Contribution 1 D: 6357ea69-29be-41 07-8fae-2fda6062c28e
Date: 15/08/2017 14:05:45

Public Consultation Cali for evidence on the operation of
collective redress arrangements in the Member States of the
European Union
-

Fields marked with are mandatory.
*

1. Introduction
The European Commission is assessing how the Commission Recommendation of 11 June 2013on
common principles for injunctive and compensatory collective redress mechanisms in the Member States
concerning violations of rights granted under Union Law is being implemented in practice.
The Recommendation states that all Member States’ legal orders should have collective redress
mechanisms in areas where EU law grants rights to natural and legal persons. Examples of such areas
are consumer protection, competition, environment, passengers rights, financial services, employment,
personal data protection, equality and non-discrimination and fundamental rights. The mechanisms
should be fair, equitable, timely and not prohibitively expensive. In the Recommendation the Commission
put forward standards aimed at easing access to justice in mass harm’ situations, in particular to obtain
compensation for the damage caused by an infringement of EU law (‘compensatory collective redress’) or
to stop infringements of EU law Çinjunctive collective redress’). At the same time the Recommendation
sought to provide appropriate procedural safeguards to avoid abusive litigation. The Member States were
asked to implement the principles in the Recommendation by 26 July 2015.
The Commission undertook to assess practical experience with implementing the Recommendation by 26
July 2017. The assessment should provide an overview of collective redress mechanisms across the EU
and evaluate the Recommendation’s impact on access to justice, on the right to obtain compensation and
on the need to prevent abusive litigation.
This caIl for evidence will feed into the assessment. This cail for evidence focuses therefore exclusively on
practical experience with specific collective redress cases and with mass harm situations where collective
redress was not available or not used.

2. Scope and structure of the consultation
According to the Recommendation:
(a) ‘collective redress’ means (i) a legal mechanism that ensures a possibility to claim cessation of illegal
behaviour collectively by two or more natural or legal persons or by an entity entitled to bring a

representative action (injunctive collective redress); (ii) a legal mechanism that ensures a possibility to
claim compensation collectively by two or more natural or legal persons claiming to have been harmed in
a mass harm situation or by an entity entitled to bring a representative action (compensatory collective
redress);
(b) mass harm situation’ means a situation where two or more natural or legal persons claim to have
suffered harm causing damage resulting from the same illegal activity of one or more natural or legal
persons;
(c) action for damages’ means an action by which a claim for damages is brought before a national court;
(d) ‘representative action means an action which is brought by a representative entity, an ad-hoc certified
entity or a public authority on behalf and in the name of two or more natural or legal persons who claim to
be exposed to the risk of suffering harm or to have been harmed in a mass harm situation, whereas those
persons are not parties to the proceedings;
(e) ‘collective follow-on action’ means a collective redress action that is brought after a public authority has
adopted a final decision finding that there has been a violation of EU law.
In replying to this questionnaire, please use the above-mentioned terms as defined by the
Recommendation to the largest appropriate exient. t you feel t necessary to use different terms and
definitions, please provide relevant explanations so that the data collected can be properly compared.
Please note that the meaning of the terms ‘claimant’, ‘defendant’ and ‘action’ as used in this questionnaire
is not limited to judicial or other legal proceedings; it also covers out-of-court dispute resolution schemes
and settlement negotiations between parties. The term ‘claimant’ covers person(s) affected/harmed by an
infringement of law or entity representing them in the action. The questionnaire has three separate parts:
the first concerns actions actually taken; the second and third concern situations in which action might
have proven appropriate but has not been taken. Please complete the part appropriate to your case.
The answers you give should apply to up to three cases or situations only. 1f there are more cases or
situations you would like to let us know about, please complete the questionnaire again.

