Dutch court rules against bottom trawling in the Dogger Bank – What this means for the lawsuit against the German Government

Meret Grabenhorst & Emma Crasnier

---

Key words: Bottom Trawling, Ocean Governance, Habitats Directive

A landmark victory for Ocean conservation

On May 11th, 2026, ClientEarth, Blue Marine Foundation, Stichting Doggerland and Stichting ARK secured a landmark victory for Ocean conservation: the District Court of The Hague ruled that bottom trawling conducted by vessels flying the Dutch flag in the Dutch part of the Dogger Bank – a EU-Natura-2000 protected site – is unlawful. This is the first court ruling of its kind in Europe, and we have strong reasons to hope it will not be the last. 

In January 2024, Ocean Vision Legal, representing BUND and Seas at Risk, was the first Ocean protection organisation initiating proceedings challenging the legality of bottom trawling in European marine protected areas (Natura 2000 sites), namely the Doggerbank.  to the Dutch lawsuit, we argue that the German government’s current practice of allowing bottom trawling in the German part of the Dogger Bank violates applicable law.

We argue that the German government’s current practice of allowing bottom trawling in the German part of the Dogger Bank violates applicable law.

Why the District Court of The Hague's judgment is relevant for the German lawsuit

The reasoning of the District Court of The Hague aligns closely with many of the arguments we advanced against the German Federal Agency for Agriculture and Food (Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung, “BLE”). Among other things, the Court held that:

• The EU Habitats Directive applies to Natura-2000 sites in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), such as the Dogger Bank. Under Art. 6 (3) Habitats Directive, any project likely to have significant effects on the protected site must undergo an appropriate assessment, prior to the issuance of a license. 

• Categorically exempting fishing activities that fall under the CFP from carrying out an impact assessment is unlawful. Although the Dutch judgment referred to the Dutch “Living Environment Decree” (Ball), the same reasoning can be applied to the German § 4 (3) Nr. 1 NSGDgbVO, which similarly exempts commercial sea fishing from the requirement of a prior appropriate environmental assessment. In line with the Hague District Court’s reasoning, we are therefore convinced that § 4 (3) Nr. 1 NSGDgbVO is void. Bottom trawling is not automatically authorised under the CFP. Rather, it requires a fishing permit that complies with the requirements of the Habitats Directive, including the obligation to conduct an appropriate assessment.

• The Habitats Directive can require its member states to adopt measures for the protection of Natura 2000 sites that go further than those taken for the purposes of nature conservation under the CFP. Article 11(1) CFP expressly refers to the application of Art. 6 (3) of the Habitats Directive, meaning that activities under the CFP must still respect the Habitats Directive, including the prerequisite of conducting impact assessment.This supports our argument that Member States not only have the competence, but also the obligation, to conduct appropriate impact assessment and restrict  bottom trawling in Natura-2000 by vessels flying their own flag within Natura 2000 sites.

• Measures such as the Technical Measures Regulation (EU 2019/1241) and the new Delegated Regulation 2025/2191 do not remove the obligation to comply with the Habitats Directive nor do they limit the power of Member States to adopt additional measures underArt. 11 (1) CFP. Also in the German Dogger Bank lawsuit, the German Federal Agency has argued that measures have already been taken at European level  that sufficiently included the interests of nature conservation. The Dutch judgment rejects that line of reasoning, making it likely that also the German lawsuit will follow a similar line.

• The alleged damage to the financial and economic interests of the fishing sector does not constitute a special circumstance that would render enforcement disproportionate. This is also highly relevant to the German proceedings, in which the  Government argues that restricting bottom trawling only for German fishing vessels would disproportionately disadvantage the German fishers. 

Protected means protected

Bottom trawling involves dragging large, weighted nets across the seabed to catch species living near the seafloor, such as cod, hake, shrimp and octopus. This method causes severe habitat destruction and undermines the ocean’s crucial role as a carbon sink. It also results in substantial amounts of unintended by-catch. In the Dogger Bank, bottom trawling has already caused widespread destruction of marine life, including sharks, rays, long-lived shellfish, sea pens, anemones and corals.

We celebrate the victory achieved by ClientEarth, Blue Marine Foundation, Stichting Doggerland and Stichting ARK. This judgement sets a powerful precedent for governments across Europe and sends a clear message: protected must mean protected. 

Stay tuned for the developments in the German lawsuit.