The Bottom Line
- Higher Fees are Legal: Municipalities can legally charge residents with private driveways or garages a higher rate for on-street parking permits, treating it as a “second car” permit.
- Property Rights Aren’t Absolute: This policy does not unlawfully infringe on property rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Courts view it as a justified regulation to manage public parking scarcity.
- “Use It or Lose It” Doesn’t Apply: Whether you actually park a car on your private property is irrelevant. The court confirmed that if the space meets the physical criteria for parking, the higher fee can be applied, regardless of its current use.
The Details
A recent ruling from the Rotterdam District Court has provided critical clarity on a common source of friction between homeowners and city councils: parking permits. The case involved a resident in The Hague who was granted an on-street parking permit but was charged a significantly higher annual rate (€327.70 vs. €93.80). The city justified the higher fee by classifying his permit as a “second” one, on the grounds that he already had access to a “Parking on Private Property” (known locally as a POET)—his own driveway. The resident challenged this, arguing the policy was an unfair penalty for owning private land.
The homeowner’s primary legal challenge was that the POET policy violated his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his property, a right protected by the European Convention on Human Rights. The court, however, disagreed. It reasoned that property rights are not absolute and can be regulated by the state to serve a legitimate public interest. In this case, the goal of reducing parking congestion in a dense urban area was deemed a valid reason. The court found the measure to be proportional, as the resident was not forced to use his driveway for parking; he was simply presented with a financial choice. This balances the individual’s property rights against the community’s need for accessible on-street parking.
This decision also sets a practical precedent for what defines a private parking space. The resident argued that his driveway was not a functional parking spot, as it was used for storing bicycles and bins. The court dismissed this argument, focusing instead on the physical characteristics of the space—its dimensions and access to the road. The ruling establishes that the potential for use, not the actual current use, is the determining factor. The court also rejected an argument that the policy was applied inconsistently, reinforcing the legal principle that an administrative body is not obligated to repeat a past mistake, even if it had previously charged the resident a lower fee in error.
Source
Source: Rechtbank Rotterdam
