Summary
Dutch mining law is in transition. The Mining Act (Mijnbouwwet) forms the basis for the exploration, production and storage of minerals and geothermal heat, but the field now also covers safety, environmental protection, mining damage, damage settlement, decommissioning and new forms of subsurface use. The experience with gas extraction in Groningen has fundamentally affected the legal and social assessment of mining activities.
This article discusses the national and European legal framework, the main institutional actors, the permitting system, supervision and enforcement, civil liability for mining damage and the administrative damage settlement carried out by the Groningen Mining Damage Institute (IMG). It then addresses the phase-out of gas extraction, geothermal energy, CO₂ storage, hydrogen storage and financial security for decommissioning. The central development is that mining law is no longer aimed solely at enabling extraction, but increasingly also at safety, damage recovery, public interests and the energy transition.
1. Introduction: mining law in transition
Since the discovery of the Groningen gas field in 1959, the Netherlands has had a long tradition of gas extraction and, to a lesser extent, onshore and offshore oil production. For a long time, the sector was regarded as a pillar of the national energy supply and public finances. The induced earthquakes in Groningen, and the resulting damage, have fundamentally changed that assessment.
Dutch mining law therefore finds itself at a crossroads. It must regulate existing exploration, production and storage activities, while at the same time making room for safety, damage recovery, environmental protection and the energy transition. Attention is also shifting from the extraction of hydrocarbons to a broader use of the subsurface, including geothermal energy, CO₂ storage and hydrogen storage.
For the practising lawyer, this means that a mining file can rarely be assessed from a single area of law. In addition to the Mining Act, the Environment and Planning Act (Omgevingswet), European legislation, liability law and administrative damage procedures are all relevant. This article brings these elements together in context.
2. The national legal framework
2.1 The structure of the Mining Act
The Mining Act, which entered into force on 1 January 2003, brought the regulation of the exploration, production and storage of minerals and geothermal heat together under a single legal framework. The Act is further elaborated in the Mining Decree (Mijnbouwbesluit) and the Mining Regulation (Mijnbouwregeling), which contain technical, financial and procedural rules.
The core of the system is that mining activities may not take place without public-law authorisation. A licence is required for exploring for and producing minerals under article 6 of the Mining Act. The application is assessed on the basis of, among other things, the technical and financial suitability of the applicant and the intended manner of carrying out the activity. Articles 9a, 11 and 14 of the Mining Act are also relevant here.
This public-law regulation distinguishes mining activities from ordinary forms of land use. The government can impose conditions throughout the entire life cycle of a project: from exploration and production through to storage, closure, decommissioning and aftercare. The use of the surface and the relationship with rights holders are likewise regulated. The duty to tolerate certain mining activities in the subsurface follows from article 10.9 of the Environment and Planning Act (the “toleration duty” for mining). Article 4 of the Mining Act is relevant to the use of the surface and the associated compensation.
2.2 The relationship with the Environment and Planning Act
The Mining Act continues to exist as special legislation alongside the general Environment and Planning Act. Mining activities must nevertheless be assessed in conjunction with general environmental and planning law. Depending on the activity, rules on environmental impact assessment, nature, water, spatial planning and the physical living environment may also be relevant.
The practising lawyer therefore cannot limit the analysis to the mining licence alone. The relationship with environmental plans, water authority interests, nature protection and any environmental impact assessment must also be examined. The Environment and Planning Act also determines which authority exercises the enforcement task under mining law. Article 18.5a of the Environment and Planning Act provides that the tasks and powers relating to mining that rest with the Minister are exercised by the administrative body that is competent for this under Chapter 8 of the Mining Act.
The legal assessment is therefore multi-layered: the Mining Act determines whether, and under what conditions, the mining activity may take place, while environmental and planning law imposes additional requirements on the consequences for the physical living environment.
3. The European framework
Dutch mining law must be applied within the framework of European law. For oil and gas extraction, Directive 94/22/EC, Directive 2013/30/EU and Directive 2009/31/EC are of particular importance.
Directive 94/22/EC concerns the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons. The directive aims to ensure transparent and non-discriminatory access to these activities. The national licensing system must therefore be applied with due regard for transparency, equal treatment and competition.
