WILLEMSTAD - Since 2015, the Clean Air Everywhere Foundation (FCAE) has been filing court cases against the Curaçao Country regarding air pollution and its enforcement.

In addition, the FCAE is not about closing down the industries in Curaçao such as ISLA, CRU and Aqualectra, but about establishing and maintaining reasonable air pollution standards, so that the health of the people downwind of the Schottegat is not compromised.

After first conducting a summary proceeding with a result that was disappointing for the people downwind of the Schottegat, FCAE started another case against the Country of Curaçao at the end of 2016. In addition to the Country, ISLA, CRU and RdK were also added to the procedure.

This week, the Court of First Instance ruled in this case.

The FCAE was concerned with the following:

Establishing and enforcing environmental (air) pollution standards that comply with international standards such as those of the World Health Organization (WHO) within 2 months of the Judgment of the Court, in order to protect the rights as laid down in, among others, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. This concerns in particular the right to life, the right to enjoyment of life and the right to physical and mental integrity as mentioned in articles 2 and 8 of this treaty

Properly informing the population about the dangers and risks of environmental (air) pollution

Reimbursement of damage caused by the Country to residents due to air pollution. In the judgment, the court found, among other things, that the Country

Has failed to adapt the standards that have applied to the refinery and other industries since 1979 to stricter, scientifically based standards, although it did have the opportunity to do so;

Has been conducting research for many years, which repeatedly shows that air pollution is harmful to public health but has never actually done anything about it;

It is true that measures are being taken to better measure air quality, to draw up emergency plans and to hire a consultant to prepare a report on new standards. But all these initiatives can be said to have actually not led to a reduction in air pollution;

That air pollution has not been reduced lately by government measures but by the production of the refinery;

Never took into account the economic damage caused by air pollution such as additional medical costs and damage to tourism and only focused on the possible negative consequences of higher air pollution standards

Although it has produced an brochure, it has never been distributed, so that the Country has not complied with its information obligation.

The Court ruled as follows:

That the Country has acted unlawfully by not setting standards with regard to air pollution;

That from 1 September 2020 there may no longer be exceedances of the air quality standards for sulfur dioxide and particulate matter as laid down in the WHO or alternative guidelines measured at the Kas Chikitu monitoring station;

Because it is difficult for the Court to determine what the obligation to provide information must meet, this requirement has been rejected;

The Country cannot ask for a delay in setting the standards if it were to appeal;

The defendants, including ISLA, CRU and RdK, have been ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings;

Because it is difficult to determine the cause of any kind of damage, this claim has been rejected.