It seems so logical: when a notice of appeal arrives at the court, it should be clear who it comes from and therefore who is appealing. Among other things, this is important to determine whether this person is an interested party. But when more than one person files an appeal, this does not always turn out to be so simple. Is writing 'residents and business owners' of a certain business park sufficient, without specifying who it concerns? The Division does not think so, according to an August 2 ruling (ECLI:NL:RVS:2018:2562).
Appeal against an environmental permit
In this case, the college granted an environmental permit for a technical crematorium in a commercial building on an industrial estate. Several local residents and business owners located on the site disagree. They therefore object to this decision of the college.
However, the college decides to declare the objection unfounded and uphold the environmental permit. The local residents and business owners therefore make the move to court.
Identity is not knowable
A substantive hearing of the case before the district court did not take place. Indeed, the court ruled that the identity of the residents and business owners had not become known within the appeal period, declaring the appeal inadmissible.
However, the appellants disagree and therefore appeal. According to them, attached to the pro forma notice of appeal is the decision on objection, including a list of names of the business owners who objected. In addition, they argue that in another proceeding regarding the same parcel of land, the district court considered them interested parties. Those proceedings are later joined with the appeal in this case, so it should be apparent to the court who they are. Finally, according to the appellants, a number of letters from the court offering the opportunity to supplement the pro forma appeal also show that it is apparent to the court who has filed an appeal.
The Division follows the court
However, the appeal appears to be in vain. The Division refers to a previous ruling, which shows that if a person's identity is not known within the appeal period, it cannot be restored. It further fully concurs with the court and rules that it is indeed not known which residents and business owners have appealed. Just because a list shows who objected does not mean that all these objectors also intended to file an appeal. In addition, neither the joinder of the two proceedings nor the letters from the court show that the identity of appellants was known. Thus, merely mentioning "residents and business owners' is insufficient.
Logical, but still pay close attention
What seems self-evident at first appears to be more difficult in practice. Even if all objectors are known at the objection stage, this does not mean that it is clear who is lodging an appeal. In any case, the Division is not satisfied with a general formulation such as 'residents and business owners' of the business park in question. As a result, the appellants in this case are inadmissible and the case is therefore not heard on the merits. Thus, a relatively small error can have major consequences. Always make sure that it is clearly stated who is appealing!
