Short Reads

Implementation of KEI legislation for Civil 1.0 procedures

Implementation of KEI legislation for Civil 1.0 procedures

Implementation of KEI legislation for Civil 1.0 procedures

26.06.2017 NL law

On 1 September 2017, the KEI legislation for claims with mandatory representation (Civil 1.0) will enter into force at the courts of Gelderland and Central Netherlands. From this date, litigation will only be processed digitally in these courts.

In principle, the KEI legislation for Civil 1.0 procedures will be rolled out nationally at the other first instance courts five months later. The pilot period may also  be extended. In that context, in a progress report of 15 May 2017, the Minister of Security and Justice emphasized that care and reliability are paramount and that there are various decision making moments before further KEI legislation comes into effect.

In the run-up to Civil 1.0, a pre-pilot at the courts of Gelderland and Central Netherlands  took place in cooperation with law firms involving a total of 17 mock cases. In addition, on the basis of the experimentation provision which is included in the KEI legislation, three real cases have been processed by the pilot courts.

Originally, it was hoped that Civil 1.0 would start earlier than 1 September 2017, but the Judiciary and the Dutch Bar Association decided to extend the pre-pilot and start the mandatory phase of digital litigation only once both parties felt that the system was 'ready for it'. See the previously published blog 'The start of KEI: introduction of digital litigation'.

At the start of the mandatory phase of digital litigation, there will be a large group of lawyers who do not have the pre-pilot experience and for whom digital processing is entirely new. This may cause some 'teething' problems.

In his advice of 13 April 2017, the Chairman of the Judiciary stated to the Minister of Security and Justice regarding the (partial) entry into force of the KEI laws that the Judiciary will adopt a reasonable attitude towards digital litigation. In addition, civil courts have agreed to a recommendation from the Judiciary on excusable failure to meet the deadline.

Team

Related news

11.04.2019 NL law
Double roles in attributing knowledge

Short Reads - The knowledge of a person who in fact runs a company can be attributed to the company if the sole director and shareholder is a 'straw man', the Supreme Court confirmed in a judgment of 29 March 2019. The rules by the Supreme Court are not revolutionary or even new. But circumstances essential for the attribution of knowledge are ignored. The double role played by the 'man in charge' raises questions about how to apply the rules as identified by the Supreme Court to the facts

Read more

28.03.2019 NL law
European Parliament votes in favour of representative actions for consumers

Short Reads - On 26 March 2019 the European Parliament approved an amended version of the European Commission's proposal for a Directive on representative actions for the protection of collective interests of consumers, following a debate on 25 March 2019. The Directive will become law once the Council and the European Parliament reach an agreement on the European Commission's proposal. The Council has not yet been able to adopt a position on the Directive, meaning that the Directive will most likely be considered again after the ­­­European elections in May 2019 by a different European Parliament

Read more

10.04.2019 NL law
Damage due to a defective driveway and the Dutch twenty year limitation period: When does limitation start in case of a continuous event that causes damage?

Short Reads - On 22 March 2019, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled (ECLI:NL:HR:2019:412) that the strict liability for buildings (opstalaansprakelijkheid) is not linked to a specific damaging act but to a damaging condition, as referred to in section 6:174 DCC. Therefore, there is no reason to regard a damaging act as an 'event that caused damage' as referred to in section 3:310 DCC concerning the limitation period for claims for damages.

Read more

04.04.2019 NL law
European Court of Justice: actio pauliana is covered by jurisdiction rule of forum of contract. A judgment with foreseeable consequences?

Short Reads - Imagine that a debtor voluntarily concludes a transaction with a third party where he knows (or should know) that it hinders the creditor's possibilities of collecting the debt. In civil law countries, a creditor can invoke the nullification of that legal act by means of a so-called actio pauliana. This raises the question of which court has jurisdiction in the case of an international dispute, regarding an actio pauliana, that is instituted by a creditor against a third party?

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