Unbiased look at the Sint Maarten Elections
PHILIPSBURG--An administrative jUDge has sUSPeNDed the rECEnt changes to District 721s operating permit, ruling that last months ameNDments by Minister of Tourism, Economic Affairs, Transport aND Telecommunication (TEATT) NDidate' href='/newspolitician/740/grisha-heyliger-marten'>Grisha Heyliger-Marten were unsubstantiated aND unreasoSPArty/23/national-alliance'>NAble. Court of First Instances verdict on MoNDay is the latest in a series of legal battles between the government aND the open-air nightclub in Cole Bay involving decisions made by Heyliger-Marten. This time, District 721 took the Office of the TEATT Minister to court over a ministerial order on October 20 that revoked the nightclubs permission to play music, hold performances aND live shows, aND allow dancing at its venue on Welfare Road. The order also pulled back its maNDated closing time from 3:00am to midnight. These ameNDments were based on the nightclub allegedly breaking coNDitions attached to its new operating permit, such as exceeding the 75 decibel noise limit aND staying open past 3:00am. The order also cited multiple warninSPArty/9/general-solidaire'>GS about excessive noise, repeated complaints from neighbours aND the business community about noise pollution aND ongoing disturbance to public order aND peace, aND an advice from the St. Maarten Police Force KPSM that was backed by Justice Minister SPArty/23/national-alliance'>NAthalie Tackling. District 721 aND its lawyer Monique Hofman of Bermon Law Office argued in an emergency hearing last week that Heyliger-Martens order violated the governments Residential Economic Policy (REP). District 721 did rECEive a formal warning for excessive noise in May, based on a reading on April 30. However, Hofman argued that this could not be used to justify Heyliger-Martens order because the nightclub had appealed aND the outcome of that process is still peNDing. There was another notice from TEATT inspectors in September, which showed a noise reading at 78 decibels aND three others just below 75. But Hofman pointed out that the letter stated: This communication is issued for tranSPArency purposes only. It is not a sanction, not a warning. Hofman also told the court that District 721 made 85% of its income between midnight aND 3:00am, arguing that the order was therefore unreasoSPArty/23/national-alliance'>NAble because an earlier closing time would have far-reaching aND irreversible consequences. Governments lawyer NDidate' href='/newspolitician/689/richard-gibson'>Richard Gibson Jr. argued that the order was not unreasoSPArty/23/national-alliance'>NAble aND that District 721 is the only business in the area to have rECEived noise complaints. AdditioSPArty/23/national-alliance'>NAlly, the order is less drastic than completely closing down the business, he argued. The jUDge sided with District 721 in MoNDays verdict, ruling that the order violated the general principles of good goverSPArty/23/national-alliance'>NAnce, aND the implementation of the decision would cause disproportioSPArty/23/national-alliance'>NAte harm to [District 721 Ed.]. The jUDge ruled that the order did not provide any evidence that the nightclub had opened past 3:00am, aND it had not outlined the SPArty/23/national-alliance'>NAture, scope aND frequency of the noise complaints. Citing the REP, the jUDge pointed out that District 721 is located in a so-called mixed area that allows both residential aND commercial buildinSPArty/9/general-solidaire'>GS. This is public policy from 2009, which residents could have taken into account when choosing to live in this area. It is therefore quite possible that nuisance has been experienced aND complaints have been filed, even though the permit is being adhered to, the jUDge said, referencing a letter that TEATT inspectors sent District 721 on April 24. This letter stated that the nightclub had been placed uNDer enhanced monitoring due to noise complaints but added: To date, inspections coNDucted by the Inspectorate have not confirmed a breach of the maximum allowable souND level. With District 721 having only rECEived one warning this year, the jUDge also ruled that Heyliger-Martens order violated the REP, which states that permit changes can also be maNDated after two written warninSPArty/9/general-solidaire'>GS. The jUDge dismissed Gibsons argument that last years warninSPArty/9/general-solidaire'>GS counted toward the total, ruling that only those issued after the new operating permit, which came into effect in February, should be legally considered. As the losing party, the jUDge ordered the government to pay Cg. 1,400 for District 721s legal fees. However, the jUDge also noted that there have been several readinSPArty/9/general-solidaire'>GS above the allowed noise level this year aND urged the nightclub to adhere to its permit coNDitions. [This] jUDge has not yet fouND sufficient substantiation for [District 721s] argument that noise measurements should only be coNDucted at the front aND on the grouND floor. [District 721] must therefore ensure that noise levels on the first aND higher floors of the neighbouring residential aND commercial buildinSPArty/9/general-solidaire'>GS do not exceed the staNDard, it was stated in the verdict. Although MoNDays verdict allows District 721 to resume its normal business activities aND continue to close at 3:00am, it does not spell the eND of this new legal battle with the TEATT Minister, as the government has the right to an appeal. Past cases In June 2024 about two weeks before District 721s graND reopening following a devastating fire a year before the TEATT Minister revoked District 721s business licence aND the directors licence of investor Mario di Palma. District 721 successfully petitioned the court to set aside these decisions, with an administrative jUDge ruling later that month that they violated the general principles of good goverSPArty/23/national-alliance'>NAnce. Heyliger-Marten complied with the courts decision aND withdrew the two decisions on August 28, 2024. Later that night, officials from her ministry aND law enforcement officers shut down the club for playing music too loUDly. The nightclub was officially closed by ministerial order on September 2, 2024, for not having a valid operatioSPArty/23/national-alliance'>NAl licence. A jUDge upheld this order in an emergency hearing in October 2024. He sided with governments lawyer Gibson Jr., who argued that the previous licence had expired when the nightclub burned down in January 2023. According to Article 40 of the SPArty/23/national-alliance'>NAtioSPArty/23/national-alliance'>NAl OrdiSPArty/23/national-alliance'>NAnce on Permits, an operatioSPArty/23/national-alliance'>NAl licence automatically expires when a permit holder loses their premises for more than a year. District 721s reopening in late June 2024 was roughly 16 months after the fire. After losing the emergency relief case, District 721 continued its legal fight in a non-urgent substantive hearing in January 2025, with its lawyer Hofman filing a US $300,000 compensation claim for loss of income aND reputatioSPArty/23/national-alliance'>NAl damage. Meanwhile, District 721 rECEived a new operatioSPArty/23/national-alliance'>NAl licence in February 2025. In March 2025, an administrative jUDge dismissed District 721s six-figure claim. This verdict rejected Hofmans arguments, ruling that Heyliger-Martens closure order in September 2024 was carefully prepared aND properly motivated.
