ZWART established GP within the meaning of the Order on the esta blishment of gP s and the Size of their practices. as a result of this designation the gp was allowed to increase the size of her practice which was very small at the tme the decision was taken. The other GP s in the area objected to this decision. The court found they had standing because the decision might have consequences for the competition between local GP S. A shipyard objected to the decision of the states deputies to grant planning perm ission for the construction of a marina in the area. It feared that the marina might conta in a boatyard and a stora ge facility which would cause a reduction In its income. The court felt that the mere fact that the shipyard feared its econom ic interests would be affected was enough to establish standing 27 When the Transport Minister gave a license to a company to construct a pontoon bridge as a first step in setting upa ferry service from an island to the manland, the decision was challenged by the company already operating sucha ferry serv ice. The court found that the latter had standing as it operated the only existing service and would suffer prejudices a result of the new ferry. The case law concerning competitors is not consistent, however. In one case the Culture Minister had given permission to a rad io station to depart temporarily from the programming conditions laid down in its license, since it was no longer capable of fulfill ing them. This decision was challenged by another radio station which had unsuccessfully applied for the same license. The court of first instance had granted standing to the applicant. It pointed out that by challenging the decision the applicant aimed to force the Minister to withdraw its compet itor s license and to give it to the applicant instead. The appeals court, alternatively, felt that the applicant lacked standing since it had not requested the licence to be revoked. A further illustration occurred when the owner ofa building had obta ned permission for renovation. After the alteration the building would provide accommodation to a domestic appliances shop. Several retailers in the area objected to the pemission because they felt that the nique location and favourable rent conditions would give the new shop a ompetitive edge. The court found that the retailers had standing, but only insofaras they were active in the same line of business. 0 On the other hand, the courts have shown they can be more lenient. Several retailers challenged the perm ission given by the board of burgomaster and aldermen to a shop in the area wanting to sell ski-gear The board contested the standing of some of these retailers beca use they did not sell sports equipment. Nonetheless, the court mainta ined the mere fact that they were Judical Divion of the Council of State, 29 December 1987, Admmstratiefrechtelike Beslissingen(Administrative Decisions Reports)1988, 400 Administratefrechtejke Beslissingen(Administrative Decisions Reports)1981, 239 28. Adm instrative Jud iciary Di sion of the Council of State, 27 June 1997, Jursprudentie Administrative Judiciary Division of the Council of State 23 April 1999 Administratefrechtelijke Beslissingen( Administrative Decisions Reports)1999, 322 Presidentof the Judicial Divis ion of the Council of State, 27 November 1980, Administratief- rechtelijke Beslissingen(Administrative Decisions Reports)1981, 375
ZWART 6 established GP within the meaning of the Order on the Establishment of GP s and the Size of their Practices. As a result of this designation, the GP was allowed to increase the size of her practice which was very small at the time the decision was taken. The other GP s in the area objected to this decision. The court found they had standing because the decision might have consequences for the competition between local GP s.26 A shipyard objected to the decision of the states deputies to grant planning permission for the construction of a marina in the area. It feared that the marina might contain a boatyard and a storage facility which would cause a reduction in its income. The court felt that the mere fact that the shipyard feared its economic interests would be affected was enough to establish standing.27 When the Transport Minister gave a license to a company to construct a pontoon bridge as a first step in setting up a ferry service from an island to the mainland, the decision was challenged by the company already operating such a ferry service. The court found that the latter had standing as it operated the only existing service and would suffer prejudice as a result of the new ferry.28 The case law concerning competitors is not consistent, however. In one case the Culture Minister had given permission to a radio station to depart temporarily from the programming conditions laid down in its license, since it was no longer capable of fulfilling them. This decision was challenged by another radio station