The decision of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal that the Dutch State was allowed to implement two proposed measures to reduce noise pollution at Schiphol will not be upheld. Based on European rules, a balanced approach procedure must be followed for the measures. The Supreme Court ruled this Friday, July12th.
The central question was whether the shrinkage measures that outgoing Minister Harbers had proposed had to be submitted in advance to the European Commission in the context of the Balanced approach procedure, prescribed in the European Noise Regulation. This minister insisted at all times that he was free – without following that procedure – to start the shrinkage measures as an experiment, via a ministerial Experimentation Scheme. In addition, the minister also wanted to stop the tolerance policy that has been in place since the end of 2015, which means that exceedances of Schiphol’s noise allowance, which has been in force since 2008, would be permitted if that exceedance was the result of the use of the lowest-noise runways. That agreement was laid down in the New Standards and Enforcement System.
The Supreme Court’s ruling is refreshingly simple. The experimental scheme and the abolition of the tolerance policy must be regarded as one whole. They can be regarded as a measure that has consequences for the noise environment around an airport and that reduces access to or the operational capacity of an airport. The measures can therefore be regarded as a “noise-related operating restriction” as referred to in the Noise Regulation, and are therefore subject to the Balanced Approach procedure.
The Supreme Court puts it very clearly: Only measures that can immediately alleviate noise pollution without seriously affecting the operational capacity of the airport, or minor technical changes to an existing measure that do not have major consequences for the capacity or activities of an airport. should not be regarded as a new operating restriction within the meaning of the operating restriction.
This strict definition should also be applied to the additional Balanced Approach procedure for which the internet consultation was recently concluded.
What does this Supreme Court ruling mean for now?
Simply put: the sector is back to square one and is reliving the situation that has prevailed since the end of 2015: 500,000 aircraft movements per year, with maintenance of the noise limit in accordance with the Airport Traffic Decree of 2008, supplemented by the agreements laid down in the New Standards and Enforcement System.
