Homeowners' Association Loses Preliminary Injunction Case Against Restaurant Over Charcoal Grill

The VvE of one of the Symphony towers in Amsterdam's Zuidas district, has a summary proceedings lost a case against the owner of a Spanish grill restaurant on the lower floor of the tower. This is evident from a ruling published yesterday (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2026:7511). The owner of the apartment where La Mesa restaurant is located and its operator were sued by the homeowners' association subpoenaed. The condition was that the restaurant would stop using the grill.

Unacceptable fire hazard or normal use of cooking appliances?

In support of its case, the homeowners’ association argued that there is a nuisance and a fire hazard because there is allegedly “open fire made of logs”. According to the judge, however, that is a gross exaggeration. There was no evidence of a fire hazard or nuisance. Furthermore, the intended use of the apartment ‘hospitality industry,’ and that involves the use of cooking equipment.

Open-flame and fireplace installations prohibited in homeowners' associations

In the proceedings, the homeowners' association is relying on a provision in the bylaws that states that the owners and occupants of the building “Do not install any open-flame or fireplace systems”. By using the charcoal grill, the Spanish grill restaurant would be violating that ban. According to the homeowners’ association, it would have a particular interest in enforcing the ban, because the association’s property insurer intends to review the policy. The insurer has written to the association as follows:

“Of course, this has implications for the insurance policy. The use of open flames or fireplace installations poses an increased fire risk and is unacceptable.”

Homeowners' Association Exaggerates Its Position in Lawsuit Against Member

What the homeowners' association fails to mention, however, is that the insurer has taken this position because it was the homeowners' association itself that claimed there would be “open fire”, whereas in fact that is not the case at all. There are glowing and smoldering coals. The insurer’s position is therefore not based on objective facts, but on (incorrect) statements made by the homeowners’ association itself.

Nuisance Caused by Charcoal Grill Not Proven

The homeowners' association also failed to provide sufficient evidence provided evidence. Of the 82 residents living above the restaurant, only one has filed a complaint. Furthermore, the president of the homeowners‘ association stated at the hearing that the parties ’will work it out among themselves.”.

Homeowners' Association's Claims Dismissed in Summary Proceedings

In the court’s view, the balancing of interests also tips in La Mesa’s favor. La Mesa has indicated that it complies with safety regulations and has demonstrated that removing the grill would impact its concept: that would then have to be completely overhauled. This does not outweigh the alleged interests of the homeowners’ association (and the residents), which has failed to substantiate its claims regarding fire safety. The homeowners’ association’s claim is therefore dismissed, and the homeowners’ association must pay the legal costs pay the operator and the owner.