which had unsuccessfully applied for the same license. The court of first instance had granted standing to the applicant. It pointed out that by challenging the decision the applicant aimed to force the Minister to withdraw its competitor s license and to give it to the applicant instead. The appeals court, alternatively, felt that the applicant lacked standing since it had not requested the licence to be revoked.29 A further illustration occurred when the owner of a building had obtained permission for renovation. After the alteration the building would provide accommodation to a domestic appliances shop. Several retailers in the area objected to the permission because they felt that the unique location and favourable rent conditions would give the new shop a competitive edge. The court found that the retailers had standing, but only insofar as they were active in the same line of business.30 On the other hand, the courts have shown they can be more lenient. Several retailers challenged the permission given by the board of burgomaster and aldermen to a shop in the area wanting to sell ski-gear. The board contested the standing of some of these retailers because they did not sell sports equipment. Nonetheless, the court maintained the mere fact that they were 26. Judicial Division of the Council of State, 29 December 1987, Administratiefrechtelijke Beslissingen (Administrative Decisions Reports) 1988, 400. 27. President of the Judicial Division of the Council of State, 2 December 1980, Administratiefrechtelijke Beslissingen (Administrative Decisions Reports) 1981, 239. 28. Administrative Judiciary Division of the Council of State, 27 June 1997, Jurisprudentie Bestuursrecht (Administrative Law Reports) 1997, 191. 29. Administrative Judiciary Division of the Council of State, 23 April 1999, Administratiefrechtelijke Beslissingen (Administrative Decisions Reports) 1999, 322. 30. President of the Judicial Division of the Council of State, 27 November 1980, Administratiefrechtelijke Beslissingen (Administrative Decisions Reports) 1981, 375
STANDING TO RAISE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES retailers established their standing. 3 d of livi ing in the vicinity or be may cause the applicant to be persona lly affected, as the following cases illustrate The owner of an apartment complex had obta ined a demolition order. Both the widow of the architect and his fomer firm opposed the order because they considered the complex an mportant part of the city s post-war architectural heritage, the demolition of which would cause irreparable ham to the city scape. The court ruled that both applicants had standing. The states deputies had authorised the board of burgomasterand aldermen to grant build ing permission for the construction of a dancing school. The building site was in the proximity ofa cemetery where close relatives of the applicant had been buried and for whose graves he was still paying the maintenance costs. The applicant claimed that it would contravene his feelings if a dancing school would be established at such a short distance fiom the cemetery. As next of kin, he considered it his moral duty to oppose the project. The court found he had standing. 3 The board of burgomaster and aldermen had given permission to E to moor a houseboat. This decision was contested by H, who was top of the waiting or mooring places. Since H. chimed that E. s pace should be his, the court found he had standing 34 The education authority had changed the oster of three primary schools in such a way that the pupils and their teachers would have the Friday off every other week. The applicant, who was the parent of a pupil attending one of the schools, challenged this decision. The court felt that he had stand ing 35 4. 1. 1. 2 The interest should not be merely emotional Courts will only deal with cases in which the interest chimed is objective. Thus, when a decision is challenged on emotional grounds the court will find that the applicant lacks standing. This is illustrated by a case concerning the building permission granted to the company running the Concertgebouw(the Amsterdam concert hall) for its renovation. This decision was challenged by the applicant who elt the building should be preserved in its original state. The basis for the challenge was that her father had been a member of the Concertgebouw Orchestra and had therefore grown attached to the building. Consequently, his funeral procession had departed from the Concertgebouw. The applicant therefore considered the renovation projects a personal affront. The court expressed the view that the applicant lacked standing, because her objections were merely emotional and could Presidentof the Judical Division of the Council of State, 20 November 1980, Administratief- rechtelijke Besl singen( Administrative Decisions Reports)1981, 194 President of the Judicial Division of the Counci of State, 30 August 1988, Gemeentestem Municipal Voice)6895, 12 Judicial Divis ion of the Council of State, 29 April 1983, Gemeentestem(Municipal Voice) Presient of the Judicial Div i ion of the Counci of State, 13 June 1983, Ten Berge / troink Administratieve rechtspraak overheidsbeschikk ngen(Judicial Review of Admnitrative Decions Pres dent of the Amsterdam Dstrict Court, 19 July 1999, Juriprudentie Bestuursrecht (Administrative Law Reports)1999, 236
