Short Reads

Legislative proposal for mass damages claims approved by the Dutch House of Representatives

Legislative proposal for mass damages claims approved by the Dutch Ho

Legislative proposal for mass damages claims approved by the Dutch House of Representatives

06.02.2019 NL law

On 29 January 2019, the Dutch House of Representatives approved the legislative proposal that introduces collective actions for damages under article 3:305a of the Dutch Civil Code (DCC). This proposal aims to amend article 3:305a DCC to enable collective actions for damages on an 'opt-out' basis.

The legislative proposal allows for such claims provided that the requirements of article 3:305a DCC are met. If a claim is successful, the judge determines the amount of damages in one go, so that the case can be dealt with for a large group of class members at the same time. Not every claim organization can file a collective claim for damages. The legislative proposal includes conditions regarding the organization and funding of organizations that wish to initiate a collective action.

The House of Representatives approved several amendments to an earlier version of the legislative proposal. These amendments aimed to introduce a requirement that mass damages claims should be closely connected to the Dutch jurisdiction, the possibility to order a claimant to pay additional costs to the other party in the case of an ill-founded claim, stricter admissibility requirements for (very) small claims and claims with an idealistic purpose and an improvement of the transitional provisions of the legislative proposal.

The amendment relating to the transitional provisions of the legislative proposal ensures that collective actions for damages will only be admissible if they relate to "events" that occurred on or after 15 November 2016 (the day the draft proposal was submitted to the House of Representatives). An amendment that would have made it possible for a court in some cases to order that class members must opt-in before they could become bound to a collective action judgment or settlement was rejected.

The Senate will now discuss the bill. Once the bill is approved by the Senate, the date of entry into force will be announced.

For more detailed information about the legislative proposal see the previously published Overview of Legislative Proposal on Collective Action (NL) by Jeroen Kortmann.

Team

Related news

17.09.2021 NL law
Illusies van een dashboardsamenleving

Articles - Steven Hijink plaatst in zijn column in Ondernemingsrecht kritische kanttekeningen bij enkele aspecten van het voorontwerp voor de Wet toekomst accountancysector, dat op 9 juli 2021 is gepubliceerd.

Read more

03.09.2021 NL law
Don’t get scammed, and don’t let scammers scam: the legal framework for mistaken payments clarified

Short Reads - “Bol.com mistakes scammers for Brabantia and pays €750,000’’ read headlines in The Netherlands in May 2021. After receiving an e-mail written in flawed Dutch (with some English in between), Bol.com paid €750,493.09 to what it thought was a new bank account in Spain of an existing Dutch/Belgian supplier, Brabantia. The court ruled that Bol.com could not rely on the fact that the company had already paid the scammer pretending to be Brabantia and that Bol.com was therefore not discharged by payment (ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2021:1528).

Read more

26.08.2021 BE law
Sarah De Wulf and Malik Baba co-authored a book dedicated to the legal aspects of the video-game industry

Articles - The book, entitled 'Legal Aspects of the video-game industry', provides a first answer to the most important legal questions that might arise in the lifecycle of a video-game company. These insights are intended to be applicable irrespective of jurisdictions, illustrated by real-life situations and easy to read for individuals without a legal background.

Read more

05.08.2021 NL law
Unauthorized representation: liability of the intermediary

Short Reads - This blog is one of the blogs in a series called “Commercial contracts in the Netherlands”. It is discussed as to under which circumstances third parties can hold the intermediary liable for damage suffered due to unauthorized representation, alongside discussion of the various legal bases for liability.

Read more