BIOTECHNOLOGY. PROPERTY RIGHTS ANDTHE ENVIRONMENT reasons of important social interests (Section 6: 168 subsection I of the Dutch Civil Code ). Such a refusal does not affect the claims for compensation of those who are disadvantaged as a result of the unlawful act. The court can impose a prohibition at a later stage, if an order to pay compensation is not complied with( Section 6: 168 subsection 3 ofthe Dutch Civil Code) Although Sections 5: 42, 5: 44 and 5: 45 of the Dutch Civil Code contain provisions relating to statutory property rights between adjoining properties that concem the presence of plants, these are not relevant to the problem of genetically modified organisms; the issue there is the distance from the plants to the property boundaries (in relation to the height of such pants), overhanging branches, penetrating roots and the ownership of fallen fruit 3.2 Case law There is no case bw known from Dutch courts conta ining decisions on the (un )la wfulness of sowing or planting genetically modified crops in relation to neighbouring proprietors or land users. However, a few court decisions can be mentioned that are important in this context. The relevant-but very broad -criterion forassessing matters such as these was omu in a ruling by by the Supreme Court of I May 1991 ee nu Jong had a problem with weed seeds originating from the band belonging to hi neighbour, Van Tol. De Jong suffered damage, since he had to weed the pots in which he cultivated the trees more frequently than would have been necessary if Van Tol had kept his land clear of weeds. Was this a case of unlawful nuisance, so that Van Tol was obliged to compensate De Jong for the damage? The Supreme Court considered that the answer to the question whether the causing of nuisance is unlawful-leaving aside any specific applicable statutory regulations-dependson the nature the seriousness and the duration of the nuisance and the resulting damage in relation to the further circumstances of the case, including local The Supreme Court then agreed with the view of the district court that Van Tol was not cultivating his land any differently compared to the period before De Jong set up business next to him The district court had taken the nature duration and seriousness of the nuisance into account and had also considered the fact that the businesses of Van Tol and De Jong were in an agricultural area. In this context, the court had rightly judged that there was no unlawful nuisance -ie unlawful dispersal of seed in this case For our subject, the fomulated standard in particular is important. This standard was also applied after 1991 in judging, for instance, the damage caused by the contam ination of greenhouses from neighbouring beehives. 0 In the st Published inN1991 476 Supreme Court 28 April 1995, NJ1995,513 and Supreme Court 18 September 1998, NJ1999BIOTECHNOLOGY, PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE ENVIRONMENT 7 reasons of important social interests (Section 6:168 subsection 1 of the Dutch Civil Code). Such a refusal does not affect the claims for compensation of those who a re disadvantaged as a result of the unlawful act. The court can impose a prohibition at a later stage, if an order to pay compensation is not complied with (Section 6:168 subsection 3 of the Dutch Civil Code). Although Sections 5:42, 5:44 and 5:45 of the Dutch Civil Code contain provisions relating to statutory property rights between adjoining properties that concern the presence of plants, these are not relevant to the problem of genetically modified organisms; the issue there is the distance from the plants to the property boundaries (in relation to the height of such plants), overhanging branches, penetrating roots and the ownership of fallen fruit. 3.2 Case law There is no case law known from Dutch courts containing decisions on the (un)lawfulness of sowing or planting genetically modified crops in relation to neighbouring proprietors or land users. However, a few court decisions can be mentioned that are important in this context. The relevant - but very broad - criterion for assessing matters such as these was formulated in a ruling by the Supreme Court of 1 May 1991.9 Tree nurseryman De Jong had a problem with weed seeds originating from the land belonging to his neighbour, Van Tol. De Jong suffered damage, since he had to weed the pots in which he cultivated the trees more frequently than would have been necessary if Van Tol had kept his land clear of weeds. Was this a case of unlawful nuisance, so that Van Tol was obliged to compensate De Jong for the damage? The Supreme Court considered that the answer to the question whether the causing of nuisance is unlawful - leaving aside any specific applicable statutory regulations - depends on: the nature, the seriousness and the duration of the nuisance and the resulting damage in relation to the further circumstances of the case, including local circumstances . The Supreme Court then agreed with the view of the district court that Van Tol wa s not cultivating his land any differently compared to the period before De Jong set up business next to him. The district court had taken the nature, duration and seriousness of the nuisance into account, and had also considered the fact that the businesses of Van Tol and De Jong were in an agricultural area. In this context, the court had rightly judged that there was no unlawful nuisance - i.e. unlawful dispersal of seed - in this case. For our subject, the formulated standard in particular is important. This standard was also applied after 1991 in judging, for instance, the damage caused by the contamination of greenhouses from neighbouring beehives. 10 In the Supreme 9. Published in NJ 1991, 476. 10. Supreme Court 28 April 1995, NJ1995, 513 and Supreme Court 18 September 1998, NJ 1999, 69