Collective Redress & Class Actions 2024 Comparisons

This text reflects the state of the law in the Netherlands as of 17 September 2024.

Collective Action – Case Law

The right of collective action was first accepted by the Dutch Supreme Court in case law on environmental (pollution) matters decades ago. The Supreme Court held that the interests involved in such claims are suitable to be bundled in an action brought by environmental associations on behalf of citizens. According to the Supreme Court, this would promote effective legal protection.

Collective Action – WCA

In 1994, this case law was codified and a more general basis for collective actions was provided by the Act on Collective Actions (Wet collective actie ‒ WCA). Pursuant to the WCA, foundations or associations with full legal capacity (hereinafter also referred to as “interest organisations”) may bring collective actions seeking to protect similar interests of other persons. According to the legislature, an interest organisation can, for example, bring a collective action when the interests at stake are small at the individual level, but considerable at the aggregate level. Also, the threshold for access to the courts was believed to be lower for interest organisations. Furthermore, collective actions were said to have a preventive effect. Finally, effectiveness reasons were also cited.

The WCA expressly excluded the possibility of an interest organisation collectively claiming monetary damages. Back then, the legislature believed that a court could only award monetary damages on the basis of an assessment in respect of each of the individual members of the group, whilst a collective action is conducted at the group level.

Collective Settlement – WCAM

In 2005, the Act on the Collective Settlement of Mass Damages (Wet collectieve afwikkeling massaschade ‒ WCAM) was adopted. Pursuant to the WCAM, a foundation or association with full legal capacity that has reached a settlement for compensation of damages caused by an event or similar events may, together with the party that will pay the compensation, request the Amsterdam Court of Appeal to declare the settlement binding on all injured persons. The occasion for the introduction of the WCAM was the infamous DES Daugthers case, a medical product liability case in which such a settlement was reached and the pharmaceutical companies were looking for ways to make the settlement generally binding. Rather than adopting a tailor-made solution, the legislature adopted a general statutory framework that can be used for the quick and effective settlement of other mass damages claims as well.

Collective Action – WAMCA

In 2011, Parliament passed a motion noting that mass damages were often not adequately compensated and calling on the government to introduce efficient and effective instruments in order to realise the fundamental right of consumers to claim damages. In that respect, the motion noted that the WCAM already provided for the collective settlement of mass damages pursuant to settlement, but that interest organisations lacked the ability to collectively claim monetary damages in the event the party causing the damage was not willing to enter into a settlement.

In 2020, the Act on the Resolution of Mass Damages in Collective Action (Wet afwikkeling massaschade in collectieve actie ‒ WAMCA) entered into force. Pursuant to the WAMCA, interest organisations now also have the possibility to claim monetary damages in collective actions. The WAMCA also introduced safeguards in respect of transparency and the governance of interest organisations. By improving the quality of interest organisations, co-ordinating collective actions and by providing more finality, the WAMCA intends to provide incentives to settle mass damages claims.

Although the Dutch legislature has always been wary of the possible excesses in US-style litigation, both the WCAM and the WAMCA predominantly reflect elements of an American class action. Examples are the opt-out basis (WCAM and WAMCA), the lead plaintiff (WAMCA), the Dutch law equivalent of a motion to dismiss (WAMCA), the possibility to declare the outcome generally binding (WCAM and WAMCA) and the incentives to reach a settlement (WAMCA). However, the WCAM and WAMCA remain distinct from American class actions. In particular, the safeguards introduced by the WAMCA to protect the interests of the injured persons (eg, putting profit motives at arm’s length) have a European background.

One of the reasons for the introduction of the WAMCA was the 2013 Commission Recommendation on common principles for injunctive and compensatory collective redress mechanisms, which was duly taken into account by the Dutch legislature. Hence, the Dutch legislature is of the opinion that the WAMCA already met the requirements of Directive (EU) 2020/1828 on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers, and only needed amendment where the Directive gives supplementary rules in some specific cases. Also, the rules of the Directive on the designation and acceptance of qualified entities that can bring collective actions in consumer cases needed implementation. On 25 June 2023, the implementing Act entered into force.

Laws

The principal laws and regulations governing collective actions and settlements are the Dutch Civil Code (DCC) and Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (DCCP). The rules for collective actions are laid down in Sections 3:305a–3:305d of the DCC. With the entry into force of the WAMCA, additional rules have been laid down in Sections 1018b–1018m of the DCCP. Collective settlements are governed by the WCAM, which was laid down in Sections 7:907–7:910 of the DCC and Sections 1013–1018a of the DCCP.

