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.

Team

Related news

04.06.2019 NL law
Dutch Supreme Court clarifies evidentiary rules concerning signatures and signed documents

Short Reads - In two recent decisions, the Dutch Supreme Court has clarified the evidentiary power of signed documents. If the signatory unambiguously denies that the signature on the document is his or hers or claims that another party has tampered with the signature (for instance, through forgery or copying a signature from one document and pasting it in another), it is up to the party invoking the signed document to prove the signature's authenticity (ECLI:NL:HR:2019:572).

Read more

24.05.2019 NL law
European regulatory initiatives for online platforms and search engines

Short Reads - As part of the digital economy, the rise of online platforms and search engines raises all kinds of legal questions. For example, do bicycle couriers qualify as employees who are entitled to ordinary labour law protections? Or should they be considered self-employed (see our Stibbe website on this issue)? The rise of online platforms also triggers more general legal questions on the relationship between online platforms and their users. Importantly, the European Union is becoming increasingly active in this field.

Read more

03.06.2019 NL law
Toerekening van kennis van groepsvennootschappen

Articles - In de praktijk doet zich vaak de vraag voor of kennis die aanwezig is binnen de ene vennootschap kan worden toegerekend aan een andere vennootschap binnen hetzelfde concern. In dit artikel verkent Branda Katan zowel de dogmatische grondslag als de praktische toepassing van een dergelijke toerekening. Zij concludeert dat het ‘Babbel-criterium’ (heeft in de gegeven omstandigheden de kennis X in het maatschappelijk verkeer te gelden als kennis van Y?) geschikt is voor het toerekenen van kennis in concernverband.

Read more

01.05.2019 NL law
Arbitral award obligating Ecuador to prevent enforcement of USD 8.6 billion order does not violate public order

Short Reads - Due to environmental damage as a result of oil extraction in the Ecuadorian Amazon, oil company Chevron was ordered to pay USD 8.6 billion to Ecuadorian citizens. In order to claim release of liability, Chevron and Texaco initiated arbitration proceedings against Ecuador. Arbitral awards ordered Ecuador to prevent enforcement of the Ecuadorian judgment, leaving the Ecuadorian plaintiffs temporarily unable to enforce their judgment. According to the Supreme Court (12 April 2019, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:565), these arbitral awards did however not violate public order.

Read more

28.05.2019 NL law
Dutch court: insufficient substantiation? No follow-on cartel damages action

Short Reads - Dutch courts are forcing claimants (including claims vehicles) to be well-prepared before initiating follow-on actions. The Amsterdam District Court in the Dutch trucks cartel follow-on proceedings recently ruled that claimants – specifically CDC, STCC, Chapelton, K&D c.s. and STEF c.s. – had insufficiently substantiated their claims. These claimants now have until 18 September 2019 to provide sufficient facts regarding transactions that – according to them – were affected by the cartel. Preparation should thus be key for cartel damages actions.

Read more

01.05.2019 NL law
Termination of an agreement: compelling grounds?

Short Reads - When does a reason given for termination of an agreement qualify as a compelling ground? That was the central question in the Dutch Supreme Court's decision of 29 March 2019 (ECLI:NL:HR:2019:446). Depending on the nature of the agreement and the circumstances of the case, termination may only take place under certain conditions, e.g. only on compelling grounds. 

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