5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Maastricht. 6.  On 3 November 1995 the applicant reported to the police that his driving licence had been stolen in September of that year. On 14 March 1997 the applicant was issued with a new driving licence. He had applied for it only shortly before, i.e. in 1997. 7.  During the intervening period, between 3 November 1995 and 14 March 1997, the Government Road Transport Agency (Rijksdienst voor het Wegverkeer – “the Agency”) registered a total of 1,737 motor vehicles in the applicant’s name in the vehicle registration system (kentekenregister), but without his consent. It would appear that these registrations were effected upon presentation of the applicant’s stolen driving licence. 8.  As a consequence of these vehicles being registered in his name, the applicant received large numbers of motor vehicle tax assessments (aanslagen motorrijtuigenbelasting/houderschapsbelasting), he was on many occasions prosecuted on the basis of the Motor Liability Insurance Act (Wet aansprakelijkheidsverzekering motorrijtuigen) and fined by the public prosecutor (officier van justitie) on the basis of the Traffic Regulations Administrative Enforcement Act (Wet administratiefrechtelijk handhaving verkeersvoorschriften) in respect of offences committed with the cars. Having been ordered by the competent court to pay these fines, he was detained for failure to comply with these orders (gijzeling) pursuant to Article 28 of the latter Act. The applicant ended up paying fines imposed on him on the basis of these motor vehicle registrations in respect of offences not committed by him. On several occasions the applicant was held liable by the Motor Traffic Guarantee Fund (Waarborgfonds Motorverkeer) for damage caused by uninsured vehicles registered in his name. The applicant’s welfare benefits were stopped, as his financial means were considered to be quite adequate in view of the sheer number of vehicles registered in his name. 9.  The applicant alleges that on 1 July 1996 he requested the Agency to annul all the vehicle registrations, bar the one relating to his own car and was met with a refusal. Likewise, he alleges that he made several unsuccessful attempts in 1996 to rectify the situation by, inter alia, writing complaints to the Public Prosecutor who had imposed fines on him. The Government state that no official record exists to support these allegations. 10.  The applicant furthermore appealed, on 12 February 2004, to the Amsterdam Court of Appeal (gerechtshof) against the refusal of the Public Prosecution Service (Openbaar Ministerie) to prosecute those responsible for the malicious vehicle registrations in his name. In its decision of 22 June 2005, the Court of Appeal considered, as relevant to the case before the Court, that although the police could admittedly have proceeded more effectively with the investigation, too much time had passed (the events in issue, i.e. the malicious registration of motor vehicles, had taken place between November 1995 and March 1997) to expect any viable investigation to be conducted by the authorities concerned. The Court of Appeal therefore dismissed the appeal, but it nevertheless noted that it was in favour of the course of action as advised by the Advocate-General, namely a complete remission in a single administrative act (eenmalige sanering) of all (administrative) sanctions imposed on the applicant which were an effect of the malicious registrations. According to the applicant’s representative, no such remission took place. Moreover, the Tax and Customs Administration (Belastingdienst) initially prevented the applicant from being eligible for debt rescheduling under the Debt Rescheduling (Natural Persons) Act (Wet Schuldsanering Natuurlijke Personen). 11.  On 16 January 2004 the applicant again requested the Agency to annul, with retroactive effect, the motor vehicle registrations in question. 12.  On 3 April 2004 the Agency partially granted the request, cancelling 240 registrations as of that date. The remaining registrations were no longer in the applicant’s name at that time. The Agency expressly stated that it was unable to cancel the registrations retroactively, as had been requested by the applicant, as that would be detrimental to the reliability of the motor vehicle registration system. 13.  The applicant lodged an objection on 28 April 2004, arguing, in particular, that the motor vehicle registration system was already flawed owing to the existence of the impugned registrations; that not granting the desired retroactive effect would have substantial financial consequences for him; and that the Agency, in 1996, had offered to annul the stolen driving licence for purposes of motor vehicle registrations on condition that the applicant apply for a new licence, which condition the applicant had been unable to meet at that time for financial reasons. 14.  