Regulations

In addition to this statutory framework, the so-called Claim Code could also be of relevance. The Claim Code is a governance code for interest organisations. The Claim Code intends to guarantee participants in collective actions that the board of such a foundation or association will always put the interests of the injured persons first. Before the entry into force of the WAMCA, courts often drew inspiration from the Claim Code’s seven comply-or-explain principles in respect of governance and third-party funding in their assessment of whether an interest organisation met the requirements for bringing a collective action. However, much of the Claim Code has been codified by the WAMCA, and it remains to be seen what the residual role (if any) of the Claim Code will be.

Substantive Scope

The substantive scope of both the WAMCA as well as the WCAM is unlimited. The principal laws and regulations governing collective actions and settlements apply to all areas of law, types of disputes and issues. A collective action can be brought in relation to any event that has affected the interests of the parties on behalf of whom the collective action is brought in a similar way. Those parties can be both natural persons as well as legal entities.

Temporal Scope

The temporal scope of the WAMCA is limited. The WAMCA does not apply to collective actions in relation to events that took place before 15 November 2016. However, for a series of events that took place both before and after 15 November 2016 that constitute a single and continuous tort, such as a cartel, legislative history should be construed in such a way that the WAMCA applies to the entire series of events.

Geographical Scope

In order for a collective action to be admissible, the Dutch courts must have jurisdiction and the case must have a sufficiently close connection with the Dutch jurisdiction. The latter is the case if:

• the majority of the persons on whose behalf the collective action is brought are Dutch;
• the collective action is brought against a Dutch defendant and the case otherwise also has a sufficiently close connection with the Dutch jurisdiction; or
• the event to which the case relates took place in the Netherlands.

Under the WCAM, such requirements do not apply. In fact, the vast majority of the injured parties to which the Shell and Converium collective settlements related were not Dutch. This was also the case (although to a lesser extent) for the injured parties within the scope of the Fortis/Ageas collective settlement. In Converium, none of the potentially liable persons were Dutch and the event to which the collective settlement related did not take place in the Netherlands. Nonetheless, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal assumed jurisdiction and declared the collective settlement generally binding.

Pursuant to Section 3:305a of the DCC, a collective action is a legal action brought by a foundation or an association with full legal capacity, seeking to protect similar interests of other persons, provided that those interests are sufficiently safeguarded. On the relevant safeguards, see 4.3 Standing.

Pursuant to Section 7:907 of the DCC, a collective settlement is a settlement in respect of the compensation of damages caused by an event or similar events between a foundation or an association with full legal capacity on the one hand and a party that will pay the compensation on the other hand; it is declared binding on all injured persons.

Apart from collective actions, which can be brought before any competent district court, and collective settlements, which can only be declared generally binding by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal, there are two other main mechanisms for collective redress: the so-called assignment model and a bundled action on the basis of mandates/powers of attorney. These mechanisms are particularly used in cartel damages actions.

The Assignment Model

Under the assignment model, the injured parties first assign their claims to a special purpose vehicle (SPV), which then initiates the proceedings, as the owner of the claims, in its own name and for its own risk and account. Such claim can be brought before any competent district court. Under the assignment model, the SPV assumes any and all costs related to the litigation and pays the injured parties a purchase price for the assignment of their claims, which is usually a percentage of the compensation recovered (if any) in the litigation.

Mandates/Powers of Attorney

In an action on the basis of mandates/powers of attorney, the injured parties do not assign their claims to the SPV, but rather give it a mandate or a power of attorney to pursue these claims on their behalf. The SPV then initiates the proceedings either in its own name (in the case of a mandate) or in the name of the injured parties (in the case of a power of attorney), but always for the risk and account of the injured parties. Such claims can be brought before any competent district court. The SPV again assumes any and all costs related to the litigation and, if successful, the injured parties pay the SPV a percentage of the compensation recovered.

Case Law

In two of the largest cartel damages actions that are currently pending in the Netherlands, the cartel damages claims filed against major global airlines (“Air Cargo”) and European truck manufacturers (“Trucks”), in which Brande & Verheij LLP represents different claimants, both the Amsterdam District Court and the Amsterdam Court of Appeal have confirmed that it is possible to conduct legal proceedings on the basis of the assignment model and/or mandates/powers of attorney. In these cases, purchasers of air freight services and trucks have assigned their claims to a foundation. In the Trucks case, the Amsterdam District Court also held that such an SPV does not have to comply with the safeguards introduced by the WAMCA (or the Claim Code). On the relevant safeguards, see 4.3 Standing.       

