Project C's application for a license to participate in the experiment closed coffeeshop chain was wrongfully rejected on unjustified grounds. This was the ruling made by the Zeeland-West Brabant District Court last Friday in a case brought by Project C against the Dutch State and the ministries involved in the experiment. Another applicant was also given more clarity last Monday after a ruling in another case at the same court.
Project C
Project C's aspiring cannabis growers had their eye on a greenhouse in Etten-Leur, but a lowered sense of security among local residents was given as the reason for the mayor not to give the growers a license. The court has now ruled that the mayor of the Brabant municipality "has not in any way made concrete how the subjective feelings of residents could objectively pose a danger to public order and safety."
The court ruled on 26 June. Project C was eliminated from participation. The ruling does not change that. As shown in a post made by Pascal van Oers on LinkedIn, one of Project C's initiators, this is anything but the end of the matter.
There have been noises around the experiment closed coffeeshop chain for quite some time. In fact, this has been the case for several years. First, there was a lot of fuss around the permits, then around the lottery, and now around the procedures. In response to Pascal's post on LinkedIn, someone has already concluded: "This is how the house of cards collapses."
There is criticism of how the lottery process went. Ten parties were chosen, but in the opinion of those involved in the experiment, the quality of the plans of conscripted parties was not properly assessed.
Randomization
This is also evident from the detailed account of the above case. Project C argues that there was arbitrariness because "applicants were allowed to participate in the lottery before their sites were not yet concrete, and they could even participate with multiple sites to increase the chances in the lottery."
Project C points out that there have been applicants who could not obtain a site after drawing lots, that companies entered were allowed to change their sites, and that there have been applicants whose sites "have not yet been provided with an environmental dialogue within the sensitive areas, while their site has already been rejected in advance." Project C argues that a safety plan had been prepared, but it was not actually considered.
Project C was one of the few prospective participants that made a lot of headlines. Both prior to the draw and afterwards, with, for example, in a broadcast about the failure of their plan to grow cannabis in a blackberry greenhouse in Etten-Leur.
The ruling can be appealed. Another party also filed a case. Again, a ruling was handed down on 26 June.
Location of other applicant no longer available
This appeal against rejection for participation was declared unfounded. The grower's location turned out to be no longer available after being entered in the draw. According to the growers, no reason not to participate now. The applicant submitted 47 (!) alternative locations.
The applicant feels that in the case cited by the applicant, where the intended location is no longer available, the same applies to parties who all came up with a location with one of the 10 participatory metrics. In that case, under the rules, a party was given a chance to come up with an alternative.
Because there was no 'minor' change, the growers invoked force majeure. The court ruled that there was "normal entrepreneurial risk" and found that the grower could have done more to mitigate this risk by "for example, entering into a (preliminary) purchase or lease agreement" with the parties involved in the intended location.