A victim demands that Lydia Peeters and Bart Tommelein personally compensate his loss for the reversing counter.
–
At the beginning of this year, the Constitutional Court canceled the scheme that would allow Flemish people with solar panels to enjoy a revolving counter for at least another fifteen years. This is much to the dismay of many solar panel owners. Several of them therefore started legal proceedings against the Flemish government, under the wings of lawyer Stijn Verbist, in order to obtain compensation for the damage suffered.
But last night Verbist launched a remarkable media offensive on VRT and in De Tijd and Het Laatste Nieuws with a very striking action. He personally summoned one of his victims, Minister for Mobility Lydia Peeters (formerly responsible for Energy) and former Minister of Energy Bart Tommelein (both Open VLD). It is a test case that, according to him, 15,000 other victims can join if it succeeds.
Why this remarkable action? “Tommelein and Peeters are being summoned in response to a position taken by the Flemish Region,” Verbist told the VRT. “They are now obliged to intervene in the ongoing legal proceedings.”
According to the lawyer, the position of the Flemish government would cite interviews by Tommelein and Peeters in which they promoted solar panels and guaranteed sufficient returns. With those statements they would have thrown sand in the eyes of the victims. The Flemish government would have made it seem that if Peeters and Tommelein had promised a return – insofar as they have done so – that promise would fall outside their competence. The lawyer of the victims therefore assumes that they made that decision in a personal name and were therefore not covered by the Flemish government. So, according to him, there is no other option than to sue them personally.
In the Flemish government it can be heard that their lawyer has not said that promises have been made by persons, but only that certain statements in newspapers or on television are political or personal. ‘All other conclusions are at the expense of Verbist’, it reads.
Neither Peeters nor Tommelein wanted to respond to the summons.
– .
