Supermarket location due to exceeding the decision period by the municipality
In a dispute with the municipality of Helmond, the issue is whether a project developer has obtained an environmental permit to build a supermarket. Jumbo, among others, opposes this. The Council of State rules that an environmental permit has been created by operation of law due to the municipality of Helmond exceeding the decision period. See RvSt 5 June 2024, ECLI:NL:RVS:2024:2336.
Merwehave BV is the owner of a project location. On July 8, 2021, she applied for an environmental permit from the municipality to realize a supermarket at the project location. The municipality did not respond to this within the decision period, as a result of which an environmental permit was granted by operation of law. However, the municipality refused to acknowledge that a permit had been granted by operation of law. Merwehave BV did not agree with this and subsequently went to court, which agreed with Merwehave BV. The environmental permit was therefore granted.
Jumbo, among others, disagreed with the court’s decision. They believe that a supermarket should not be built at the project location because it would not be in accordance with the zoning plan. Jumbo has already established Jumbo supermarkets in the area. In order to still qualify for an environmental permit, according to Jumbo, a regular preparation procedure would not have been sufficient. However, on appeal it is ruled that the environmental permit was indeed rightly granted, as the court previously ruled.
The foregoing means that the environmental permit must be issued. This does not end the dispute. Objections were again raised against the granting of the environmental permit and the municipality has decided to withdraw the environmental permit (on other grounds). The legal marriage process will continue for a while.
Ludwig & Van Dam lawyers, franchise legal advice.
Do you want to respond? Then email to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
On the edge of a franchisee’s exclusive territory
The Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden ruled on 15 May 2018, ECLI:NL:GHARL:2018:4395, on the question whether a franchisor has a branch just over the edge of the exclusively granted protection area.
Can a franchisee cohabit with a competing entrepreneur?
Can a franchisee violate a non-compete clause by cohabiting with someone who runs a competing business? On January 12, 2018, the District Court of Central Netherlands ruled
Not an exclusive catchment area, but still exclusivity for the franchisee
The judgment of the District Court of Noord-Holland dated 18 April 2018, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2018:3268, ruled on the exclusivity area of a franchisee.
Supermarket letter – 23
AH may not reduce wages when taking over personnel from AH franchisees;
Termination or dissolution of the franchise agreement by the franchisee
In principle, franchise agreements can be terminated prematurely, for example by cancellation or dissolution. On 21 March 2018, the District Court of Overijssel ruled on ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2018:1335 on
Article in Entrance: “Sending mailings”
“Can I make a file of guests' email addresses because I occasionally want to inform them online about events, promotions and new dishes?”