SearchSearch results for: “”

On 20 June 2025, the Dutch Supreme Court referred questions to the CJEU in an antitrust damages case on trucks manufacturing. This blog explores the events leading to this pivotal moment and the key questions posed.

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

Dutch courts have not yet developed procedural rules for the WAMCA, the new Dutch regime for collective redress. This adds to pre-existing uncertainty around many procedural aspects of this new law.

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.

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

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

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is one of the most significant development in the European data strategy in the past years and is continuously evolving.

Whether it is possible to claim collective damages for an alleged breach of the GDPR by means of WAMCA proceedings has been a recent question within the mass damages practice. What information on this topic can be found in legislation, case law and litera

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.

Foreign entities are often sued in the Netherlands on the basis of the ‘anchor defendant’ construction.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch of 27 May 2025 concerns a collective action brought by Consumentenbond and Stichting Aequitas against Koninklijke Philips N.V. under the old Dutch collective action regime of Article 3:305a DCC.