Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Jurisdiction and the Dutch Collective Action

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Collective Redress and Private International Law in the EU

  • 528 Accesses

Abstract

Various connecting factors can be used in order to confer jurisdiction to a certain court (e.g. the court parties choose in a choice of forum agreement, the domicile of the defendant, the Erfolgsort/Handlungsort, the place of performance of an obligation). In order to determine the competent court in a collective action procedure, these connecting factors must be put in perspective with the particularities of the collective action procedure (i.e. an interest group is a party to the procedure, rather than the actual plaintiff parties). This chapter sets out whether and how jurisdiction can be conferred to a certain court with respect to a collective action procedure. In addition, it is analysed whether the way jurisdiction can be conferred to a certain court is in line with the goals of both collective redress and the Brussels I-bis Regulation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Sect. 3.3.

  2. 2.

    Hence, this chapter will not set out the application of the grounds of jurisdiction in the individual cases. For an overview of the application of the grounds of jurisdiction in individual matters, please see the application of these grounds in relation to the KapMuG in Chap. 5.

  3. 3.

    In such a situation, the defendant and a large part of the individual victims, for example, are not domiciled in the Netherlands. Or the place of performance of the infringed obligation is not in the Netherlands.

  4. 4.

    For the options for actually making use of the collective action judgment in other Member States, see Chap. 11.

  5. 5.

    The organisation is unknown in that it does not have a direct link with the defendant through a contract or, for example, through holding a share.

  6. 6.

    The non-consumers will have to base a court’s jurisdiction on either the general provision of Article 4 Brussels I-bis, or on the special grounds of jurisdiction in contractual matters (Article 7(1) Brussels I-bis).

  7. 7.

    Added by author.

  8. 8.

    Case C-89/91, Shearson Lehman Hutton v. TVB [1993], ECR I-139, paras 18–19.

  9. 9.

    Added by author.

  10. 10.

    Ibid.

  11. 11.

    Case C-89/91, Shearson Lehman Hutton v. TVB [1993], ECR I-139, paras 22–23 (emphasis added by author).

  12. 12.

    Case C-167/00 Verein für Konsumenteninformation v. Karl Heinz Henkel [2002], ECR I-8111, para 38. See also Tang 2011, pp. 109–110.

  13. 13.

    See Case C-167/00 Verein für Konsumenteninformation v. Karl Heinz Henkel [2002], ECR I-8111, para 33.

  14. 14.

    See also Briggs 2009, p. 143.

  15. 15.

    As mentioned in Sect. 5.4.1, it is likely that the bank has a choice of forum clause in its general terms and conditions. In a shareholder mass dispute, a choice of forum agreement is likely to be concluded separately.

  16. 16.

    See Kuypers 2008, pp. 205–206.

  17. 17.

    This situation is set out in C-71/83, Tilly Russ v. Nova [1984], ECR I-2417, C-387/98, Coreck Maritime v. Handelsveem [2000], ECR I-9337, case C-C-159/97, Castelleti v. Trumpy [1999], ECR I-1597.

  18. 18.

    This situation is set out in case C-201/82 Gerling v. Tesoro dello Stato [1983], ECR 2503.

  19. 19.

    Should the individual parties decide to let the interest group succeed in their rights and obligations, it would not be possible for the individual victims to use a collective action. They would simply assign their right to compensation to the interest group. This option will, however, not be covered in this book.

  20. 20.

    See also Briggs 2009, p. 185.

  21. 21.

    Added by author.

  22. 22.

    Case C-201/82 Gerling v. Tesoro dello Stato [1983], ECR 2517.

  23. 23.

    Kuypers 2008, pp. 315 et seq.

  24. 24.

    Case C 543/10, Refcomp v. Axa [2013], para 41.

  25. 25.

    Not only because of familiarity with the procedural law of this country, but also because of advantages in respect to evidence and the costs of legal proceedings.

  26. 26.

    See also Case C 543/10, Refcomp v. Axa [2013], para 31.

  27. 27.

    See also Danov 2010, p. 364.

  28. 28.

