Short Reads

European Parliament votes in favour of representative actions for consumers

European Parliament votes in favour of representative actions for con

European Parliament votes in favour of representative actions for consumers

28.03.2019 NL law

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

Should the Council and the European Parliament indeed find agreement on the European Commission's proposal, the Directive will require Member States to implement collective redress mechanisms for violations of specifically designated parts of EU consumer protection law. The Directive aims to enable qualified representative entities protecting the interests of consumer groups to initiate legal action to obtain a remedy (including monetary compensation) for an infringement of EU consumer protection laws by traders. The Directive leaves it to the Member States whether to establish collective redress mechanisms before national courts or before national administrative authorities.

The text adopted by the European Parliament includes several changes to the initial proposal of the European Commission. Some amendments resulted from discussions in the European Parliament (including its various subcommittees) and discussions among various stakeholders:

  • Concerns were raised with respect to potential frivolous litigation that could result from the Directive's collective redress mechanism, especially in the context of cross-border claims. Compared to the European Commission's initial proposal, the amended version adopted by the European Parliament imposes stricter funding, transparency and governance (including admissibility) requirements for representative entities that will be authorized to initiate collective redress actions. The Directive provides for enforcement of these requirements by public authorities. In addition, the amended version adopted by the European Parliament makes clear that the Directive does not allow Member States to establish collective redress actions for punitive damages or other types of overcompensation.
  • The amended version also aims to reduce the risk of overlapping claims, specifically by introducing an obligation for Member States to ensure that no other ongoing collective redress action has been initiated regarding the same facts and parties.
  • The European Commission's initial proposal left it to the Member States whether collective redress actions require consumers to opt in, or whether it is sufficient to provide consumers with the possibility to opt out. However, the amended version that was approved by the European Parliament aims to limit the possibility of using an opt-out system. Under this amended version Member States should require an explicit opt-in from consumers living outside the Member State where the collective redress action is initiated.
  • Another topic that sparked discussions was that the Directive explicitly allows Member States to keep existing redress mechanisms, or to establish national collective redress mechanisms. Some Member States had voiced concerns about the impact of adverse effects on existing national collective redress mechanisms. The amended version adopted by the European Parliament states that the "Directive is without prejudice to other forms of redress mechanisms provided for in national law" (Section 3 of Article 2). Furthermore, it states that the Directive "does not prevent Member States from maintaining their existing framework, neither does it oblige Member States to amend it" (Recital 24 of the Directive's preamble). Still, there remains some doubt as to how this European collective redress mechanism will interrelate with collective redress mechanisms that already exist in certain Member States. For example, if such national collective redress mechanisms impose more lenient (admissibility) requirements on qualified representative entities that could initiate collective redress actions, one could wonder whether or not this Directive would change that.

It remains to be seen whether the Council and the European Parliament are able to reach a common position on the European Commission's proposal. If so, this Directive will fundamentally change the landscape of enforcement of European consumer protection law. Whereas several Member States already allow for certain collective redress mechanisms (see for example our earlier Stibbe blog on the recent adoption of a legislative proposal allowing for collective actions for damages in the Netherlands), other Member States do not or only to a limited extent.

Related news

08.07.2020 NL law
Dutch State breached duty of care in providing information to victims and surviving relatives of plane crash

Short Reads - Earlier this year, the District Court in The Hague ruled that the Dutch State is liable vis-à-vis the victims and surviving relatives of a 1992 plane crash in Faro, Portugal. The State was found liable because it is responsible for the information provided by the Dutch Aviation Safety Board (a government agency) to the victims and surviving relatives. This information, on the causes of the crash was deemed by the court to be incorrect and incomplete.

Read more

02.07.2020 NL law
Aansprakelijkheid van de Staat bij vliegtuigcrash in Faro

Articles - In haar uitspraak van 8 januari 2020 oordeelde Rechtbank Den Haag dat de Nederlandse Staat onrechtmatig heeft gehandeld jegens de slachtoffers en nabestaanden van de vliegramp in Faro (Portugal) in 1992, waarbij een Nederlands toestel was betrokken. De onrechtmatigheid is gelegen in onjuiste dan wel onvolledige informatieverstrekking over de oorzaken van deze vliegramp door de toenmalige Raad voor de Luchtvaart, inmiddels opgegaan in de Onderzoeksraad voor Veiligheid (‘Raad’). 

Read more

07.07.2020 NL law
Actualiteiten bescherming Nederlandse ondernemingen

Short Reads - Het afgelopen half jaar zijn er verschillende ontwikkelingen geweest op het gebied van bescherming van Nederlandse ondernemingen. COVID-19 zorgde daarbij voor een stroomversnelling. De verslechterde economische situatie als gevolg van COVID-19 maakt dat ondernemingen sneller bloot kunnen komen te staan aan ongewenste overnames of investeringen. Het Kabinet biedt ondernemingen handvatten ter bescherming tegen ongewenste overnames en investeringen als de nationale veiligheid in het geding komt.

Read more

27.05.2020 NL law
Accountants advising in real estate transactions: be aware of penalties in mortgage deeds

Short Reads - The Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden ruled on 3 March 2020 that an accountant did not properly advise her client with respect to a sale of real estate (ECLI:NL:GHARL:2020:1875). In her research concerning the consequences of the sale, the accountant had failed to properly review the contracts between the seller and the financier of the real estate. The accountant had therefore acted unlawfully.

Read more

07.07.2020 NL law
UBO-register starts on 27 September 2020

Short Reads - It was announced on 7 July that the UBO register will go live on 27 September 2020. The Act on the implementation of the UBO register ("Implementation Act") and the corresponding decree of entry into force have each been published today in the Bulletin of Acts and Decrees. The Act will (partially) enter into force on 8 July 2020, and concerns the obligation for legal entities to collect and maintain information about their UBOs and the obligation for foundations to maintain benefits of 25 percent or less.

Read more