WILLEMSTAD – The Court of First Instance of Curaçao has rejected a legal challenge connected to a government information request concerning a construction project that residents say raises environmental and public-health concerns.
The case was brought against the Minister of Health, Environment and Nature (GMN) following a request for information under Curaçao's National Ordinance on Public Access to Government Information, commonly known by its Dutch abbreviation Lob.
Fourteen people were listed as plaintiffs in the proceedings, but the Court ruled that only the person who originally submitted the Lob request had legal standing to challenge the minister's decision.
The remaining 13 plaintiffs were declared inadmissible because the government decision had not been addressed to them.
The information request had resulted in a decision from the GMN minister on January 7, 2026, which was sent to the applicant on January 14. An appeal was filed on January 27.
However, during the proceedings, the dispute took an unusual turn.
The plaintiffs raised several concerns relating to the underlying construction project rather than the government's handling of the information request.
According to the judgment, their objections included the project's possible effects on the environment and public health, the fact that the project had been exempted by the minister from requiring a nuisance permit, the lack of notification to nearby residents about dredging activities and concerns that the project had not been assessed as a whole.
Those issues, however, were not what the Court had been asked to decide.
The judge explained that the proceedings concerned only the legality of the minister's response to the Lob information request. Under Curaçao administrative law, the Court could not use that proceeding to determine whether permits or exemptions had been properly granted or whether authorities should take enforcement action against the construction project.
During the June 3 hearing, the original applicant acknowledged that he had no objections to the minister's actual response to his information request because, according to the judgment, the request had been answered completely.
That effectively removed the legal basis for challenging the Lob decision.
The Court therefore declared the appeal of the original applicant unfounded and the appeals of the other 13 plaintiffs inadmissible.
The minister's January decision remains in effect, and the government was not ordered to pay the plaintiffs' legal costs.
The ruling does not determine whether the environmental, health, dredging or permitting concerns raised by the residents are justified.
Instead, it makes clear that those issues would have to be challenged through the appropriate permitting, enforcement or administrative procedures rather than through an appeal against a government information request.
The judgment was delivered on July 10 and published on August 20.