Banned for supermarkets

By Published On: 20-07-2016Categories: Statements & current affairs

Can the landlord of a shopping center prohibit tenants from operating a supermarket in the shopping center for 40 years? Is that also allowed if the landlord is a large supermarket chain that is the only one with a supermarket in the shopping center and therefore only wants to keep competitors out? These questions were addressed by the Court of Appeal in Den Bosch.

In the judgment of 5 July 2016 (ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2016:2698), the Court of Appeal considered whether Jumbo, as the owner of a shopping centre, could have stipulated in the lease that no other supermarket could be operated in the shopping centre. the period from 2003 to 2043. The tenant wants to get rid of that clause and wishes to have a supermarket operated in the shopping center in addition to the existing Jumbo supermarket in the shopping centre.

The tenant invokes competition law. She believes that Jumbo only imposed the ban on another supermarket because it already operated a supermarket in the shopping centre. This means that competitors are kept outside the door of the shopping center and there is therefore a distortion of competition.

The court considers that the question is whether there has been any distortion of competition. An indication that this is not the case follows from the fact that an Aldi is located right next to the shopping centre. An appreciable effect on competition is therefore not demonstrated.

Jumbo’s ban on other supermarkets in the shopping center therefore remains intact. However, if an Aldi had not been located right next to the shopping centre, the outcome of the procedure might have been different.

mr. AW Dolphijn – Franchise lawyer

Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice.

Do you want to respond? Go to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl

Other messages

Incorrect prognosis due to lack of location research

The District Court of The Hague ruled on 21 March 2018, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2018:3348, that a franchisor's forecast was unsound, as a result of which the franchisee had erred and the franchisor

Column Franchise+ – “Disputes about franchise fees”

Lately, it has also hit the biggest franchise organizations in the Netherlands. At the formulas of Albert Heijn, Hema, Etos, Bruna and Olympia, for example, there was and will be a lot

By Alex Dolphijn|09-04-2018|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

Column Franchise+ – “Flashing quarrels about franchise fee must stop”

Lately, it has also hit the biggest franchise organizations in the Netherlands. At the formulas of Albert Heijn, HEMA, Etos, Bruna and Olympia, for example, there was and will be a lot

By Alex Dolphijn|09-04-2018|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

Circumvent post non-compete clause in franchising

On 3 April 2018, the Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden, ECLI:NL:GHARL:2018:3128, overturned an interim injunction of the District Court of Gelderland on competitive activities.

Column Franchise+ – “Prohibition of sales via internet platforms in franchise agreement exempt from cartel prohibition”

At the end of last year, Thuisbezorgd.nl incurred the wrath of many meal delivery companies by announcing another rate increase. The standard rate of Thuisbezorgd.nl thus reached a

By Remy Albers|09-04-2018|Categories: Competition, Statements & current affairs|Tags: |
Go to Top