Directive 2013/30/EU contains additional safety requirements for offshore oil and gas operations. It places emphasis on risk management, the prevention of major accidents, independent supervision and the limitation of environmental damage. As a result, the safety of offshore activities cannot be assessed solely on the basis of technical requirements for the installation itself; the organisation of safety management and the responsibilities of the operator also play a role.
Directive 2009/31/EC applies to the geological storage of CO₂. It regulates, among other things, the selection and characterisation of storage sites, monitoring, corrective measures, closure of the storage site and financial security. National licensing must be read against this background. European rules do not constitute a separate assessment stage alongside national law, but instead inform the interpretation and application of the national mining rules.
4. Institutional actors
4.1 The Minister
The Minister is the central competent authority for various decisions under mining law, including the granting of exploration and production licences, decisions on production plans, and the setting of requirements regarding safety, financial security and decommissioning.
The Minister also decides on approval of production plans and decommissioning plans. These decisions must take into account the relevant safety, environmental and planning interests.
4.2 SodM
State Supervision of Mines (Staatstoezicht op de Mijnen, SodM) supervises compliance with mining regulations and advises the Minister. The statutory task of the Inspector General of Mines is set out in article 127 of the Mining Act.
The supervisory task covers, among other things, safety, health, the environment and the responsible conduct of mining activities. The designation of supervisory officers is regulated in article 131 of the Mining Act. The Inspector General of Mines has the power to impose an administrative enforcement order to enforce obligations under or pursuant to the Mining Act, subject to the exceptions set out in article 132 of that Act.
The supervisory task must be distinguished from the Minister’s decision-making powers. SodM advises and supervises; the Minister grants licences, grants approval and may attach conditions to it. The claim that SodM has an independent power to halt any mining activity is too general unless linked to a specific statutory power.
4.3 The Mining Council, TNO and regional authorities
Various bodies may advise on decisions concerning production plans. The Mining Council (Mijnraad), SodM, the Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research (TNO) and regional authorities each contribute information from their own field of expertise on geology, technology, safety, consequences for the physical living environment and the interests of local residents.
Article 16 of the Mining Act is relevant to the involvement of regional authorities. Their advice does not replace the Minister’s decision, but must be taken into account in preparing and giving reasons for the final decision.
4.4 EBN
EBN (Energie Beheer Nederland) is a state participation company that takes part in the exploration and production of Dutch oil and gas reserves. EBN’s participation is based on a private-law participation structure and must be distinguished from public-law licensing.
This participation results in a division of financial risk between private companies and the State. EBN is therefore not a supervisory authority and not a licensing administrative body. EBN’s civil-law position can nevertheless be relevant to liability. In ECLI:NL:HR:2019:1278, the Supreme Court held that, in its specific relationship with NAM, EBN had to be regarded as an operator within the meaning of article 6:177 of the Dutch Civil Code.
4.5 The IMG
The Groningen Mining Damage Institute (Instituut Mijnbouwschade Groningen, IMG) is responsible for the administrative settlement of certain forms of mining damage in Groningen. The statutory basis for the establishment, independence and tasks of the IMG is article 2 of the Temporary Groningen Mining Damage Act (Tijdelijke wet Groningen, TwG).
5. Licensing and planning
5.1 The exploration licence
The exploration licence gives the holder the right to investigate the presence of minerals within a designated area, for example through seismic surveys and test drilling. The licence is defined by activity, mineral, area and duration.
When assessing the application, technical expertise, financial capacity and the intended manner of execution are all considered. The licence does not automatically confer a right to production. A separate production licence is required for actual production, and a production plan generally also has to be submitted.
5.2 The production licence
The production licence governs the power to produce minerals within a specific area and under specific conditions. It must be distinguished from the production plan: the licence concerns the right to produce, while the production plan describes how production will be carried out and what consequences are expected.
This means that, for actual implementation, the licence holder must not only hold the correct licence but must also satisfy the planning and approval requirements that apply to the specific production activity.
5.3 The production plan
The licence holder must carry out production in accordance with a production plan. The statutory basis for this is article 34 of the Mining Act.
