In the judgment of 26 March 2024, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2024:1035, the Court of Appeal in ‘s-Hertogenbosch annulled a court judgment and ruled that a franchisor was not entitled to rely on a post-competition clause.

A franchisor rents a retail space to a franchisee. The franchisee terminated the lease and franchise agreement. The franchisor in turn rented the retail space from someone else, but the franchisee had also terminated that lease agreement. After the lease and franchise agreement expired, the franchisee continued the business activities under its own name within a walking distance of less than 100 meters. However, the franchise agreement contains a post-competition clause that provides for a prohibition on carrying out competitive activities in an area with a radius of 2 kilometers around the location or any other company of the franchisor.

The geographical description of the post-competition ban implies that it concerns the specific location of the franchisor where the franchisor could establish its business. Now that the location is no longer a location of the franchisor, the franchisor cannot now enforce the non-competition clause against the former franchisee. The court therefore ruled that there was no violation of the non-competition clause.

Article 7:920 paragraph 2 of the Dutch Civil Code stipulates, among other things, that the geographical scope may not be wider than the area within which the franchisee has operated the franchise formula on the basis of the franchise agreement in question. The court seems to be of the opinion that the text of the post-competition clause itself limits the operation of the post-competition clause to only the area where the franchisor is actually active. Because the franchisor is no longer active in the area in question, an appeal to the post-competition clause is also not valid, according to the court.

mr. A.W. Dolphijn
Ludwig & Van Dam lawyers, franchise legal advice.
Do you want to respond? Then email to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl

Other messages

When does a franchisor go too far when recruiting franchisees?

The judgment of the Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden on 5 February 2019 dealt with whether the franchisor had acted impermissibly when recruiting the franchisees.

Advisory Board on Regulatory Pressure (ATR) advises State Secretary Keijzer about the Franchise Act

In short, it is first advised to actively inform franchisors and franchisees about this amendment to the law.

Post non-competition ban on services and sales franchise

When a franchise agreement ends, many franchisees encounter a prohibition in the franchise agreement to perform similar work for a period of time thereafter

The concept of the Franchise Act: impact for franchisors and franchisees – dated February 5, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin

Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten believes that if the draft of the Franchise Act actually becomes law, a lot will change for franchisors and franchisees.

Buy franchise business and the laid off sick employee from 7 years ago

The question is whether a Bruna franchisee, when selling the franchise company to Bruna, should have stated that seven years ago an employee had left employment sick.

Court prohibits Domino’s unilateral area reduction when extending franchise agreements – dated January 28, 2019 – mr. RCWL Albers

On January 9, 2019, the District Court of Rotterdam rendered a judgment in a lawsuit initiated by the Association of Domino's Pizza Franchisees and all its members (almost all Domino's franchisees).

By Remy Albers|28-01-2019|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |
Go to Top