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

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

01.08.2019 NL law
Brand owners beware: Commission tough on cross-border sales restrictions

Short Reads - The European Commission recently imposed a EUR 6.2 million fine on Hello Kitty owner Sanrio for preventing its licensees from selling licensed merchandising products across the entire EEA. Sanrio is the second licensor (after Nike) to be fined for imposing territorial sales restrictions on its non-exclusive licensees for licensed merchandise. A third investigation into allegedly similar practices by Universal Studios is ongoing. The case confirms the Commission's determination to tackle these practices, regardless of type or form.

Read more

08.08.2019 BE law
Regulating online platforms: piece of the puzzle

Articles - The new Regulation no. 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services, applicable as of 12 July 2020, is another piece of the puzzle regulating online platforms, this time focussing on the supply side of the platforms.

Read more

01.08.2019 NL law
Call of duty: Commission must state reasons when straying from its guidelines

Short Reads - The European Commission has lost a second battle concerning its EUR 15 million fine imposed upon interdealer broker ICAP, this time before the European Court of Justice. The Court upheld the previous judgment of the General Court on the basis of the Commission's failure to state reasons concerning its fining methodology of cartel facilitator ICAP. This may lead to more reasoned Commission decisions in the future - deterrence of cartel behaviour does not justify keeping the methodology for setting the fines as a 'black box'.

Read more

01.08.2019 NL law
General court dismisses all five appeals in the optical disk drives cartel

Short Reads - The General Court recently upheld a Commission decision finding that suppliers of optical disk drives colluded in bids for sales to Dell and HP by engaging in a network of parallel bilateral contacts over a multi-year period. The General Court rejected applicants' arguments regarding the Commission's fining methodology, including that the Commission ought to have provided reasons for not departing from the general methodology set out in its 2006 Guidelines.

Read more

22.07.2019 NL law
HagaZiekenhuis beboet voor datalek

Short Reads - Enkele maanden geleden vierden we de eerste verjaardag van de Algemene Verordening Gegevensbescherming (AVG) met een uitgebreide beschouwing  over de belangrijkste  ontwikkelingen uit  het eerste jaar van de verordening. We concludeerden daarin onder meer dat de door sommigen voorspelde hoge bestuurlijke boetes voor overtredingen van de AVG tot dan toe  - zowel in Nederland als in de andere EU-lidstaten - grotendeels waren uitgebleven.

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