Recent jurisprudence
Discussion deserves a recent ruling by the Court in preliminary relief proceedings. In short, the issue at issue is as follows. The plaintiff, a general practitioner, sold his general practice, which also includes a pharmacy, to the defendant, in which context an agreement was concluded between the parties on 6 July 2000. This agreement included a non-competition clause which, in short, had the purport that the selling party (the plaintiff) undertook not to engage in any activities as a general practitioner in any form within a circle of 9 kilometers around the general practice for a period of 10 years. anyway, to continue. On October 11, 2002, the defendant, the party to whom the general practice was transferred, died. The heirs in turn entered into an agreement with a third party on the basis of which the practice was transferred to this third party on 1 April 2003 against payment of an amount of € 300,000. The claimant – who had meanwhile returned after being a general practitioner in Australia for two years – has opposed the transfer of the company, which also involved the transfer of the non-competition clause. In short, Plaintiff took the position that the non-competition clause, as he had agreed with W., who has since passed away, cannot be transferred to a third party. The District Court did not share this opinion, as the agreement expressly stated that the plaintiff would comply with the non-competition clause vis-à-vis W or its successors in title. Therefore, according to the District Court, the third party was entitled to the contested non-competition clause.
The claimant also argued that the non-competition clause would be in conflict with Article 6 of the Competition Act, and this part in particular is interesting for the franchise practice. In short, this article stipulates that it is prohibited to enter into an agreement that has the object or effect of preventing, restricting or distorting competition on the Dutch market or part thereof. The claimant was of the opinion that this was the case, now that a reasonable term for a non-competition clause would have been two years, which had more than expired in the meantime. The Court did not share this opinion of the plaintiff either. The Court was of the opinion that in this matter what was important was what the competitive situation would have been like if there had not been a non-competition clause between buyer and seller. The Court was also of the opinion that the transfer of the company would then have been illusory. For example, after he had transferred the practice to W., the claimant could still have used his old clientele and the viability of W.’s new practice had been virtually nil. A non-compete clause in such a situation therefore guarantees the effectiveness of a transfer of a company, the Court held. The Court also considers that although the non-competition clause has now been entered into for a period of 10 years, the scope of the non-competition clause (only 9 kilometers around the general practice) is limited, so that the non-competition clause is not unnecessarily broadly formulated in that context either.
This statement is noteworthy. With regard to the duration of the non-compete clause, the Court rules that a duration of 10 years is not unnecessarily long. The European Commission, as evidenced by its Notice on restrictions directly related to and necessary to the implementation of concentrations (Notice of 4 July 2001), has stated that where there is a transfer of an undertaking involving goodwill but no know-how is transferred a non-compete clause can in principle apply for a maximum period of two years. For reasons of its own, the Court ignores this fact. It therefore depends on subsequent case law as to how this will ultimately be dealt with in practice.
Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice
Other messages
Franchise Act passed by the House of Representatives – dated 16 June 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Franchise Act was adopted by the House of Representatives on 16 June 2020.
Sandd franchisees find satisfaction in nullifying Sandd and PostNL merger – dated 12 June 2020
The franchisees of mail delivery company Sandd went to court in November, assisted by Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten. Court of Rotterdam rules on takeover by PostNL.
Plenary debate dated June 9, 2020 in the Lower House of the Franchise Act – dated June 10, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
On 9 June 2020, the legislative proposal for the Franchise Act was discussed in plenary in the House of Representatives. An amendment and a motion have been tabled.
Franchising is “a bottleneck in tackling healthcare fraud” – dated 10 June 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
According to the various supervisory authorities in the healthcare sector, franchise constructions can be seen as a non-transparent business construction in which the supervision of professional and
Article Franchiseplus: “Franchisors participate in franchisees” – dated June 3, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
Franchisors are increasingly participating in the franchisee's business. There are several benefits for both the franchisee and the franchisor.
Article The National Franchise Guide – “Corona discount on rent” – dated June 2, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
If a rental property is obliged to be closed due to corona, there may be a right to a rent reduction, according to the Northern Netherlands court.