The applicant’s objection was dismissed on 2 September 2004. The Agency decided that cancellation of registrations with retroactive effect would lead to legal uncertainty and would entail the Agency’s interference with competencies of other authorities, e.g. the Public Prosecution Service or the Tax and Customs Administration, in that it could affect the legality of decisions which those authorities had made or might make on the basis of the contents of the motor vehicle registration system. 15.  The applicant appealed against the Agency’s decision to the Rotterdam Regional Court (rechtbank), arguing in particular that he had, already in 1996, made a similar request to the Agency and had reported the fraudulent use of his driving licence to the police, yet to no avail. The applicant also submitted that the motor vehicle registration system, as it was at the relevant time, had been sensitive to fraud, a risk which, in the applicant’s view, should not be for the general population to bear. He argued furthermore that the requirement which existed in 1996 to have to apply for a new driving licence in order to disallow motor vehicle registrations with a stolen one was unjust and discriminatory. 16.  The Regional Court concurred with the Agency’s decision and considered that no exceptional circumstances existed warranting a deviation from the standard practice not to grant retroactive effect. It noted in that respect that, although he had lodged complaints in 1996, the applicant had allowed more than seven years to pass before starting the proceedings at issue. 17.  On 5 April 2005 the applicant appealed against the Regional Court’s judgment to the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State (Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State – “the Administrative Jurisdiction Division”). The applicant argued, in relevant part, that his rights under Article 8 of the Convention were being violated due to the unlawful registrations of motor vehicles in his name and that the vehicle registration system was flawed in that it allowed such large-scale fraud to occur so easily. 18.  The Administrative Jurisdiction Division gave its decision on 7 December 2005. Its reasoning included the following:
“As the Administrative Jurisdiction Division has held [in an earlier case], it cannot be found that the Agency’s policy of denying in principle retroactive effect to decisions ... to cancel the registration of a vehicle is not reasonable. The purity of the vehicle register and legal certainty of the registration of vehicles justify such a policy, as the Regional Court has rightly held. The Regional Court has rightly held that the Agency was not obliged to consider the applicant’s submissions in this matter a ground to deviate from this policy and retroactively cancel the registration of the said motor cars with effect from the date requested by the applicant. That being so, the applicant’s complaint that the Regional Court’s decision is incomprehensible and improperly reasoned must fail.
As regards the [applicant’s] argument that the Vehicle Registration Regulations (Kentekenreglement) violate, inter alia, Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (Official Journal L 281, 23/11/1995; hereafter: the Directive), the Administrative Jurisdiction Division finds as follows. Contrary to what the [applicant] suggests, it cannot be deduced from the fact that the guideline includes a right of correction that the processor of those personal data is obliged to do so sua sponte and unasked and might not make the desired correction dependent on a request to that effect. In addition, contrary to what the [applicant] suggests, the processing of personal data pursuant to the Directive is also permitted without the permission of the person concerned if such processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the exercise of official authority. In the opinion of the Administrative Jurisdiction Division, the use of a driving license involves recording the data of that driving license in a data filing system and processing them in the performance of the duty to secure compliance with legal obligations such as those here in issue. The [applicant’s] complaint fails.
Nor does the Administrative Jurisdiction Division agree with the [applicant] that the Vehicle Registration Regulations violate the right to liberty and security of person, laid down in Article 5 of the Convention and Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Regardless of whether these provisions can be relevant to the decision-making process based on the Vehicle Registration Regulations – these regulations do not, after all, provide for the deprivation of liberty referred to by the [applicant] – these provisions contain an exception to the right to liberty and security of person in order to secure the fulfilment of an obligation prescribed by law. In this connection, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division notes in addition that this exception is also covered by the circumstance, referred to by the [applicant], that he was deprived of his liberty because he had not taken the measures needed to correct the [registration of vehicles wrongly registered in his name].” 19.  No further appeal lay against this decision.