly contrary to laws and regulations, the mere fact that Your Council cannot keep its advisory and judicial functions separate should lead to the conclusion that Your Department should design from its judicial duties.

21. Indeed, research has shown that several former members of the Advisory Division also participated in the Department of Administrative Jurisdiction and spoke law during their membership in the Advisory Department.

22. It should also be noted that some councils of state have not obtained the right to hold the title master of law, which is clearly contrary to the Council of State Act.

23. Your Department is therefore respectfully requested to declare itself incompetent to hear the present dispute and to refer the case to another court, one that does meet the requirements of Article 6 ECHR.