Joint Court finds outgoing VROMI minister pushed through controversial transaction despite parliamentary motions and negative advice, seeking to bind the next administration.
PHILIPSBURG:--- The Joint Court of Justice ruled that a 2015 decision to grant government land on a long lease to Tesi N.V. was void, finding that the outgoing VROMI minister engaged in political favoritism and violated fundamental constitutional standards.
In a judgment delivered August 26, 2026, and published November 2, the court concluded that the minister pushed through the transaction to confront the incoming administration with a completed deal, despite Parliament expressly opposing the proposed land exchange.
The ruling rejects an attempt by four companies to compel the Country of St. Maarten to complete the arrangement.
The court found that the public interest in respecting government policies and constitutional standards outweighed the companies’ interest in having the deal honored.
Public Land for Resort Development
The proceedings involved Tesi N.V., Caribbean Beach Resort Development N.V., Port de Plaisance Medical Center N.V., and Port de Plaisance Hotel Management N.V.
The companies sought enforcement of an arrangement under which the government would receive ownership of a 5,000-square-meter parcel from Port de Plaisance Medical Center N.V. In return, the government would grant Tesi long-lease rights over approximately 4,300 square meters of public land.
The development proposals referred to a five-star hotel, casino, commercial facilities, and parking.
In a letter on November 18, 2015, the then VROMI minister confirmed the government’s willingness to proceed. The letter also stated that Tesi would provide at least 100 public parking spaces within its future development.
The annual ground rent was set at NAf. 25,722, calculated at NAf. 6 per square meter. Tesi paid that amount to the government receiver around November 20, 2015, and a notary prepared a draft deed.
The transaction was not completed.
Parliament Had Specifically Opposed the Exchange
The court placed considerable weight on the political circumstances surrounding the decision.
An internal VROMI advisory memorandum dated August 14, 2015 recommended rejecting the proposed exchange.
On September 30, 2015, Parliament passed a motion of no confidence against the cabinet, leaving the minister serving in a caretaker capacity.
Parliament then adopted another motion on October 28, 2015, expressly stating that the caretaker cabinet should refrain from decisions binding government and contracting parties, specifically including the land exchange at issue.
Despite those developments, the minister approved the long-lease issuance on November 18.
The court found that the minister should have refrained from taking that decision.
Although a caretaker administration may handle ongoing business, the court explained, that does not extend to controversial matters of this kind. Parliament’s explicit opposition made the transaction controversial, and no urgency was demonstrated to justify proceeding before a new government took office.
Court Finds Attempt to Bind Successor
The judges concluded that the minister’s decision to proceed under those circumstances was intended to benefit the companies while he still could and to leave his successor facing a complete commitment.
The court characterized this as political favoritism, describing it as a recurring abuse in St. Maarten that requires a firm response in a small community.
It was also found that the decision was inadequately prepared because no resort construction plans had been submitted. Additionally, the decision ran contrary to negative internal advice that the exchange was incompatible with applicable planning requirements.
Together, those circumstances supported the conclusion that the transaction was intended to bind the incoming administration.
The published judgment anonymizes the minister involved. The decision concerns actions taken in 2015.
Longstanding Requests did not Justify Last-Minute Approval
The companies argued that their efforts to obtain the land dated to 2006 and that the transaction was a well-prepared arrangement benefiting both government and the developers.
They disputed the assumptions underlying the negative advice, including concerns about parking, development possibilities, and the suitability of the land the government would receive for a sewage treatment plant.
They also argued that pending matters could be completed during a caretaker period and maintained that they were unaware of Parliament’s motions.
The court acknowledged that requests had been submitted in 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2015. However, substantive discussions only began in July 2015, after which the matter accelerated.
Earlier application letters did not establish years of intensive negotiations or make the transaction routine government business.
Given St. Maarten’s small size and the companies’ interest in acquiring the neighboring land, the court also considered that Parliament’s motions could not have escaped their attention. They therefore could not reasonably assume that the minister’s decision would automatically be implemented.
Supreme Court Ruling did not Validate the Deal
The judgment followed an earlier appeal and a successful challenge before the Supreme Court of the Netherlands.
In May 2017, the Court of First Instance rejected the companies’ enforcement claims, finding that the arrangement amounted to improper end-of-term decision-making, known in Dutch Caribbean case law as afscheidsbeleid.
The Joint Court upheld that result in October 2023, but on a different ground: that the minister lacked authority to carry out the transaction.
The Supreme Court overturned that judgment on December 20, 2024, ruling that the VROMI minister did possess authority to grant the land in long lease, including in the circumstances of this exchange.
On reconsideration, the Joint Court accepted that the minister had the necessary authority. It nevertheless found that the way that authority was exercised rendered the decision void.
The distinction was decisive: possessing the power to issue land did not make this particular decision valid.
Fundamental Standards Outweighed Private Interests
The court concluded that the November 18, 2015, decision violated fundamental constitutional standards and therefore contravened public order under Article 3:40(1) of the Civil Code.
The judges acknowledged that the companies would suffer because the transaction would not proceed. Nevertheless, the public interest in government acting consistently with policy and constitutional standards carried greater weight.
An assertion that the decision reflected the Council of Ministers’ position did not alter that conclusion.
The appeal failed, and the court affirmed the original dismissal of the companies’ claims.
The companies were ordered to pay the Country’s appeal and post-remittal legal costs, totaling Cg. 12,337.50. That cost order was declared provisionally enforceable.
Source: Joint Court of Justice, judgment of August 26, 2026, published November 2, 2026; ECLI:NL:OGHACMB:2026:301.