AMSTERDAM COURT

Administrative law
case number: AMS 23/1656
judgment of the single-member chamber dated May 20, 2025 in the case between

  1. Zwerver, M. Gauw, L. Petterson, J. Heikens, R. Klaassen, W.M. Sinnige,
    E. Oostendorp and R. Hermanns, from Amstelveen, plaintiffs
    and
    the Municipal Executive of Amstelveen, defendant (hereinafter: the
    college)
    (Agents: R.M. d'Hooghe and P. Gilissen).
    F.H. Bruens from Amstelveen participated as a third party.

Introduction

  1. This ruling is about had traffic decision pursuant to which the college constructed a bus lock. The plaintiffs disagree with the traffic decision of the college to construct a bus lock. They allege that the Municipal Executive prepared the decision in a negligent manner and did not give sufficient reasons for its decision. Based on these grounds for appeal, the court assesses the legality and proportionality of the traffic decision.
    1 . In this ruling, the court comes to the conclusion that the Municipal Executive prepared the traffic decision in a negligent manner and did not give proper reasons. The plaintiffs are vindicated and the appeal is therefore well-founded. Below, the court explains how it reached this judgment and the consequences of this judgment.

Process

  1. By the contested decision of 3 1January 2023, published on February 2, 2023, the College decided to construct a bus lock in Noorddammerlaan at the bend to Legmeerdijk and to close the section of road at that point to all motor vehicles except scheduled buses (the traffic decision).
    2.1. The plaintiffs filed an appeal against the contested decision. The defendant responded to the appeal with a statement of defense. The third-party also responded in writing.
    2.2. The court heard the appeal at a hearing on April 8, 2025. Participating in this were: O.L.P. Zwerver and M.A. Bellis on behalf of the plaintiffs, the agents of the College and on behalf of the third-party F.H. Bruens and A. de Boer.

Creation of the traffic decision

  1. With an earlier traffic decision dated January 26, 2021, the college, applying the uniform public preparation procedure, decided to construct a bus lock in Noorddammer Avenue at the bend to Legmeerdijk near St. Urbanus Church and to close the section of road at that point to all motor vehicles except scheduled buses. The bus lock was constructed in November 2021.
    3.1. The plaintiffs appealed that Jan. 26, 2021 decision. They live in the neighborhood and are affected to a greater or lesser extent by the increase in traffic caused by the bus lock. In its November 8, 2022 ruling, this court upheld the appeal and overturned the decision.' In that ruling, the court ruled on remand that the bus lock would remain in place until six weeks after the college issued a new decision. The court ordered the college to make a new decision within 12 weeks in compliance with the ruling.
    3.2. With the January 31, 2023 traffic decision, the college decided to maintain the current situation. Given the preference of the residents, the minimal amount of sneak traffic and the added value of the possibility of creating a low-traffic area in the center of Bovenkerk the college decided to realize the cut-off at the level of the Sint Urbanuskerk. This will maintain the current situation. The college referred to the traffic concept report by Goudappel Coffeng of March 12, 2019. the support survey among residents, the acoustic study by Royal Haskoning of December 16, 2020, the traffic counts and the additional traffic report by Goudappel Coffeng of January 25, 2023.

Assessment by the court
Review framework

  1. The laws and regulations from the General Administrative Law Act (Awb), Wegenverkeerswet (Wvw) 1994 and the Besluit Administratieve Bepalingen inzake het Wegverkeer (BABW) that are important for the assessment of the appeal can be found in the appendix to this ruling.
  2. Pursuant to established case law of the highest administrative courts, when making a traffic decision, an administrative body has room for discretion in interpreting the terms mentioned in Article 2, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the 1994 Traffic Act. The court tests whether the administrative body has not made unreasonable use of that discretion. Once the administrative authority has determined which traffic interests, and to what extent in its opinion, should be involved in the decision, it must weigh these interests against each other. In doing so, the administrative body is allowed policy discretion. The administrative court tests whether the adverse consequences of the traffic decision for one or more interested parties are not disproportionate in relation to the objectives to be served by the decision. The absolute necessity need not be demonstrated.2

The November 8, 2022 ruling

  1. In the earlier decision of Nov. 8, 2022, this court ruled that the college had carelessly prepared the traffic decision of Jan. 26, 2021, and had provided inadequate reasons. The college should have substantiated what traffic and other consequences the studied variants will have, examining the possible creeping traffic. The results of the studies should have been presented to the residents and business owners prior to the public support study. According to the court, it could not be ruled out that the results of the public support study would have been different if the residents and business owners had been presented with all the available information. In the District Court's opinion, given the careless preparation, the Municipal Executive had also failed to substantiate why it ultimately chose the current variant with the bus lock in the Noorddammerlaan tel' height of the Sint Urbanuskerk.