The production plan describes, among other things, the expected quantity of minerals present, the duration and manner of production, annual output, ground movement, and the risks to local residents, buildings and infrastructure. Article 35 of the Mining Act additionally requires a description of measures to prevent damage from ground movement and, where relevant, a risk assessment.
The Minister may wholly or partly refuse approval of the production plan where the activity is unacceptable from a safety or damage-prevention perspective, where the planned management of natural resources requires it, or where adverse effects on the environment or nature would result. These criteria follow from article 36 of the Mining Act. The Minister may also grant approval subject to restrictions or attach conditions to it.
Experience in Groningen has increased attention to safety and the interests of local residents. That attention is given legal effect through the statutory powers to refuse approval or to attach conditions. However, its precise significance must always be determined by reference to the applicable statutory criterion, the specific decision and its reasoning.
Article 30 of the Mining Decree is relevant to the measurement of ground movement. The operator must carry out measurements in accordance with a measurement plan, which requires the Minister’s approval and covers the period of production plus the following thirty years. For the first five years after production ends, an annual update obligation also applies.
5.4 The storage licence
A separate storage regime applies to the underground storage of substances, including natural gas, CO₂ and potentially hydrogen. The storage licence has its own risk profile. The assessment focuses on the suitability and integrity of the storage formation, the safety of wells and installations, monitoring and reporting, measures in the event of leakage, financial security, and obligations after closure of the site.
Article 46 of the Mining Act is relevant to financial security in connection with damage from ground movement. The Minister may require security for liability for damage that is reasonably expected to result from movement of the earth’s surface. This provision applies correspondingly to the exploration for and production of geothermal heat and to the storage of substances.
Specific requirements from the European framework and national implementing regulations additionally apply to CO₂ storage. The available sources do not provide a complete basis for a general statement as to the moment at which liability for stored CO₂ transfers to the State; that question must be assessed against the specific CCS provisions and the particular licensing and closure decision concerned.
For hydrogen storage, the available sources do not establish that the existing storage licensing regime is, without more, fully adequate.
6. Supervision and enforcement
Supervision of mining activities is aimed at compliance with statutory requirements and the conditions attached to licences and plans. SodM plays a central supervisory and advisory role in this respect.
The Mining Act also contains specific preventive obligations. Article 3 of the Mining Decree provides that measures must be taken to prevent damage when carrying out mining activities. Where serious damage is threatened or has occurred, this must be reported immediately to the Inspector General of Mines.
The technical condition of mining installations can also give rise to reporting and remediation obligations. Article 54 of the Mining Decree requires the operator to report immediately where the strength or stability of a mining installation is, or threatens to be, affected. In the case of production installations, appropriate remedial measures must also be taken immediately.
Administrative enforcement must be distinguished from supervision and advice. Article 132 of the Mining Act grants the Inspector General of Mines the power to impose an administrative enforcement order for the obligations listed therein. The specific application of an enforcement instrument must always be linked to the norm that has been breached, the legal basis for the power, and the circumstances of the case.
7. Liability for mining damage
7.1 General strict liability
The Dutch Civil Code contains a special strict liability regime for damage arising from the operation of a mining installation. Article 6:177 of the Civil Code provides that the operator is liable for damage caused by the escape of minerals as a result of a failure to control underground natural forces, and for damage caused by ground movement resulting from the construction or operation of the mining installation.
This liability does not depend on fault. The operator can therefore be liable where damage has been caused by ground movement, even where no culpable conduct is established. The rule applies in principle to mining activities throughout the Netherlands and is not limited to Groningen.
Article 6:177 of the Civil Code also contains rules on the capacity of “operator” and on the provision of information. The operator must, on request, provide information about the operation, the subsurface structure and ground movements where that information is needed to assess whether a defence is well founded. Where there are multiple operators, joint and several liability may apply.
In ECLI:NL:HR:2019:1278, the Supreme Court held that the nature and purpose of this strict liability regime justify a broad attribution of damage. This does not mean that every item of damage automatically falls within article 6:177 of the Civil Code: there must always be a connection between the damage and ground movement resulting from the construction or operation of the mining installation.
7.2 The evidentiary presumption for Groningen
A special evidentiary presumption applies to damage connected with gas extraction from the Groningen field and certain gas storage locations. Article 6:177a of the Civil Code provides that, in the case of physical damage to buildings and structures which, by its nature, could reasonably be damage caused by ground movement resulting from the construction or operation of the mining installation, it is presumed that the damage was caused by that mining installation.
