Change in application of stakeholder concept after Environment Act comes into force?

Article 1:2 Awb defines an interested party as: “the person whose interest is directly affected by a decision”. This definition is relevant because only interested parties can object to (or appeal against) a government decision.

Despite the fact that the concept of interested party has been included in the Awb since 1994, and that law is still in force, the interim relief judge of the district court of Oost-Brabant saw reason to test whether the concept of interested party still has the same meaning since the Omgevingswet came into force. He did so in his ruling of 20 March 2025.

In this case, a local resident had objected to an environmental permit for the construction of four padel courts and the relocation of a tennis court at a sports complex. Her objection was declared inadmissible as the college considered that she was not an interested party. The local resident appealed against this and filed an application for injunctive relief with the court. She believed that she was an interested party because the plan would have a disproportionate impact on her living environment.

In order to assess whether this was actually the case, it was necessary to test Article 1:2 Awb. Before getting to this, the interim relief judge first pointed out that the environmental permit had been granted under the Environment Act. Under the old law (the Wabo), the Division developed a lot of case law on the concept of interested party. The question now is whether that case-law and the operation of the stakeholder concept also apply under the Environment Act. The interim relief judge ruled that it does. After all, Article 1:2 Awb has not changed with the entry into force of the Environment Act, nor have the consequences of an environmental permit for the construction of padel and tennis courts changed.

For the neighbouring resident in this case, this meant that she was not an interested party, as she had no view of the padel and tennis courts and she lived at too great a distance from the courts, so she would not experience nuisance of any significance.

It can be concluded that the stakeholder concept remains applicable under the Environment Act as well. For the sake of completeness, please note that this is a court ruling. The Division has yet to rule on this issue.

You can read the ruling here.