X v. Danish Environmental and Food Complaints Board

BS-16684/2022-HJR
No description
Final judgment
Denmark, København

Individuals
No description
Other
Britta Moll Bown

Civil court
All
Cancel the order issued by Egedal town council prohibiting the use, handling and storage of plant protection products on properties located in a borehole protection zone (known as BNBO) around the Område Kildeplads water catchment station.
Supreme Court of København, Denmark

June 30, 2023
Positive
Confirmation of the appeal decision, the decision of the Danish Environmental and Food Complaints Board and, ultimately, the municipal by-law.
No description

On June 30, 2023, Denmark's Supreme Court upheld a municipal order banning the use, handling and storage of plant protection products for private individuals living in properties located near a borehole protection zone around the Område Kildeplads water catchment station. The risk of pollution of drinking water from this station, responsible for the water supply of a municipality of 30,000 inhabitants, is the reason why the Court confirmed this measure.

Adopted on September 12, 2016, the disputed order was challenged a first time by the plaintiffs, but confirmed by the Danish Environmental and Food Complaints Board on December 18, 2017. On appeal against this refusal, the 19th Chamber of the Eastern High Court upheld the validity of the order on April 1, 2022.

Then, the Supreme Court requested the opinion of an expert, a professor of hydrogeology, on the impact of individual use of pesticides on water quality in the protected area.

Although in his opinion of May 17, 2023, the professor was unable to conclude with certainty that the traces of plant protection products detected in the water were indeed the result of personal use of pesticides on neighboring properties and not of agricultural pollution upstream, he did state that prohibiting personal use of pesticides in the vicinity of the drilling area was essential to guarantee safe drinking water.

On the basis of this finding, and of section 24(1) of the Environmental Protection Act (Miljøbeskyttelseslovens), the Supreme Court held that the Board's decision to uphold the municipal order had not been adopted on an inadequate basis or been subject to procedural errors that would have justified its annulment. The order was therefore maintained.