The presumption applies where the damage, by its outward appearance, could reasonably have been caused by ground movement. The injured party therefore does not need to prove full causation at the stage of establishing whether the presumption applies. The geographic scope of the presumption is further regulated in article 10oa of the Temporary Groningen Mining Damage Act Decree (Besluit Tijdelijke wet Groningen).
In ECLI:NL:HR:2019:1278, the Supreme Court held that the operator only successfully rebuts the presumption if it proves, which includes making it sufficiently plausible, that the damage was not caused by the construction or operation of the mining installation. Merely casting doubt on the cause is not sufficient. Where it remains unclear whether the damage was caused by the mining installation, the operator bears the risk of that uncertainty.
7.3 Causation and rebuttal evidence
Mining damage often consists of various damage patterns and can have multiple possible causes. In addition to ground movement, factors such as settlement, foundation problems, construction defects, ageing, deferred maintenance or renovations may play a role. The operator must then do more than simply point to an alternative cause: it must make it sufficiently plausible that this cause produced the damage and that the damage would have occurred even without ground movement.
Recent case law pays particular attention to the distinction between a predictive probability and an explanatory probability. A predictive probability indicates how likely it is that a particular tremor will cause damage; it does not, without more, answer the question of what caused damage that has already been established. The Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal discussed this distinction in detail in ECLI:NL:GHARL:2025:3971 and ECLI:NL:GHARL:2026:295. Where earthquake damage cannot be excluded, alternative causes must be made sufficiently plausible.
The outcome is highly fact-dependent. In ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2020:3553, the district court held the presumption applicable, but ruled, based on an expert report, that it had been rebutted for part of the damage. In ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2024:308, the presumption in respect of damage to outbuildings and manure cellars had not yet been rebutted, and further expert investigation was considered necessary. In ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2025:675, the district court reached a comparable interim outcome regarding damage to a farmhouse.
Opposite outcomes are also possible. In ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2024:1780, the district court considered it sufficiently plausible, following an expert report, that the damage had exclusively structural causes and would have occurred even without earthquakes; the presumption was thereby rebutted. These rulings show that the outcome depends on the nature of the damage, the quality of the expert reports, the available information on the condition of the building, and the plausibility of alternative causes.
7.4 Diminished value, loss of enjoyment of living and non-material damage
In ECLI:NL:HR:2019:1278, the Supreme Court held that a reduction in value resulting from the risk of future ground movement can constitute damage, but that its extent can only be assessed once a geophysically sufficiently stable situation has been reached. An advance payment remains possible where it is sufficiently plausible that damage will ultimately be suffered. In ECLI:NL:GHARL:2024:3857, this principle was applied to claims for compensation for diminished value.
Loss of enjoyment of living can constitute pecuniary damage. In ECLI:NL:HR:2019:1278, the Supreme Court held that such damage must be estimated where the facts show that enjoyment of living has been lost but its exact extent cannot be precisely determined. In ECLI:NL:HR:2021:1534, it was clarified that physical damage to a home can raise the level of nuisance and inconvenience above the required threshold; the court must assess the nature, seriousness and duration of the nuisance.
A separate standard applies to non-material damage. Article 6:95 of the Civil Code provides that statutory damages consist of pecuniary loss and other harm, insofar as the law grants a right to compensation for it. The assessment of non-material damage in mining damage cases is made by reference to article 6:106 of the Civil Code. In ECLI:NL:HR:2019:1278, the Supreme Court emphasised that mere residence in the earthquake area, together with a personal statement, is not automatically sufficient. In ECLI:NL:HR:2021:1534, it was accepted that, in the case of repeated physical damage to a home, an infringement of personal interests may be assumed where the adverse consequences are sufficiently evident.
8. Damage settlement by the IMG
8.1 Task and position
The IMG is an independent administrative body that decides on applications for compensation for certain forms of mining damage independently of the operator. Article 2 TwG provides that the IMG exercises its tasks and powers independently. The IMG may process applications, determine entitlement to and the amount of compensation, and, where the applicant so wishes and the damage is suitable for it, carry out remedial measures in kind.
