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

Post non-competition ban without a signed franchise agreement

Is a franchisee bound by a post-competition ban without a ...

No franchise agreement, but membership of a cooperative

In certain cases, agreements made in a franchise agreement may ...

Go to Top