Help us make the FRA website better for you!

Take part in a one-to-one session and help us improve the FRA website. It will take about 30 minutes of your time.

YES, I AM INTERESTED NO, I AM NOT INTERESTED

Netherlands / Council of State / ECLI:NL:RVS:2016:2501

Company v the Minister of Social Affairs and Employment
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
Council of State
Typ
Decision
Decision date
21/09/2016
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:NL:RVS:2016:2501

Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union

Title V: Citizens' rights

Article 41 - Right to good administration

VIEW FULL CASE
  • Netherlands / Council of State / ECLI:NL:RVS:2016:2501

    Key facts of the case: 

    On 9 July 2013 the Minister of Social Affairs and Employment fined the company because it had hired three Bulgarian employees. The fine amounted to € 24,000. The legal basis for the fine was the Aliens Employment Act (Wet arbeid vreemdelingen) which prohibited the company to hire employees that did not have a work permit. The company says it has not been able to defend itself properly, because the notification of the fine sent by the Minister never reached it. The Minister claims he sent the notification to the address mentioned in the records of the Chamber of Commerce. However, the Council of State admits that the actual address of the company differs. It may be assumed that it did not receive the notification. However, it has had the opportunity to defend itself at a later stage, when it was given the opportunity to object to the fine in writing and orally before a committee of civil servants. The company alleges that the fine might have been lower when it had been able to raise its objections immediately after the notification. The Council of State, however, says that the committee mentioned judged the case in full, including the amount of the fine, so that it was not to the detriment of the company that it had not been able to object immediately after the notification that it had not received. Only a  violation of the right to defend oneself, as laid down in article 41, par. 2 of the Charter on the fundamental right, that could have led to a different judgement than pronounced, can be relied upon by the company. This is not the case here. The judgement would have been the same anyway. 

    Outcome of the case: 

    A company can only rely on a violation of the right of defence, laid down in Article 41, par. 2, if it led to a different judgement in a case than the judgement pronounced.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    In its judgement mentioned under 10 dated 5 July 13 the State Council asked the European Court of Justice prejucial questions about the consequences of the violation of the principle of defence, as also laid down in Article 41, par. 2, o fthe Charter on the Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in cases in which measures to detain aliens were prolonged. It follows from the considerations of the ECJ in its judgement of 10 September 2013, G. and R. , ECLI:EU:2013:533, that not every violation of the rights of defence during the formation of the decision of prolongation implies just like that and in all cases that the detention should be lifted. The ECJ concludes, among other things in consideration 45, that  if the principle of defence is violated, the national court can only order to lift the detention if it judges that, in view of all factual and legal circumstances of the case, this violation really denied the party relying on this violation to defend himself in such as way that the process of deciding could have had another result. Also compare consideration of the judgement of the ECJ of 3 JKuly 2014, Kamino International Logistics and Datema Hellman Worldwide Logistics, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2041, which refers to the violation of the principle of defence in the context of proceedings to claim import duties in hindsight. As follows from the above, a situation as referred to in the above-mentioned cases does not occur here. It is clear that the procedure followed was not really to the detriment of the company. In other respects, too, it did not raise facts or circumstances wihich should lead to the conclusion that the lack of opportunity to give its views prior to the actual fine should lead to an annulment or decrease of the fine. 

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    In de onder 10 vermelde uitspraak van 5 juli 2013 heeft de Afdeling prejudiciële vragen gesteld aan het Hof over de gevolgen van schending van het verdedigingsbeginsel, zoals ook neergelegd in artikel 41, tweede lid, van het Handvest van de Grondrechten van de Europese Unie, in zaken waarin het gaat om verlenging van een aan een vreemdeling opgelegde bewaringsmaatregel. Uit hetgeen het Hof heeft overwogen in het arrest van 10 september 2013, G. en R., ECLI:EU:C:2013:533, volgt dat niet elke schending van de rechten van de verdediging tijdens de totstandkoming van een verlengingsbesluit, zonder meer en in alle gevallen met zich mee brengt dat de bewaring dient te worden opgeheven. Het Hof concludeert in onder meer punt 45 dat indien sprake is van schending van het verdedigingsbeginsel, de nationale rechter de opheffing van de bewaring pas kan gelasten wanneer hij van oordeel is, gelet op alle feitelijke en juridische omstandigheden van het geval, dat deze schending aan degene die haar aanvoert, ook daadwerkelijk de mogelijkheid heeft ontnomen om zich zodanig te verweren dat de besluitvorming een andere afloop had kunnen hebben. Vergelijk ook punt 80 van het arrest van het Hof van 3 juli 2014, Kamino International Logistics en Datema Hellmann Worldwide Logistics, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2041, dat betrekking heeft op schending van het verdedigingsbeginsel in het kader van een procedure tot navordering van invoerrechten. Uit hetgeen hiervoor is overwogen, volgt dat een situatie als bedoeld in voormelde arresten zich in dit geval niet voordoet. De vennootschap is immers niet daadwerkelijk in haar verdedigingsmogelijkheden geschaad. Ook overigens heeft zij geen feiten of omstandigheden gesteld waaruit zou moeten volgen dat het ontbreken van de mogelijkheid om een zienswijze in te dienen voorafgaand aan de boeteoplegging ertoe moet leiden dat de boete wordt vernietigd of verminderd.