What is the plaintiffs' position?

  1. Plaintiffs, in brief, argue that the college prepared the second traffic decision in a negligent manner and did not provide sufficient justification. The college only had the earlier draft report by Goudappel Coffeng supplemented and again failed to adequately and visibly weigh the interests. The supplementary report by Goudappel Coffeng does not consider other possibilities and downplays the increase in traffic in the small streets with a view to being able to maintain the current situation. In addition, the college again used the public support study as justification. The traffic counts did not include so-called destination traffic from the industrial park and the soccer club, the chosen locations were not justified and the measuring equipment was switched off.

What is the third-party position?

  1. The third party lives on Legmeerdijk and represents a large number of residents who live on Noorddammerlaan and Legmeerdijk. He argues that the college has organized a careful process in which much attention has been paid to participation and support building. The plaintiffs have not specified which contradictions and inaccuracies the supplementary Goudappel Coffeng report contains, nor why the counts would be wrong and why the measuring cabinets would have been illogically placed. It has now been unmistakably demonstrated that the traffic effects in Bovenkerk are positive. There has been an enormous reduction in traffic in the entire neighborhood and only a few streets have seen an increase.

How does the court rule on the Jan. 31, 2023 traffic order?
Summary

  1. It is not for the court to determine whether a traffic order should be made, and if it is, which variant is the best. It is up to the college to determine that. It is also up to the college to determine if and how residents will be involved in such a traffic decision.
  2. It is vel to the court to judge whether the traffic decree as issued by the college on Jan. 31, 2023, meets the requirements of the law for such a decree. In the traffic decree, the college must clearly name the various interests at stake, as well as clearly weigh them against each other. In this case, the decision must make clear the advantages and disadvantages of the different variants from which the board chooses. Next, the decision must justify why the college ultimately chooses the chosen variant.
  3. The court finds that this traffic decision does not meet these requirements and will therefore overturn the traffic decision. The court understands that with any traffic decision it is inevitable that there will be residents for whom the decision will have more advantages than others, and that there will be residents for whom the disadvantages will prevail. For this very reason, clear reasons must be given as to why a particular variant was chosen and why the advantages of that variant outweigh the disadvantages.

How did the court arrive at this judgment?

  1. The court considered that the purpose of the traffic order was to reduce traffic traveling in the Bovenkerk neighborhood along Noorddamrnerlaan and Legmeerdijk. That route was used to bypass the through route with traffic lights outside the neighborhood. This created a dangerous situation on the through route Noorddammerlaan-Legmeerdijk, according to the college. The council examined three variants: one in which the speed on the through route was reduced to 30 kilometers per hour, and two variants with a cut-off in the form of a bus lock: a cut-off at the southernmost point of this through route (near the Beneluxbaan), and the variant ultimately chosen, a cut-off in the middle of this through route (near the Sint Urbanuskerk).
  2. The court will assess, also in view of its ruling of Nov. 8, 2022, whether in the traffic decision of Jan. 31, 2023, the college did examine and then sufficiently weigh the traffic consequences of the three variants. It is established between the parties that the sneak traffic is a traffic interest that the college must consider. By stealth traffic, the court understands traffic that wants to bypass a cutoff and (destination) traffic that has to drive a different route to enter or leave the neighborhood as a result of a cutoff.
  3. The court ruled that the college did investigate the sluice traffic with regard to the variant in which no cut-off is applied (the 30 krn/h variant), and with regard to the current situation in which a cut-off in the form of a bus lock has been applied at the level of the Sint Urbanuskerk. The court based its decision on the Goudappel Coffeng reports. The court subsequently ruled that the Municipal Executive had not sufficiently investigated the possibility of shortcuts in the variant involving a cut-off at the Beneluxbaan. Therefore, the college also failed to consider that traffic interest in a cognizable manner.
    14.1. In response to this District Court's decision of November 8, 2022, the Municipal Executive only asked Goudappel Coffeng to conduct additional research into the consequences of the situation that already existed at the time, with the cut-off at the level of the Sint Urbanuskerk. Goudappel Coffeng concludes in the additional report that "the potentially detrimental aspects of the kiijp at the height of St. Urbanus Church appear to be cut." The college adopts this opinion and considers in the traffic decision of January 31, 2023: "the amount of through traffic by way of alternative roads through Bovenkerk is greatly reduced."
    14.2. In the traffic decision of January 31, 2023, the Board then considers, "Observing this, the traffic frect of a lrnip at the level of the Sint Urbanuskerk is comparable to the effect of a knip on the south side of the Legmeerdijk." However, it is not clear to the court on what the college bases this consideration. Indeed, in the court's opinion, the college did not map the traffic consequences of a cutoff at Beneluxbaan. After all, in its supplementary study Goudappel Coffeng did not consider the consequences of a cut-off at Beneluxbaan, it only assessed the current situation.
    14.3. In its earlier (draft) report from 2019, Goudappel Coffeng remarked with regard to a possible cut-off at the Beneluxbaan that then "no stealth traffic from outside Bovenkerk through the neighborhood would be possible." The Court deduces from this that Goudappel Coffeng has not assessed how the (besternmings)traffic will behave with that variant. Instead, plaintiffs point out that because of the current cutoff at the Sint Urbanuskerk, more (destination) traffic is driving through the small streets of the neighborhood than before. It has not been investigated in which way, destination traffic will drive with a cut-off at the Beneluxbaan.
  4. Therefore, the college has not sufficiently clarified the traffic consequences of a cut-off at the Beneluxbaan. For example, no consideration was given to the extra traffic pressure in the neighborhood immediately adjacent to the cut-off at the Beneluxbaan. After all, traffic would no longer be able to enter Beneluxbaan via Legmeerdijk, and would have to leave the neighborhood on the other side, via Noorddarnmerlaan. At the hearing the Municipal Executive stated that the variant with a cut-off at the Beneluxbaan would also have traffic engineering and other consequences due to changes in traffic flows. Only when all consequences for all variants are examined and known, can the college weigh the interests. Although Goudappel Coffeng ruled that the adverse effects do not appear to be as great as expected, these effects must still be weighed against the effects of the variant where the cut-off is at the level of the Beneluxbaan.
    15.1. The District Court also considered it important that in the supplementary report Goudappel Coffeng considered the following with regard to a cut-off at Bene luxbaan: "From a traffic point of view the cut-off on the south side of the Legmneerdijk remains the most obvious measure. This makes the obligation for the college to substantiate why the college does not choose this variant after all, all the more important.

