202201770/2 / A3, 202201799/2 / A3 and 202201803/2 / A3.
Judgment date: May 3, 2022
Judgment given by the legal aid judge in the Government’s administrative jurisdiction department on a request for a temporary ban (Article 8:81 of the General Administrative Law Act), pending complaints from:
1. [verzoekster sub 1]located in [plaats]†
2. [verzoeker sub 2]resides in Amsterdam, trades under the name “[bedrijf A]†
3. [verzoeker sub 3]resides in Amsterdam, trades under the name “[bedrijf B]†
against decisions of the Amsterdam Municipal Council of 16 February 2022.
By decision of 26 April 2017, the Board of Directors approved the application regarding [bedrijf A] to obtain an operating license for the carriage of passengers on the commercial vessel [bedrijfsvaartuig 1] rejected.
By decision of 12 February 2018, the municipal council approved the application of [verzoekster sub 1] to obtain an operating license for the carriage of passengers on the commercial vessel [bedrijfsvaartuig 2] rejected.
By decision of 20 March 2018, the Board of Directors approved the application regarding [bedrijf B] to obtain an operating license for the carriage of passengers on the company’s vessels [5 bedrijfsvaartuigen] rejected.
In separate decisions of 16 February 2022, the municipal council has again decided regarding [verzoekster sub 1]† [bedrijf A] and [bedrijf B] objections thereto and declared them unfounded.
Against those decisions [verzoekster sub 1]† [bedrijf A] and [bedrijf B] separate complaints.
They have also jointly asked the legal aid judge to impose a provisional ban.
The College has provided a written explanation and forwarded an additional document.
The Judicial Assistant Judge considered the request in court on 21 April 2022, in which the plaintiffs, represented by J. Monster, Legal Aid Provider in Amsterdam, and [verzoeker sub 3]and the Board of Directors, represented by Mr J. Bootsma and Mr BS Jaasma, both lawyers in The Hague, and RE Leeuwenburgh, Mr BGJ van Wissen and Mr K. van Driel, met.
1. The judgment of the Court of First Instance is of a preliminary nature and is not binding in the proceedings.
What are these things about?
For the history, the transfer judge refers to the decisions of 22 December 2021 that the department has made in the case regarding. [verzoekster sub 1]ECLI: NL: RVS: 2021: 2910 (202100131/1 / A3), in case of [bedrijf A]ECLI: NL: RVS: 2021: 2918 (202100064/1 / A3), and in those of [bedrijf B] ECLI: NL: RVS: 2021: 2916 (202100066/1 / A3). In addition to distributing operating licenses on the basis of the Note Item Part 2, the Municipal Council has started the distribution of loading and unloading sites in Amsterdam. The selection of so-called (semi) exclusive seats in 2024 is limited. will [verzoekster sub 1]† [bedrijf A] and [bedrijf B] compete. They understood in a municipal information sheet dated December 2021 that passenger vessels with an operating license can use the places of loading and unloading from 1 March 2024. The requests are preliminary provisions to establish that [verzoekster sub 1]† [bedrijf A] and [bedrijf B] treated as if they were in possession of operating licenses for their vessels from 1 March 2024 until a decision has been made in the case.
Is there an acute interest?
3. In its written statement, the municipal council has stated that the municipal information form is obsolete. The procedure has, among other things, been delayed as a result of the Supreme Court’s judgment of 26 November 2021, ECLI: NL: HR: 2021: 1778 (the Didam judgment). The Commission is still considering whether to recalibrate the basic principles of the policy document “Getting on and Off Passenger Shipping. Preparation of the Sailing Memorandum Part 2” of 5 October 2021. There are therefore no deadlines for a formal registration procedure. The conditions for shipowners to compete are also still subject to decision-making. An e-mail from the Municipal Sailing Program of 19 April 2022 states that on 13 May 2022 there will be an administrative consultation of, among others, the councilors and (representatives of) a number of shipowners. During the hearing, the Commission stated that it would prefer these shipowners to come up with a proposal that can count on broad support. If the shipowners can not reach an agreement, the board decides for itself. It is the intention of the College to reach an agreement with all shipowners.
In this case, in the opinion of the infringing judge, there is no urgent interest in making the desired provision. The plaintiff understands that it is [verzoekster sub 1]† [bedrijf A] and [bedrijf B] it is difficult to anticipate the Commission’s decision to request a provisional ban at the right time. As it has apparently not yet been established that they will not be able to participate in the allocation procedure for the (semi) exclusive pick-up and drop-off points, the requests were made prematurely. It is now clear that the cases (judiciary) will be dealt with at an accelerated pace. The legal aid judge will call for the cases to be heard before the end of the summer, if possible.
The request must be rejected.
Legal costs and court fees
4. The board shall not reimburse legal costs.
5. The transfer judge assesses the following with regard to the registration fee charged in procedure no. 202201803/2 / A3. By [bedrijf B] An amount of € 274 was erroneously charged, while the court fee due amounted to € 184. The overpaid court fee of € 90 will be refunded.
The interim legal aid judge in the Prime Minister’s Department of Administrative Jurisdictions:
rejects the requests.
Adopted by CHM van Altena, Judge, in the presence of Mr LEE Konings, counsel.
The transitional judge is prevented from signing the decision
Spoken publicly on May 3, 2022