In the middle of last year, the District Court of The Hague (ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2024:12605<\/a>) ruled that the reception of refugees is equivalent to operating a hotel. The tenant who first operated a hotel in the building, but then gave it in use to the COA<\/a> (the Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers), thus did not act in violation of the zoning from the rental agreement<\/a>. Is that judgment of the subdistrict court judge justified, or is this possibly a (to some extent) politically colored judgment? Rental law attorney<\/a> Robert van Ewijk<\/a> discusses the verdict.<\/p>\n The dispute was between the owner of the building (Stichting Vastgoed Beheer Nederland, SVBN) and Fletcher, a major Dutch hotel operator. Fletcher rents from SVBN the building at 108 Laan van Meerdervoort in The Hague. The building, also known as the Fletcher Stadshotel Den Haag, houses 47 bedrooms, a bar and a restaurant. The lease states that the building is intended to be used as a \u201chotel \/ cafe \/ restaurant\u201d<\/em>. Furthermore, the lease agreement states that without SVBN's permission, Fletcher may not put the building to any other use. In addition, the lease agreement states that Fletcher will \u2018keep the lot open for the purpose of hotel operation.<\/p>\n In May 2023, the municipality of The Hague gave permission to COA to accommodate about 100 status holders in the Fletcher Stadshotel. Only so-called after emigrants will be accommodated. The AZCs are full, so it is not possible for after emigrants to stay with their partner or family in the AZC. The Fletcher Stadshotel is therefore used as an emergency shelter. Fletcher then rented all the rooms to COA at the usual rates.<\/p>\n The building owner does not see that. It believes the use as an emergency shelter location violates the zoning contained in the lease. That means Fletcher is in breach of it. Moreover, the building's insurer has informed SVBN that the use as an emergency shelter location, constitutes a change in risk and therefore the policy will be terminated immediately. Admittedly, SVBN managed to insure the building elsewhere at a higher premium and Fletcher paid the premium difference, but since Fletcher, according to SVBN default<\/a> delivers, it wants payment of contractual penalties. In addition, SVBN wants compensation<\/a> seeing Fletcher.<\/p>\n The district judge did not go along with this. It ruled that there was no question of a regular hotel situation, but nevertheless found that there was no violation of the contractual destination. The subdistrict court considered that the reception \u201chas crucial similarities to the operation of a hotel\u201d<\/em>. For example, the Subdistrict Court stated that COA booked all the rooms for the stay of guests and paid for them. Based mainly on this argument, the district judge concluded that the use did not violate the destination \u2018hotel.<\/p>\n The arguments that:<\/p>\n all do not make that there are\u00a0\u201cno normal hotel operation\u201d. <\/em>In other words, despite all these arguments, the subdistrict court finds that the use is still equivalent to operating a hotel. In itself, this is remarkable. On the basis of exactly the same arguments, it could just as easily have been ruled that there is a conflict with the zoning. Quantitatively at least, there are more arguments against the judgment of the Subdistrict Court.<\/p>\n Especially since the lease also contains the obligation to keep the plot open for hotel operation. By leasing the hotel to one user for the duration of one and a half years, preventing other guests from staying at the hotel, in my opinion, this obligation is not met. The subdistrict court, however, dismisses this by stating that \u201cIt has since been ruled that the current hotel situation falls within the operation of a hotel\u201d<\/em>, and that for that reason Fletcher did not breach the aforementioned obligation.<\/p>\n That reasoning is not correct in my opinion. The obligation to operate the building as a hotel is slightly different from the explicit obligation to keep the lot open for the purpose of that operation. It's just a bit broader. Even if the rental to COA would still fall within the destination hotel (which I would venture to discuss), this does not mean that Fletcher has fulfilled its obligation to keep the plot open for the operation of a hotel. After all, other guests are no longer welcome.<\/p>\n The latter also more or less played a role in a decision of the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal of September 12, 2023 (ECLI:NL:GHARL:2023:7642<\/a>). The fact that the hotel's terrace remained open to passers-by in that case was part of the reason that it was ruled that by using the hotel as an emergency shelter for asylum seekers and status holders, it did not violate the lease-law zoning \u2018restaurant with lodge\/hotel function\u2019. According to the Overijssel District Court (ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2023:1874<\/a>) asylum seekers do not stay for short periods of time, which cannot be equated with a hotel stay. Also the court of Utrecht (ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2023:758<\/a>) previously ruled that the refugee reception use violates the agreed-upon hotel zoning.<\/p>\n Based on one core argument, however, the Hague subdistrict court argues that there are crucial similarities to operating a hotel. However, there are several arguments that show that there are, on the contrary, fundamental differences. So is the judgment legally tenable?<\/p>\n Above, I comment on how the district judge applied the law and the agreement has explained<\/a>. The judgment does not tell us what the thoughts of the district judge were. In her note under this judgment mr. J.K. Six-Hummel wrote<\/a> justified that \u201cGiven the issues surrounding the reception and housing of asylum seekers and status holders\u201d<\/em>, a decision like this for the judge is not an easy task. She added: \u201cQuite apart from deciding what is still \u2018hotel operation\u2019 and what is no longer \u201dhotel operation.'\"<\/em> The fact remains that if this district judge had ruled otherwise, potentially 100 status holders would have ended up on the street. There was no alternative for them. This is clear from the verdict, and that is where I think politics falls short.<\/p>\n So while I disagree with the verdict on substantive legal grounds, I understand the judgment.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Judge finds COA the same as a hotel, justified or unjustified? In the middle of last year, the District Court of The Hague (ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2024:12605) ruled that the reception of refugees can be equated with operating a hotel. The tenant who first operated a hotel in the building, but then gave it in use to COA (the Central...<\/p>","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":5010,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[15,22],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5008","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-contractenrecht","category-huurrecht"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nDestination in lease agreement with Fletcher: hotel \/ caf\u00e9 \/ restaurant<\/h2>\n
Reception of asylum seekers at Fletcher hotel<\/h2>\n
Property insurance coverage cancelled<\/h2>\n
Not a regular hotel situation, but still no conflict with zoning<\/h2>\n
SVBN's counterarguments dismissed<\/h2>\n
\n
Violation of obligation to keep plot open as hotel?<\/h2>\n
Other statements on emergency shelter in hotels<\/h2>\n
Is the judgment legally tenable?<\/h2>\n