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
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
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.