STANDING TO RAISE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES 7 retailers established their standing.31 Instead of living or working in the vicinity or being a competitor, other factors may cause the applicant to be personally affected, as the following cases illustrate. The owner of an apartment complex had obtained a demolition order. Both the widow of the architect and his former firm opposed the order because they considered the complex an important part of the city s post-war architectural heritage, the demolition of which would cause irreparable harm to the cityscape. The court ruled that both applicants had standing.32 The states deputies had authorised the board of burgomaster and aldermen to grant building permission for the construction of a dancing school. The building site was in the proximity of a cemetery where close relatives of the applicant had been buried and for whose graves he was still paying the maintenance costs. The applicant claimed that it would contravene his feelings if a dancing school would be established at such a short distance from the cemetery. As next of kin, he considered it his moral duty to oppose the project. The court found he had standing.33 The board of burgomaster and aldermen had given permission to E. to moor a houseboat. This decision was contested by H., who was top of the waiting list for mooring places. Since H. claimed that E. s place should be his, the court found he had standing.34 The education authority had changed the roster of three primary schools in such a way that the pupils and their teachers would have the Friday off every other week. The applicant, who was the parent of a pupil attending one of the schools, challenged this decision. The court felt that he had standing.35 4.1.1.2 The interest should not be merely emotional Courts will only deal with cases in which the interest claimed is objective. Thus, when a decision is challenged on emotional grounds the court will find that the applicant lacks standing. This is illustrated by a case concerning the building permission granted to the company running the Concertgebouw (the Amsterdam concert hall) for its renovation. This decision was challenged by the applicant who felt the building should be preserved in its original state. The basis for the challenge was that her father had been a member of the Concertgebouw Orchestra and had therefore grown attached to the building. Consequently, his funeral procession had departed from the Concertgebouw. The applicant therefore considered the renovation projects a personal affront. The court expressed the view that the applicant lacked standing, because her objections were merely emotional and could 31. President of the Judicial Division of the Council of State, 20 November 1980, Administratiefrechtelijke Beslissingen (Administrative Decisions Reports) 1981, 194. 32. President of the Judicial Division of the Council of State, 30 August 1988, Gemeentestem (Municipal Voice) 6895, 12. 33. Judicial Division of the Council of State, 29 April 1983, Gemeentestem (Municipal Voice) 6766, 4. 34. President of the Judicial Division of the Council of State, 13 June 1983, Ten Berge/Stroink, Administratieve rechtspraak overheidsbeschikkingen (Judicial Review of Administrative Decions Reports), IV, 96. 35. President of the Amsterdam District Court, 19 July 1999, Jurisprudentie Bestuursrecht (Administrative Law Reports) 1999, 236
ZWART not be detem ined objectively 36 The court concluded similarly in a case where a student, who had failed an exam, appealed to the exam commission. The commission decided that the student should receive the pass sheet on the basis of her legitimate expectation to have passed the exam. The examiner, who claimed that there was no ustification for such an expectation, appealed this decision to the exam inations board. The board declared the exam iner sappeal inadmissible for lack of standing. The court found that the decision to give her the pass sheet affected the interests of the student, but not those of the examiner. The court recognised the applicant had provide her with a direct interest, since it had no legal consequences for her d p expressed disagreement with the view that the student had a legitimate expectation and dissatisfaction with the decision of the exam commission, but that did ne amount to being directly affected by the decision. The fact that the applicant fe aggrieved by the decision because it discredited her honour as an exam iner did not As in the U.S., 38 whether or not the interest cla med is merely emotional is clearly a question of degree. The fact that the widow of the architect and his former firm were allowed to fight a demolition order because they considered the building an important part of the city s post-war architectural heritage, proves this point 9 The same can be said of the case where the applicant objected to the construction of a dancing school near a cemetery where close relatives of his had been buried. Of course in this case, despite that his objections were moral, the fact that he was paying the maintenance costs for the graves might have been decisive. 