3. Information about the respondent (including transparency and
confidentiality questions)
Your contribution may be published on the Commission’s website and will include your identity if you
have agreed to this.
Please note that regardless of the preference you have indicated, your contribution may be subject to a
request for access to documents under Regulation (EG) No 1049/2001 on public access to European
Parliament, Council and Commission documents. In such cases the request will be assessed against the
conditions set Out fl the Regulation and in accordance with the applicable data protection rules.
*

Please indicate your preference below:

2

My contribution may be published under the name indicated; 1 declare that none of it is subject to
copyright restrictions that prevent publication.
My contribution may be published but should be kept anonymous; 1 declare thât none of it is
subject to copyright restrictions that prevent publication
*

Please indicate your name and email address
Ministry of Security and Justice an Ministry of conomic Affairs

*

You are:
Private individual
Company
Consumer association

0 Other civil society association!Non-governmental organisation

0 Business association
0 Judge
National Ministry

0 Enforcement authority (sector-specific or cross sectoral)
0 Other public body and institution
6 Other
*

Please specify
Ministry of Security and Justice and Ministry of Economic Affairs

What is your country of residence? (In the case of legal entities, please select the primary place of
business of the entity you represent.)

*

Netherlands

Part 1: Your experienöe on the implementation of collective redress
mechanisms in EU Member States
Question 1: Are you aware of an action that has been brought or settled in an EU Member State since
the adoption of the Recommendation?
Yes
No
Question 2: Are/were you or the entity that you represent participating in the action?
Yes

3

a No
Please provide additional information if needed
In the Netherlands since July 2013 more than 60
collective actions
pending,

judgments have been given in

(article 305a of Dook 3 Dutch Civil Code)

but may not be known to us as we do not

pending collective actions.
Collective Settlement Act

(yet)

and many are still

have a register of

There also have been two cases under the Dutch

(“WCAM”),

leading to

declared binding for all injured persons

one collective settlement being

(DSB-coliective settlement)

and one

judgment denying such declaration on the ground that the collective settlement
is not YET reasonable in allrespects and inviting the parties to make some
modifications to that end

(Fortis—collective settlement)

included a list of those cases with a hyperlink to the
been rnany collective settlements,

PLEASE,

Hereafter we have

judgments.

There have

some of which are publicly known through

websites or information in the press,
of.

.

We have listed just a few of them we know

SEE UNDER QUESTION 13 AND 16 because of lack of space.

Question 3: Please name the parties to the action:
Members of the group of claimants

An entity representing the claimants

Detendant(s)

4

Question 4: Area of law concerned:
Consumer protection
Competition
Environment
Passenger rights
Financial services
Employment
Personal data protection
Equality and non-discrimination
Fundamental rights (please specify)
Other (please specify)
Question 5: National or cross-border nature
The action was taken in:
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
N ei herl ands
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
Other

5

Please specify if any of the below information appiles:

El All claimants were from the same Member State
Ei The claimants were from two or more Member States
Ei The defendant was from the same Member State as all the claimants
El The defendant was from another Member State than all or some of the claimants
El The defendant was from another Member State than the entity representing the claimants
Ei The action was carried out in the Member State in which the claimants were domiciled
Ei The action was carried out in the Member State in which the defendant was domiciled
Ei The action was carried out by the representative entity from one Member State in another Member
State
Please describe any other cross-border elements of the action
Some of the actions were purely national cases,
various forms.
Dutch,

others were cross border in

The representative body initiating the action may have been

but the persons for whom the action was brought were in some cases

completely or partly from another state

(sometimes MS sometimes third state)

Defendants sometimes from another state.

Question 6: How was the action funded?

Ei Claimants’ own funds
Ei Funds of the entity representing the claimants
Ei Lawyers working for contingency!success fee
Ei Legal expenses insurance
Ei Third-party financing (ban)
Ei Legal aid scheme
[1 Public entity budget (eg. Ombudsman)
1 Other public budget source(s) (please specify)
Other (please specify)
Question 7: How much did the action cost? (if unknown, please provide an estimate)

Please provide a cost breakdown, stating the amount and currency each time (if unknown, please
provide an estimate):
Cost + Currency
Oost of preparing the case
Oourt/administrative fee
Lawyers fees
Reimbursement of costs of other party in case of
loss
Reimbursement of lawyers’ fees of other party in
case of loss
Other costs relating to the action
Other financial risks relating to the action

6

Please provide an explanation of the above and/or any other costs incurred

Question 8: How was the information on the action disseminated to the claimants?
Who disseminated the information?

