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

19.10.2017 NL law
Annotatie onder Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden - 14-02-2017

Articles - Nu de verkoop van de inventaris meer dan een jaar voor het faillissement heeft plaatsgevonden, is het bewijsvermoeden van art. 43 Fw niet van toepassing. De stelplicht en de bewijslast ten aanzien van het paulianeus handelen rusten dan ook op de curator. De enkele omstandigheid dat het niet goed ging met de onderneming, betekent nog niet dat op dat moment te voorzien was dat een faillissement onafwendbaar was.

Read more

15.11.2017 BE law
Hof van Cassatie trekt streep door eerste schadevergoeding toegekend door Raad van State

Articles - Opdat aan de Raad van State een ontvankelijk verzoek tot schadevergoeding zou kunnen worden gericht, is onder meer vereist dat er een arrest voorligt waarin de Raad van State de onwettigheid van een handeling vaststelt. Het Hof van Cassatie verduidelijkt in een arrest van 15 september 2017 wat moet worden begrepen als een "arrest waarbij de onwettigheid wordt vastgesteld". Een arrest dat de intrekking vaststelt, valt er volgens het Hof niet onder.

Read more

02.10.2017 NL law
Judgement beyond the ambit of the legal dispute

Short Reads - In its judgment of 14 July 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:1357 the Supreme Court decided that the pleadings did not provide sufficient basis for the decision of the Court of Appeal that the contractor's claim was also based on joint and several liability of the alleged client. Moreover, the pleadings provided no evidence that the alleged client acknowledged that the contractor considered the alleged client jointly and severally liable.

Read more

26.09.2017 BE law
Belgian act on security interests in movable property - Rules for operation and fees for users of the National Pledge Register

Articles - In 2013 Belgian Parliament enacted the Belgian Act on security rights in movable property of 11 July 2013 (the “Act”). This new legislation envisaged the creation of an electronic, online National Pledge Register so that a pledge on movable assets can be created between pledgor and pledgee and perfected by registering the pledge and without dispossession or loss of control of the pledged assets. 

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