The IMG does not have jurisdiction over every damage claim. Article 2 TwG contains exceptions, among others, for damage that is already the subject of ongoing civil proceedings or on which the civil courts have already ruled. The relationship between the administrative IMG route and civil proceedings must therefore be assessed on a claim-by-claim basis.
8.2 Application and processing
Under the Procedure and Working Method of the Groningen Mining Damage Institute 2022, an application is submitted electronically. The application includes, among other things, a description of the damage, an indication of the cause, information about the building and, where applicable, a statement that the claim against the operator is being transferred to the State.
The IMG confirms receipt and informs the applicant of the procedure and the expected decision period. In the case of an incomplete application, the IMG may request supplementation, generally allowing the applicant two weeks to do so. If the application does not contain sufficient information, the IMG may decide not to process it.
Under article 10 TwG, the IMG’s procedure and working method must have generous damage settlement as a guiding principle. Decision periods are set out in article 13 TwG. In principle, the IMG decides within eight weeks where no expert investigation is needed, and within twelve weeks of receiving expert advice where an expert has been engaged.
In the case of physical damage, the IMG may appoint an expert, who investigates the nature and extent of the damage, the applicability of the evidentiary presumption, the method and extent of compensation, and any reasons not to compensate the damage, or to compensate it only in part. The applicant is given the opportunity to comment on the expert’s advice, and, where necessary, the IMG may request further advice or a second opinion.
The scheme also contains a specific provision on repeated, mutually contradictory alternative causes: the evidentiary presumption is not considered rebutted where successive expert opinions each identify a different exclusive cause, save where new scientific insights justify a different conclusion.
The IMG compensates damage in principle by awarding a sum of money. Under certain conditions, damage may also be compensated in kind, in which case the applicant can choose between repair by a contractor engaged by the IMG or repair by their own contractor.
8.3 Acutely unsafe situations
An acutely unsafe situation calls for a separate, expedited approach. Anyone may report such a situation. It is described as a situation in which the structural condition of a building or structure poses an acute danger to the health or safety of persons.
Following a report, the IMG contacts the person entitled as soon as possible and, in principle, inspects the situation within 48 hours, engaging an independent expert in doing so. Where it turns out that there is no acutely unsafe situation, the IMG communicates this with reasons. Where such a situation does exist, the necessary measures are discussed and the damage procedure is dealt with as a priority.
9. Phasing out gas extraction and the small fields policy
The termination of gas extraction from the Groningen field has had a lasting effect on mining policy more broadly. Since then, the assessment of gas extraction covers not only whether production is technically and economically possible, but also the consequences for safety, the environment and public interests.
A licensing system continues to exist for small fields outside Groningen. There is a visible trend towards giving greater weight to the interests of local residents and to the compatibility of production with energy and climate objectives. The precise legal significance of this depends on the applicable legislation, policy rules and the specific decision concerned.
For licence holders, this development means that existing production plans and any intended continuation of production must be carefully justified. Expected ground movement, safety risks, environmental consequences and effects on the surrounding area must be made transparent. The assessment remains tied to the statutory criteria in articles 35 and 36 of the Mining Act.
10. New uses of the subsurface
10.1 Geothermal energy
Geothermal energy falls within the scope of mining law. The activity has a different technical and economic profile from oil and gas extraction, but likewise involves risks that make licensing and supervision necessary.
In geothermal projects, the integrity of wells, the suitability of the subsurface, the management of pressure and temperature, and possible induced seismicity are all relevant. Monitoring, financial security and decommissioning must also be factored into the licensing strategy from the outset. Article 46 of the Mining Act declares the financial security regime for damage from ground movement correspondingly applicable to the exploration for and production of geothermal heat.
The legal assessment of a geothermal project cannot simply be based on the principles applicable to hydrocarbon extraction. The specific characteristics of the activity determine which risks must be examined and which requirements are needed.
10.2 Underground CO₂ storage
Underground storage of CO₂ in depleted gas fields falls within the scope of mining law and the European rules on geological storage. The main legal points of attention are the selection and characterisation of the storage site, monitoring of the storage complex, measures in the event of leakage, financial security, closure of the site and responsibilities after closure.
