Short Reads

Legislative Proposal introducing class actions in the Netherlands before House of Representatives

Legislative Proposal introducing class actions in the Netherlands

Legislative Proposal introducing class actions in the Netherlands before House of Representatives

05.12.2016 NL law

While the Netherlands is already considered an attractive jurisdiction for claimants bringing cartel damages actions, a new legislative proposal is likely to further enhance the popularity of the Dutch jurisdiction for such proceedings and other class actions. On 16 November 2016, the Dutch Minister of Security and Justice (Minister van Veiligheid en Justitie) submitted a legislative proposal to the House of Representatives (Tweede Kamer), aimed at introducing a US-style 'class action' in the Netherlands.

The Proposal introduces the option to claim damages in a collective action. Under current law, collective actions are limited to requesting a declaratory judgment. Once such a declaratory judgment has been issued, each claimant may initiate individual proceedings to obtain damages, or seek to agree on a collective settlement with the tortfeasor(s) that can be declared binding (a WCAM settlement). However, a collective action for damages is impossible under current law. The Proposal would fundamentally change this.

The Proposal provides for an "opt-out" regime, whereby a representative foundation (stichting) or association (vereniging) brings a claim on behalf of a defined class. The individual claimants falling within that definition are included in the class by default, and need to actively withdraw (in writing) should they not wish to be bound.

Under the Proposal the District Court of Amsterdam will be the designated court for class actions. This will allow the court to build up expertise. In addition, if proceedings are initiated by more than one foundation or association, the court will appoint the one it deems most suitable as the "Exclusive Representative" for all victims.

The Proposal includes a 'scope rule', under which a class action can only proceed if the case has a 'sufficiently close connection' with the jurisdiction of the Netherlands. That threshold, however, is not very high. The Proposal provides that if (i) a majority of the victims represented by the group reside in the Netherlands, or (ii) the defendant has a residence in the Netherlands, or (iii) the event (or events) on which the claim is based, takes or took place in the Netherlands, a sufficiently close connection exists. Thus, the class is not necessarily limited to Dutch claimants. If the defendant resides in the Netherlands, the class will potentially cover victims worldwide.

In terms of its geographical scope, the proposed Dutch class action regime is unprecedented. Other European Member States have introduced or are considering introducing "opt out" class action regimes that are limited to their own residents. The Dutch Proposal goes (far) beyond that. However, the Proposal has received strong criticism. It remains to be seen whether it will be adopted in its current form.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of December 2016. Other articles in this newsletter:

1. European Commission publishes study on the passing-on of overcharges 

2. Belgian Competition Authority closes investigation into Most Favoured Nation clauses in Immoweb contracts 

Team

Related news

11.09.2019 EU law
Legal trend: climate change litigation

Articles - Climate change cases can occur in many shapes and forms. One well-known example is the Urgenda case in which the The Hague Court condemned the Dutch government in 2015 for not taking adequate measures to combat the consequences of climate change. Three years later, the Court of Justice of The Hague  upheld this decision, and it is now pending before the Dutch Supreme Court. This case is expected to set a precedent for Belgium, i.a. Since both the Belgian climate case and the Urgenda case are in their final stages of proceedings, this blog provides you with an update on climate change litigation.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
No fine means no reason to appeal? Think again!

Short Reads - Whistleblowers who have had their fine reduced to zero may still have an interest in challenging an antitrust decision. The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) held two de facto managers personally liable for a cartel infringement but, instead of imposing a EUR 170,000 fine, granted one of them immunity from fines in return for blowing the whistle. The Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal found that, despite this fortuitous outcome, the whistleblower still had an interest in appealing the ACM's decision.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
ECJ answers preliminary questions on jurisdiction in cartel damage case 

Short Reads - On 29 July 2019, the ECJ handed down a preliminary ruling concerning jurisdiction in follow-on damages proceedings in what is termed the trucks cartel. The court clarified that Article 7(2) Brussels I Regulation should be interpreted in such a way as to allow an indirect purchaser to sue an alleged infringer of Article 101 TFEU before the courts of the place where the market prices were distorted and where the indirect purchaser claims to have suffered damage. In practice, this often means that indirect purchasers will be able to sue for damages in their home jurisdictions.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
Wanted: fast solutions for fast-growing platforms

Short Reads - Dominant digital companies be warned: calls for additional tools to deal with powerful platforms in online markets are increasing. Even though the need for speed is a given in these fast-moving markets, the question of which tool is best-suited for the job remains. Different countries are focusing on different areas; the Dutch ACM wants to pre-emptively strike down potential anti-competitive conduct with ex ante measures, while the UK CMA aims for greater regulation of digital markets and a quick fix through interim orders.

Read more

14.08.2019 BE law
Verklaring van openbaar nut is geen "project" in de zin van de MER-regelgeving

Articles - In een recent arrest bevestigt de Raad van State dat "verklaringen van openbaar nut", bedoeld in artikel 10 van de wet van 12 april 1965 betreffende het vervoer van gasachtige produkten en andere door middel van leidingen niet onder het begrip "project" uit de project-MER-regelgeving valt. Of hetzelfde geldt voor elk type gelijkaardige administratieve toelating, is daarmee evenwel nog niet gezegd. Niettemin geeft de Raad met zijn arrest een belangrijk signaal dat niet elke mogelijke toelating onder de project-MER-regelgeving valt.

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring