Background of the case
The Chair of the Administrative Jurisdiction Division requested (opens in a new window) (links to another website) Advocate General Widdershoven to provide an opinion in a case currently before the highest general administrative court. The case concerns an administrative fine for a Lithuanian transport company. Research by FNV showed that this company does not always comply with rest time regulations. FNV provided the results of this research to the Human Environment and Transport Inspectorate (ILT). The ILT then incorporated these results into its own investigation and concluded that the Lithuanian transport company should receive a fine. FNV wants to be involved in the decision-making process and be able to object to the imposed fine. However, according to the minister, FNV is not an interested party in this procedure. The Midden-Nederland court agrees with the minister. FNV has appealed the courts decision to the Administrative Jurisdiction Division.
Request to the Advocate General
Advocate General Widdershoven was asked in his opinion to address the question of if and when a third party can be an interested party in a decision to impose or refuse an administrative fine. Furthermore, the Chair of the Administrative Jurisdiction Division wanted to know whether it makes a difference if the fine was imposed or refused following an enforcement request by the third party or if the administrative body acted on its own initiative. The Advocate General was also asked whether the fact that the third party is an interest organization is relevant.
Content of the opinion
According to Advocate General Widdershoven, third parties can be interested parties in a decision to refuse or impose an administrative fine, provided the decision was made following their enforcement request. To be considered an interested party in the specific case, a third party must meet the various requirements of Article 1:2, first paragraph, of the General Administrative Law Act (Awb). In particular, the requirement of personal interest may limit the standing.
Legal entities representing a collective or general interest within the meaning of Article 1:2, third paragraph, of the Awb can also be interested parties in a refusal or imposition of a fine if they have made an enforcement request. They must also meet the specific requirements set by this provision regarding the statutory objective and actual activities of such a legal entity, according to the Advocate General.
The fact that an administrative fine has a punitive (harm-inflicting) purpose does not prevent third parties from being interested parties.
Further course of the procedure
The parties involved in this procedure will first have the opportunity to respond to the opinion. Afterwards, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division, as the highest general administrative court, will issue a ruling in this case. The Advocate Generals opinion provides guidance to the Administrative Jurisdiction Division but does not bind it.
What is an opinion and what is its purpose?
An opinion is a legal advice to the Administrative Jurisdiction Division and contributes to the development of the law. An Advocate General can place a legal question in a broader social, legal, and international context in an opinion, evaluate the state of case law, and make recommendations to nuance or adjust existing case law. The possibility for the administrative judge to request an opinion has existed since 2013. An overview of all opinions (opens in a new window) (links to another website) is available on the website of the Council of State.