The support survey

  1. the support survey:
    In the ruling of November 8, 2022, this court considered with regard to "The court finds that it is not prudent for the college to have found the result of the survey decisive, when the college did not give the survey participants all the information that the college had available. In fact, it cannot be ruled out that the result of the survey 'i'as gelI'eest, had the residents and business owners been presented with all available information."
  2. The traffic decision states, "Given the preference from residents, minimal amount of sneak traffic and the added value of the possibility of creating a low-traffic residential area in the center of Bovenkerk (see paragraph below) has made the decision to realize the cutoff at the level of the St. Urbanus Church."
  3. The court noted that the college no longer considers the result of the public support study in the January 31, 2023 traffic decision to be decisive. The result is now one of the arguments for choosing to cut at St. Urbanus Church. The court finds that the public support study cannot play a role in the decision because the residents were not presented with Goudappel Coffeng's advice. The residents were not adequately informed about the traffic implications of the three variants presented. If the city council still wants to take the residents' wishes into account when making a new traffic decision, it will have to submit new variants to the residents, including an explanation of the traffic consequences of the variants submitted.

How to move forward?

  1. The court will overturn the traffic order. As a result, there is no longer a legal basis for the current bus lock. It is up to the college to determine what to do next. If the college does nothing, the bus lock must be removed and the situation as it was before the bus lock was constructed will arise. If the college still wants to make a traffic measure, the college will have to make a new traffic decision. If the college chooses to do so, the court does not require the college to reapply Section 3.4. of the Awb.4 One possibility is for the college to again decide that a cutoff should be made at St. Urbanus Church, as it is now.
  2. So it is the college's turn. The question is what to do with the current bus lock in the meantime. The court can imagine that it is important to the plaintiffs that the bus lock disappear as soon as possible, because then they will be relieved of the creeping traffic through their streets. This feeling will be even stronger now that the court is annulling for the second time the traffic decision on the bus lock at St. Urbanus Church.
  3. The court wants to give the college time to determine what the next step will be. In doing so, the court again opts to grant a preliminary injunction so that the current bus lock can remain in place, at least temporarily.5 The court finds the following interests decisive for this. First, it appears that traffic on Noorddammerlaan and Legmeerdijk has decreased significantly. An important goal of the college has thus been achieved. If the bus lock were to be removed now, that positive effect would be nullified. The third party, Bruens, is happy with the current situation. Bruens represents a large number of residents, especially residents of Noorddammerlaan and Legmeerdijk. Secondly, Goudappel Coffeng's supplementary report concluded that the sneak traffic through the streets where plaintiffs live is in itself not that bad, and is within the general standards applicable for this. From this, the court deduces that the situation is not currently untenable. Finally, the court wants to avoid having to remove the bus lock now and then reinstall it after a possible new traffic decision.
  4. The court grants the preliminary injunction for a generous period, of six months. The court does so to give the college, if it chooses to do so, the opportunity to conduct a new traffic study, and possibly a new public support study. If the college does not opt for a new public support study, the college can make a new decision at a (much) shorter deadline.
    21 . 1. ruling remains in effect.
    This means that the current situation will remain until six months from the date of this
    21 .2. The court emphasizes that this preliminary injunction does not mean that the court anticipates that the current situation with a bus lock at the level of St. Urbanus Church will ultimately be preferred. As the court noted earlier, that is not up to the court, but it is up to the college to determine, well-considered and well-reasoned, whether and if so what traffic decision will be made.

