SearchSearch results for: “”

How can a party terminate an agreement? With the exception of certain specific agreements (i.e. employment or rent), the Dutch Civil Code (DCC) does not provide rules on termination as such.

By 26 December 2023 at the latest, EU Member States must publish a list of organisations that they have designated as ‘qualified entities’ (bevoegde instanties) for bringing cross-border representative actions within the EU on behalf of consumers.

The Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal recently ruled that if a collective action within the meaning of Article 3:305a (old) of the Dutch Civil Code leads to the granting of the requested declaratory relief.

In a judgment of 23 January 2024 (case no. 200.304.621 and 200.304.673), the Court of Appeal ruled that elevator manufacturer Kone can be held liable for damages alleged by 23 parties that combined their claims in a litigation vehicle.

Contrary to the Amsterdam District Court’s judgment, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal granted Stichting Elco Foundation standing in a collective action against several banks and brokers based on alleged manipulation of interest rate benchmarks.

In the Netherlands, it is possible for a representative entity to bring a "collective action" on an "opt-out basis" under article 3:305a of the Dutch Civil Code (the "DCC"). However, under the current provisions in Dutch law, the representative entity is

The proposed text for a Directive on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers has radically changed – again.

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

On 19 March 2019, the Dutch Senate approved the legislative proposal that introduces collective actions for damages under article 3:305a of the Dutch Civil Code (DCC). As the legislative proposal did not give rise to any debate in the Senate, it was passe

Two recent decisions from the Amsterdam Court of Appeal have confirmed that litigation vehicles cannot come empty-handed to the court, and should provide documentation regarding the assignments of claims they submit.

De Wet afwikkeling massaschade in collectieve actie (WAMCA) is op 1 januari 2020 in werking getreden.  Deze wet maakt het eenvoudiger om massaschadegevallen collectief af te wikkelen via de Nederlandse rechter.

Op 1 april 2019 is de Wet afwikkeling massaschade in collectieve actie (WAMCA) in het Staatsblad gepubliceerd. Deze wet maakt het eenvoudiger om massaschadegevallen collectief af te wikkelen via de Nederlandse rechter.

Op 26 mei 2021 deed de rechtbank Den Haag uitspraak in de zaak tussen Milieudefensie e.a. tegen Shell. Een multidisciplinair team van Stibbe geeft in dit blog haar eerste visie op deze uitspraak en legt uit waarom dit een baanbrekende uitspraak kan zijn.

On May 26, 2021, the District Court of The Hague rendered its judgment in the case between Milieudefensie and others against Shell.

Recent case law on the standing of ‘idealistic’ claim foundations shows courts’ lenient approach.

In de Nieuwsuur-uitzending van 8 februari gaat Jeroen Kortmann in op de GGD-claim van de Stichting ICAM en pleit hij voor meer regulering. Zonder regulering en toezicht op claimclubs en financiers is het wachten tot het een keer verkeerd gaat.  

Jeroen Kortmann gaat in NRC en op BNR Nieuwsradio in op de toename van het aantal massaclaims in Nederland en de risico’s die er kleven aan een gebrek aan toezicht.

De Wet afwikkeling massaschade in collectieve actie (WAMCA) heeft de figuur van de exclusieve belangenbehartiger (EB) geïntroduceerd.