The municipality must allow temporary Albert Heijn
On 7 February 2019, the District Court of Noord-Holland ruled (ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2019:407) on whether the municipality should allow a temporary Albert Heijn now that the municipality had made commitments, but had not signed a lease. was with the municipality and the municipal policy had meanwhile been changed.
The municipality had already granted a permit to establish a temporary Albert Heijn supermarket. The municipality had also not only expressed a “willingness in principle” to cooperate in the relocation of the Albert Heijn supermarket to a temporary location and even invited it to conclude a lease for the location for the temporary supermarket. The municipality also took the position that, among other things, with the arrival of a “new” (changed in composition) municipal council, a new vision has emerged and that the realization of the temporary Albert Heijn supermarket is undesirable with the new policy insights.
The judge in preliminary relief proceedings ruled that the supermarket entrepreneur could and was entitled to derive a justified expectation that the municipality would also rent out the required location following the granting of an environmental permit. The municipality is ordered to conclude a lease.
mr. AW Dolphin – franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Go to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Which court for a rental and franchise agreement?
Which court is competent to rule on a related rental and franchise agreement?
Interview Franchise+ – mrs. J. Sterk and AW Dolphijn – “Reversal burden of proof in forecasts honored by court”
The new Acquisition Fraud Act indeed appears to be relevant for the franchise industry, according to this article from Franchise+.
Franchisor convicted under the Acquisition Fraud Act
For the first time, a court has ruled, with reference to the Acquisition Fraud Act, that if a franchisee claims that the franchisor has presented an unsatisfactory prognosis
Agreements Related to the Franchise Agreement
On 31 October 2017, the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal issued similar judgments for nineteen franchisees (ECLI:NL:GHARL:2017:9453 through ECLI:NL:GHARL:2017:9472).
Column Franchise+ – mr. J. Sterk – “Franchisee does body check better than franchise check”
A gym embarks on a franchise concept that offers “Body Checks” and discounts to (potential) members in collaboration with health insurers.
Seminar Mrs. J. Sterk and M. Munnik – Thursday, November 2, 2017: “Important legal developments for franchisors”
Attorneys Jeroen Sterk and Maaike Munnik of Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten will update you on the status of and developments surrounding the Dutch Franchise Code and the Acquisition Fraude Act.