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 Because the franchisor is no longer active in the area in question, an appeal to the post-competition clause is also not valid, according to the court.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

Duty of care franchisor in the pre-contractual phase

The District Court of Limburg ruled on 6 April 2017, ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2016:2843, that the franchisor has a duty of care towards the prospective franchisee in the pre-contractual phase.

Franchisee avoids joint and several liability in private

In a judgment of 28 March 2018, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2018:2913, the District Court of Rotterdam ruled on the meaning of the clause in the franchise agreement stipulating that

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: , |
Go to Top