SNIDEI Court s ruling of 15 February 1991, following a case of damage by a colony of cormorants to fish farms the standards were set out as follows The answer to the question whether the causing of nuisance is unlawful leaving aside applica ble specific statutory regulations that are not relevant in this case-depends on the nature, the seriousness and the duration of the nuisance and the dama ge thus caused in relation to the further circum stances of the case whereby, among other things, account must be taken of the mportance of the interests thatare being served by theactiv ity causing the nuisance, and the possibility, partly in view of the related costs, and the willingness to take measures to prevent damage or loss It is beyond doubt that the na ture and(possible) seriousness of nuisance caused by the wind dispersal of seed from a genetically modified crop are of a completely different order to that of the dispersal of nomal weed seed. It may beassumed that the court will adopt very strict standards of due care in the case of a cultivator of genetically modified crops, in view of (the lack of certa inty of)the associatedrisks According to the ruling quoted here, in assessing the dama ge, account must a lso be taken of the interests served by the genetic modification on the one hand, and the possibility for preventive measures on the other hand. The fact that a grower assesses a pemit as referred to in Section 23 BGGo does not imply that the dispersalof seed over his neighbours is permitted. 2 There was indeed a case of unlawful dispersal of weed seed in the ruling of the Court of Appeal of The Hague on a case dated 18 February 1999. 13 The legal person under public law Staatsbosbeheer (the Dutch Forestry Commission) was the manager of t Gancey nature reserve. In the interests of the nature development plan considered desirable there, the rough land was left unmown and the grazing of the rest of the and belonging to the nature reserve was reduced. As a result, owners of adjacent land experienced nuisance, including Breukink, the plaintiff in the proceedings. Breukink was confronted in particular with the dispersal of seed anicles from field thistles on to his land 14 In order to com bat the effects of this. he was forced to incur extra costs. The court ruled that Breukink had to tolerate the way in which Staatsbosbeheer managed the nature reserve, weighing up the nature interest entrusted to staatsbosbeheer on the one hand and the interests of breukink on the other hand staatsbosbeheer could have decided in all reasonableness that the development of the nature reserve they wished for would take precedence Consequently, the method of management was not prohibited in the future Nevertheless, Staatsbosbeheer acted unla wfully towards Breuk ink, if and foras long as the organization failed to compensate him for the loss caused to him as a result of Published inN. 639 13 Published inN2000.202. 4. The dispersal of the seed panicles of thi weed have given rise t disputes on numerous occasions. For a similar case, see the Court of Appeal at s-Hertgenbosch 5 February 1990, NSNIJDERS 8 Court s ruling of 15 February 199111, following a case of damage by a colony of cormorants to fish farms, the standards were set out as follows: The answer to the question whether the causing of nuisance is unlawful - leaving aside applicable specific statutory regulations that are not relevant in this case - depends on the nature, the seriousness and the duration of the nuisance and the damage thus caused in relation to the further circumstances of the case whereby, among other things, account must be taken of the importance of the interests that are being served by the activity causing the nuisance, and the possibility, partly in view of the related costs, and the willingness to take measures to prevent damage or loss". It is beyond doubt that the nature and (possible) seriousness of nuisance caused by the wind dispersal of seed from a genetically modified crop are of a completely different order to that of the dispersal of normal weed seed. It may be assumed that the court will adopt very strict standards of due care in the case of a cultivator of genetically modified crops, in view of (the lack of certainty of) the associated risks. According to the ruling quoted here, in assessing the damage, account must also be taken of the interests served by the genetic modification on the one hand, and the possibility for preventive measures on the other hand. The fact that a grower possesses a permit as referred to in Section 23 BGGO does not imply that the dispersal of seed over his neighbours is permitted.12 There was indeed a case of unlawful dispersal of weed seed in the ruling of the Court of Appeal of The Hague on a case dated 18 February 1999.13 The legal person under public law Staatsbosbeheer (the Dutch Forestry Commission) was the manager of t Ganzey nature reserve. In the interests of the nature development plan considered desirable there, the rough land was left unmown and the grazing of the rest of the land belonging to the nature reserve was reduced. As a result, owners of adjacent land experienced nuisance, including Breukink, the plaintiff in the proceedings. Breukink was confronted in particular with the dispersal of seed panicles from field thistles on to his land.14 In order to combat the effects of this, he was forced to incur extra costs. The court ruled that Breukink had to tolerate the way in which Staatsbosbeheer managed the nature reserve, weighing up the nature interest entrusted to Staatsbosbeheer on the one hand, and the interests of Breukink on the other hand, Staatsbosbeheer could have decided in all reasonableness that the development of the nature reserve they wished for would take precedence. Consequently, the method of management was not prohibited in the future. Nevertheless, Staatsbosbeheer acted unlawfully towards Breukink, if and for as long as the organization failed to compensate him for the loss caused to him as a result of 11. Published in NJ 1992, 639. 12. See footnote 8. 13. Published in NJ 2000, 202. 14. The dispersal of the seed panicles of this weed have given rise to disputes on numerous occasions. For a similar case, see the Court of Appeal at s-Hertogenbosch 5 February 1990, NJ 1990/645