40 4.1.2 Causation According to Dutch case law, the word directly in Article 1: 2 emphasises the inextricable and direct link between the interest of the applicant and the challenged decision. 4I As the following cases make clear, an applicant will have standing only if the interference with his interest was caused by the conduct of the authority concerned The board of burgomaster and aldermen had granted the Amsterdam Public Works Director perm ission to build a combined city hall and music theatre. A composer and several set-designers engaged in opera productions objected to this President of the Judcial Divsion of the Council of State 13 October 1986 Administratiefrechteljke Beslissingen( Administrative Decisions Reports)1988, 194 The Hague Ditrict Court 23 July 1999, Jursprudentie Bestuursrecht(Administrative Law Reports)1999, 257 There, for example, stigmatic njury s n another category than aes thetic ham, cf. Alen Wright 468 U.S. 737, 82 LEd2d 556(1984)and Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife 504 U.S. 555, 1 L.Ed.2d35l(1992) 39 President of the Judicial Division of the Council of State, 30 August 1988, Gemeentestem Judicial Divis on of the Council of State 29 April 1983, Gemeentestem(Muncpal Voice) ndustrial Appeals Board, 23 January 1996, Administratiefrechtelijke Beslissingen (Administrative Decisions Reports)1996, 182
ZWART 8 not be determined objectively.36 The court concluded similarly in a case where a student, who had failed an exam, appealed to the exam commission. The commission decided that the student should receive the pass sheet on the basis of her legitimate expectation to have passed the exam. The examiner, who claimed that there was no justification for such an expectation, appealed this decision to the examinations board. The board declared the examiner s appeal inadmissible for lack of standing. The court found that the decision to give her the pass sheet affected the interests of the student, but not those of the examiner. The court recognised the applicant had expressed disagreement with the view that the student had a legitimate expectation and dissatisfaction with the decision of the exam commission, but that did not amount to being directly affected by the decision. The fact that the applicant felt aggrieved by the decision because it discredited her honour as an examiner did not provide her with a direct interest, since it had no legal consequences for her.37 As in the U.S.,38 whether or not the interest claimed is merely emotional is clearly a question of degree. The fact that the widow of the architect and his former firm were allowed to fight a demolition order because they considered the building an important part of the city s post-war architectural heritage, proves this point.39 The same can be said of the case where the applicant objected to the construction of a dancing school near a cemetery where close relatives of his had been buried. Of course in this case, despite that his objections were moral, the fact that he was paying the maintenance costs for the graves might have been decisive.40 4.1.2 Causation According to Dutch case law, the word directly in Article 1:2 emphasises the inextricable and direct link between the interest of the applicant and the challenged decision.41 As the following cases make clear, an applicant will have standing only if the interference with his interest was caused by the conduct of the authority concerned. The board of burgomaster and aldermen had granted the Amsterdam Public Works Director permission to build a combined city hall and music theatre. A composer and several set-designers engaged in opera productions objected to this 36. President of the Judicial Division of the Council of State, 13 October 1986, Administratiefrechtelijke Beslissingen (Administrative Decisions Reports) 1988, 194. 37. The Hague District Court, 23 July 1999, Jurisprudentie Bestuursrecht (Administrative Law Reports) 1999, 257. 38. There, for example, stigmatic injury is in another category than aesthetic harm, cf. Allen v. Wright 468 U.S. 737, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984) and Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife 504 U.S. 555, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). 39. President of the Judicial Division of the Council of State, 30 August 1988, Gemeentestem (Municipal Voice) 6895, 12. 40. Judicial Division of the Council of State, 29 April 1983, Gemeentestem (Municipal Voice) 6766, 4. 41. Industrial Appeals Board, 23 January 1996, Administratiefrechtelijke Beslissingen (Administrative Decisions Reports) 1996, 182
STANDING TO RAISE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES decision. They chimed the music theatre would be designed in such a way that it would be impossible to stage their productions in the new building. Although the court acknowledged that there may bea link between the design ofa build ing and the possibility for artists to perfom there, it denied stand ing to the applicants. The court pointed out that they were not so much challenging the building of the theatre, as bjecting to its layout. The design of the building is the responsibility of the person commissioning it rather than that of the authority 42 The Dutch Intemational relief t pment Minister had granted a subsidy to the ANC in exile, enabling it to offer relief to South African refugees in southem Angola. Several Dutch citizens residing in South Africa cha llenged this decision. They expressed the view that the aNc might use the money to fund its terrorist campaign in South Africa of which they might then become victims. In addition, they pointed out that as Dutchmen living in South Africa they would bear the brunt of the criticism on the decision expressed by the South African people. The court felt that the applicants had standing. It considered that the aim of the ANC was to abolish white supremacy and to establish litical independence in South Africa. To further this aim, the aNc was willing to resort to violent activities like sa bota ge and assaults on South African officials. Since the applicants participated in South African society, it was not farfetched for them to feel threatened by the activities of the ANC. Furthermore, the court did not consider It unlikely that the financial support offered by the minister would be used for other poses than those for which it was intended. The court found that it had been stablished that the applicants, as Dutchmen, were the object of criticism resulting from the minister s decision. +4 The states deputies had approved a budget amendment adopted by a city council a uthorising the council to buy a traffic lights Instalation. The court signalled that the applicant opposed the city straffic policy, to which the approval was only indirectly related. The states deputies had not approved buy ing the insta lation but only the budget amendment authorising the council to do so +>The Health Secretary had given a hospital a declaration of necessity under the ospital Facilities Act for its building plans. Several individuals living in the vicinity of the proposed site challenged this decision. The court considered that, by issuing the declaration, the Health Secretary had only made clear that the building project would be in confomity with the planned hospital services in the region. The declaration did not entail that the project would be carried out, which depended on the building perm ission to be granted by the responsible authorities. The applicants could not be considered therefore to be directly affected by the declaration 4 It appears that the causation requirement has not always been applied Judical Divsion of the Council of State, 8 November 1984, Admin stratiefrechtelijke Beslissingen(Administrative Decisions Reports)1987, 133 This approach s reminiscent of the pos ition taken by the US Supreme Court in Wickand v Filburn 317US 111, 87L. Ed 122(1942). 44. Judical Div s ion of the Council of State, 19 May 1983, Adm nstratiefrechtelike Beslssngen (Administrative Decisions Reports) Pres identof the Judical Division of the Council of State. 10 November 1977. Adm instratief. rechtelijke Beslssingen( Administrative Decisions Reports)1978, 195. Administrative Judiciary Divsion of the Council of State, 28 April 1998 istratefrechtelijke Beslissingen(Administrative Decisions Reports)1998, 333
STANDING TO RAISE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES 9 decision. They claimed the music theatre would be designed in such a way that it would be impossible to stage their productions in the new building. Although the court acknowledged that there may be a link between the design of a building and the possibility for artists to perform there, it denied standing to the applicants. The court pointed out that they were not so much challenging the building of the theatre, as objecting to its layout. The design of the building is the responsibility of the person commissioning it rather than that of the authority. 42 The Dutch International Development Minister had granted a subsidy to the ANC in exile, enabling it to offer relief to South African refugees in southern Angola. Several Dutch citizens residing in South Africa challenged this decision. They expressed the view that the ANC might use the money to fund its terrorist campaign in South Africa of which they might then become victims. In addition, they pointed out that as Dutchmen living in South Africa they would bear the brunt of the criticism on the decision expressed by the South African people. The court felt that the applicants had standing. It considered that the aim of the ANC was to abolish white supremacy and to establish political independence in South Africa. To further this aim, the ANC was willing to resort to violent activities like sabotage and assaults on South African officials. Since the applicants participated in South African society, it was not farfetched for them to feel threatened by the activities of the ANC. Furthermore, the court did not consider it unlikely that the financial support offered by the minister would be used for other purposes than those for which it was intended.43 The court found that it had been established that the applicants, as Dutchmen, were the object of criticism resulting from the minister s decision. 44 The states deputies had approved a budget amendment adopted by a city council authorising the council to buy a traffic lights installation. The court signalled that the applicant opposed the city s traffic policy, to which the approval was only indirectly related. The states deputies had not approved buying the installation but only the budget amendment authorising the council to do so.45 The Health Secretary had given a hospital a declaration of necessity under the Hospital Facilities Act for its building plans. Several individuals living in the vicinity of the proposed site challenged this decision. The court considered that, by issuing the declaration, the Health Secretary had only made clear that the building project would be in conformity with the planned hospital services in the region. The declaration did not entail that the project would be carried out, which depended on the building permission to be granted by the responsible authorities. The applicants could not be considered therefore to be directly affected by the declaration.46 It appears that the causation requirement has not always been applied 42. Judicial Division of the Council of State, 8 November 1984, Administratiefrechtelijke Beslissingen (Administrative Decisions Reports) 1987, 133. 43. This approach is reminiscent of the position taken by the US Supreme Court in Wickard v. Filburn 317 U.S. 111, 87 L.Ed. 122 (1942). 44. Judicial Division of the Council of State, 19 May 1983, Administratiefrechtelijke Beslissingen (Administrative Decisions Reports) 1984, 53. 45. President of the Judicial Division of the Council of State, 10 November 1977, Administratiefrechtelijke Beslissingen (Administrative Decisions Reports) 1978, 195. 46. Administrative Judiciary Division of the Council of State, 28 April 1998, Administratiefrechtelijke Beslissingen (Administrative Decisions Reports) 1998, 333
WAR consistently, as the following cases illustrate. The Transport Secretary had approved the new timeta ble for a bus service. The applicant chimed that as a result of this new schedule a large number of buses would pass by his house everyday causing noise and pollution. The court pointed out that the record showed the applicant s house bordered on a very busy mad which was also used by cars, lorries and buses not covered by the approved timetable. The applicant therefore lacked standing+/In a similar case however, the court came to a different conclusion. The states deputies had detemined the timeta ble of the public transport in the province. As a consequence a new bus stop would be constructed near the applicants homes. The court found that they were directly affected by the measure. Whilst admitting a noroughfare was already running close to the houses of the applicants, it pointed out the record showed that the planned bus stop would cause a substantal amount of inconvenience, manly consisting of noise and a lim ited view. 48 Although both of these cases were decided on the basis of factual determ inations. the difference in outcome is remarkable. It looks as though the court in the first case was taking the merits of the case into account during the admissibility stage of the proceedings In the courts view, granting a subsidy to a person will usually not affect the interests of others. This was exemplified when the Amsterdam City Council decided to subsidise an assocation in order to enable it to make a building fit for habitation by its members. A neighbour challenged this decision, claming that she would be inconvenienced by the use of the building. The court considered that the objections raised by the applicant did not concem the decision to subsidise the assocation, but the use that the assocation would make of the building. The court did not deny that there was a connection between the subsidy and the use in the sense that the money would be used to make the build ing fit for habitation. It emphasised, however, that the transfer of money from the Council to theassociation would not in itself aggrieve the applicant. 49 Similarly, a municipal council had decided to grant a subsidy to a youth club enabling it to refurbish its building. The applicants, who lived in the vicinity and were already inconvenienced by the club s presence, challenged the decision because they feared that the club would expand its activ ities after the reconstruction. The court considered that the applicants did not so much object to the subsidy rather than its consequences. If the club should wish to expand its activities after the refurbishment of the building it would be needing additional licenses, the granting of which could then be challenged. 50 An applicant will lack standing if the consequences of the decision are of hi Industrial Appeab Tnbunal, 23 January 1996, Admnstratefrechtelike Beslssingen (Administrative Decisions Reports)1996, 182. Pres ident of the Industrial Appeals Board, 18 November 1998, Admmstratiefrechtelijke Beslissingen(Administrative Decisions Reports)1999, 83 49 Pres identof the Judical Di s ion of the Council of State, 9 February 1984, Ten Berge Stronk, Administratieve rechtspraak overheidsbeschikkingen(Judicial Review of Admnistrative Decions Reports), IV, 103. Judical Divsion of the Council of State, Il December 1980, Ten Berge/Stroink, Administratieve rechtspraak overheidsbeschikkingen(Judicial Review of Admnistrative Decions
ZWART 10 consistently, as the following cases illustrate. The Transport Secretary had approved the new timetable for a bus service. The applicant claimed that as a result of this new schedule a large number of buses would pass by his house everyday causing noise and pollution. The court pointed out that the record showed the applicant s house bordered on a very busy road which was also used by cars, lorries and buses not covered by the approved timetable. The applicant therefore lacked standing.47 In a similar case however, the court came to a different conclusion. The states deputies had determined the timetable of the public transport in the province. As a consequence a new bus stop would be constructed near the applicants homes. The court found that they were directly affected by the measure. Whilst admitting a thoroughfare was already running close to the houses of the applicants, it pointed out the record showed that the planned bus stop would cause a substantial amount of inconvenience, mainly consisting of noise and a limited view.48 Although both of these cases were decided on the basis of factual determinations, the difference in outcome is remarkable. It looks as though the court in the first case was taking the merits of the case into account during the admissibility stage of the proceedings. In the courts view, granting a subsidy to a person will usually not affect the interests of others. This was exemplified when the Amsterdam City Council decided to subsidise an association in order to enable it to make a building fit for habitation by its members. A neighbour challenged this decision, claiming that she would be inconvenienced by the use of the building. The court considered that the objections raised by the applicant did not concern the decision to subsidise the association, but the use that the association would make of the building. The court did not deny that there was a connection between the subsidy and the use in the sense that the money would be used to make the building fit for habitation. It emphasised, however, that the transfer of money from the Council to the association would not in itself aggrieve the applicant.49 Similarly, a municipal council had decided to grant a subsidy to a youth club enabling it to refurbish its building. The applicants, who lived in the vicinity and were already inconvenienced by the club s presence, challenged the decision because they feared that the club would expand its activities after the reconstruction. The court considered that the applicants did not so much object to the subsidy rather than its consequences. If the club should wish to expand its activities after the refurbishment of the building it would be needing additional licenses, the granting of which could then be challenged.50 An applicant will lack standing if the consequences of the decision are of his 47. Industrial Appeals Tribunal, 23 January 1996, Administratiefrechtelijke Beslissingen (Administrative Decisions Reports) 1996, 182. 48. President of the Industrial Appeals Board, 18 November 1998, Administratiefrechtelijke Beslissingen (Administrative Decisions Reports) 1999, 83. 49. President of the Judicial Division of the Council of State, 9 February 1984, Ten Berge/Stroink, Administratieve rechtspraak overheidsbeschikkingen (Judicial Review of Administrative Decions Reports), IV, 103. 50. Judicial Division of the Council of State, 11 December 1980, Ten Berge/Stroink, Administratieve rechtspraak overheidsbeschikkingen (Judicial Review of Administrative Decions Reports), IV, 60