WILLEMSTAD – Former Prime Minister Stanley Betrian says the Dutch Supreme Court's recent ruling in the tax debt exemption case should be carefully interpreted and does not automatically mean that the former Finance Minister could face criminal consequences.
In a statement issued following the Supreme Court's decision of July 10, 2026, Betrian addressed questions about the possible responsibility of the former Finance Minister involved in the case.
According to Betrian, the Supreme Court ruling primarily concerns the interpretation and application of laws within the framework of the rule of law, rather than establishing criminal responsibility for any individual.
The case originated from a request by Advocate General at the Supreme Court, Peter J. Wattel, who asked the Supreme Court to overturn the 2023 ruling of the Joint Court of Justice of Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten and the Caribbean Netherlands in order to provide greater clarity and uniformity in the interpretation of the law.
Betrian explained that the Supreme Court's role in such a case is to strengthen legal certainty and ensure consistent application of legislation, not to determine whether a person has committed a criminal offense.
Questions About Ministerial Authority and Public Trust
The ruling addresses several important legal issues, including how tax policies must be established legally, the importance of the principle of legitimate expectations, the consequences of ministerial statements made through social media, and the limits of ministerial authority.
Betrian said many people have asked whether the ruling could lead to criminal consequences for the former Finance Minister.
"Care must be taken with that question," he said.
According to Betrian, a court ruling that determines that administrative actions were incorrect does not automatically mean that a criminal offense was committed.
"For criminal liability to be established, a separate and specific criminal investigation is required, based on concrete facts," he explained. Such an investigation can only be initiated by the Public Prosecution Service.
Violation of Administrative Principles
Betrian acknowledged that, according to the Advocate General's conclusions, the former Finance Minister violated several tax laws and failed to follow principles of proper administration.
He referred to the doctrine of General Principles of Proper Administration (Algemene Beginselen van Behoorlijk Bestuur, ABBB), which includes principles such as legality, equal treatment, proper justification of decisions and fair play by government authorities.
However, Betrian emphasized that failing to comply with administrative law does not automatically mean that criminal laws were violated.
"To reach that conclusion, the Public Prosecution Service and the Advocate General in Curaçao would first have to conduct a factual investigation and determine whether there is criminal liability," he said.
Facebook Announcement Raised Concerns
Betrian also commented on the use of social media by the former minister to announce the tax policy.
He noted that it was remarkable that the three judges of the Joint Court did not rule that the use of Facebook and other social media platforms was in itself improper.
According to Betrian, social media is not the appropriate channel for announcing government policies that involve complex conditions and legal consequences for citizens.
He said the minister's actions may nevertheless have serious political consequences, as the controversy could lead to a broader discussion about his political future.
Importance for the Rule of Law
For Betrian, the greatest importance of the Supreme Court ruling lies in its contribution to strengthening the rule of law.
"The government is also subject to the law," he stated. "Citizens must be able to trust that the government acts legally, transparently and with legal certainty."
Betrian concluded that the ruling should primarily be seen as a reminder that public authorities must respect legal boundaries and maintain public confidence in government institutions.