Determining a court's jurisdiction in cross-border class actions involving pure financial damage has proven difficult in practice. This is particularly true when jurisdiction is based on the special competence rules set out in the recast EU Brussels Regulation. The Dutch Shareholders Association v British Petroleum is a good example of the confusion surrounding this matter. After two lower court rulings, the Dutch Supreme Court has applied to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling to gain further clarity.
The Netherlands has long been considered one of the most favourable jurisdictions in which to arrest a ship. A recent Aruba Court ruling is set to enhance this reputation by further liberalising the procedural rules, removing the need for a bailiff to board a ship in order to execute an arrest. The decision is expected to play a role in ship arrest cases throughout the Kingdom of the Netherlands where bad weather conditions, or even deliberate obstruction, may prevent bailiffs from boarding ships.
The international trade chamber of the Amsterdam District Court – known as the Netherlands Commercial Court (NCC) and the Netherlands Commercial Court of Appeal (NCCA) – allows parties to resolve international civil or commercial disputes and litigate in the English language, both in first instance (NCC) and appeal (NCCA). Depending on the circumstances of the case, the NCC and the NCCA may be attractive alternative forums to regular district courts, arbitration institutes and international commercial courts.
The District Court of Gelderland recently rendered a judgment on the subject of unauthorised agent or representative filings. It deemed that a third party was so closely involved in the distribution agreement between two other parties that it could be ordered to transfer the trademarks that it had registered unauthorised, despite the third party arguing that it could not be regarded as an agent, representative or distributor of the two other parties.
The Supreme Court recently issued a long-awaited decision on an architect's moral rights of paternity and integrity. In recent years, several Dutch judgments have considered whether architects can oppose changes to their original building designs. The Supreme Court's decision further clarifies that it is difficult for architects to do so where the changes are necessary to alter a building's function.
The Senate recently adopted the Bill on Redress of Mass Damages in Collective Actions (RMDCA). The RMDCA enables representative entities to claim monetary compensation on behalf of their constituents, which provides aggrieved parties with more effective means of redress. The RMDCA also introduces stricter requirements regarding the admissibility of representative entities and the scope of collective action proceedings, along with other procedural changes.
A recent Utrecht District Court decision sends a strong reminder to parties in the transport and logistics industry that they must be precise and clear about what they are agreeing to in dealings with their trading partners. While the less formal requirements for concluding an agreement under Dutch law seem to benefit the transport industry, this decision shows that there are pitfalls to be considered.
The Rotterdam District Court recently assumed jurisdiction over the international securities class action lawsuit against Petrobras Brasileiro SA and others in the Netherlands. The judgment offers valuable insight into how the Dutch courts assess jurisdiction in cross-border collective redress cases. It also illustrates that the Netherlands could act as a collective redress venue in matters relating to events that mainly take place in foreign jurisdictions.
The Hague District Court recently issued a preliminary ruling in which it held that Lacoste could not invoke its famous crocodile trademark in order to prohibit the use of a crocodile motif on children's underwear. This preliminary judgment is one of only a few examples in which the use of a sign has been considered purely decorative (and thus could not be perceived as trademark use). Typically, the courts are restrictive in accepting such a defence.
The Amsterdam Court of Appeal recently declared the settlement between Fortis (since renamed Ageas) and multiple claimant organisations binding. The €1.3 billion settlement is the largest of its kind to have been entered into in Europe. It emphasises the usefulness of the Act on Collective Settlement of Mass Claims when resolving cross-border disputes before the Dutch courts, irrespective of whether proceedings on the merits on behalf of the whole class can be litigated on in the Netherlands.
A recent decision by the Rotterdam Court regarding a major oil spill in the port of Rotterdam emphasises the importance of assessing at an early stage which liability regime applies when a party seeks to limit its exposure to claims in the event of an oil spill at sea. The court held that in procedures concerning limitation of liability, it is the responsibility of the party seeking to rely on limitation to provide all of the information available at an early stage.
The Hague District Court recently rendered an interim judgment in a matter between Dutch limited liability company McGregor IP BV and adidas. The key question in this case was whether adidas – in using the name of a sports hero on items such as hoodies, shorts and jerseys – had infringed McGregor IP's trademark rights. Notably, the outcome of this matter could have been different had the design and display of the signs at issue been different.
The Amsterdam District Court recently rendered its judgment in the proceedings between the liquidator of Fairfield Sentry Limited, Fairfield Sigma Limited and Fairfield Lambda Limited (the Fairfield Funds) against Dutch public limited companies PricewaterhouseCoopers Accountants NV and PricewaterhouseCoopers NV and four accountants affiliated therewith. The proceedings centred on the fraud committed by Bernard Madoff that came to light in 2009, of which the funds had been victims.
In May 2017 the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Appellate Court referred questions regarding which kinds of object can be classified as copyrightable works to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The case addresses the interesting question of whether certain tastes can be protected under copyright law (the specific taste for which protection was sought was Levola's popular cheese product Heks'nkaas). Advocate General Wathelet recently advised the ECJ not to allow tastes to be granted copyright protection.
The Supreme Court has reconfirmed the right to limit liability under Dutch law, even in personal injury cases. It held that limitation as such is not a violation of the human right to protection of property under the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, and that it is nationally and internationally considered necessary that the liability of the carrier is limited or may be limited in the event of a passenger's death or personal injury.
The Dutch courts have jurisdiction to grant permission for pre-judgment attachment on assets that are located in the Netherlands, even if the debtor is foreign and the Dutch courts have no jurisdiction in the main proceedings. A recent Supreme Court decision has provided further guidance on which (foreign) court actions can be considered 'main proceedings' within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure and at what time the creditor must be deemed to have instituted these main proceedings.
The Hague District Court recently had to assess whether a natural person could be held accountable for a company's trademark and copyright infringement. Although the court could not establish whether the person was an official director of the infringing company, this did not stand in the way of his liability. In accordance with Supreme Court case law, liability can arise where a party plays a substantial part in the policy of a company that acts unlawfully and behaves as if they are a director of the company.
The Supreme Court recently clarified the scope of shareholders' rights under the Civil Code with regard to (non-binding) voting items on general meeting agendas. Under Dutch corporate law, shareholders have the right to request the board of directors of a public or private limited company to put an item on the agenda of a shareholders' meeting if the threshold and timing requirements are met. Such requests may be refused by the board of directors only in exceptional circumstances.
The Rotterdam District Court recently ruled that a tank storage provider could not invoke the exoneration clause of the General Conditions for Tank Storage in the Netherlands (the VOTOB conditions), which are frequently used by Dutch tank terminals and storage companies. The decision is relevant, as it appears to contravene the rather strict approach adopted in Dutch case law in relation to successfully setting aside a VOTOB exoneration clause.
The Dutch courts recently confirmed that a party which is arresting a vessel has no obligation to pay berth fees or any other associated costs during the period that the vessel remains under arrest. This decision is notable, as although it is in line with the traditional understanding, it is one of few decisions to have been issued on this matter in the Netherlands. It will also likely be regarded with interest in other jurisdictions, where different rules concerning the obligations of arresting parties apply.