According to the court, the minister was not permitted under European law to consider economic factors (as the farmers had demanded), but only ecological and natural ones. The court rules that the habitats were included at the introduction of the Natura2000 legislation, but their natural condition may have deteriorated in recent years.
In such a case, the government could even be held accountable by the EU if the so-called deterioration ban is violated and the minister takes no action against it.
Many appeals against the minister's decision were filed across the Netherlands at various courts. In mid-March, the court in Arnhem handled about 70 cases over several sessions. Most appeals were filed by farming businesses worried about the consequences of the update. The Association Leefmilieu also submitted a response to prevent the protection of Natura 2000 areas from being rolled back.
The court states in its ruling that it understands the (farm) businesses are concerned about the impact of this decision on their operations. Many of them say they did not realize beforehand that the designation of Natura 2000 areas would have such a significant impact.
Furthermore, the farming businesses currently feel enormous pressure from the nitrogen issue and consider it unreasonable that the agricultural sector in particular seems to be the main victim. The controversial amendment decision is a clear example, as it shows that previously designated Natura 2000 areas can be adjusted retrospectively.
In the final ruling, the court upheld the government decision. This is because the minister is obliged under European law to ensure that the (protection of) habitats and species in Natura 2000 areas is accurate. If current ecological data shows that species or habitats are not included, the minister is required to correct the previous designation.
What the minister should have done earlier is make the habitat type maps available for public inspection. The minister did not do this. Nevertheless, this does not change the outcome of the cases, since the habitat type maps were made available during the appeal proceedings, allowing farmers to respond for more than a year. Many of the (farm) businesses did not do so.