Appealing against a decision by an administrative body: not for everyone

Construction initiatives often involve various parties. The initiator, the contractor, and any future owners or tenants all have an interest in ensuring that the preparatory work and final realization proceed smoothly. The permit process is an essential part of this. If an environmental permit is subsequently refused, all these different parties will therefore also benefit from blocking that decision.

This was also the case in the ruling of the Zeeland-West-Brabant District Court of February 9, 2026. In 2011, the mayor and aldermen of the municipality of Veere had already granted an environmental permit for the construction of a hotel. However, in 2021, the permit was revoked because it had not been used in all those years. An objection to that decision was lodged by the owner of the plot, the contractor, a construction company, and various parties involved in the construction of the hotel. A group of residents also appealed against the decision on the objection, in which the objections were declared unfounded.

So there were many different parties, all with varying interests. The court therefore first had to assess which appeals were admissible and which were not.

To do so, it first had to consider the interest in bringing proceedings. This means that the appeal could achieve a result of factual significance for the appellant. In other words: does the appellant have anything to gain from lodging the appeal? In this case, the court ruled that all parties had an interest in bringing proceedings.

Next, the court had to consider the parties' interest in the proceedings. Only those whose interests are directly affected by a decision can lodge an objection and/or appeal against it. The court ruled as follows on this matter.

Regarding the appeals of the various parties involved in the development of the hotel and the contractor and construction company, the court ruled that they had no direct interest in the decision, but only a derivative interest. They were only indirectly affected in their interests. That interest was dependent on contractual relationships, such as a purchase or contract agreement. These appeals were therefore also declared inadmissible.

The court ruled that residents living approximately 20 meters from the project are interested parties because they may experience significant consequences from the project. Residents living further away will not experience any significant consequences and were therefore not qualified as interested parties. The appeal of the latter group was therefore declared inadmissible. 

What does this mean in practice? Only parties whose interests are directly affected by a decision are interested parties and may lodge an objection and/or appeal, as long as they have a legal interest. The fact that a party's interests may be indirectly affected by a decision does not make that party an interested party. 

Do you have any questions about the admissibility of an objection or appeal? Please feel free to contact Gerard van der Wende or with Fleur Huisman. 

You can read the ruling here.