Skip to content
RegistryJUS · 2026 · 328TopicJustice, courts and the legal professionPosition48 of 48LanguageEnglishEarlierThe Dog That Became MineShare
JUS·2026·328

Enforcing the Rules: Aruba Court Rules on E-Step and E-Bike Rentals

An Aruba court ruling on e-step and e-bike rentals shows that commercial labels do not determine legal obligations.

For years, electric steps and bicycles have been available for rent in Aruba. Their continued presence, however, does not necessarily mean that the underlying activity complies with the law. On 16 September 2026, the Court of First Instance of Aruba considered whether Friendly Green Bike Company Aruba VBA and Evikes Corporation VBA could continue renting these vehicles without a permit under the Landsverordening personenvervoer. The case illustrates a basic regulatory principle: commercial labels do not determine legal obligations. The law looks at the activity behind the label.

From “Micro Mobility” to a Permiting Dispute

Green Bike had obtained a business-establishment permit in 2023 for what the permit described as a “micro mobility system”. In practical terms, the activity involved renting e-bikes, e-scooters and e-mopeds. Importantly, the permit itself expressly required compliance with other applicable legal requirements.

In 2026, the government began enforcement. Following warnings and inspections, the Minister imposed orders subject to penalty payments because the companies lacked a permit under article 3(3) of the Landsverordening personenvervoer. The financial consequences were substantial: Afl. 500 per vehicle per day. The companies objected and sought suspension. They pointed to financial and reputational consequences, pending permit applications, and the fact that their activities had existed for years.

The Law Looks Beyond the Label

The Court accepted that the financial consequences were sufficiently serious to establish urgency. But urgency did not make the underlying activity lawful. The central question was whether the vehicles qualify as “verhuurmotorfietsen” under the Landsverordening personenvervoer. The terminology ultimately made little difference. The Court looked at what the businesses were actually renting. The vehicles have two wheels, no closed body, are propelled wholly or partly by mechanical power and are rented without a driver. They therefore satisfy the statutory definition. Because the required permit was absent, the Court concluded plainly:

“Er is dus sprake van een overtreding.”

The judgment does not declare that every e-step is a motorcycle for every legal purpose. Its conclusion is narrower: these rental vehicles fall within the specific statutory definition of verhuurmotorfiets.

When Enforcement Becomes the Rule

Once the Court found an infringement, enforcement became central. It stated that enforcement ordinarily serves the general interest and that authorities should, as a rule, act against violations. There can be exceptions. A concrete prospect of legalization may justify restraint, as may other special circumstances. But merely filing a permit application was insufficient. The Court found no concrete prospect of legalization and refused to suspend the enforcement measures.

That matters. Years without enforcement do not, by themselves, erase a statutory licensing requirement. Otherwise, prolonged non-enforcement could gradually make rules ineffective in practice.

Enforcement Goes Both Ways

Yet an equally important counterweight exists. In earlier proceedings, the Court had prohibited the Land from simply seizing the companies’ vehicles without a valid legal decision. The government could enforce applicable laws, but it had to use the proper legal powers and procedures. Taken together, the proceedings make a broader rule-of-law point. Regulation has little value if it exists only on paper. Businesses are entitled to expect government to enforce the rules consistently, just as government is entitled to expect businesses to comply with them. Effective government therefore requires more than legislation. It requires enforcement that is consistent, lawful and proportionate. And when an activity falls within an existing statutory definition, giving it a modern commercial description does not change what the law requires.

The rule of law works both ways: those who are regulated must follow the rules, and those who enforce them must do the same.

Thanks for reading. Catch you next column and don’t forget to visit www.lincolngomez.com for all my latest blogs and podcasts.

16 September 2026