Gov't ignored locals' interests in decision making around Schiphol, court rules

The Dutch State “systematically” did not give locals’ interests sufficient weight when making decisions about air traffic to and from Schiphol, the court in The Hague ruled on Wednesday in a case filed by locals to reduce noise pollution around the Amsterdam airport. “That is contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR),” the court said.

The government also failed to sufficiently enforce applicable regulations when it came to noise pollution caused by the airport, the court ruled. It ordered the State to enforce all applicable laws and regulations within twelve months and to provide “a form of practical and effective legal protection” for all people affected by noise pollution from the airport.

Local residents united in the Foundation for the Protection of Aircraft Nuisance (RBV) sued the Dutch State over the constant noise from flight movements around Schiphol. The noise pollution is causing them stress and sleep problems. They want the State to reduce the noise by reducing the number of flights, among other things.

The government argued that Schiphol was important for the Dutch economy, creating many jobs and keeping the Netherlands attractive for businesses. It also argued that it has taken measures to reduce noise.

The court ruled in the locals’ favor, pointing out that the government has failed to sufficiently enforce the legal framework for noise pollution at the airport since 2010. And the policy drawn up in the past 14 years is based on measurements of which it has “been clear since 2005 that they do not provide a complete picture of the distribution and severity of noise pollution.”

“There is a lack of adequate and actually enforced noise pollution standards for people who experience nuisance from Schiphol,” the court ruled. “Since 2010, temporary regulations and draft regulations have been used that have not been adopted or entered into force. As a result, it is still not clear to citizens which standards provide them with legal protection.”

The court said that the government is allowed to make decisions based on Schiphol’s importance to the Dutch economy. However, it is also obliged to act according to the ECHR, and that means “the policy-making process must be fair and such that the interests of the individual are appropriately respected.” The government did not give locals’ interests sufficient weight, always prioritizing Shciphol’s hub function and growth.

On top of that, the government only looked at a small area around Schiphol in its noise pollution measures, while it has been clear for some time that the pollution extends far beyond that. “The State says that measures taken that are beneficial to the people within these noise contours are also beneficial to the people outside them. However, the court finds this inplausible. In the past, it has repeatedly been shown that measures to improve the situation at one location led to a worsening of the situation elsewhere,” the court said. “Moreover, research by the GGD and the RIVM, among others, shows that most people who experience noise pollution from Schiphol live outside the noise contours.”

According to the State, 2108 figures from the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency show that approximately 173,000 people suffer from serious noise pollution due to Schiphol air traffic. The RIVM estimates that an average of over 259,000 experience serious noise pollution from the airport.

“Severe noise pollution and sleep disturbance can affect the well-being and health of people and prevent them from living an undisturbed life in their own homes. The ECHR protects the importance of an undisturbed private life,” the court ruled. It gave the government 12 months to improve the situation by enforcing all applicable laws and regulations and better protecting all people affected by noise pollution.

The government is well aware that Schiphol is exceeding noise standards and has been trying to cut flight movements at the airport for some time. It ran into fierce opposition from the United States when American airlines risked losing slots at the airport. The European Commission also ruled that the government didn’t follow the correct procedures for its downsizing plans. In January, Minister Mark Harbers of Infrastructure said that it was unlikely the cuts would happen this year.