Ruben Wiegerink
T+31 70 31 31 076
M+31 6 152 646 07
Ewiegerink@feltz.nl

VCARD LinkedIn Rechtsgebiedenregister

Secretary


Suzanne van den Berg
T +31 70 31 31 074
E vandenberg@feltz.nl

Ruben Wiegerink

partner

Ruben combines many areas of expertise in his practice: he is both adviser and litigator in Expropriation Law, Public Sector Private Law, State Aid Law, and Lax law. His know-how includes experience in State as well as Local Government Taxes. Ruben is also admitted to the Dutch Supreme Court Bar Association.

Ruben’s Supreme Court experience is extensive. Before joining Van der Feltz, he was with Pels Rijcken for nine years, where his practice included Supreme Court litigation. Pels Rijcken is the “State Advocate”, i.e. the law firm representing the Dutch government. And before that, with the Supreme Court’s research centre for seven years.

Ruben enjoys being a sparring partner with fellow lawyers when they are considering Supreme Court appeals. He is convinced that it is essential to review all interests thoroughly and to determine the desired final outcome. Ruben is proactive when advising on the chances of success of a possible Supreme Court appeal. He also assesses the probability of a favourable outcome in the event the Supreme Court remits the case, and enables his clients to properly assess whether or not to lodge an appeal at the Supreme Court.

Ruben has an eye for detail, understands complex instructions and structures, and is always committed to maintaining the quality of his work at a high level. He works well within tight deadlines. In short, excellent legal service is second nature to him.

Industry focus

  • Government
  • Real Estate

Areas of expertise

  • Constitutional and Administrative Law
  • Expropriation
  • Liability and damages
  • Procurement and State Aid
  • Real Estate
  • Supreme Court litigation
  • Tax law

Experience

To illustrate Ruben’s practice:

  • Conducting a principal cassation procedure on a private-public cooperation between a project developer and a municipality. This concerned the explanation of an agreement about the construction of a residential area;
  • Proceeding in several instances on the levying of distribution tax on underground pipelines by a municipality. This included issues such as whether private law permission had been given for the presence of the pipelines, as a result of which the levy could not be imposed. The question was also answered whether the tariffs applied could be justified;
  • Proceedings for a municipality about the question of whether the municipality acted unlawfully by indicating, during a conversation with an entrepreneur, that the entrepreneur had to take measures, because otherwise his company had to be discontinued. This case dealt with all sorts of aspects of government liability and the overlapping with administrative law;
  • Advising on whether the municipal purchase of real estate above the market value would constitute impermissible state aid. Among other things, the various possibilities available to the municipality to prevent state support, including an appeal to the de minimis regulation, were discussed;
  • Conducting a procedure for De Nederlandsche Bank regarding levies with regard to financial supervision. The main question was whether the Financial Supervision Act (Wbft) and the implementing regulations based on it, provided for an authorization to impose taxes. In addition, aspects of European law were involved. The case led to the principal decision of the CbB of 18 September 2018, ECLI:NL:CBB:2018:475. The contested judgment was overturned.

Memberships

  • Member of the Association of Dutch Supreme Court Civil Litigators
  • Member of the Association of Dutch Expropriation Lawyers
  • Member of the Dutch Expropriation Law Association
  • Member of the Dutch Association of Tax Law Specialists and Litigators
  • Member of the Association for Taxation Studies

Publications

Select year:
Name Title Published in
Ruben Wiegerink Uitspraak op bezwaar is onbevoegd gedaan, omdat mandaatbesluit niet is gepubliceerd Belastingblad 2022/248
Ruben Wiegerink Bezwaar ten onrechte niet-ontvankelijk verklaard omdat geen notificatie was ontvangen van bekendmaking via MijnOverheid Belastingblad 2022/231
Ruben Wiegerink Noot bij Hof Amsterdam 23 november 2021, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2021:4083 (Een beroep of hoger beroep heeft van rechtswege mede betrekking op een dwangsombeschikking) Belastingblad (BB), april 2022, afl. 8, BB 2022/150
Ruben Wiegerink Kroniek jurisprudentie belastingen lagere overheden 2021 Belastingblad 2022/104, maart 2022, afl. 6, BB 2022/104
Ruben Wiegerink Noot bij Hoge Raad 5 november 2021, ECLI:NL:HR:2021:1660 (Geen vergoeding van immateriële schade wegens overschrijding van de redelijke termijn, want geen bezwaarmogelijkheid) Belastingblad (BB), februari 2022, afl. 4, BB 2022/81
Ruben Wiegerink Noot bij Hof Amsterdam 28 oktober 2021, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2021:3223 (Geen strijd met gelijkheidsbeginsel (meerderheidsregel) bij bepaling WOZ-waarde) Belastingblad (BB), februari 2022, afl. 4, BB 2022/69
Ruben Wiegerink Noot bij Rechtbank Zeeland-West-Brabant 12 november 2021, ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2021:5862 (Te laat aanvangen Skypezitting rechtvaardigt geen uitstel van die zitting. Uitloop zitting van half uur is niet buitensporig) Belastingblad (BB), januari 2021, afl.2, BB 2022/40
Ruben Wiegerink Noot bij Rechtbank Oost-Brabant 8 oktober 2021, ECLI:NL:RBOBR:2021:5406 (Geen afgifte medebelanghebbenden-beschikking op grond van art. 28 Wet WOZ) Belastingblad (BB), afl. 1, BB 2022/7
Ruben Wiegerink Noot bij Hof Amsterdam 26 augustus 2021, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2021:2759 ( Geen belang bij beroep tegen naheffingsaanslag parkeerbelasting, omdat bezwaar niet is gemaakt door parkeerder en evenmin door degene aan wie aanslag is opgelegd) Belastingblad (BB), november 2021, afl. 22, BB 2021/417
Ruben Wiegerink Noot bij Hof Arnhem-Leeuwarden 28 september 2021, ECLI:NL:GHARL:2021:9176 (Heffingsambtenaar miskent schorsende werking van hoger beroep en doet te snel een nieuwe uitspraak op bezwaar) Belastingblad (BB), november 2021, afl. 22, BB 2021/412
Ruben Wiegerink Noot bij Hoge Raad 23 april 2021, ECLI:NL:HR:2021:651, (Zekerheidstelling voor proceskosten (art. 224 Rv) is alleen mogelijk in de lopende instantie) Jurisprudentie Burgerlijk Procesrecht (JBPr), JBPr 2021/339
Ruben Wiegerink Noot bij Rechtbank Noord-Nederland 29 juni 2021, ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2021:2677 (Kort telefonisch vraaggesprek tussen ontvanger en gemachtigde is niet gelijk aan een hoorgesprek) Belastingblad (BB), november afl. 21, BB 2021/401
Ruben Wiegerink Noot bij Hof Den Haag 18 maart 2021, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2021:766 (Fiscaal compromis over invorderingskosten is niet vernietigbaar wegens dwang of dwaling) Belastingblad (BB), september 2021, BB 2021/367
Ruben Wiegerink Noot bij Rb. Rotterdam 16 juli 2021 (Onroerende zaak is terecht betrokken in de heffing OZB als ‘niet-woning’, omdat nog geen aanvang was gemaakt met bouwwerkzaamheden op het perceel. Gelijkheidsbeginsel is niet geschonden.) Belastingblad (BB), juli 2021, BB 2021/342
Ruben Wiegerink Noot bij Rechtbank Rotterdam 4 juni 2021, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2021:4955 (Redelijke termijn wordt verlengd in verband met uitstel zitting als gevolg van coronavirus) Belastingblad (BB), afl. 15, BB 2021/281