Success Albert Heijn franchisee against takeover Deen – mr. AW Dolphijn – dated July 29, 2021

An Albert Heijn franchisee has successfully defended itself against the takeover of local competitor Deen by the franchisor.

Albert Heijn, Vomar Voordeelmarkt and DekaMarkt were allowed to take over 80 Danish supermarkets from ACM. The Deen supermarkets were divided between the three supermarket chains. A franchisee saw that the Deen supermarket in the vicinity would be converted into Albert Heijn with that division. That would mean that the franchisee would get a local competitor with the same formula in the form of an Albert Heijn branch. Despite the short deadlines, the franchisee submitted a timely and motivated opinion to ACM. ACM then ruled that consumers in the local market area had too little choice in the variety of supermarkets. As a result, the local Deen supermarket will not be converted into an Albert Heijn supermarket, but converted into Vomar Voordeelmarkt.

Franchisees can indeed successfully challenge competition from their own franchisor. Attention to these issues can lead to better protection of one’s own market area.

The decision has been published by ACM under case number: ACM/21/050672 / Document no. ACM/OUT/558116.

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

Other messages

Damage estimate after wrongful termination of the franchise agreement by the franchisor

In a judgment of the Supreme Court of 15 September 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:2372 (Franchisee/Coop), it was discussed that supermarket organization Coop had not complied with agreements, as a result of which the franchisee

Franchisor is obliged to extend the franchise agreement

On 6 September 2017, the Rotterdam District Court ruled, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:6975 (Misty / Bram Ladage), that the refusal to extend a franchise agreement by a franchisor

The (in)validity of a post-contractual non-competition clause in a franchise agreement: analogy with employment law?

On 5 September 2017, the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:4565, rendered a judgment on, among other things, the question of whether Bruna, as a franchisor, could invoke the prohibition for a

Column Franchise+ – mr. J Sterk: “Court orders fast food chain to extend franchise agreement

The case is set to begin this year. For years, the franchisee has been refusing to sign the new franchise agreement that was offered with renewal, as it would lead to a deterioration of his legal position

By Jeroen Sterk|01-09-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

Not a valid non-compete clause for franchisee

On 18 November 2016, the interim relief judge of the Central Netherlands District Court, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2016:7754, rendered a judgment in the issue concerning whether the franchisee was held

Franchise & Law No. 5 – Acquisition Fraud and Franchising Act

The Acquisition Fraud Act came into effect on 1 July 2016. This includes amendments to Section 6:194 of the Dutch Civil Code.

By Ludwig en van Dam|10-08-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Forecasting issues, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , , |
Go to Top