Collective Action – WAMCA

The underlying rationale for the WAMCA was to introduce a step-by-step procedure that would promote the settlement of mass damages. The statutory framework clearly reflects this by prescribing the following steps.

Preliminary stage

1.       Before the collective action is brought, the interest organisation must have made sufficient efforts to realise the relief sought by conducting consultations with the defendant, in the absence of which the interest organisation will not be admissible in the collective action.

2.       If these consultations are to no avail (which is usually the case), the interest organisation should issue a writ of summons detailing inter alia:

a.       the event or events to which the collective action relates;

b.       the persons whose interests the collective action seeks to protect; and

c.       the degree of commonality of the factual and legal questions to be answered.

3.       Within two days of the date of issue, the writ of summons must be entered into the central register for collective actions. This used to be a copy of the entire writ of summons. However, as of the entry into force of the Act implementing the EU Collective Redress Regime as per 25 June 2023, it suffices for this to be an extract of the writ of summons.

4.       Within three months of the entry of the writ of summons in the central register, other interest organisations may bring a collective action based on the event or events to which the initial collective action relates. Such consecutive collective action must be brought before the same district court as the initial collective action, after which the collective actions will be consolidated. Upon the request of another interest organisation, the court may extend this time limit by no more than three months. Unlike the Amsterdam District Court, which held in the Apple App Store collective action that such extension only applies to the specific interest organisation(s) requesting the same, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal found in the Mercedes Dieselgate collective action that other interest organisations can also benefit from the extension. The Appeal Court judgment will likely be seen as authoritative on this point, but the Dutch Supreme Court will have the final say on the issue, if and when an appeal in cassation is lodged (or the question is referred to the Supreme Court for a preliminary ruling).

Admissibility stage

5.       The collective action will only be dealt with on its merits if and after the district court has ruled that:

a.       the claimant meets the admissibility requirements (see 4.3 Standing);

b.       the claimant has sufficiently demonstrated that bringing the collective action is more efficient and effective than bringing individual actions, because the factual and legal questions to be answered are sufficiently common, the number of persons whose interests the collective action seeks to protect is sufficient and their financial interests are sufficiently large; and

c.       the collective action is not prima facie unfounded.

6.       If more than one collective action has been brought and multiple interest organisations are admissible, the court will appoint an exclusive representative (the Dutch law equivalent of the American lead plaintiff), having regard to the size of the group of injured persons on whose behalf the interest organisation is acting, the size of the financial interests of that group, any other activities performed by the interest organisation for the injured persons and any previous activities performed or collective actions brought by the interest organisation.

7.       Next, the district court will determine the precise substance of the collective action and the narrowly defined group of injured persons whose interests the interest organisation is seeking to protect.

8.       Dutch residents belonging to this narrowly defined group will then be given the possibility to opt out in a period of at least one month after the announcement of the decisions referred to under points 6 and 7 above. Non-Dutch residents belonging to this narrowly defined group will be given a similar period to opt in, unless the district court has decided that they will also be represented on an opt-out basis. If the number of injured persons who have opted out is too large, the district court may decide not to move forward with the collective action. Otherwise, the outcome of the collective action will in principle be binding on all injured persons who opted in or did not opt out.

Settlement stage

9.       After the appointment of an exclusive representative, the district court will set a period for testing a settlement.

10.       If a settlement is reached, the settlement agreement must be submitted to the district court for approval. Pursuant to the WAMCA, many provisions of the WCAM (on collective settlements) apply accordingly to the approval of a settlement agreement and (the announcement of) the approved settlement agreement under the WAMCA.

11.       If the settlement agreement is approved, the persons belonging to the narrowly defined group will again be given the possibility to opt out. The settlement agreement will in principle be binding on all injured persons who do not opt out.

Final stage

12.       If no settlement is reached, the district court will deal with the collective action on the merits. If the collective action concerns a claim for monetary damages, the district court may, before establishing a collective compensation scheme, order the exclusive representative and the defendant to submit a proposal for a collective compensation scheme. The district court must ensure that, where possible, the damages are assessed in categories and that the amount of the damages awarded is reasonable.

