The Stop5GNL Foundation has been declared inadmissible in its claims aimed at stopping the use of 5G technology. This was decided by the Court of Appeal of The Hague today. In the opinion of the court of appeal, the Foundation could have stood up in the administrative court against the decisions of the State regarding the rollout of 5G, or can still do so. Then there is no place for a judgment by the civil court.
The Stop5GNL Foundation aims to protect the residents of the Netherlands from health risks due to electromagnetic fields used for mobile communications. 5G is the latest standard for mobile communications. The Foundation has commenced proceedings against the State, in which it claims that the court should prohibit the State from allowing the use of 5G. According to the Foundation, there are public health risks associated with the use of 5G, which the State has not sufficiently investigated. The interim relief judge had rejected the Foundation's claims. In the preliminary relief judge's opinion, the expert reports on which the State based its policy regarding 5G gave no reason to ban the rollout of 5G.
The Foundation has appealed the judgment of the preliminary injunction court. The Hague Court of Appeal today declared the Foundation inadmissible in its claims. A plaintiff in civil proceedings is declared inadmissible if he can also achieve, or could have achieved, his goal by appealing against government decisions to the administrative court. The idea behind this rule is that conflicting rulings by the civil court and the administrative court on the same issue should be avoided as much as possible. In the Court of Appeal's opinion, the Foundation could have lodged objections and appeals through administrative law against decisions by which the State enabled the use of certain frequencies for mobile communications using 5G. For other frequencies, these decisions have yet to be made and the Foundation can therefore still challenge them before the administrative court. Before the administrative court, the Foundation could have raised, or can still raise, the issue that in order to protect public health, restrictions should be placed on the use of 5G. Because the administrative law route offers sufficient legal protection, the Foundation cannot take its claims to the civil court.
