Court overturns Schiphol flight cap due to flawed justification by Dutch government
A major setback for noise pollution control: the Dutch court has annulled the government’s decision to limit Schiphol flights to 478,000 annually. Residents and airlines remain divided, while the ruling leaves noise reduction efforts in limbo until new regulations are introduced.
| Key Fact | Details |
|---|---|
| Decision Annulled | Schiphol Airport Traffic Decision (2025) limiting flights to 478,000/year |
| Reason for Annulment | Insufficient justification for noise pollution thresholds |
| Previous Flight Cap | No total cap; 32,000 night flights allowed (now provisionally 27,000) |
| Parties Involved | Airlines, municipalities (Amsterdam, Oegstgeest, Uithoorn), NGOs |
| Current Legal Framework | 2008 Airport Traffic Decision (no total flight cap) |
| Provisional Night Flight Cap | 27,000 (11:00 PM–7:00 AM) |
| Government Next Steps | Preparing a comprehensive revision of the Airport Traffic Decision |
The Administrative Law Division of the Council of State oversees legal challenges to government decisions, ensuring they comply with Dutch law. In this case, it ruled that the Minister of Infrastructure and Water Management failed to adequately justify the flight cap’s impact on noise pollution for Schiphol residents.
Unfiltered ☕
Openrijk brings government news unfiltered to you. But that does cost us the necessary caffeine.
Read the full translated article below
Administrative Law Division annuls Schiphol Airport Traffic Decision
The Dutch Minister of Infrastructure and Water Management did not take the Schiphol Airport Traffic Decision, which limits the number of flights, with sufficient care or provide adequate justification. As a result, the decision cannot stand. This is the ruling of the Administrative Law Division of the Council of State in a judgment issued today (March 11, 2026).
Airport Traffic Decision
An Airport Traffic Decision sets rules for the use of the airport, including aircraft noise and the number of night flights. It specifies the maximum allowable noise levels for the entire airport and at enforcement points in the vicinity of Schiphol. It also includes rules on safety, the use of runways, and emissions. In May of last year, the minister amended the Schiphol Airport Traffic Decision to reduce noise pollution in the interests of local residents. The amendment capped the total number of Schiphol flights at 478,000 per year as of November 1, 2025, with a maximum of 27,000 between 11:00 PM and 7:00 AM. Previously, the Airport Traffic Decision did not set a cap on the total number of flights, though it did allow for a maximum of 32,000 night flights.
Objections
Airlines, local residents, the municipalities of Oegstgeest, Amsterdam, and Uithoorn, as well as various foundations and associations—including MOB, SchipholWatch, and the Amsterdam Flight Nuisance Platform Association—appealed the Airport Traffic Decision to the Administrative Law Division. They disagreed with the decision for various reasons. Airlines found the flight cap unacceptable, while the surrounding municipalities, environmental organizations, and residents argued for stricter limits due to noise pollution.
Noise Pollution Threshold
According to the Administrative Law Division, the minister failed to provide sufficient justification for the decision. The minister merely stated that the annual flight cap would help determine the total allowable noise levels around Schiphol Airport. The minister therefore treated the flight cap as a noise pollution threshold. However, this threshold is unreliable because a flight cap does not establish a fixed maximum noise level. By equating the flight cap with a noise pollution threshold, the minister misunderstood the legislator’s intent, which was to set a maximum cumulative noise load from individual flights over a year. Not all aircraft produce the same amount of noise, so a simple count of flights does not accurately reflect the total noise pollution allowed in a year.
Protection Level
The Administrative Law Division also ruled that the minister did not demonstrate that the amended Airport Traffic Decision would reduce noise pollution for Schiphol residents, despite this being the decision’s stated goal. The minister failed to adequately justify that the new protection level for noise pollution was equal to or better than the level provided by the original 2004 Airport Traffic Decision, even though the law requires this.
New Standards and Enforcement System (NNHS)
The noise standards system in the Airport Traffic Decision had long been considered insufficiently flexible in practice. Since 2008, the so-called ‘Alderstafel Schiphol’ (now the Schiphol Environment Council) has sought an alternative way to regulate noise pollution around Schiphol. This led to the NNHS, which includes agreements not legally enshrined in law. The NNHS sets a maximum of 500,000 flights per year and prioritizes runway use to minimize noise pollution for local residents. The goal was to legally enshrine the NNHS, but this has not yet happened. Because the NNHS reduces noise pollution for residents, deviations from the law are tolerated. With the Airport Traffic Decision, the minister appears to treat the NNHS agreements—including the 500,000-flight cap—as legally binding and has reduced the cap to 478,000 flights.
Consequences of the Ruling
As a result of the ruling, the previous 2008 Airport Traffic Decision remains in effect, which does not impose a total annual flight cap. The annulled decision also reduced the night flight cap from 32,000 to 27,000 flights. None of the parties objected to this part of the decision. Therefore, the Administrative Law Division has issued a provisional measure stating that “Schiphol Airport may have a maximum of 27,000 commercial aircraft movements per operating year between 11:00 PM and 7:00 AM.” However, it is unlikely that this cap will actually be reached. The cabinet is already preparing a comprehensive revision of the Airport Traffic Decision. This provisional measure will expire once the new decision takes effect.
Read the full ruling from the Administrative Law Division here.