In short The Dutch Supreme Court emphasized on 2 June 2017 that the threshold for accepting liability of a supervisory authority is high (ECLI:NL:HR:2017:987). In its judgment, the Supreme Court also ruled that the State does not have a strengthened obligation to furnish facts in cases of liability of supervisory authorities. It depends on the circumstances of the case whether … Read more
On 18 November 2016, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that a decision given by the Netherlands Enterprise Court at the Amsterdam Court of Appeal (“the Enterprise Court”) in the Meavita-proceedings is void (ECLI:NL:HR:2016:2607 and ECLI:NL:HR:2016:2614). The Supreme Court ruled that the decision was not given by the number of judges required by law and also addressed several complaints on the … Read more
On 29 June 2016 the District Court of Oost-Brabant (“the District Court”) dismissed a collective action concerning SME entrepreneurs who had entered into interest rate swap agreements with Rabobank (ECLI:NL:RBOBR:2016:3383). The District Court ruled that the claims were inadmissible because the interests of the SME entrepreneurs were not sufficiently safeguarded and the action did not aim to protect similar interests. … Read more
On 25 May 2016, the District Court of Rotterdam (“the Court“) ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear one of the elevator follow-on damages litigation claims. The Court declined to apply the arbitration clauses relied upon by the defendants, taking the view that those clauses did not cover antitrust damages claims. The case has its origins in a 2007 infringement … Read more