Short Reads

The Growth of Collective Redress in the EU: A Survey of Developments in 10 Member States—the need to maintain safeguards

The Growth of Collective Redress in the EU: A Survey of Developments in 10 Member States—the need to maintain safeguards

30.05.2017 EU law

In 2013, the European Commission adopted a Recommendation on Collective Redress. It invited Member States to adopt a collective redress framework by July 2016 that would include the features mentioned in the Recommendation and then by July 2017, to report to the Commission about the extent to which they had done so. On the basis of the Member States’ report, the Commission will assess whether further actions by the EU is required.

After some years of hesitation by national legislatures, it is now clear that collective redress or so-called class-action models are multiplying across the EU. A large majority of the Member States now have at least one way for claimants to combine their claims and sue an alleged harm-causing party or parties for damages before national courts.

Though collective redress presents advantages (mainly the potential time and cost efficiency of dealing with multiple, similar claims at the same time), such mechanism is not without risks. In particular, experience in non-EU jurisdictions has shown that the opportunity to aggregate claims can in some cases cause litigation abuse. This potential for abuse is more potent where the rewards of litigation far outweigh the risks meaning that there are significant financial incentives for filing weak (or even entirely meritless) claims.

The Commission’s 2013 Recommendation acknowledged this risk and proposed several safeguards that are intended to prevent abusive litigation by keeping the risks and rewards under control.

It is particularly appropriate to determine whether safeguards have been adopted at all, and whether and how those safeguards are being implemented in practice.

Against this background, the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) has ordered a survey on the “state of play” of collective redress in 10 Member States (including all of the largest economies). The survey was coordinated by Sidley Austin LLP in Brussels. It called on the expertise of practitioners in all of the Member States surveyed, including Stibbe Amsterdam (Jeroen Kortmann) for the Netherlands and Stibbe Brussels (Oliver Stevens) for Belgium[1]. The survey identifies trends and issues that seem to be emerging across the EU. It finds that Member States have been accelerating the introduction of policies that simplify lawsuits, with the value and volume of claims increasing steeply. However, ILR’s study also finds that Member States, depending on the Member State in question, have failed to a larger or lesser extent to implement or maintain important safeguards for collective redress.

To view the PDF version of the survey, please click here.

 

Footnotes:

[1] Stibbe has not contributed to the editing of the report

Team

Related news

05.01.2018 BE law
Wie bewaakt de bewakers? Vlaanderen schaft substitutierecht inwoners van gemeente af

Articles - Het Decreet Lokaal Bestuur van 21 december 2017 schaft het substitutierecht voor inwoners om namens hun gemeente in rechte op te komen, af. De Vlaamse regering en de Vlaamse decreetgever achten het substitutierecht "weinig zinnig en democratisch verantwoord". Een dergelijke verantwoording van de afschaffing van het substitutierecht lijkt problematisch in het licht van het beginsel van de scheiding der machten. Daarmee rijst de onvermijdelijke vraag: wie bewaakt de bewakers? Wellicht het Grondwettelijk Hof.

Read more

11.01.2018 NL law
Witness examination and the withdrawal of a judge

Short Reads - In its decision of 24 November 2017 (ECLI:NL:HR:2017:3016), the Dutch Supreme Court confirmed that a judge is allowed to critically interrogate a witness and remind a witness of his oath. Such action is not an indication that a judge is not impartial or independent.

Read more

10.01.2018 NL law
Fire, furniture and strict liability for buildings used for business

Short Reads - Persons using a building in the course of running a business might be liable for damage caused by a defect in the building on the basis of strict liability. Such liability exists if there is a link between the origin of the defect and the running of the business. In its decision of 24 November 2017 (ECLI:NL:HR:2017:3016), the Dutch Supreme Court clarified how to ascertain whether there is such a link.

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy and Cookie Policy