Municipalities may include a ban on fossil fuel advertising in public spaces in their local regulations. This follows from an important ruling by the District Court of The Hague on April 25, 2025
Why is a ban on fossil fuel advertising important?
A ban on fossil fuel advertising is of great importance for climate action. A scientific advisory report to the House of Representatives from 2023 (“A ban on fossil fuel advertising: essential but not sufficient”) concludes that fossil fuel advertising normalizes and promotes unsustainable behavior, thereby discouraging sustainable behavior. In doing so, fossil fuel advertising actively undermines the climate policy pursued by governments. According to the advice, climate policy without a ban on fossil fuel advertising is like “trying to bail out a sinking ship.” Fossil fuel advertising hinders the transition to a sustainable society, and significant government investment is needed to offset its negative effects. The advisory report therefore emphasizes that a ban on fossil fuel advertising is an essential measure to achieve and accelerate a sustainable transition.
The Hague as a pioneer
Despite the clear conclusions of the scientific advice to the House of Representatives and clear indications of the legal feasibility of such a ban (link and link), a ban on fossil fuel advertising at the national level is unfortunately still pending (link). Local authorities are now (necessarily) taking the lead, with The Hague – according to its own statement, the first city in the world – banning fossil fuel advertising from public spaces through local regulations.
The lawsuit
Travel organizations TUI, D-Reizen, Prijsvrij.nl, and industry organization ANVR disagreed with The Hague’s ban and initiated summary proceedings in civil court. They argued that the municipality was not authorized to impose such a ban and that the ban was contrary to freedom of expression, European legislation and regulations, and various general principles of good governance.
What was the court’s ruling?
The court emphasized that municipalities have considerable discretion in decisions they deem important for their residents. Certainly in summary proceedings, judicial review is very cautious: the court can only intervene in cases of obvious inaccuracy or illegality.
The court then concluded that the municipality of The Hague had sufficiently substantiated that the advertising ban could contribute to reducing the negative effects of climate change.
The court also ruled that the ban did not violate freedom of expression, as enshrined in the Constitution, because commercial advertising is excluded from this freedom. According to the judge, the fossil fuel advertising that travel organizations and the ANVR want to do for flying vacations, airline tickets, and cruise trips is clearly intended to sell vacation trips at a profit, thereby serving a commercial purpose. This is not protected by freedom of expression.
Nor did the judge consider the advertising ban to be contrary to European law. The advertising ban does not make any prohibited distinction between national and international companies, as the ban applies to all of them. The ban also meets the requirements of proportionality and subsidiarity, as the travel industry is free to continue advertising other types of travel in public spaces in The Hague or to further increase its brand awareness through advertising with its name or logo.
The court ultimately concluded that the introduction of the advertising ban was not manifestly incorrect or unlawful and dismissed the claims of the travel organizations and the industry association.
Significance of the ruling
This ruling sets an important precedent and is a welcome boost for The Hague as a pioneer. It shows that innovative climate policy can take shape not only at the national level, but also at the local level. Municipalities have the scope to take responsibility, even when this affects the commercial communications of companies. Given the importance of combating fossil fuel advertising, it is to be hoped that more municipalities will follow The Hague’s example.
This article was written by Funs van Diem. The Paulussen Advocaten team represents Milieudefensie and other social (environmental) organizations in climate cases, including the cases against Shell and ING. In addition, Paulussen advises various (decentralized) governments on sustainability regulations and policy.
For more information, please contact us at 043 321 6640 or info@paulussen.nl. Appointments can be made on location or at our offices in Maastricht and Heerlen.
Nieuws Overzicht