Conclusion and implications

  1. The plaintiffs' appeal is well-founded because the contested decision violates Articles 3:2 and 3:46 of the Awb. This means that the college prepared the traffic decision negligently and did not give proper reasons. The court therefore annuls the contested traffic decision.
  2. 1. Because the appeal is well-founded, the college must reimburse plaintiffs for the court fee. Plaintiffs did not incur any reimbursable litigation expenses.

Decision
The court:

  • Declares the appeal well-founded;
  • overturns the January 31, 2023 decision;
  • By way of preliminary injunction, determines that the actual implementation of the
    traffic order dated January 31, 2023 shall remain in effect until no later than six months from the date of
    transmission of this ruling;
  • determines that the college must reimburse the plaintiffs the court fee of €184.
    This judgment was rendered by Mr. S.D. Arnold, judge, in the presence of
    Mr. K.H.E. Swinkels, court clerk.
    Delivered in public on May 20, 2025.
    A copy of this judgment was sent to the party

Appeal information

A party who disagrees with this ruling may send a notice of appeal to the Administrative Law Division of the Council of State explaining why this party disagrees with this ruling. The notice of appeal must be filed within six weeks of the day this ruling was sent. If the petitioner cannot wait for the hearing of the appeal because the case is urgent, the petitioner may ask the Provisional Judge of the Administrative Law Division of the Council of State to grant a preliminary injunction (a temporary measure).

Appendix: laws and regulations important to this ruling

General Administrative Law Act:
Article 3:2
In preparing a decision, the administrative body shall gather the necessary knowledge about
the relevant facts and the interests to be weighed.
Article 3:46
A decision shall be based on proper justification.
Article 8:72

  1. If the administrative law judge declares the appeal well-founded, he annuls the contested decision
    in whole or in part.
  2. The annulment of a decision or part of a decision entails the annulment of the
    legal effects of that decision or the annulled part thereof.
  3. The administrative law judge may determine that:
    a. the legal effects of the annulled decision or the annulled portion thereof are preserved in whole
    or in part, or
    b. his ruling replaces the annulled decision or the annulled portion
    thereof.
  4. The Administrative Court may. if application of the third paragraph is not possible, order the
    administrative body to take a new decision or perform another act
    in compliance with its instructions. In doing so, he may:
    a. determine that statutory regulations on the preparation of the new decree or the
    other act remain wholly or partially inapplicable;
    b. set the administrative body a deadline for taking the new decree or performing the other act
    .
  5. The administrative judge may grant a preliminary injunction if necessary. In doing so, he
    determines the time when the preliminary injunction expires.
  6. The administrative judge may determine that, if or so long as the administrative body fails to comply with
    a ruling. the administrative body shall forfeit to a party designated by him a penalty to be determined in the ruling
    . Articles 61 la, fourth paragraph, 61 Ib to
    61 ld and 61 ig of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply accordingly
    .

Road Traffic Act (Wvw) 1994:
Article 2

  1. The rules adopted under this law may aim at:
    a. ensuring road safety;
    b. protecting road users and passengers;
    c. maintaining the road and ensuring its usability;
    d. ensuring freedom of movement as much as possible.
  2. The rules adopted pursuant to this law further aim to:
    a. prevent or limit nuisance. nuisance or damage
    caused by traffic as well as the consequences for the environment, as referred to in the Environmental Management Act;
    b. prevent or limit damage caused by traffic to the character
    or function of objects or areas.

Decree on Administrative Provisions for Road Traffic (BABW):
Article 21
The reasons for the traffic decision shall in any case state the objective or
objectives pursued. It will indicate which of the interests listed in Article 2. first
and second paragraph, of the Road Traffic Act underlie the
traffic decision. If other interests as referred to in Article 2, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Road Traffic Act
are at stake, it will also be indicated in what way the interests
have been weighed against each other.