Court lifts Albert Heijn's freeze on Doesburg construction land sale to DekaMarkt
A legal dispute over prime construction land in Doesburg has ended, allowing the municipality to proceed with selling the site to DekaMarkt. The court ruled Albert Heijn’s claim to the land was unfounded, lifting its freeze and clearing the way for development.
| Key Fact | Details |
|---|---|
| Location | Beinum district, Doesburg, Gelderland |
| Companies Involved | Albert Heijn (local owner), Becedo Vastgoed, DekaMarkt |
| Court Ruling | Attachment lifted; no plausible future right to land for Albert Heijn |
| Legal Basis | Didam ruling (equal opportunities for bidders in government sales) |
| Next Steps | Municipality can proceed with sale to DekaMarkt |
| Court | District Court of Gelderland |
The District Court of Gelderland oversees civil disputes, including cases involving property rights and municipal decisions. In this ruling, it clarified the application of the Didam ruling, ensuring fair competition in government land sales.
Openrijk is free and ad-free
Do you value our work? Help us stay online with a small contribution.
Read the full translated article below
Attachment Albert Heijn Doesburg on construction land lifted
The preliminary relief judge rules that it is not plausible that Albert Heijn in Doesburg has a future right to delivery of construction land. This means that the attachment imposed by Albert Heijn on construction land was unjustified and that the attachment is lifted.
In a previous preliminary relief procedure, the owner of the local Albert Heijn and real estate developer Becedo Vastgoed sought to prevent the municipality of Doesburg from selling construction land in the centre of the Doesburg district of Beinum to the real estate developer of DekaMarkt. The claims were dismissed by the preliminary relief judge in the ruling of December 1, 2025. In that ruling, the judge held that the municipality of Doesburg could regard DekaMarkt as the only serious bidder for the sale of the construction land, so that it was not required to organise a public selection procedure in the sense of the Didam ruling. This ruling states, among other things, that the government must offer equal opportunities to potential bidders when selling real estate, unless it is objectively established that there is only one serious bidder.
Albert Heijn then imposed an attachment on the delivery of the construction land, arguing that it has a future right to delivery of that land. That right would be frustrated if the construction land were sold to DekaMarkt. Albert Heijn subsequently appealed against the preliminary relief ruling.
Attachment unjustified
In this preliminary relief procedure, the question is whether it is plausible that Albert Heijn indeed has a future right to delivery of the construction land. The preliminary relief judge rules that this is not the case, even if the appeal court were to rule that the municipality acted in breach of the Didam rules. This means that the attachment was unjustified. The attachment is therefore lifted. Since a judicial review has already taken place in the previous preliminary relief procedure, the municipality does not have to wait for the outcome of the appeal before proceeding with the planned sale and transfer of the construction land to DekaMarkt.