Dutch Court Backs The Hague’s Fossil Fuels Ad Ban

Introduction

Advertising in public areas is subject to various forms of regulation, including local rules imposed by municipalities. On 25 April 2025, the Dutch court (of first instance) upheld The Hague’s fossil fuel ad ban, allowing the city to ban, particularly, air and cruise travel advertisements in public spaces within its municipal boundaries. Perceived by both the city and environmental protection groups as a major victory in combating climate change, this local advertising ban could have a major impact on the advertising industry and certain sectors in which products or services are being deemed harmful to the public interest.

In this blog, Roelien van Neck and Sander Wagemakers briefly discuss this judgment and share their thoughts on its relevance for the advertising industry.

Case details

Background of the fossil fuel ad ban

Currently, within the public debate, discussions are ongoing regarding whether advertisements promoting certain products or services related to climate change should be allowed within public space – particularly, at the local level. In light thereof, the Dutch municipality of The Hague adopted on 12 September 2024 a fossil fuel advertising ban in order to protect their citizens against climate change. The fossil fuel advertising ban entered into force on 1 January 2025 and could be enforced as of 1 May 2025. Its scope encompasses, among other things, the promotion of commercial air travel, airplane tickets, and cruises. In practice, this would result in banning commercial advertisements relating to air and cruise travel (including related ticket discount offerings). 

Arguments claimants

Following the adoption of this ban, several parties from the commercial aviation and travel sector launched an appeal seeking preliminary relief against this fossil advertising ban. The most striking argument these parties brought forward was the argument that the fossil fuel ads ban unlawfully breaches the ‘freedom of opinion’ as enshrined within the Dutch constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights. According to the claimants, commercial advertising should be interpreted narrowly and, given also the ideological aspects underlying beneath services like air travel, the ban would also prohibit noncommercial advertising. Prohibiting non-commercial information, therefore, would result in a clear violation of the ‘freedom of opinion’.

Furthermore, the claimants argued that the municipality of The Hague lacked the legal competence to adopt the ad ban in order to combat climate change. According to the claimants, the municipality did not sufficiently motivate as to how a local fossil fuel ad ban effectively addresses climate change and contributes to the protection of public health within the municipal boundaries of The Hague. Moreover, such a broad public interest cannot be considered to be part of observing the local interest.

The claimants also argued that banning fossil fuel ads would be incompatible with EU internal market law – particularly, the prohibition on imposing qualitative restrictions and the freedom of entrepreneurship. Moreover, the ad ban would also be incompatible with the Unfair Consumer Trading Practices Directive because the Directive’s level of protection is subject to maximum harmonization. 

As a final point, the claimants argued that the ad ban was incompatible with Dutch General Principles of Good Public Administration, e.g. the principles of equality, lex certa, due care and substantive motivation, and proportionality. With regard to, specifically, the proportionality principle (which must also be assessed within the context of legitimately restricting the freedom of speech and EU internal market law), it was argued that a local adopted fossil fuels ad ban would not be appropriate to achieve reduction of climate change and protecting the local environment and public health. It would also be counterproductive as the concerned ad ban will not directly affect consumer behavior and could favor foreign competitors, which would be discriminatory. Finally, the claimants argued that a fossil fuel ads ban would be incompatible with the principle of equal treatment because it did not prohibit advertisements of other products or services that also contribute to climate change.

Judgment

Contrary to the arguments of the claimants, the preliminary relief court of first instance of The Hague ruled that the municipality of The Hague was allowed to ban fossil fuels advertising, such as, among other things, air and cruise travel ads. 

According to the court, the municipality held a legitimate interest in banning fossil fuel advertising, considering the consequences caused by (anthropogenic) hazardous climate change. Particularly, as the municipality has the legitimacy to adopt measures that protect the public interest within its municipal borders. Moreover, the municipality has sufficiently substantiated that the advertising ban would contribute to protecting the health of residents and visitors to The Hague and reducing the negative effects of climate change on its residents and visitors. Interestingly, the court stated that the mere fact that the Municipality's contribution to addressing climate change is small in national and global terms does not detract from the fact that small steps to reduce CO2 emissions (seen in combination with other environmental measures) also benefit the residents of The Hague. 

The court also ruled that the ad ban did not constitute an unlawful breach to the ‘freedom of opinion’. In that regard, the court did not considered advertisements promoting discounted air travels to be ‘noncommercial’ in nature (unlike, for example, election posters). According to the court, the advertisements are ‘clearly intended to sell holiday trips (at a profit), thereby serving a commercial rather than a noncommercial purpose’. 

Furthermore, the court ruled that the fossil fuels ad ban did not entail a qualitative restriction under EU internal market law, nor did it discriminate between national and international air travel services. The fossil advertising ban is also not in breach with the EU’s Unfair Consumer Trading Practices Directive as the ad ban is not about protecting the economic interest of consumers but aims to protect citizens from climate change. 

Finally, the court ruled that the fossil advertising ban was not disproportionate as other forms of advertisements on, for instance, radio or social media, where still allowed. Also, the ban does not prohibit other forms of travel, nor does it prohibit the promotion of the names and brands of the complainants.

Wider Relevance – Beyond Local Regulation

Although this judgment, strictly speaking, only concerns a specific local area within the Netherlands, the court’s reasoning and the legal arguments used by the claimants are based on general legal arguments relating to the compatibility with human rights, such as the ‘freedom of opinion’ (which is enshrined within most national legal orders, EU law, and Human Rights treaties), EU internal market law, and general legal principles. 

However, it remains to be seen whether other courts will follow this far-reaching judgment as well as whether the justification for adopting a local (fossil fuels) ad ban does also apply to adopting a national or even EU-wide ad ban.