Today, the District Court of The Hague held that the The Stichting Recht op Bescherming tegen Vliegtuighinder ("RBV") (Foundation for the Right to Protection against Aircraft Nuisance) is admissible in its case against the Dutch State regarding noise pollution around Schiphol airport. In this case, RBV claims that the State must take measures to protect the residents living in the vicinity of Schiphol, i.a. by applying the WHO standards, taking the actual nuisance into account instead of calculations, and by offering individual legal protection to the residents concerned. More information about RBV and its claims can be found (in Dutch) at: https://www.beschermingtegenvliegtuighinder.nl/
In today's verdict, the court held that RBV's case is a collective case concerning a public interest-claim. The court has also clarified the test that applies in order to determine if an interest group/organization is admissible. The question is not so much whether, in quantitative terms, the organization stands up for a sufficiently large part of the group of those affected, but rather whether the organization may be considered an adequate mouthpiece for the stakeholders.
The interlocutory verdict furthermore addresses the procedural requirements that were introduced with regard to collective claims, as per the Wet afwikkeling massaschade in collectieve actie ('WAMCA') that entered into force in this respect on 1 January 2020. As argued by RBV, these procedural requirements do not lend themselves to application in public interest cases such as the one at hand. That too is a very welcome development for future public interest cases.
As such, RBV's case will continue, the substantive hearing has been on Tuesday 30 January 2024.
RBV is represented in this case by lawyers Channa Samkalden, Elles ten Vergert and Emiel Jurjens.
The verdict is available (in English) via: Rechtbank Den Haag 15 november 2023, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2023:17145
Previously/related: