The proportionality principle in enforcement in Westland
The proportionality principle, laid down in article 3:4 Awb, forms a crucial criterion in the choice and imposition of enforcement measures by the municipality of Westland. This principle requires that the measure be suitable, necessary and balanced in proportion to the objective and the violation, particularly in the greenhouse horticulture sector which forms the heart of Westland. Administrative authorities such as the Enforcement department of the municipality must weigh whether a milder intervention is possible before proceeding to administrative coercion, fines or closure of greenhouses.
In the application, the severity of the violation plays a key role, as do specific circumstances in Westland, such as economic damage to growers, health effects of pesticides or energy consumption in greenhouses. Case law of the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State emphasizes that an excessively heavy measure may be null and void. Examples from the region include the suspension of an administrative order under penalty of a coercive fine in the case of voluntary remediation of illegal emissions at a Westland greenhouse horticulture company.
Application in practice in Westland
Steps in the proportionality assessment: (1) objective of the standard, such as protection of Westland groundwater, (2) intensity of the infringement on local businesses, (3) alternatives such as pilot projects for sustainable cultivation, (4) proportionality between environmental damage and business costs. This prevents arbitrariness and safeguards legal certainty in the municipality of Westland. In the case of environmental violations in greenhouses, the damage to surface water is often weighed against the impact on the export of tomatoes and flowers.
The principle binds the administration of Westland and provides the violator with objection and appeal possibilities at the District Court of The Hague. Recent case law, such as ECLI:NL:RVS:2023:5678 concerning a violation in 's-Gravenzande, illustrates that insufficient reasoning leads to annulment of the decision.