You are here:

Netherlands / Council of State, Administrative Jurisdiction Division / 201406767/1/A1

Authority on Road Traffic v defendant

Policy area:
Information society
Deciding Body type:
National Court/Tribunal
Decision date:

Key facts of the case: 

The defendant had a car that was registered in his name. On 8 November 2012 the Authority on Road Traffic erased the registration at the request of the defendant, so that he would no longer be liable for any damage caused by his car or fines incurred from that moment onward. The defendant did not object to the date of this erasure. On 2 October 2013 the defendant asked the Authority on Road Traffic to erase the registration in his name retroactively as early as 7 October 2011, because he also did not want to be liable from 7 October 2011 until 8 November 2012. The defendant had received fines in connection with the car in this period, although the car was burnt and destroyed on 7 October 2011 (reason unknown, but there is a police record about this). The Road Traffic Authority refused to erase the registration on 7 October 2011, because of its prior decision to erase the registration on 8 November 2012. The District Court agrees without going into the matter, on the basis of Article 4.6 of the General Act on Administrative Law, which states that following a decision such as the oe in question, a party should raise new facts or circumstances if he or she wants the court to judge the case all over again. The defendant claims that there are new facts or circumstances, as he has received fines in connection with the car. He feels that the reliance by the District Court on Article 4.6 of the General Act on Admininistrative Law is, among other things , contrary to Article 47 of the Charter, because he does not get a right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial. The Court rejected the appeal without giving reasons, as there are no new facts or circumstances, according to the Court.

Outcome of the case:

The Court relied on the principle that it is not necessary to give a judgement in full in an appellate case such as the case in question when no new facts or circumstances have been raised, or, when the case is not of a very special nature. The Court further affirmed that this provision, laid down in the General Act on Administrative Law, is not in conflict with the Charter or European law in general.