Didam II ruling: Stibbe represents an Albert Heijn franchisee at the Supreme Court.
Stibbe represented an Albert Heijn franchisee in proceedings against the municipality of Montferland concerning the private sale of the old town hall site in the centre of Didam to a competitor of the franchisee. In the Didam I-ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that governments must follow a transparent selection procedure when selling real estate, unless it is established in advance that there is only one serious candidate ('Didam rules'). The case was subsequently remanded so that the court of fact could assess whether the municipality of Montferland had violated these rules.
In the subsequent proceedings before the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal, it was determined that the private sale was unlawful, and the court annulled the purchase agreement. In cassation, the Montferland municipality argued that the Didam rules did not apply at the time of the private sale, among other things. However, this argument was rejected by the Supreme Court in the Didam II-ruling. Consequently, the violation of the Didam rules was confirmed.
However, the Supreme Court simultaneously ruled that this violation does not automatically affect the purchase agreement. Therefore, the purchase agreement remains valid in principle, but aggrieved parties can stop delivery and/or claim damages. This ruling is particularly relevant for governments, as it provides further clarity on (the scope of) the Didam rules and how to comply with them in practice.