Collective Settlement – WCAM

Before a procedure on the basis of the WCAM can be initiated, a settlement needs to be reached between a foundation or an association with full legal capacity on the one hand and a party that will pay the compensation on the other. The WCAM is silent on the settlement process itself and only provides what the settlement agreement must contain in terms of (inter alia) the event or events to which the agreement relates, the group or groups of injured persons on whose behalf the settlement was concluded, and the number of persons belonging to this group or these groups.

The parties to the settlement agreement (ie, the interest organisation and the party that will pay the compensation) can then jointly request the Amsterdam Court of Appeal to declare the settlement binding on all injured persons.

To that end, all the injured persons on whose behalf the settlement was concluded must be summoned and informed of the possibility to raise objections against the settlement in the procedure on the basis of the WCAM.

After having established that the injured persons have been properly summoned, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal will then assess the settlement. The settlement will not be declared generally binding if (inter alia):

• the amount of the compensation to be paid is unreasonable, taking into account the extent of the damages, the simplicity and speed with which compensation can be obtained by the injured parties under the settlement and the possible causes of the damages;
• the interests of the injured persons are insufficiently safeguarded;
• the interest organisation is insufficiently representative in terms of the interests of the injured persons on whose behalf the settlement has been concluded; and/or
• the group of injured persons on whose behalf the settlement has been concluded is too small to justify declaring the settlement generally binding.

If the Amsterdam Court of Appeal declares the settlement generally binding, injured persons must be given the possibility to opt out in a period of at least three months after the announcement of that decision. If (and to the extent) they have not opted out, the settlement will in principle be binding on all injured persons.

A particular feature of the WCAM is that upon the request to declare a settlement generally binding, any and all procedures relating to disputes that the settlement agreement aims to end are stayed by operation of law until after the procedure on the basis of the WCAM.

The Assignment Model

There is no special procedure for actions on the basis of the assignment model or mandates/powers of attorney. Hence, such proceedings are, in principle, conducted like any other, albeit that the defendants usually raise specific defences as to the validity of the assignments, mandates and/or powers of attorney (although such defences are generally dismissed).

In practice, proceedings on the basis of the assignment model or mandates/powers of attorney tend to be so complex and voluminous that courts often decide in case management hearings on specific ad hoc regimes for these cases, usually requiring claimants and defendants to co-operate.

Collective Action – WAMCA

Pursuant to Section 3:305a of the DCC, only a foundation or an association with full legal capacity may bring a collective action. In order to do so, that foundation or association must show that it is advancing the interests it seeks to protect in accordance with its articles of association and that the interests of the injured parties are sufficiently safeguarded.

The interests of the injured parties are sufficiently safeguarded if the interest organisation is sufficiently representative in terms of the persons whose interests the collective action seeks to protect, given its constituency and the size of the claims it represents, and if the interest organisation has (inter alia):

• appropriate and effective means for participation or representation by the persons whose interests the collective action seeks to protect;
• sufficient resources to bear the costs of bringing the collective action, whereby the interest organisation must have sufficient control over the (conduct of the) collective action;
• a publicly accessible website on which information about the governance and collective actions of the interest organisation is available; and
• sufficient experience and expertise in the area of bringing and pursuing such a collective action.

It should be noted that the district court may declare an interest organisation admissible without the need to satisfy these requirements if the collective action is brought for an idealistic purpose and the financial interest is very limited, or if the nature of the claim of the interest organisation or the persons whose interests the collective action seeks to protect warrants this. However, this exception can only apply if the claim is not for monetary damages.

Furthermore, the directors involved in the formation of the interest organisation, and their successors, can have no direct or indirect profit motive which is realised through the interest organisation.

Collective Settlement – WCAM

The settlement must have been concluded by, and the request to declare the settlement generally binding must have (also) been made by, a foundation or an association with full legal capacity.

As under the WAMCA, the interest organisation must be sufficiently representative and the interests of the injured persons must be sufficiently safeguarded.

The Assignment Model

There are no special requirements for SPVs in proceedings on the basis of the assignment model or mandates/powers of attorney. The Amsterdam District Court held in the Trucks case that the safeguards introduced by the WAMCA (or the Claim Code) do not apply to such SPVs.

