JUST TO BE CLEAR, THIS IS A REVIEW SITE ABOUT ALTICOM AND CELLNEX. THE MESSAGES DISPLAYED HERE COME FROM A CUSTOMER OF ALTICOM AND/OR CELLNEX Alticom and/or Cellnex disagrees with the statement that I am still a customer. (in fact, since 1 January 1979)
Alticom and/or Cellnex are continuously trying to prevent the court from deciding whether or not I am a customer of Alticom and/or Cellnex.
WITH SHAME ON MY LIPS
With shame on my lips, I present to you the ruling of the court in The Hague.
First of all, I would like to congratulate the lawyer representing Cellnex, Alticom, Broadcast Partners, On Tower Netherlands 3 B.V. or wherever this good man is employed, on the result achieved.
I have serious doubts as to whether this result is the intended result.
After all, after almost three years, no decision has yet been made as to whether or not I am a tenant of the Lelystad tower and another tower owned by Alticom or Cellnex.
I will also leave it open for now whether “embarrassed” is the right word. After all, borrowed money must always be repaid!
JUDGMENT
COURT OF THE HAGUE
Civil law
District court
Place of hearing The Hague
DN/b
Case number: 11778847 \ RL EXPL 25-12109
Judgment in preliminary relief proceedings of 5 August 2025
In the case of
CHRISTIAAN CORNELIS KOEREE.
in Lelystad
claimant,
hereinafter referred to as: Koeree,
represented by: ***********, LLM,
against
ALTICOM B.V.,
in Utrecht,
defendant,
hereinafter referred to as: Alticom B.V.,
represented by: ,*********** LLM.
1. The proceedings
1.1. The course of the proceedings is evident from:
– the introductory summons of 14 July 2025, with exhibits 1 to 18,
– the statement of defence sent in advance, with exhibits 19 to 26,
– the oral hearing of 22 July 2025, of which notes were taken by the registrar
– Koeree’s speaking notes.
2. The facts
2.1. In 2014, the parties entered into a framework agreement and an individual lease agreement (consisting of two parts) for the lease of mast and installation space on/in Alticom’s telecom tower at Oostvaardersdijk 1-3 in Lelystad (hereinafter: the leased property).
2.2. In a letter dated 29 November 2022, Alticom terminated the individual lease agreement with effect from 1 January 2023.
2.3. On 29 January 2024, Alticom again terminated the individual lease agreement, this time with effect from 1 March 2024.
2.4. Since February/March 2024, Koeree no longer has access to the leased property.
2.5. By decision of 18 June 2024, Koeree was granted a licence for the use of the frequency space with a relay station for the leased property, effective from 19 June 2024 until 19 June 2027. The licence was granted on condition that the station would be put into operation within four months of the commencement date of the licence, i.e. before 19 November 2024.
3. The dispute
3.1 Koeree claims, in summary and by judgment enforceable provisionally, that Alticom be ordered to grant him free access to the leased property on pain of a penalty, with Alticom being ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings, plus statutory interest.
3.2. Alticom concludes that Koeree’s claim is inadmissible or should be dismissed, with Koeree being ordered to pay the costs of these proceedings, plus statutory interest, to be declared provisionally enforceable.
3.3. The positions of the parties will be discussed in more detail below, insofar as relevant.
4. The assessment
Relative jurisdiction
4.1 The framework agreement stipulates that all disputes arising from the framework agreement and the individual lease agreements shall be submitted to the court in The Hague. The subdistrict court judge has determined ex officio that, on the basis of this choice of forum, it has jurisdiction to hear the claims.
Urgent interest
4.2. This case concerns a provisional measure sought in summary proceedings. The subdistrict court must therefore first assess whether Koeree has an urgent interest in that measure at the time of this judgment.
4.3. Koeree’s claim relates to the performance of the lease agreement concluded between Alticom and Koeree. Koeree has argued that the claim is urgent because he is being denied access to the leased property. Furthermore, the licence obtained by Koeree on 18 June 2024 for the use of the frequency space with a relay station is in danger of expiring if he does not put the station into use soon. Alticom has contested the urgent interest.
4.4. The subdistrict court considers as follows. Koeree has not disputed that he has not had access to the leased property since February/March 2024 and therefore no longer uses the station. Despite the fact that Koeree had already obtained a licence on 18 June 2024, on the condition that the station must be put into use within four months, Koeree did not claim the provision of the leased property until 8 November 2024 in summary proceedings. This procedure, which subsequently proved to have been wrongly directed against
Cellnex Netherlands B.V. instead of Alticom, was withdrawn at the instigation of the subdistrict court in summary proceedings on 19 November 2024. At that time, the period for commissioning specified in the licence had expired.
4.5. It is undisputed that Koeree subsequently requested Alticom (or its representative) on 25 November 2024, 31 January 2025, 24 March 2025 and most recently on 26 June 2025 to provide dates on which it would be unable to attend a preliminary relief hearing. Although Alticom complied with these requests, it was only the request of 26 June 2025 that was followed by the issuance of a summons for summary proceedings, which initiated these proceedings. Koeree therefore did not proceed with the summons with the necessary diligence.
4.6. The arguments put forward by Koeree at the oral hearing do not lead to a different conclusion. Even if, as he claims, Koeree initiated new proceedings in March of this year (Alticom is not aware of this), the fact remains that the licence has expired. Without a valid licence, Koeree has no interest in the leased property.
At the hearing, Koeree presented a message to the National Inspectorate for Digital Infrastructure stating that he was unable to put the station into use due to force majeure. It has not been stated or proven that this message led to an extension of the deadline for putting the station into use.
4.7 The subdistrict court therefore finds that Koeree has insufficiently substantiated that he has an urgent interest in the requested relief. The conclusion is that Koeree’s claim is inadmissible. No further assessment of the dispute will be made.
4.8 Koeree has been unsuccessful and must therefore pay the legal costs (including subsequent costs). The legal costs of Alticom B.V. are estimated at:
-salary of representative € 543.00
-subsequent costs € 135.00 (plus the costs of service as stated in the decision)
total € 678.00
4.9. The statutory interest claimed on the legal costs is awarded as stated in the decision.
5. The decision
The magistrate
5.1. Declares Koeree’s claim inadmissible.
5.2. Orders Koeree to pay the legal costs of €678.00, payable within fourteen days of notification, plus the costs of service if Koeree fails to comply with this order in time and the judgment is subsequently served.
5.3. Orders Koeree to pay the statutory interest referred to in Article 6:119 of the Dutch Civil Code on the legal costs if these are not paid within fourteen days of notification.
5.4. Declares that the judgment is provisionally enforceable with regard to the order to pay the legal costs.
This judgment was rendered by Mr D. Nobel and pronounced in open court on 5 August 2025.
For Grosse
05 AUG 2025
The Registrar of the District Court of The Hague
Team Kanton
Court location The Hague