1. 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.

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. …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

6. 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,..

7. 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?)

8. Thank you Contact details j.s.v.dubrulle@tilburguniversity.edu
Involvement
Research project Ius Carnivoris
tments/eip/research/carnivores/
Animal Law Blog