The
In the town of Hemmen in the Betuwe, the Hemmen estate wanted to build solar panels. That estate is owned by the Lijndensche Fonds for Church and Mission Foundation. Now that foundation had concluded an agreement in 1986 with the then network operator to allow high -voltage lines and four high -voltage pylons on a strip of land of approximately 70 by 1,700 meters. Because of the “nuisance and damage that is an ordinary consequence” of the pipes and the masts, the network operator paid the foundation for over 40,000 guilders.
When the solar panels arrived, in 2018, the subsequent network operator (TenneT) relied on that contract. As a result, a considerable part of the planned ‘solar park’ could not even continue outside that strip. The high -voltage pylons had to remain accessible, and research that the foundation had to carry out by order of TenneT showed that you can place fewer solar panels with high -voltage lines due to electromagnetic symptoms.
A large part of the solar park has now been laid out, but not all panels could be laid, which pressed the yields. Was this loss of revenue taken into account when compensation in 1986? According to TenneT well, the foundation did not claim.
After much consultation, proceedings followed at the Gelderland District Court. And that decided autumn 2023 that the foundation had insufficiently substantiated that the extra nuisance and damage was not “foreseen/discounted in the reimbursement already paid”.
The ruling: assigned
On appeal, the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal comes to a completely different opinion. The conditions for the Agreement include future damage: damage that could not be foreseen or determined at the time of the compensation paid.
This article would become meaningless if all possible later damage would fall under the compensation for ordinary nuisance and damage.
During the session, TenneT called “lucrative developments” as an example of possible damage to the future that could not take place because “cables are in the way” – that provision would apply to that. But that example, according to the court, hardly deviates from the solar panels in Hemmen.
Also from other statements, the Court of Appeal is convinced that both parties assumed in 1986 that unforeseeable damage should be discussed later – and must also be reimbursed. So “the profession succeeds.”
The commentary
For the appeal, the foundation has brought up many extra pieces, says lawyer Els Harbers (Vangoud Advocaten), who performed for the foundation. “This showed what was discussed at the time, among other things about any future damage. The research into solar panels on high -voltage lines also cost a lot of money, but Tennet continued to say no to extra reimbursements. ”
According to Harbers, the problem plays with more contracts from the eighties and nineties. And the electricity connection in which this is about is long. “He runs from Dodewaard via Doetinchem and Twente to Groningen – if, just like in Hemmen, agricultural land is operated differently, the judgment certainly has consequences for comparable agreements.”
Tennet spokesperson Jorrit de Jong is not afraid of it. He e -mails: “The outcome of this procedure is closely linked to the specific circumstances of this special case.” The physical space is becoming scarce, and “people must be working closer to the immediate living environment.” But by inspecting pipes with drones, for example, instead of aerial platform, the network operator with landowners can make agreements than before. Nevertheless, TenneT is considering cassation at the Supreme Court.
Björn Hoops, professor of Private Law and Sustainability in Groningen, finds it an “interesting judgment as a stick” for companies such as Tennet to be more flexible. “This is how we develop model contracts here at the university, together with legal practice, so that solar panels can be financed faster and cheaper. This judgment can also make that easier. “
According to Hoops, network operators and electricity companies must retain the space to maintain the infrastructure and to weigh the electricity grid, also in view of the necessary sustainability. “But there is always a gray zone in which you can cooperate more or less with the other parties. You have to go to the table and get out together. “
According to Hoops, sustainability is a current and controversial subject. Together with notaries, since 2016, scientists from various universities have made a series of widely supported proposals to adjust laws, partly with a view to sustainability. “Based on current legislation, an office in a high building is obliged to make it more sustainable, a supermarket in the same building is not. This is just one example of a problem to which the law now has no answer. How can you arrange that better and save money for everyone? But previous governments did nothing with the proposals – and this government is not of paramount importance. ”
Judgment: Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal, January 21, 2025, ECLI: NL: Gharl: 2025: 286