projects

Housing surtax and legitimate expectations in social housing

ATA/687/1995Court of Justice / Administrative ChamberNov 28, 1995Partially Granted

Open source

Extracted by Omnilex

Omnilex summary

The authority annulled the housing surtax for two years because the tenant had not been informed of it when the lease was signed. The later surtax notice, issued after that period, was upheld. The court held that the principle of good faith did not apply because the first decision contained no assurance that no surtax would ever be claimed in the future.

Omnilex headnote

LGL. 30; housing surtax in social housing; legitimate expectations and scope of an administrative annulment. The protection of good faith presupposes a concrete assurance by the authority on which the addressee could rely. Where an authority annuls a surtax solely for a past period because notice was lacking, that decision does not amount to a promise of a permanent exemption. A subsequent surtax for a later period is therefore not barred by good faith merely because the earlier surtax was cancelled; the temporal scope of the first decision is decisive.

Full text

Descripteurs

LOGEMENT; EXONERATION FISCALE; SURTAXE; LOGEMENT SOCIAL; PRINCIPE DE LA BONNE FOI; ASSURANCE DONNEE; LEGALITE; IEA

Normes

LGL.30

Résumé

L'OLS a annulé la surtaxe due par le recourant pendant 2 ans au motif que celui-ci n'avait pas été averti du paiement d'une surtaxe au moment de la signature du bail. Toutefois, la surtaxe notifiée après ce délai de deux ans (dont la légalité n'est pas examinée) est légale. Le principe de la bonne foi ne trouve pas application en l'espèce dès lors que dans sa première décision, l'OLS ne s'est pas engagée à renoncer à toute surtaxe pour l'avenir.

Keywords

housingsurtaxsocial housinggood faithlegitimate expectationsadministrative lawlease

Extracted by Omnilex

Key legal questions extracted by Omnilex

Key legal question

Whether the tenant could rely on good faith to avoid the housing surtax for the future after the first annulment decision.

Extracted holding

No. The authority did not give any assurance that all future surtaxes would be waived, so the principle of good faith did not bar a later surtax notice.

Extracted reasoning

The first decision only concerned the surtax already due for the initial two-year period. It did not contain a promise of permanent exemption or a commitment not to impose any surtax in the future.

Key legal question

Whether the surtax notified after the two-year period was lawful.

Extracted holding

The later surtax was lawful; its legality was not called into question by the earlier annulment.

Extracted reasoning

The earlier annulment was limited in time and did not extend to future periods.

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.