EI Claimants
EI Court
El Public authority
EI Entity representing people affected
EI Lawfirrn
LI No information disseminated
Other (please specify)
Where was information disseminated?

EI Website
EI Press
EI TV!radio
EI Direct mailing
El Other (please specify)
Question 9: Duration of the action (if possible please provide specific dates)
1f applicable, please specify the length of action in each instance
Date

Rem arks

When did the event giving rise to
the action take place?
When was the action brought?
When was the final decision
issued?
Question 10: Were interim measures used in the action?
Yes
No
Question 11: Was the action preceded by a judicial or administrative decision establishing an infringement
of law, eg. by a decision of a court or of a consumer protection, competition or environmental enforcement
authority (follow-on action)?
Yes
No
Question 12: What was the aim of the action?

EI Putting an end to an illegal practice (injunctive collective redress)
EI Seeking corn pensation for the people affected (compensatory collective redress)
7

Question 13: Please describe the facts that gave rise to the action
LTST OF CASES
1)

(SEE ALSO Q16)
In

Judgments on collective actions based on art.icle 3:305a Dutch Civil Code.

these actions collective damages CANNOT be claimed.Therefore,

these actions

were for irLjunctive collective redress/declaratory judcjments.
Employment:
ECLI:NL:RBROT:2014:7049 Rechtbank Rotterdam,

23-07-2014,

C/10/420793

/ HA ZA 13—

22—04—2015,

C/10/420793

/ HA ZA 13—

321
ECLI:NL:RBROT:2015:3783 Rechtbank Rotterdam,
321
ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2015:4232 Rechtbank Midden-Nederland,
KG ZA

10—06—2015,

C/16/393917

/

/ 15—403 LH/1040

ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2016:4140 Rechtbank Gelderland,

4929105

25—03—2016,

ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2016:1899 Rechtbank Midden-Nederland,

04—04—2016,

C/16/412890/KG

ZA 16/246 LH/1040
ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2016:4141 Rechtbank Gelderland,

Consumer law

29—07—2016,

4929105

(financial)
511177 HA ZA 12—223

ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2013:5910 Rechtbank Amsterdam,

18—09—2013,

ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2014:581 Gerechtshof Amsterdam,

04—03—2014,

ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2015:l229 Gerechtshof Amsterdam,

07—04-2015,

106.005.089/02

ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2015:1384 Gerechtshof Amsterdam,

14—04-2015,

106.002.753-02

ECLI:NL:HR:2015:3018 Hoge Raad,

09—10—2015,

106.005.089/02

15/00378

ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2015:12213 Rechtbank Den Haag,

C-09—474064-HA ZA 14-

28—10—2015,

1101
ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2016:702 Gerechtshof Amsterdam,
ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2017:7072 Rechtbank Den Haag,

01—03—2016,

28—06-2017,

106.002.753/02

C—09—474064-HA ZA 14-

1101
ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:5654 Rechtbank Rotterdam,

19-07—2017,

C/10/462533

/ HA ZA 14-

1092

Corisumer law

(other)

ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2014:496 Gerechtshof Amsterdam,

25—02—2014,

ECLI:NL:RBOBR:20l6:2425 Rechtbank Oost-Brabant,

200.128.455/01
C/0l/306767

/ EG ZA

200.196.900/01

(about

13—05—2016,

16—189
31—01—2017,

ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:210 Gerechtshof Amsterdam,

the tasks of the board of a legal entity under article 3:305a)

Financial services/shareholder actions:
ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2014:489 Rechtbank Amsterdam,

15—01—2014,

C/13/510440

/ HA ZA 12—

189
ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2014:996 Gerechtshof Den Haag,
ECLI:NL:HR:20l4:766 Hoge Raad,

28—03—2014,

18—03—2014,

200.100.878—01

13/04530

ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2014:3005 Gerechtshof Amsterdam,
ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2014:7689 Rechtbank Amsterdam,

