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

10.10.2018 NL law
Ongevraagd advies Raad van State: normering van geautomatiseerde overheidsbesluitvorming

Short Reads - Op 31 augustus 2018 heeft de Afdeling advisering van de Raad van State (hierna: "Afdeling advisering") een 'Ongevraagd advies over de effecten van de digitalisering voor de rechtsstatelijke verhoudingen' betreffende de positie en de bescherming van de burger tegen een "iOverheid" uitgebracht. Het gebeurt niet vaak dat de Afdeling advisering zo een ongevraagd advies uitbrengt. Dit onderstreept het belang van de voortdurend in ontwikkeling zijnde technologie en digitalisering in relatie tot de verhouding tussen de overheid en de maatschappij.

Read more

01.10.2018 EU law
UK Court upholds fine against Ping for online sales ban

Short Reads - On 7 September 2018, the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) upheld the UK Competition and Market Authority's (CMA) decision fining Ping Europe Limited, a manufacturer of golf clubs, for violating EU and UK competition law by prohibiting two UK retailers from selling Ping golf clubs online. While the CAT reduced the fine from £1.45 million to £1.25 million, it confirmed that outright online sales bans in the context of selective distribution agreements are restrictive of competition by object.

Read more

01.10.2018 EU law
Court of Justice refers case against Infineon in relation to smart card chips cartel back to the General Court

Short Reads - On 26 September 2018, the European Court of Justice partially set aside the judgment of the General Court in the smart card chips cartel case. Infineon had argued that the General Court wrongfully assessed only five out of eleven allegedly unlawful contacts. The Court agreed with Infineon insofar as its argument related to the amount of the fine imposed. Philips had also appealed the General Court judgment but that appeal was dismissed in its entirety meaning that the Court of Justice upheld the European Commission's decision and fine.

Read more

01.10.2018 EU law
Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal annuls mail market analysis decision

Short Reads - On 3 September 2018, the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb) annulled the market analysis decision regarding 24-hour business mail issued by the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) on 27 July 2017. In appeal proceedings filed by PostNL, the CBb ruled that the ACM had failed to demonstrate that digital mail was not part of the relevant market for 24-hour business mail.

Read more

26.09.2018 EU law
Algemene bepalingen inzake oneerlijke handelspraktijken wijken voor specifiekere regelgeving

Articles - In geval van strijdigheid tussen de Richtlijn Oneerlijke Handelspraktijken[1] (en bij uitbreiding de omzettingsbepalingen in Boek VI WER) en andere Europeesrechtelijke voorschriften betreffende specifieke aspecten van oneerlijke handelspraktijken, hebben deze laatste voorrang (zie artikel 3, lid 4 van de Richtlijn Oneerlijke Handelspraktijken). Dat dit tot interessante discussies kan leiden, bleek uit een recent arrest van het Hof van Justitie[2].

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 – en cookieverklaring