THIS IS ONE OF THE fundamental principles of our society: everyone is equal before the law. As such, it is the pillar of our democratic system. It constitutes the basis of Articles 10 and 11 of the principle of equality enshrined in the Constitution. Yet, the apparent simplicity of the ‘equality before the law’ maxim does not apply to its application. Even though, over the years, the Belgian Parliament has passed plenty of laws, abolishing one that is no longer enforced is often a completely different story. Laws need to be maintained, updated and reviewed, but the legislator’s appetite for this task is inversely proportional to his or her creative drive. The application of outdated laws has to be translated into our current socio-economic system if the legislator’s purpose is to be respected. Meanwhile, shifts in public opinions lead to a different interpretation of the law, without even changing one iota of the legal text. As a result, the application of the law for my neighbour in the past may have been different from what it is today for me.

The principle of equality therefore presupposes that the administration will maintain a certain continuity and consistency in its policy.

A LAW ALSO NEEDS to be enforced. It it no longer possible to check everything in times of austerity affecting public administration. Public prosecutors announce that certain cases are no longer among their priorities or that they are no longer being prosecuted for efficiency reasons. Last but not least, the law often leaves room for the authorities to make assessments. Technically, the administration then has discretionary powers. This requires the authorities to be reasonable and consistent. They will not deviate randomly from the chosen path. If they do, it will be because they have an acceptable motive. The principle of equality therefore presupposes that the administration will maintain a certain continuity and consistency in its policy. In comparable cases, it must make a similar decision. The same requirement of consistency already stems from justifying the principle of reasonableness.

YET, AS A NORM, the defendant believes that the law is not applied equally for everyone. He or she is right in many cases, and is justified in believing that his or her sense of justice has been denied. This problem often arises in areas where the application of the law is subject to stricter and more rigorous checks. Taxation is such an area, even perhaps the area par excellence. In the tax system, some taxpayers find themselves in similar situations where the tax authorities interpret terms and sanctions more favourably for another taxpayer than for them. And while you would expect the revolution in communication technology to help increase and safeguard the state’s transparency and uniformity of action, this is by no means the case. This inequality always occurs in the relationship between the taxpayer and the administration. Which fine is imposed in the case of an audit? And why does the tax administration take a view point for a particular taxpayer which it won’t apply to other taxpayers?

FOR THE TAXPAYER there may be light at the end of the tunnel. The court recently ruled that the administration must demonstrate that it puts its money where its mouth is. If it wishes to enforce a sanction in the case of one taxpayer, it must enforce the same for a specific taxpayer. In other words, it must demonstrate that what it puts forward as its policy is also enforced effectively and on a sufficiently broad scope. This is new and revolutionary. Many taxpayers will heartily welcome this ruling. Even though there is still a long way to go before this becomes a general legal practice, the debate has started. One swallow does not make a spring, but it does mean that spring is coming.