BIOTECHNOLOGY. PROPERTY RIGHTS ANDTHE ENVIRONMENT in the Netherlands is regarded as a problem in terms of env ironmental law, for which a solution is being sought-whether justified or not-based on legislation conceming hazardous substances. The law concerning spatal planning does not play a role within this framework 2.2 Case law Case law as a result of sections 23 to 35 of the bOGo is scarce. In a decision of 13 January 2000, the Administrative Law Division of the Council of State gave a lim ited interpretation of the scope of the BGGO, to the extent that products such as o ik and meat -originating from animals fed on genetically modified maize plants not fall under the BGGO since these products in them selves are not genetically odified organisms. The damaging consequences to man resulting from the consumption of products originating from animals fed with genetically modified maize, as feared by the plaintiffs, could not be regarded as detrimental to manand the environment because of the release into the environment of genetically modified organisms, so that these consequences could not lead to an overruling of the decision gral Private law 3.1 Legislation Dutch legislation has no specific regulations relating to the recognition and protection of private property interests e.g. those of neighbouring property owners where gMO technology is introduced on a farm. This means that as far as this ubject is concerned, we have to resort to(mutually coherent)general rules regarding statutory property rights between adjoining properties on the one hand, and unla wful acts on the other hand. 6 In his note to the decision of the chairman of the adm inistrative law divs ion of the coun cil of Sate of 22 March 1994, AB 1994, 446, Drupsteen put the question whether the Hazardous Substances Act indeed prov ides an adequat basis for the bOGo, since organ isms(as part of the animate world)cannot be regarded as belonging t the substances and preparations(as part of the inanimate world )for whichrules may be setunder the terms of Section 24 of the Act Seealso H.E.J. van der Meulen, Biotechnobgie en het Beshuit genetisch gemodificeende organismen Biotechnology and the Genetically Modifed Organisms Decree), Milieu en Recht 1997, p 127-128 Published inAB 2000. 95 In theory, other bases for a claim are conceiable. In particular, reference can be made in ths ontext to the regulations of product lability n Sec. 6: 185 b 6: 193 ndusive of the Duth Civil Code, whereby Council Directive 85/374EEC (OJ 1985 L 210, p. 29)was mplemented. However, generally speaking these regulations will not provide much consolation, since genetically modifed organisms that have given rse to damage as discussed here have not usually been put into circulaton withn the meaning of the directive, while there need not be defective products, nor a form of damage against which the directive aims to offer protection. Moreover, a clam has a substantal chance of failing against the plea of state of the art permitted under Dutch law. For aBIOTECHNOLOGY, PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE ENVIRONMENT 5 in the Netherlands is regarded as a problem in terms of environmental law, for which a solution is being sought - whether justified or not4 - based on legislation concerning hazardous substances. The law concerning spatial planning does not play a role within this framework. 2.2 Case law Case law as a result of Sections 23 to 35 of the BGGO is scarce. In a decision of 13 January 2000,5 the Administrative Law Division of the Council of State gave a limited interpretation of the scope of the BGGO, to the extent that products such as milk and meat - originating from animals fed on genetically modified maize plants do not fall under the BGGO since these products in themselves are not genetically modified organisms. The damaging consequences to man resulting from the consumption of products originating from animals fed with genetically modified maize, as feared by the plaintiffs, could not be regarded as detrimental to man and the environment because of the release into the environment of genetically modified organisms, so that these consequences could not lead to an overruling of the decision to grant the disputed permit. 3 Private law 3.1 Legislation Dutch legislation has no specific regulations relating to the recognition and protection of private property interests e.g. those of neighbouring property owners where GMO technology is introduced on a farm. This means that as far as this subject is concerned, we have to resort to (mutually coherent) general rules regarding statutory property rights between adjoining properties on the one hand, and unlawful acts on the other hand.6 4. In his note to the decision of the Chairman of the Administrative Law Division of the Council of Sate of 22 March 1994, AB 1994, 446, Drupsteen put the question whether the Hazardous Substances Act indeed provides an adequate basis for the BGGO, since organisms (as part of the animate world) cannot be regarded as belonging to the substances and preparations (as part of the inanimate world) for which rules may be set under the terms of Section 24 of the Act. See also H.E.J. van der Meulen, Biotechnologie en het Besluit genetisch gemodificeerde organismen (Biotechnology and the Genetically Modified Organisms Decree), Milieu en Recht, 1997, p. 127-128. 5. Published in AB 2000, 95. 6. In theory, other bases for a claim are conceivable. In particular, reference can be made in this context to the regulations of product liability in Sec. 6:185 to 6:193 inclusive of the Dutch Civil Code, whereby Council Directive 85/374/EEC (OJ 1985 L 210, p. 29) was implemented. However, generally speaking these regulations will not provide much consolation, since genetically modified organisms that have given rise to damage as discussed here have not usually been put into circulation within the meaning of the directive, while there need not be defective products, nor a form of damage against which the directive aims to offer protection. Moreover, a claim has a substantial chance of failing against the plea of state of the art permitted under Dutch law. For a