    As already mentioned, this representation is merely based on the organisation’s statutory goal. The claim the individual victims/plaintiffs have is not assigned or ceded to the organisation.

  29. 29.

    Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts.

  30. 30.

    Case C-167/00 Verein für Konsumenteninformation v. Karl Heinz Henkel [2002], ECR I-8111.

  31. 31.

    Ibid, para 39.

  32. 32.

    Tang 2011, p. 110.

  33. 33.

    Although the Brussels I-bis Regulation is not applicable ratione temporis to the main proceedings, for consistency’s sake the ECJ used the wording of the Regulation. See VKI v. Henkel para 49.

  34. 34.

    Case C-51/97 Réunion européenne SA v. Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor BV [1998] ECR I-6511, paras 19–20.

  35. 35.

    Since jurisdiction in tortious matters is not regulated separately, this section will deal with the jurisdictional grounds for both consumers and non-consumers.

  36. 36.

    Kalfelis v. Bankhaus Schröder Münchmeyer Henst & Cie., (Case 189/87) [1988] ECR 5565.

  37. 37.

    Magnus et al. 2016, pp. 268–269.

  38. 38.

    Veenstra 2003, p. 141.

  39. 39.

    Bier v. Mines de Potasse (Case 21/76) [1976] ECR 1735. And Verein für Konsumenteninformation v. Karl-Heinz Henkel (Case C-167/00) [2002], I-8111, I-8141.

  40. 40.

    Magnus et al. 2016, pp. 269–270.

  41. 41.

    Article 3:305a(3) DCC.

  42. 42.

    Briggs 2009, p. 256.

  43. 43.

    Otherwise the general rule of Article 4 Brussels I-bis would be the only rule left for such situations.

  44. 44.

    Case C-51/97 Réunion européenne SA v. Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor BV [1998] ECR I-6511.

  45. 45.

    Opinion A-G, C-27/02, Petra Engler v. Janus Verstand GmbH [2005], ECR I-418, para 59.

  46. 46.

    Ibid., para 61.

  47. 47.

    Ibid., para 63.

  48. 48.

    See also Magnus et al. 2016, pp. 273–276.

  49. 49.

    Indirect financial damage or adverse consequences of an event which has already caused damage do not establish jurisdiction. See Magnus et al. 2016, pp. 305–306 and Marinari v. Lloyd’s Bank (Case C-364/93) [1995] ECR I-2719.

  50. 50.

    Ibid, para 24.

  51. 51.

    In VKI v. Henkel, Article 7(2) Brussels I-bis could be used because the organisation requested injunctive relief.

  52. 52.

    As was set out in the preceding sections, the Dutch court can assume jurisdiction pursuant to Article 7(2) Brussels I-bis if the damage was caused in the Netherlands (i.e., the Handlungsort was in the Netherlands).

  53. 53.

    In the Dutch DSB matter, in which a bank sold its customers unnecessary policies, the bank was confronted with several foundations that claimed to represent groups of individual victims. There was, however, no clear distinction between the various groups of victims.

  54. 54.

    The marginal chance is, of course relative, since there is always a chance that one court has no knowledge of a comparable judgment made by another court.

References

  • Briggs A (2009) Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments. Informa Law, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Danov M (2010) ‘The Brussels I Regulation; Cross-border collective redress proceedings and judgments’. Journal of Private International Law 2

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuypers PHLM (2008a) Forumkeuze in het Nederlandse internationaal privaatrecht. Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnus U et al (2016) ‘Brussels I Regulation’. Sellier, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Tang S (2011) ‘Consumer collective redress’. Journal of Private International Law 1

    Google Scholar 

  • Veenstra KJ (2003) ‘Artikel 5 EEX en afgebroken onderhandelingen’. NTBR

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Supreme Court of the Netherlands, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Thijs Bosters

Authors
  1. Thijs Bosters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thijs Bosters .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 T.M.C. Asser Press and the author

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bosters, T. (2017). Jurisdiction and the Dutch Collective Action. In: Collective Redress and Private International Law in the EU. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-186-9_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-186-9_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-185-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-186-9

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation