On the 27th of December 2017, the Hague District Court rejected claims of the Friends of the Earth Netherlands and other plaintiffs demanding Dutch Government to improve air quality in the Netherlands.

The plaintiffs argued that the Netherlands is required to comply with the air quality limits of the European Directive 2008/50/EC as well as the WHO standards. Non-compliance with abovementioned norms constitutes violation of the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly Article 2 (right to life) and Article 8 (right to family life) according to the plaintiffs.

Criticizing the National Air Quality Cooperation Program, the plaintiffs aimed at reducing the levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particulate matters (PM2.5 and PM10) in the air.

The Hague District Court held that the Netherlands is not obliged to comply with the WHO standards because these norms are not legally binding. As regards alleged violation of the EU Directive, the Court found that the limits imposed by the Directive may be invoked by individuals since the period for its implementation expired and the Netherlands failed to meet the level of nitrogen dioxide and particulate matters (PM10). The Court thus concluded that the Netherland has violated its obligations arising from the Directive, however, it has not been established that the individual plaintiffs suffered any damages.

The Directive provides that in the event of exceedances of the limit values, the air quality plans shall set out appropriate measures to ensure that the exceedance period is kept as short as possible. In order to meet the levels of air protection required by the Directive, the Netherlands adopted the National Air Quality Cooperation Program. The Friends of the Earth Netherlands claimed that the effort of the Dutch government including the National Air Quality Cooperation Program is not ambitious enough and should be considered as inappropriate. Considering appropriateness of the measures adopted by the Netherlands, the Court concluded that number of exceedances related to the air quality has been reduced in the past years and that the remaining non-compliances are mainly caused by traffic at a limited number of urban hub. Thus, the Court dismissed all claims.  

The gLAWcal Team