Collective Action – WAMCA

The relevant district court eventually determines the narrowly defined group of injured persons whose interests the interest organisation is seeking to protect in the collective action. However, the more specific this description, the more issues may arise in terms of the required proof for establishing who actually belongs to this group. It remains to be seen how such issues will be resolved.

There is no upper limit on the number of persons in the narrowly defined group. There is a lower limit, however. The collective action will only be dealt with on its merits if the number of persons whose interests the collective action seeks to protect is sufficient. Also, if the number of injured persons who have opted out is too large, the district court may decide not to move forward with the collective action.

The mechanism for joining a collective action is, in principle, opt-out for Dutch residents and opt-in for non-Dutch residents. However, the district court may decide that non-Dutch residents will also be represented on an opt-out basis.

A particular feature of the WCAM is that for persons who have opted out, no collective action can be brought based on similar factual and legal questions regarding the same event(s). Furthermore, individual proceedings between the defendant(s) against whom the collective action has been brought and a person who opted out can be stayed at the request of either party if the proceedings concern similar factual and legal questions regarding the same event(s). The stayed proceedings will be resumed upon the request of either party if they have been stayed for more than one year.

Collective Settlement – WCAM

The settlement agreement should establish the group(s) of injured persons on whose behalf the settlement was concluded, and the number of persons belonging to the group(s).

There is no upper limit on the number of persons on whose behalf the settlement can be concluded. As with collective actions, there is, however, a lower limit. A settlement will not be declared generally binding if the group of injured persons on whose behalf the settlement has been concluded is too small to justify declaring the settlement generally binding.

The Assignment Model

In proceedings on the basis of the assignment model or mandates/powers of attorney, the group on whose behalf the action is brought is determined by the injured parties who assign their claims to the SPV or give the SPV a mandate/power of attorney, which is also the mechanism for joining the action.

There is no lower limit on the number of persons on whose behalf the action can be brought. However, separate claims can only be brought together if they are connected in such a way that reasons of efficiency justify a joint hearing. Moreover, a court may, in view of the manageability of the proceedings, impose upper limits by way of case management, but nothing precludes the SPV from bringing claims that exceed such upper limits in separate proceedings.

Collective Action – WAMCA

An essential feature of the WAMCA is that there is, eventually, an exclusive representative (the Dutch law equivalent of the American lead plaintiff) that acts on behalf of the entire group of injured persons. The possibilities for joinder of further interest organisations are therefore in principle limited to those described in 4.2 Overview of Procedure – ie, within three (or upon request up to six) months of the entry of the writ of summons in the initial collective action in the central register and provided that the consecutive interest organisation is admissible.

Interest organisations that are not appointed as the exclusive representative continue to be parties to the collective action. However, in principle only the exclusive representative will carry out the procedural acts, although the district court may direct that the other interest organisations may also carry out procedural acts. Furthermore, if the nature of the collective action or of the interest organisations (eg, given its constituency) or of the persons they represent so warrant, the district court may elect to designate multiple exclusive representatives in a collective action.

Collective Settlement – WCAM

In a procedure on the basis of the WCAM, the request to declare the settlement binding on all injured persons is made by the parties to the settlement agreement – ie, the interest organisation and the party that will pay the compensation. In addition, injured persons that raise objections against the settlement also become a party to the proceedings.

The Assignment Model

Unless the relevant limitation period has expired, injured parties can continue to assign their claims to the SPV or give the SPV a mandate/power of attorney after the action has been brought. The SPV can then simply increase its claim in the proceedings. However, a court may, in view of due process of law, impose an end date after which no further increase of claims is allowed, but nothing precludes the SPV from bringing additional claims after that end date in separate proceedings.

Furthermore, courts tend to use their case management powers to bundle similar actions brought by different SPVs together to promote efficiency and to prevent conflicting outcomes.

Under Dutch procedural law, courts have ample case management powers, including in respect of collective actions and settlements. Experience shows that courts increasingly make use of these powers.

For example, pursuant to Section 87 of the DCCP, a court may, upon request of (one of) the parties or on its own initiative, in all cases and at every stage of the proceedings, order a hearing to (inter alia):

• discuss the future course of proceedings with the parties;
• give such directions or order such procedural acts it deems appropriate; or
• test a settlement.

For procedures on the basis of the WCAM, Section 1018a of the DCCP even gives interest organisations and parties that are held accountable the possibility to request a hearing before a request has been made to declare a settlement generally binding, in order to test a settlement within the meaning of the WCAM.

