I lost by tuition appeal case against Maastricht University at the CBHO

I lost my tuition appeal case.

I am very disheartened and angry. I recently listened to a fora video about a new book that says a big motivation in human psychology is the need to be taken seriously. Because that need is so strong, it provides a really good way to understand why discrimination on the basis of immutable characteristics (race, nationality, sex, often religion, etc.) is so destructive. Everyone wants to be recognized for their individuality and contributions and not dismissed as 'oh, well he is Presbyterian so we don't have to listen to him', or 'oh, he is Kenyan so we don't have to consider his argument seriously'. 

So, as to the decision...

It contained the worst reasoning I have ever seen. As for the Dutch anti-discrimination law, check this 'reasoning' out: 'the applicant submitted that making direct distinctions on the basis of nationality is forbidden by the Dutch Anti-Discrimination Law [which explicitly includes educational services]. Further, he submitted a decision by the Dutch Equal Treatment Commission, the body tasks with interpreting the Anti-Discrimination Law, which held that the section of the education law the defendant relies upon is not a 'generally binding administrative measure' capable of derogating from the anti-discrimination law. We have previously held that the education law makes a reasonable and objective difference [wrong standard]. We see no reason to review that decision." Oh, the fact that the body in charge of interpreting that law took expert testimony and REVERSED the earlier decisions that your earlier decisions relied upon and then directly said you are doing it wrong is not a good reason to re-examine your own case-law?!? Oh, and the Equal Treatment Commission's decisions could not have been more on point. They involved a US citizen suing over tuition rates (as well as three other cases that all went the same way involving other nationalities). So angry.

That is insane, right? A change in the law is not a reason to re-examine your own case-law that occurred before that change and relied on over-ruled precedent. Hello?!?!?

Another thing that pissed me off is that they simply did not address my arguments based on the European Convention on Human Rights, European Union Law, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the case-law of the authoritative UN bodies interpreting it, and the Convention on Social and Economic Rights. Simply nothing said about the dozens of cases and provisions cited which were crystal clear.

Possibly the worst part of the reasoning was in addressing the Dutch American Friendship Treaty. I relied on this provision: "1. Nationals of either Party residing within the territories of the other Party, and nationals and companies of either Party engaged in trade or other gainful pursuit or in scientific, educational, religious or philanthropic activities within the territories of the other Party, shall not be subject to the payment of taxes, fees or charges imposed upon or applied to income, capital, transactions, activities or any other object, or to requirements with respect to the levy and collection thereof, within the territories of such other Party, more burdensome than those borne by nationals and companies of such other Party." 

The original decision by the defendant (Maastricht University) said that the treaty only applied to American who own businesses here. I wrote them and responded that I own a business here and that was exactly my argument. On a side note, the person that made that decision has since been fired, good riddance, he was extremely rude and racist toward me, and likely others). Then, he simply changed his interpretation so as to not apply to me, without making a new written decision or anything (which is completely illegal).

So the Educational Body (the CBHO) followed this reasoning and ruled that the treaty only covered companies engaged in the provision of educational or scientific services. Thus, it did not help me. At the end of this section, they noted that this determination is not changed by the fact that the tuition fees for a masters in EU law are expenses for the law firm I work for and co-own that is engaged in educational and scientific services (I am editing an academic book and co-authoring another, i.e. participating in the production of educational and scientific services.) Further, the Treaty provides equal treatment to all companies owned by US nationals, not just those engaged in educational services. If one company has to spend $12,000 to train their workers and another has to spend $1200 based explicitly on the nationality, how can one NOT see that this is the government creating an unequal treatment in the marketplace among comparable competitors, which is exactly what the Treat makes illegal?!

Is anyone following the court's reasoning? So, the fact that, even under the (restrictive and wrong) interpretation of the treaty, I fall under its protection does not change the court's determination that I do not fall under the provisions. HELLO?!?

As as to their interpretation, the provisions clearly states "national and companies". Nationals do not own universities. The treaty talks about "closer economic and cultural cooperation between the peoples" (which the court, without any explanation says is completely different from education, [HUH?!]) The context of the treaty was after Americans and Dutch fought and died side-by-side fighting a discriminatory and racist regime. Sounds like a certain degree of solidarity and anti-discrimination by the government was implied by the context and text of the treaty, no?

Further, the court determined that the Treaty really only addresses tax matters. Well, this is wrong because there is another 330 page treaty between the two countries on tax matters. The DAFT, in contrast, goes further and addresses "most favored nation" status and treatment for "payment of taxes, fees or charges imposed upon or applied to income, capital, transactions, activities or any other object". When the government sends a bill for 12,000 to one person (EU, EER, Swiss, and Surinamese nationals) and 1200 to everybody else based solely and exclusively on nationality, that is the definition of a violation of a violation of most favored national treatment with respect to government fees or charges. The treaty is specifically written in the broadest language (fees or charges imposed upon or applied... activities or any other object), so that a domestic government cannot make the argument 'oh, that is not really a tax, see, we classify for domestic purposes as a "charge" or a "usage fee", or a "service fee". No, all taxes, fees OR charges applied to activities or any other object. I, myself, could not have written any broader language, and the court just simply erases all meaning from the language and removes the most important words.

Further, it is not a stretch to interpret the treaty that way I interpret. This is because my interpretation is the exact same language and interpretation in the International Covenant on Economic and Social Rights, The International Convention on Civil and Political Rights with subsequent decisions, the clear language of the Dutch Anti-Discrimination Law (AWGB) and its authoritative interpretive body the CGB, the European Union law within its sphere of power (which is why the Dutch fees on EU and EER nationals was previously struck down), the most favored nation clause in the Swiss-EU treaty, the most favored nation clause in the Dutch-Surinamese Friendship Treaty, and the interpretation of these documents by the Dutch government prior to 2009 when they decided to start blatantly screwing over immigrants, which subsequently led to them losing 11 cases before the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice.

The court's reasoning does not even pass my laugh test. It is not a good faith treaty interpretation.