Article 46 of the Mining Act is relevant to financial security. Article 29j of the Mining Decree is additionally relevant to permanent CO₂ injection. The precise rules on the transfer of responsibility or liability must be linked to the applicable CCS provisions and to the specific closure and monitoring regime concerned.
10.3 Hydrogen storage
Hydrogen storage in underground salt caverns is gaining importance within the energy transition. The activity has links to existing rules on storage, safety, monitoring and mining installations, but the technical properties of hydrogen raise their own points of attention.
Relevant considerations include the integrity of the cavern, pressure and safety risks, leakage, monitoring, remedial measures, liability and decommissioning. The available sources do not establish that the existing storage licensing regime is fully adequate without further adaptation. The applicability of the existing framework must therefore be assessed on a project-by-project basis.
11. Decommissioning, closure and financial security
11.1 Removal and closure
Once mining activity ends, obligations arise regarding closure, removal and, where relevant, aftercare. The licence holder must report within four weeks that a mining installation has been taken out of operation. The installation must then be removed, and a decommissioning plan must be submitted within one year. These obligations follow from article 44 of the Mining Act.
The decommissioning plan requires the Minister’s approval. Approval may be granted subject to restrictions, and conditions may be attached to it, under article 44a of the Mining Act. Where reuse or joint removal is efficient, the Minister may grant a temporary exemption from the obligation to submit a decommissioning plan or to remove the installation immediately. This is regulated in article 44b of the Mining Act.
The licence holder must then remove the mining installation in accordance with the approved decommissioning plan and the conditions attached to it. A report on the removal must be submitted once it has been carried out. These obligations follow from article 44c of the Mining Act.
An application for approval of a decommissioning plan must describe the location and function of the installation, the removal method, the costs, the condition in which the underground part will be left, the disposal of materials, measures to prevent water pollution, and any intended reuse. This follows from article 62 of the Mining Decree.
11.2 Financial security
The Minister may require financial security for the costs of removing a mining installation. The basis for this is article 47 of the Mining Act. Security must be provided from a date set by the Minister, for an amount determined by the Minister, and in a manner the Minister considers adequate. Compliance can be enforced by means of a periodic penalty payment.
A separate scheme applies to cables and pipelines. Article 48 of the Mining Act allows security to be required for leaving them in a clean and safe condition, or for their removal.
Financial security is intended to prevent the costs of decommissioning and aftercare from ultimately being passed on to the community where the licence holder is no longer able to meet its obligations. In assessing the required security, the applicable scheme and the specific decision concerned must always be decisive; general claims about the financial position of parent companies must be linked to that framework and substantiated in further detail.
12. Human rights considerations
The human rights dimension of mining law is not relevant to every licensing or damage case, but can become important in cases of serious damage to property, prolonged restrictions on the use of property, and inadequate legal protection.
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) protects existing possessions and, under certain conditions, also proprietary rights in respect of which a legitimate expectation exists. Environmental damage can destroy, damage or reduce the value of property. The State can bear responsibility for this where the adverse consequences result from an environmentally harmful activity of a public undertaking, or from a failure by the State to fulfil its obligation to protect property.
Environmental protection is a legitimate public interest, but the protection of property also requires procedural safeguards. Disputes over property and compensation must be capable of genuine and fair examination by the national courts. This is connected to the relevance of an effective damage procedure and properly reasoned decisions.
In ECLI:CE:ECHR:2026:0602JUD001844023, the European Court of Human Rights emphasised that, when relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, it must be examined whether a fair balance exists between the general interest and the right to property, including whether the person concerned bears a disproportionate burden as a result of an act or omission by the State. This ruling provides a general proportionality framework but contains no specific assessment of Dutch mining law.
In ECLI:CE:ECHR:2026:0716JUD002009218, the Court distinguishes the three rules under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, deprivation of possessions, and control of the use of property. This framework can assist in characterising a mining-related interference with property before proportionality and compensation are assessed.
Article 6 ECHR can apply to civil proceedings concerning damages. For mining damage, this means that not only the content of the compensation scheme is relevant, but also practical access to an independent and effective judicial assessment.