Moreover, pursuant to Section 392 of the DCCP, a court may also refer questions of law to the Supreme Court for a preliminary ruling if this is required for the court to be able to render a decision and provided that such a preliminary ruling is directly relevant to a multitude of claims related to the same or similar facts.

An illustration of the far-reaching case management powers of the courts is the direction of the Amsterdam District Court in the Air Cargo and Trucks cases that the defendants as well as the claimants should, to the extent possible, align their respective positions and draft joint submissions.

While proceedings in the Netherlands take an average of one to two years per instance (first instance, appeal and appeal in cassation), mass damages claims tend not to be the average case. They can be rather complex and time-consuming, especially in the case of interim appeals and with regard to the quantification of damages. Courts tend to use their case management powers to set a timetable that fits the specific proceedings, usually after discussing this with the parties at a case management hearing.

As discussed in 4.6 Case Management Powers of Courts, courts have ample case management powers, including in terms of the timetable for the proceedings. For example, in complex cases, courts tend to deviate from the standard periods for procedural acts under Dutch procedural law, and allow longer periods, usually upon the request of (one of) the parties.

Furthermore, an essential feature of the WAMCA is the admissibility stage (the Dutch law equivalent of the motion to dismiss) and the settlement stage, meaning that the district court will only have to deal with the collective action on the merits if the case has not been resolved at one of these earlier stages.

Finally, a claimant in proceedings on the basis of the assignment model or mandates/powers of attorney has the option not to claim monetary damages, but a declaratory judgment establishing liability so that damages can be assessed later in separate follow-up proceedings. This tends to accelerate the main proceedings as complex discussions in respect of the quantification of damages can be reserved for the follow-up proceedings. Moreover, a declaratory judgment establishing liability can be an incentive for the parties to settle the case, as a result of which such discussions can be avoided altogether.

Funding

By now, litigation funding has been widely accepted by the judiciary as well as the legislature. In fact, the only form of funding that is still not allowed, on the basis of their Rules of Professional Conduct, is for lawyers to act on the basis of a contingency fee. Otherwise, litigation funding is seen as appropriate to promote access to justice for injured persons, provided that their interests are sufficiently safeguarded in the case of collective actions and settlements.

Therefore, in proceedings on the basis of the WAMCA and the WCAM, any funding arrangements will be assessed against that requirement. The WAMCA explicitly provides in this respect that the interest organisation must have sufficient control over the (conduct of the) collective action and that the directors involved in the formation of the interest organisation, and their successors, can have no direct or indirect profit motive, which is realised through the interest organisation. In the Converium and Fortis/Ageas collective settlements, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal accepted success fees for litigation funders in the range of 20–25% of the eventual damages. Although these were collective settlements on the basis of the WCAM, courts will probably also draw inspiration from this in collective actions on the basis of the WAMCA. That is indeed what the Amsterdam District Court did in the Stellantis, Mercedes and Renault Dieselgate collective actions. However, in the TikTok collective action the Amsterdam District Court took a different approach. In short, it found that no set percentage can be applied regardless of the compensation awarded. Instead, what percentage will ultimately be deemed acceptable will depend on the amount of such compensation and the number of injured parties that are expected to claim payment thereof. Furthermore, the court held that given the risks they take, it is justifiable that litigation funders receive an appropriate reward, but that this reward should be reasonably proportionate to the amounts invested by them and shall therefore not exceed five times that amount.

The Amsterdam District Court held in Trucks that such requirements do not apply to SPVs in proceedings on the basis of the assignment model or mandates/powers of attorney. District courts and courts of appeal have also accepted success fees for litigation funders in the range of 25–35% in such cases.

Costs

In relation to costs, under Dutch procedural law the principle of “the loser pays” applies, albeit that the amount the loser has to pay is usually severally capped in terms of the court and legal fees. Adverse costs awards are in principle calculated on the basis of the number of procedural acts and a fixed amount per procedural act that depends on the amount of the claim, and they are unlikely to exceed tens of thousands of euros.

A particular feature of the WAMCA is, however, that if the collective action is prima facie unfounded, the district court may increase the defendant’s (standardised) legal fees by a maximum of 500% at the expense of the interest organisation that brought the collective action, unless reasonableness and fairness dictate otherwise. Furthermore, if the district court has to establish a collective compensation scheme in the final stage of a collective action, it may, upon request, deviate from the statutory cap on costs, and order the defendant to pay reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other costs incurred by the interest organisation, unless reasonableness and fairness dictate otherwise. This is another example of an incentive the WAMCA provides to settle mass damages.

