Did the king get millions unjustly? Today the judge is looking at it | NOW

Although King Willem-Alexander is legally inviolable, the judge is currently considering a case that affects his private life. He has wrongly received the 4.7 million euro subsidy that the king received for the period 2016-2021 for the maintenance of Kroondomein Het Loo, according to action group De Faunabescherming.

The Fauna Protection has submitted an objection because the managers of a nature reserve may only receive a subsidy if the site is open at least 358 days a year (with the exception of 1 hectare, which may be closed all year round).

Kroondomein Het Loo – which is managed by the king, but owned by the state – does not meet this requirement. In the autumn, a large part of the area is closed for three months due to wildlife regulation. Nevertheless, Willem-Alexander received millions of euros during those six years to maintain the nature reserve.

Besides the fact that a startling exception was made for the king, according to De Faunabescherming chairman Niko Koffeman, there were more stinky things. “Normally you have to be at the province to apply for the subsidy, but the Ministry (of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, ed.) apparently found it complicated that the king had to stop his hand with them,” says Koffeman in conversation with NU .NL. “So an own arrangement has been devised for the king through detours.” For example, the agreements would have been made verbally.

The ministry took a long time to deal with the objection. According to Koffeman, this was to buy time, so that the subsidy period until the end of 2021 was over. The ministry also believed that De Faunabescherming has no interest in a possible repayment of the million-dollar subsidy. The action group then appealed to have the objection reassessed.

“The Board of Appeal ruled in our favor on all points. They also believe that the ministry wrongly failed to respond to the objection in time, that it does not matter that those five years have now expired and that we do have an interest in a substantive handling of the appeal.” And so the case now goes to court. (text continues below photo)


Royal family contradicts minister

NU.nl has asked the Government Information Service (RVD) for a response. This refers to a letter to parliament in which the then Minister of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality Carola Schouten wrote that the subsidy conditions had not been violated. According to her, the king was therefore entitled to the subsidy, even though the crown domain was closed to the public for three months.

From the subsidy decision, which came into the hands of the BNNVARA program last year zembla states that the king may close not 1 hectare, but 7,200 hectares of the crown domain “to protect his privacy”.

This seems quite contrary to what the royal family itself says on its website: “The Kroondrager can make use of the relevant subsidy schemes under the same conditions as any other private manager of forest and nature areas. In other words: if the economic owner of this land had not been the Kroondrager, then that person could also have received a subsidy. “

Action group also starts case about new subsidy

In any case, it has already been decided that the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality of the Minister for Nature and Nitrogen Christianne van der Wal-Zeggelink must pay the costs of the proceedings. The ministry must also reconsider the notice of objection.

The court will therefore also do so, which may have the consequence that (part of) the subsidy is reclaimed. And that can mean that the king has to pay back millions.

This week it was announced that the king will receive 4.5 million euros in subsidy for the period from the beginning of 2022 to the end of 2027. The rules have now changed slightly: since this year no subsidy can be granted for the (large) part that the king for private use. But he still gets almost the same amount for the maintenance of the crown domain.

“We will also object to the new subsidy,” says Koffeman. “The subsidy is relatively much too high. That will be a completely new case, although it will contain legal tricks that we can learn from the current ones. All points will be reconsidered in terms of content.”

ttn-19