BIOTECHNOLOGY, PROPERTY RIGHTS ANDTHEENVIRONMENT the management of the nature reserve. After all. the detrimental effects of a decision taken by a government organization must not be disproportionate in relation to the objectives served by the decision. The court ruled that the damage suffered by Breukink was disproportionate, in so far as it exceeded the damage that had to be attributed to normal business risk. Business risk included the dama ge that Breukink had to take account of in relation to general(social) developments The court subsequently considered that an owner of an agricultural business situated in an area such as the one in question must take account of the fact t view of current social developments, a nature reserve exists or is to be created in the (wider) vic init, the management of which gives a higher chance of nuisance from weeds, but not that such management is carried out on the neighbouring plot of hand The significance of this ruling for our subject is difficult to judge. It does not constitute a ruling of the highest court in these types of matters, while the decision is dictated by a variety of factual circumstances. Furthermore, the dispersal of seed from the field thistle as a consequence of a certan method of nature management by a govemment organization (such as Staatsbosbeheer) cannot be compared automatically with for example -the dispersal of seed from a genetically modified crop as part of a field trial, whether by a govemment organization or a private seed breeder. However, the ruling does show clearly that there can be tension between the interests of the parties affected by seed dispersal. Such tension can be removed by lowing the one party to continue his trials in the public interest, while the other party is entitled to compensation for the harm he subsequently suffers. In fact, the ruling provides an illustration of the system already discussed in the aforementioned Section 6: 168 of the Dutch Civil Code(although there, nothing less than substantal social interests are referred to) The case law quoted concerned particular cases, each of which involved an indiv idual citizen or legal person acting as plaintiff. Dutch aw, however, also allows for the possibility of collective action(Section 3: 305a of the Dutch Civil Code). This means that in a case of unb wful nuisance, a body such as a nature conservation organization may appeal to the courts. In that case, the organization cannot claim neary compensation; such a demand may only be made by an individua aggrieved party(Section 3: 305a par. 3). The demand for a prohibition is an option although, as already discussed, it may fail against that which is laid down in Section 6: 168 of the Dutch Civil Code In order to be successful in bringing any claim to court, by whichever plaintiff, each time the condition applies that the plaintiff must have suff icient interest in th matter, without sufficient interest, no-one will be granted a legal claim, according to Section 3: 303 of the Dutch Civil Code The Netherlands has no integral legislation regarding genetically modified organisms, only a number of regulations conceming specific aspects. In so far as there are regulations under public law that concern the protection of theenvironment these encompass the implementation of the EC directives concemed. The regulations have been brought a bout within the framework of legislation in respect of hazardousBIOTECHNOLOGY, PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE ENVIRONMENT 9 the management of the nature reserve. After all, the detrimental effects of a decision taken by a government organization must not be disproportionate in relation to the objectives served by the decision. The court ruled that the damage suffered by Breukink was disproportionate, in so far as it exceeded the damage that had to be attributed to normal business risk. Business risk included the damage that Breukink had to take account of in relation to general (social) developments. The court subsequently considered that an owner of an agricultural business situated in an area such as the one in question must take account of the fact that, in view of current social developments, a nature reserve exists or is to be created in the (wider) vicinity, the management of which gives a higher chance of nuisance from weeds, but not that such management is carried out on the neighbouring plot of hand. The significance of this ruling for our subject is difficult to judge. It does not constitute a ruling of the highest court in these types of matters, while the decision is dictated by a variety of factual circumstances. Furthermore, the dispersal of seed from the field thistle as a consequence of a certain method of nature management by a government organization (such as Staatsbosbeheer) cannot be compared automatically with for example - the dispersal of seed from a genetically modified crop as part of a field trial, whether by a government organization or a private seed breeder. However, the ruling does show clearly that there can be tension between the interests of the parties affected by seed dispersal. Such tension can be removed by allowing the one party to continue his trials in the public interest , while the other party is entitled to compensation for the harm he subsequently suffers. In fact, the ruling provides an illustration of the system already discussed in the aforementioned Section 6:168 of the Dutch Civil Code (although there, nothing less than substantial social interests are referred to). The case law quoted concerned particular cases, each of which involved an individual citizen or legal person acting as plaintiff. Dutch law, however, also allows for the possibility of collective action (Section 3:305a of the Dutch Civil Code). This means that in a case of unlawful nuisance, a body such as a nature conservation organization may appeal to the courts. In that case, the organization cannot claim monetary compensation; such a demand may only be made by an individual aggrieved party (Section 3:305a par. 3). The demand for a prohibition is an option although, as already discussed, it may fail against that which is laid down in Section 6:168 of the Dutch Civil Code. In order to be successful in bringing any claim to court, by whichever plaintiff, each time the condition applies that the plaintiff must have sufficient interest in the matter; without sufficient interest, no-one will be granted a legal claim, according to Section 3:303 of the Dutch Civil Code. 4 Summary and conclusion The Netherlands has no integral legislation regarding genetically modified organisms, only a number of regulations concerning specific aspects. In so far as there are regulations under public law that concern the protection of the environment, these encompass the implementation of the EC directives concerned. The regulations have been brought about within the framework of legislation in respect of hazardous substances