Schiphol will get to present its own story in the court case against the Dutch State that was filed by the airport's local residents. This is the result of an interim ruling by The Hague Court of Appeal. We are happy to explain exactly what that means in this article.
In March 2024, in a lawsuit between RBV (a foundation advocating for the right to protection against noise nuisance from air traffic) and the Dutch State, The Hague District Court ruled that the government had not sufficiently protected the interests of local residents in recent years. The court ordered the State to enforce the applicable laws and regulations within 12 months and to establish a form of legal protection accessible to all people who experience severe noise and or sleep disturbance.
The State subsequently appealed the ruling. Although Schiphol is not a party to this case, we do believe that the outcome could have major consequences for our business operations. Therefore, in October 2024, we asked for what is known as ‘intervention’ in the appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal has now granted our request. This means that during the appeal, we will have the opportunity to participate in these proceedings. We will then be able to explain the conditions we believe the ruling should meet to achieve clarity, certainty and feasibility for all concerned. In addition, we can directly answer factual questions during the proceedings and provide our own information relevant for the court to make a decision.
The State has also asked the Court of Appeal to suspend the orders imposed by the court. According to the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management, that deadline is not feasible because establishing new rules takes much more time. This requires first going through the Balanced Approach procedure, which you can read more about here and here. The Court of Appeal did not grant that request, because RBV had given advance notice that it would not implement the court's ruling. With that, according to the Court of Appeal, there was no longer any reason to rule on the content of the suspension request. In fact, that part of the judgment has no further consequences for now.