Recent developments in legislation and case law. Standing of Private Parties aiming to ensure species protection before the Dutch courts Recent developments in legislation and case law.

Overlaps between Environmental Law & Animal Law   SUBSTANTIVE SCOPE OF APPLICATION PROCEDURAL SCOPE OF APPLICATION WILDLIFE LAW Wild animals, focus on the protection of species/populations thereof Litigation by humans protecting animals’ interests ANIMAL WELFARE LAW Non-wild animals, focus on the protection of the individual animal thereof ANIMAL RIGHTS LAW Wild + non-wild animals, focus on the protection of the individual animal thereof Litigation by humans representing animals’ interests

Interplay Court Proceedings to protect wildlife - Hamstercase Administrative actions before Administrative Courts Council of State Suspension and annulation 2. Civil Actions before Civil Courts Summary and regular proceedings Criminal Proceedings Request enforcement environmental regulation 3. European/International dimension

Common denominator for admissibility to the court: being a legal subject and…. Who gets to be a Legal Subject? E.g. Article 3:2a ‘Animals’ Dutch Civil Code “1. Animals are not things 2. Provisions relating to things are applicable to animals, with due observance of the limitations, obligations, and legal principles based on statutory rules and rules of unwritten law, as well as of public order and public morality. “ Doctrine: Cass Sunstein, Jonathan Verschuuren, Steven Wise Status Quaestionis

…having a legal interest Administrative Courts Civil Courts Personal Interest No procedural altriusm Legal relationship civil rights/claims General Interest distinctive statutory objectives + actual activities Comparable interests of other persons

Dutch Wildlife Cases before the administrative courts Natural Persons – affection of living quality Wildlife Protection Organisations 1. Main criterion: Distance criterion 1. Statutory objectives + actual activities. Backtrack from req. That species should be mentioned in statutes. 2. Supportive criterion: sight 3. Other criterion: regular walks,..

Concluding remarks/Outstanding questions 3rd pillar  divergences throughout MS, standing rules interwoven with national legal systems Admissibility is not the obstacle it once used to be In search for a justification for the distinction between natural persons and environmental organisations to pursue their idealistic objectives Improved access for wild animals, as they are covered by the scope of application of environmental law (what about non-wild animals?)

Thank you Contact details j.s.v.dubrulle@tilburguniversity.edu Involvement Research project Ius Carnivoris https://www.tilburguniversity.edu/about/schools/law/about/depar tments/eip/research/carnivores/ Animal Law Blog www.animallaw.wordpress.com