Dutch procedural law does not provide for a (pre-)trial discovery or disclosure process as in the USA or the UK. However, pursuant to Section 21 of the DCCP, the parties are obliged to fully and truthfully advance facts that are relevant to the court’s decision. Furthermore, pursuant to Section 22 of the DCCP, the court may, in all cases and at any stage of the proceedings, order the parties or one of them, to substantiate their statements. It seems that, particularly in collective redress cases, courts are increasingly using this power.

Pursuant to Section 843a of the DCCP, a person who has a legitimate interest in doing so may, at their own expense, demand disclosure in legal proceedings of certain documents relating to a legal relationship to which they or their legal predecessors are a party from the person who has such documents at their disposal or in their custody.

The person from whom documents are demanded is not obliged to comply with the request if it can reasonably be assumed that a proper administration of justice is also guaranteed without providing the requested information. However, in cartel damages actions this exception does not apply, pursuant to Section 845 of the DCCP.

Both Sections 22 and 843a of the DCCP provide that a party may refuse disclosure if there are compelling reasons to do so. Legal privilege can be such a reason, but confidentiality and privacy are also invoked by parties resisting disclosure. If a party refuses disclosure without there being a compelling reason for doing so, the court may draw the adverse inferences it deems appropriate.

Finally, the Cartel Damages Directive (Directive 2014/104/EU) has also been implemented in the DCCP. Therefore, the DCCP contains sections that protect certain categories of information from disclosure. For example, pursuant to Section 846 of the DCCP, a party cannot be required to disclose leniency applications and settlement statements. Furthermore, pursuant to Section 847 of the DCCP, certain other information (relating to a competition authority’s investigation) cannot be used as evidence in civil proceedings until after the competition authority has completed its investigation.

With the entry into force of the WAMCA, the remedies that are available through a collective action are now the same as in proceedings on the basis of the assignment model or mandates/powers of attorney:

• specific performance;
• injunctive relief;
• a declaratory judgment establishing liability, whether or not together with damages to be assessed later in separate follow-up proceedings; and
• monetary damages.

In a procedure on the basis of the WCAM, the only available remedy is that the settlement is declared generally binding. This remedy is also available in the settlement stage of a collective action.

The WCAM is a formal mechanism for the settlement of mass damages par excellence. However, the WAMCA and especially the settlement stage of collective actions are also geared towards reaching a settlement. Settlements are also common in proceedings on the basis of the assignment model or mandates/powers of attorney.

In relation to ADR, settlement negotiations in the preliminary stage of a procedure on the basis of the WCAM are particularly suitable for the use of ADR mechanisms. In general, any settlement negotiations in respect of mass damages could (and do) benefit from ADR mechanisms such as mediation.

In Dutch legal literature, there has been some debate as to whether collective actions (under the WAMCA) can be brought in arbitration. Reasonable arguments can be made both for and against. To date, it appears that no collective actions have been brought in arbitration.

Collective Action – WAMCA

As discussed in 4.2 Overview of Procedure, the following individuals are in principle bound by a final judgment in a collective action:

• Dutch residents belonging to the narrowly defined group of injured persons whose interests the interest organisation is seeking to protect who did not opt out; and
• non-Dutch residents belonging to this narrowly defined group who opted in (unless the district court has decided that they will also be represented on an opt-out basis).

However, the judgment will have no effect in respect of a person who, at the time of the announcement of the relevant decisions, could not have been aware of the damage they suffered, if that person, after becoming aware of its damage, has notified the defendant in writing that it does not wish to be bound.

Collective Settlement – WCAM

After a successful procedure on the basis of the WCAM, the settlement will in principle be binding on all injured persons who did not opt out. However, the settlement will not be binding in respect of a person who, at the time of the opt-out possibility, could not have been aware of the damage they suffered, if that person, after becoming aware of the damage it has suffered, has notified the relevant party in writing that it does not wish to be bound.

The Assignment Model

The judgment in proceedings on the basis of the assignment model or mandates/powers of attorney will only be binding on the SPV and/or the injured parties who assigned their claims to the SPV or gave the SPV a mandate/power of attorney. Otherwise, the nature of the judgments delivered in collective actions and settlements and in proceedings on the basis of the assignment model or mandates/powers of attorney is no different than the nature of judgments in regular proceedings. There is no special mechanism for the enforcement of these judgments after the decision.

