It is not necessary now to investigate whether judges should impose additional requirements on interest groups that bring lawsuits against the state. Minister Weerwind for Legal Protection writes to the House of Representatives that since 2020 judges already have additional legal options to test whether an interest group is sufficiently representative.
In February, on the initiative of SGP Member of Parliament Stoffer, a majority of the House of Representatives asked that judges impose additional requirements on organizations that initiate cases against the state. Various lawsuits against the cabinet about climate and nitrogen policy prompted the SGP to come up with the proposal.
When submitting his proposal, SGP Member of Parliament Stoffer said that climate policy was a “matter for politicians and not for the courts”. He thinks it’s unhealthy that “activist, subsidized organizations” can use lawsuits to block the construction of houses or to “flatten” companies that employ thousands of people. Stoffer cited Urgenda and Mobilization for the Environment as examples.
The proposal received a parliamentary majority, but Minister Weerwind for Legal Protection writes to the Chamber that he will not adopt it.
According to Weerwind, it was precisely in 2020 that it was laid down in law to additionally test so-called representativeness. Weerwind says it consults and evaluates annually with all persons and organizations involved in the law. According to him, it is “generally recognised” that judges rigorously test the representativeness of interest groups.
The law in question will be evaluated again in 2025, until then Weerwind sees no reason to change anything, the minister said in the letter to the House.
- Chamber wants investigation: on behalf of whom do environmental clubs speak in court?
- Greenpeace takes EU administration to court for ‘greenwashing’ with energy list