Banned for supermarkets
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
Column Franchise + – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Towards strict liability”
The Supreme Court recently ruled in a prognosis issue.
Article in Entrance: “Rentals”
“The landlord increased the prices of the property every year, but he hasn't done this for 2 years, maybe he forgets. Can he still claim an overdue amount later?”
No valid appeal to non-compete clause in franchising
On 28 February 2017, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1469, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland ruled on whether a franchisee could be bound by a non-compete clause.
Structurally unsound revenue forecasts from the franchisor
On 15 March 2017, the District Court of Limburg ruled in eight similar judgments (including ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2017:2344) on the franchise agreements of various franchisees of the P3 franchise formula.
Franchisee obliged to cooperate with formula change?
On 24 March 2017, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:1860, the preliminary relief judge of the Amsterdam District Court once again considered the issue in which Intertoys wishes to convert Bart Smit's stores
Delivery stop by franchisor not allowed
On 9 February 2017, the preliminary relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1372, ruled that a franchisor had not fulfilled its obligation to supply the franchisee