29—07—2014,

200.095.240/01

22—10—2014,

C—13—555974

11—11—2015,

C/13/547469

—

HA ZA 13—

1827
ECLI:NL:RBAMS:20l5:7848 Rechtbank Amsterdam,
831 en C/13/547735

/ HA ZA 13—

/ HA ZA 13—846

ECLI:NL:HR:2015:3399 Hoge Raad,

27—11—2015,

14/03217

8

ECLI:NL:GHANS:2016:501 Gerechtshof Amsterdam,

16—02—2016,

200.152.046/01

ECLI:NL:PHR:2016:163 Parket bij de Hoge Raad,

25—03—2016,

14/05660

ECLI:NL:RBOBR:2016:3383 Rechtbank Oost—Brabant,

29—06—2016,

C/01/296520 / HA ZA

15—531
ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2016:6593 Rechtbank Amsterdam,

28—09—2016,

C/13/589073

/

HA ZA 15—

573
ECLI:NL:HR:2016:2629 Hoge Raad,

18—11—2016,

15/04202

ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2016:7841 Rechtbank Amsterdam,

C/13/581973 / HA ZA 15—

30—11—2016,

195

Competition law:
21—07—2015,

ECLI :NL:GHAMS :2015:3006 Gerechtshof Amsterdam,

200.156.295/01

Privacy:
ECLI:NL:HR:2015:1296 Hoge Raad,

22—05—2015,

14/02737

ECLI:NL:RBOBR:2016:3892 Rechtbank Oost-Brabant,

20—07-2016,

C/01/293016 / HA ZA

15—306

Other:
ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2013:5388 Gerechtshof Den Haag,

05—11—2013,

ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2013:6761 Rechtbank Noord—Nederland,

200.127.563/01

06-11—2013,

C-l7—l24916

—

HA

ZA 13—40
ECLT:NL:RPDHA:2014:8966 Rechtbank Den Haag,

C/09/455237 / HA ZA 13-

23-07—2014,

1325
ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2014:5645 Rechtbank Gelderland,

03-09—2014,

C—05—248895

29—04—2015,

:

-

HZ ZA

13—158
ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2015:2832 Rechtbank Gelderland,

C/05/260488

/ HZ ZA

14—89
ECLI:NL:RBROT:2015:6050 Rechtbank Rotterdam,

26—08—2015,

C/10/447660

/ HA ZA 14—

345
ECLI:NL:RBOBR:20l5:5069 Rechtbank Oost—Brabant,

26—08-2015,

C/Ol/28l999 / HA ZA

14—556
ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2015:4l85 Rechtbank Noord—Nederland,

02—09—2015,

C/l9/l03209 / HA

ZA 14—029 en C/19/107616 / HA ZA 14—234
ECLI:NL:HR:2016:î049 Hoge Raad,

03—06—2016,

14/06007

ECLI:NL:GHARL:20l6:63ll Gerechtshof Arnhem—Leeuwarden,

02—08—2016,

200.190.372

/01

Please specify:
The number of people affected (if unknown, please provide an estimate)

Were these people identifiable?
Ves
(_) No

Did damage occur?
Yes
9

No
Question 14: Type of action undertaken
Direct settlement negotiation (no third-party involvement)

D Out-of-court dispute resolution scherne
E Administrative proceedings
Court proceedings
Question 15: Outcorne of the action:
In the case of compensatory collective redress:
No corn pensation awarded
Partial compensation awarded but not received
Partial compensation awarded and received

0 Full compensation awarded but not received
Full cornpensation awarded and received
Compensation was awarded and received, but t was not distributed to all or sorne of the people
affected
Case still pending
In the case of injunctive collective redress:
Illegal practice was not established
Illegal practice was established but not stopped

0 Illegal practice was established and stopped
Illegal practice was established, stopped and further prohibited
Oase still pending
Other
Please specify the exact effect of the action on the people affected and/or the other people not involved
in the action. In particular, did the action prevent any harm? 1f so, what is the estimated amount of the
harrn prevented?

