| The typical class action mechanism has existed since 1994 and has been regulated by the provisions of the Dutch Civil Code and the Code of Civil Procedure, which were amended on 1st January 2020 by the act on collective redress (Wet Afwikkeling Massaschade in Collectieve Actie, WAMCA). In addition, a specific, completely independent mechanism for concluding a “group settlement” was introduced in 2005.
Collective redress mechanisms, and in particular the mechanism for concluding group settlements, are becoming increasingly popular in the Netherlands. Since 2005, i.e. since the WCAM was enacted, many group settlements have been concluded under this procedure. Examples include the high-profile DES case, concerning a drug intended to prevent miscarriages that turned out to be harmful to the health of unborn children, and the case related to the bankruptcy of the Vie d’Or life insurance company. Collective redress mechanisms are also popular in the financial services sector, as exemplified by the Dexia bank case, which involved so-called share-lease agreements, mainly concluded by consumers, which resulted in losses for investors. The class action settlement reached in 2009 between Shell and its shareholders, who accused the giant of providing misleading financial information, confirmed the possibility of Dutch courts approving class action settlements in cross-border cases (provided that they are sufficiently connected to Dutch jurisdiction). In 2010, a class action settlement was approved in the so-called F-cubed case, the majority of the members of the group resided outside the Netherlands. As a result, the Netherlands is now considered an important forum for international class actions that may end in a settlement. One of the most high-profile judgments in recent years is the one issued on 26th May 2021 in the case involving fuel giant Shell. In this judgment, the court ordered the fuel company to reduce its CO2 emissions by 45%. |
| Implementation of Directive 2020/1828 |
| Implementing act | Act of 2nd November 2022 amending Book III of the Civil Code and the Code of Civil Procedure in connection with the transposition of Directive (EU) 2020/1828 of the European Parliament and of the Council (EU) 2020/1828 of 25th November 2020 on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers and repealing Directive 2009/22/EC (OJ EU 2020, L 409) (Implementing Act for the Directive on consumer representative actions) (Wet van 2 november 2022 tot wijziging van Boek 3 van het Burgerlijk Wetboek en het Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering in verband met de omzetting van Richtlijn (EU) 2020/1828 van het Europees Parlement en de Raad van 25 november 2020 betreffende representatieve vorderingen ter bescherming van de collectieve belangen van consumenten en tot intrekking van Richtlijn 2009/22/EG (PbEU 2020, L 409) (Implementatiewet richtlijn representatieve vorderingen voor consumenten); The regulations came into force on 25th June 2023 |
| Qualified entity to bring an action | Class action; opt-out model as a rule; opt-in model for consumers from other Member States and obligation to indicate whether the consumer is participating in proceedings in another Member State |
| Entity authorized to bring an action | Foundations and associations established by the Minister of Legal Protection |
| Third-party funding | Third-party funding was already permitted previously (under certain conditions that were less stringent than those set out in the directive). Funding of representative actions is permitted, but may not come from an entity that is a competitor of the defendant or from a subsidiary of the defendant. |
| Facilities for consumers | Enabling qualified entities from other European Union member states to bring collective actions before Dutch courts |
| Other comments | The changes introduced are not significant, as the WAMCA regulations were largely consistent with the provisions of the directive.
The settlement is subject to court approval. |
Update: February/March 2025