The judgments delivered in collective actions and settlements, and in proceedings on the basis of the assignment model or mandates/powers of attorney also qualify as judgments within the meaning of Articles 36 and 39 of the Brussels I Regulation (Recast); hence, they shall be recognised, and can therefore also be enforced, in other member states of the European Union. However, pursuant to Articles 45 and 46 of the Brussels I Regulation (Recast), the recognition and enforcement can be refused if the relevant injured party did not have a proper possibility to opt out and/or they were not properly summoned (in the procedure on the basis of the WCAM). For completeness’ sake, a similar defence could, in principle, also be raised in respect of the enforcement of such a judgment in the Netherlands.

Whether the judgments delivered in collective actions and settlements and in proceedings on the basis of the assignment model or mandates/powers of attorney will also be recognised and be capable of being enforced in other countries is a matter of treaties between the relevant states and, in the absence thereof, the international private law of the country in which recognition and/or enforcement is sought.

In 2023, the Dutch Parliament passed a motion noting that under the current legislative regime courts do not seem to perform a “penetrating test” as to the representativeness of interest organisations, and calling on the government to explore to what extent additional representativeness requirements should be imposed on interest organisations with an idealistic purpose.

Further thereto, in early 2024, the government noted that the WAMCA provides that the same should be evaluated in 2025 and that this evaluation will include a thorough review of the representativeness of interest organisations. The entire set of admissibility requirements and the requirements that a number of other countries impose as to the representativeness and admissibility of interest organisations with an idealistic purpose will also be examined. With a view to the motion passed by Parliament, the government has decided to have the WAMCA evaluated in the second half of 2024. The government expects this evaluation to be completed in Spring 2025.

In this context, the government also referred to feedback received from practitioners as to the processing times due to the longer admissibility stage, the uncertainties surrounding the WAMCA in appeal and the desirability of a separate regime for collective actions that are brought for an idealistic purpose.

No major legislative reform of class actions specifically is expected in the near future. The legislature would be expected to first await the evaluation of the WAMCA to see how it works out in practice and identify the issues (if any) that the judiciary runs into that may need to be resolved through legislative reform.

For completeness’ sake, however, it is important to highlight the legislative reform that is intended to simplify and modernise the rules on evidence in Dutch proceedings in general. The new rules will enter into force on 1 January 2025. These rules do not comprise major changes as compared to the current rules. Less has come of the emphasis on the obligation of both the claimant and the defendant to gather as much evidence as possible before the proceedings are initiated than was initially intended.

A key feature of the legislative reform is the expansion of the right to disclosure, which can under the new rules also be requested out of court. A party to a legal relationship will have the right to demand disclosure from a person who has certain information about such legal relationship at its disposal or in its custody, if the first has a sufficient interest in doing so. The latter is in principle obliged to provide the information upon request, unless they can invoke compelling reasons not to do so.

The new rules will only apply to legal proceedings initiated after 1 January 2025. If proceedings have been initiated before this date, the current rules will continue to apply until the then current instance has ended. In any subsequent instance, the new rules will apply.

ESG litigation is on the rise in the Netherlands. Certainly, after the landmark judgment in Milieudefensie’s action against Shell (which is now pending in appeal), collective actions are more and more considered in respect of ESG-related issues. A prime example is the (announced) collective action of Frisse Wind against Tata Steel relating to the pollution of the environment.

A relevant development in this respect is the entry into force of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) on 5 January 2023. The CSRD, which should be implemented in respect of large publicly listed companies for financial years starting on or after 1 January 2024, pertains to sustainability in a broad sense. This directive includes disclosure requirements for a wide range of ESG aspects.

These new reporting requirements will apply to nearly 50,000 European companies and is part of the EU’s climate plans. Starting from this year, large publicly listed companies will be required to publish detailed reports on their performance in the areas of sustainability, social conditions and governance. The new rules will also provide clarity on a company’s CO₂ emissions and the extent of the risk of child labour in its supply chain.

The implementation of the CSRD (but also of the Directive on corporate sustainability due diligence which entered into force on 25 July 2024 and should be implemented as of 26 July 2026) is expected to result in ESG-related claims, as all this detailed information may very well provide ammunition for interest organisations in ESG-related actions.