The District Court of Noord-Holland ruled in favor of X. The Court based its interpretation of the term “economic activity” on the judgment of the Supreme Court of 4 October 2013 and on the case law of the EU Court of Justice. According to the District Court, this showed that an activity was generally regarded as economic if it was performed on a permanent basis and the person who performed the activity received compensation for it. The EU Court did not require participation in a general market of supply and demand. In the exploitation of a thing, it was decisive whether that thing was actually used for economic exploitation in order to obtain sustainable income from it. In assessing this, the activity had to be seen in its own right and the aim, or result, was less important. According to the Court, the inspector’s statement that the rent was not commercial was irrelevant in this case.
Source: FUTD
