Alinea 148 Parket bij de Hoge Raad 5 januari 2007

"The Court notes that Article 1 of Protocol n° 1, second paragraph, establishes that the duty to pay tax falls within its field of application. Accordingly, Article 14 is also applicable (see the Darby v. Sweden judgment of 23 October 1990, Series A no. 187, p. 12, § 30 and, mutatis mutandis, the Inze v. Austria judgment of 28 October 1987, Series A no. 126, pp. 17-18, §§ 36-40). For the purposes of Article 14 a difference of treatment is discriminatory if it `has no objective and reasonable justification', that is if it does not pursue a `legitimate aim' or if there is not a `reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised'. Moreover in the field of taxation the Contracting States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in assessing whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment (cf. the Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany judgment of 18 July 1994, Series A no. 291-B, p. 32, § 24 and the Darby judgment, quoted above, p. 12, § 31; see also Eur. Comm. HR, N° 11089/84, Dec. 11 11 86, D.R. 49, pp. 181, 190-191). In particular, it is not sufficient for the applicants to complain merely that they have been taxed more than others, but they must show that the tax in question operates to distinguish between similar taxpayers on discriminatory grounds (see, mutatis mutandis, Eur. Comm. HR, N° 13013/87, Dec. 14.12.88, D.R. 58, pp. 163, 188)."

$ curl -s https://bron.page/api/v1/blobs/ba3d00ac6f6dc4fa21a655fc7c7e6bbec490cb0e0b5a449f32d1448772a50d53 | shasum -a 256