These ECHR sources do not provide an independent Dutch ground of liability for mining damage. They can, however, provide guidance in assessing proportionality, the protection of property and procedural legal protection.
13. Practical points of attention
When assessing a mining file, the following questions are of particular importance:
- What activity is being carried out: exploration, production, storage, geothermal energy or another subsurface use?
- Which licence under mining law is required?
- Is an environmental and planning permit, nature permit or environmental impact assessment also required?
- Is a production plan, storage plan, measurement plan or decommissioning plan required?
- Which authority takes the decision, and which authorities provide advice?
- Which safety, monitoring and reporting obligations apply?
- What financial security must be provided?
- What strict liability regime applies in the event of damage?
- Does the damage fall within the jurisdiction of the IMG?
- Which administrative or civil law remedy is available?
- Which obligations continue to apply after the activity has ended?
- Is the relevant legislation, policy and case law up to date?
In damage cases, the following distinctions must also be made. First, it must be established whether there is physical damage that, by its nature, falls within the evidentiary presumption of article 6:177a of the Civil Code. It must then be assessed whether the operator has sufficiently rebutted the presumption. In that respect, a general reference to an alternative cause, or a low predictive probability, is insufficient where it is not made clear why that alternative cause actually explains the damage.
14. Conclusion
Dutch mining law has developed from a framework primarily aimed at enabling extraction into a broader regulatory system in which safety, damage recovery, environmental protection, public interests and the energy transition converge.
The Mining Act remains the core of the national system. The licensing requirement, the production plan, the storage regime, supervision, decommissioning and financial security are all interconnected. At the same time, the Mining Act must be applied in conjunction with the Environment and Planning Act and European law.
For mining damage, the distinction between civil-law strict liability and administrative damage settlement by the IMG is essential. Article 6:177 of the Civil Code provides the general basis for strict liability; article 6:177a of the Civil Code contains the special evidentiary presumption for damage connected with the Groningen field and the gas storage locations named therein. Its application depends on the nature of the damage, the location and the available evidence.
The case law shows that the evidentiary assessment is highly fact-specific. An expert report must not merely identify an alternative cause, but must also make sufficiently clear why the damage was not caused, or aggravated, by ground movement. Particularly in cases of composite damage, settlement damage and buildings with structural peculiarities, further expert investigation is regularly necessary.
Legal attention is also shifting towards the phase after production ends and towards new uses of the subsurface. For geothermal energy, CO₂ storage and hydrogen storage, licensing, safety, monitoring, liability and financial security are decisive factors.
Frequently asked questions
What exactly does the Mining Act regulate?
The Mining Act (Mijnbouwwet) regulates the exploration, extraction and storage of minerals, geothermal heat and other substances in the Dutch subsurface. The Act sets out the conditions under which a permit is granted, the obligations that apply during operations, and the rules that apply upon closure and decommissioning.
Who is liable for mining damage?
Under Article 6:177 of the Dutch Civil Code, the operator of the mining installation bears strict, risk-based liability for damage caused by ground movement resulting from the construction or operation of the mining installation. This liability applies throughout the Netherlands and does not depend on fault.
Does the evidentiary presumption only apply in Groningen?
The special evidentiary presumption under Article 6:177a of the Dutch Civil Code is linked to damage connected with the Groningen field and the gas storage locations named therein. Its geographical scope is further defined in the Temporary Groningen Mining Damage Decree (Besluit Tijdelijke wet Groningen).
What role does the IMG play in damage claims?
The Groningen Mining Damage Institute (Instituut Mijnbouwschade Groningen, IMG) is an independent administrative body that decides independently on claims for compensation for certain types of mining damage in Groningen. The IMG can compensate damage in money or in kind and handles claims according to a fixed procedure with statutory decision deadlines.
Which permits are required for mining activities?
Depending on the activity, an exploration permit, production permit or storage permit is required, often combined with a production plan or storage plan. In addition, environmental planning approvals may be needed, such as a nature permit or an environmental impact assessment.
What does the energy transition mean for mining law?
As a result of the energy transition, mining law is increasingly confronted with new uses of the subsurface, such as geothermal energy, CO₂ storage and hydrogen storage. These applications fall under the existing mining law framework but often require their own risk assessment in terms of safety, monitoring and financial security.
