Citaat | Parket bij de Hoge Raad 16 juli 2020

Onder 4.33 Parket bij de Hoge Raad 16 juli 2020

Een alinea uit Parket bij de Hoge Raad 16 juli 2020, ECLI:NL:PHR:2020:697.

2. It is arguable whether any ‘specific service’ is being rendered by Transport for London. Many drivers have no alternative but to use the zone because they live within it or must use it for their work. The ‘service rendered’ in the form of a quicker journey by car has been delivered to only a limited extent and ‘improved’ public transport may in many cases not be a realistic alternative. This is particularly true for diplomats given that they are obliged to work in embassies which in practice must be located in central London and to transact their business with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office which is also located within the zone. For many ambassadors and senior diplomats, travel by public transport is for reasons of security not a realistic alternative. The main purpose of the congestion charge is to regulate driving conduct and choice of vehicle, which is a perfectly proper objective for a tax but not a normal factor in a charge for a service. The basis for the charge as a regulator of conduct has been accentuated by the introduction of discounts for ultra-low emission vehicles.

Zelf controleren

Voor dit citaat hoeft niemand Bron op zijn woord te geloven. Het document dat rechtspraak.nl publiceerde, staat op https://bron.page/api/v1/blobs/fa742caa0f18dd86379aa976bf3d5269ec170f5c5c6319d29bec43b95888d793. Wie het ophaalt en de SHA-256 ervan berekent, krijgt fa742caa0f18dd86379aa976bf3d5269ec170f5c5c6319d29bec43b95888d793, en de alinea staat in dat document op bytes 94915 tot 96043.