Amsterdam: Short explanation of all ADM court cases (in 2015)

In the most recent court-case (the so-called “kort geding”) the owners demanded urgent eviction of the ADM. Verdict July 13th 2015 [ADM won!]
The so called ‘evidence’ of the owners entailed 2 rental contracts: One was lacking a signature (concerns small part of the ADM land) and the other was lacking a date (concerns ADM water).

The ADM people made clear during the trial on June 29th. that:

  • the plans do not fit within the ‘kettingbeding’, which is a special clause that the city council put in the original sales-contract of the ADM to avoid speculation with the terrain.
  • This “kettingbeding” says that one can only do shipbuilding and /or repairing on the ADM terrain.
  • To allow the activities proposed by the owners (ship dismantling instead of ship building) would increase the value of the ADM whilst the municipality still has the first right to buy.
  • if the plans and intentions were real – to actually have the shipbuilding-hall ready for renting by the 1st of August – then there would be a pile of paper work showing detailed planning, elaborate financial planning and approved licenses / building permits.
  • before the needed permits can be granted, not only does the municipality of Amsterdam need to be clear about their position relating ADM, a detailed investigation of the wild-life on ADM is needed as well as a special permit in relation to the protected plants and animals.

It is now up to the City Council to state their position. How does the municipality choose to treat the financial, cultural and ecological value of the ADM terrain?

Still another “in depth” court case is in progress (the so called ‘bodemprocedure’) in which the owners also demand eviction.
The first hearing will probably be on July 29th. 2015.

More about this will follow in the month to come.

Earlier this year Chidda BV started a court case (also a socalled’kort geding’) against four ADM-ers. Verdict was on March 25th. 2015.

This court case was aimed at gaining access for inspections, viewings and construction.

The judge did not grant their demand:

  • partially because it was judged to be impossible to realise because only four ADM-ers were summoned so others could resist.
  • also the demanded ‘admission without any restrictions’ would be of to high impact on the privacy of the ADM-ers and in the light of the history it is understandable that the ADM people are not accommodating to that on first impulse.

[Explanation: Luske came visiting the ADM in 1998 with a bunch of thugs and an excavator. For this he was convicted in 2002 for attempted manslaughter.]

The heirs of Luske (in other words: Chidda BV and Amstellimmo BV) are making it seem like the ADM-ers do all in their power to obstruct all co-operation.

This is far from the truth: it was Chidda BV who came with extra demands during the negotiation interval (which was ordered by the judge) on top of the ones they originally stated. Nevertheless the ADM people kept the dialogue going and offered proposals to accommodate their wish to be able to do inspections and viewings. It is the owners who aborted this dialogue and asked the judge to rule a verdict.


It is clear that after a long period of not caring at all about the ADM terrain the owners now try all sorts of things – like different court cases and showing up on the ADM unannounced with an excavator again.

The presented plans are non-specific and constantly changing: from buyers to renters, from housing of immigrants to ship dismantling. All of these plans are not even possible under the contractual restrictions of what is and is not allowed on the ADM, as cstated in what is called the ‘kettingbeding’. As is the first right of the municipality to buy the ADM.

In 2004 the city council litigated up to the highest court to keep the ‘kettingbeding’ in tact. Therefore it is highly unlikely that the municipality of Amsterdam will approve of any of the presented plans. Allowing these will increase the value of ADM which Amsterdam still wants, and has first right, to buy. This added value belongs to the Amsterdam people and not to some real-estate tycoon.

If ever some true plans do occur, that also have the approval of the city council, then things should be done right: for humans, wild-life and even for the tax payer. But most of all for the sake of culture!