The Dutch State and interest group Right to Protection against Aircraft Nuisance (RBV) were diametrically opposed to each other in the Hague court today. Is the State violating the human rights of residents around Schiphol by not doing enough to combat aircraft noise pollution? The judge’s answer will take some time.
During the hearing in The Hague, which took up a large part of the day, both sides were given ample time to explain their positions. It is RBV that is suing the State on behalf of approximately 5,000 people and several organizations, because according to them it should protect the safety of the personal living environment. This has been happening far too little among residents of Schiphol for years.
During the opening argument, RBV’s lawyers mainly emphasized what they considered to be outdated and confusing regulations that the government would use to measure aircraft noise pollution: “Because of those outdated models, many people with serious nuisance fall outside the State’s responsibility.” , said lawyer Channa Samkalden.
In addition, studies show that the shrinkage of Schiphol, which is important to reduce nuisance, would have a limited economic impact on the airport. These downsizing plans were in place for years, until they recently came under pressure from, among others, the US and the European Commission were swept off the table by outgoing minister Harbers.
‘Billion dollar noose’
The State contradicts that. They tried to demonstrate that the current measures and plans for a quieter Schiphol work and show promising results. This included the already well-known ideas about limiting the number of private jets, quieter aircraft and a possible night closure.
They also pay extensive attention to the possibility of shrinkage; according to them, extensive shrinkage can have a paralyzing effect on the (inter)national network function of the airport. Shrinkage would cause a ‘billion dollar loss’ and damage the Dutch business climate.
“I think the State’s defense seems a bit weak”
In any case, both RBV and the State agree that something needs to change. The nuisance mainly escalates directly under the approach routes to Schiphol. According to recent research, as many as 40 percent of Aalsmeer residents say they experience serious annoyance as a result of aircraft noise. In Uithoorn, a third of the population thinks the same.
Strong arguments
Mirella Visser, chair of the Uithoorn local residents’ organization PUSH, is impressed by what she considers to be strong arguments from RBV: “You can see that they have done their homework. Of course, the State has too, but their defense with regard to the economic interest I think Schiphol seems a bit weak.”
The outdated regulations that RBV makes a big point of are recognizable to Visser: “It makes quite a difference whether, for example, you use housing files from 1999 or 2023 to calculate the nuisance and the State seemed to throw this around somewhat haphazardly. affects a lot of people, not just the Uithoorn residents who live directly under a flight path.”
Lelystad Airport
Today it was also announced that a majority of the House of Representatives is opposed to commercial flights to and from Lelystad Airport. The motion calls on the future cabinet to refrain from such flights, because this would jeopardize the quality of life.
Potential coalition parties VVD and PVV are still in favor of the plan, but NSC and BBB, the other coalition candidates, supported the motion. Schiphol says he is disappointed with the call from Parliament: “This [plan] offers the opportunity to move night flights from Schiphol to daytime flights at Lelystad Airport. That is good for the residents of Schiphol.”
PUSH itself has not joined RBV’s lawsuit, but hopes for a positive impact if they are right by the judge: “They are turning it into a process, we are still committed to a dialogue with the government, in order to to convince us of our points. But if RBV is vindicated, you will create a principled precedent that it is an absolute human right not to be burdened by this noise pollution.”
Whether RBV is right remains to be seen. The next hearing in the trial is scheduled for March 20, but the judge said that it is not yet certain that there will actually be a final verdict, or whether more information is needed.