Question 16: Please provide your opinion on the effectiveness of the action:
Very good
Good
Neutral
Poor
Very poor
1f you wish to add any further relevant inforrnation, including aspects of the action that, in your view, have
been particularly effective, please do so here
LIST OF CASES

2)

(CONTINUED FROM Q13)

Judcjments under the Dutch Collective Settiements Act

(UCAM)

(compensoratory

10

colleccive redress)
ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2013:3918 Gerechtshof Amsterdam,

12—11—2013,

200.127.525/01

13—05—2014,

200.127.525/01

04—11—2014,

200.127.525/01

(preliminary judgment DSB—settlement)
ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2014:1690 Gerechtshof Amsterdam,
(nreliminary judgment DSB—settlement)
ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2014:4560 Gerechtshcf Amsterdam,
(final decision DSB—settlenent)
ECLI:NL.:HR:2016:2825 Boge Raad,

09—12—2016,

15/02223

(decision on the potential

scope of DCAM-settlements)
ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:2257 Gerechtshof Amsterdam,

16—06—2017,

200.191.713/01

(Portis—settiement)

3)

Publicly known Coliective Settlements:

2014 VDSI—settlement between VEB and Van der Moolen
2014

Imtech-

2016 Landis-

settlement between VEB and Imtech/KPMG accountant
settiement between VEB and

(Stichting VEB—Actie Landje)

Landje

Groep
Information to be

found via https://www.veb.net/artikel/06238/veb—actie—update.

2017 Staatloterij—settiement between Stichting Loterijver.lies and Staatsloterij
(Dutch National Lottery)

4)

Publicly known Pending Collective Actions:

VEB v.

LCI

VEB v.

LCI

VEB v.

Ahold/Deloitte

VEB v.

BP

VEB v.

Volkswagen

Actions by several different entities agains Volkswagen in preparation.

5)

Many actions with mutiple claimants either by assignment of claims or

bundling of individual claims in all fields of law

Question 17: Please provide your opinion on the efficiency of the action
Very good
Good
Poor
Very poor
It you wish to add any further relevant information, including aspects of the action that, in your view, have
been particularly etficient, please do so here:
In the Netherlands the collective action under national law seems to be
particularly effectve for injunctive reiief for violations of bcth national and
ED law

(competition law,

consumer law,

environmental law)

Question 18: Please provide information on any major problems you faced in the course of the action.
Please focus in particular on those that created difficulties in gaining access to justice, affected the parties’
procedural rights or allowed for frivolous litigation

11

Where such problems existed, please specify whether they mainly related to:
Rules on legal standing
Rules on joining the action

I?1 Rules on admissibility of the action
El Ru les on evidence
El Excessive costs
El Corn plexity of procedure
El Length of procedure
LI Difficulties in identifying the people affected
El Difficulties in distributing the received cornpeflsation
Please give details of the above or other problems

Under the currently existing system no compensoratory relief can be sought.
Therefore,

in November 2016,

a bill introducing a collective damages action has

been submitted to Parliament.

Parliament has prepared a report which had yet to

be answered by the government.
•

The main features of the new bill are:

The proposal intends to make collective settlements more attractive

for all parties involved.
•

It aims to improve the guality of representative organ.isations,

coordinate the collective
•

(damages)

to

procedures and to offer more finality.

The proposal creates one single regime for coilective actions,

regardless of whether it is an action for damages or not.
•

The bill introduces stricter requirements for standing of

representative organisations as regards their governance,

financing and as to

whether the organisation is representative for the group of persons it claims
to represent.

An exception applies where these requirements would be

disproportionate given the nature of the claim.

Any collective claim must have

a close corinection to the Netherlands.
•

The Dutch Court of Amsterdam will deal with all collective actions

brought under this bill.
actions

The bill also introduces a register for collective

in which any collective action brought will be noted.
1f several collective claims are brought against the same defendant

with regard to the same harmfui

event,

the court can appoint the most suited

representative organisation as the Exclusive Representative Organisation for
the collective claim.The other representative organisations which have brought
a collective claim for the same event will still be a party in the collective
procedure.
After the appointment of the Exclusive Representative Orgarlisation a
victim can use his right to opt out of the collective procedure.
•

The

judgement of the court

is binding,

except for those victims who

have opted Out.
•

Any collective settlement reached throughout the collective procedure

must be approved by the court.

Background:
This Bill implements a motion of the Parliament from 2011
provide for a collective damages action.
Internet in 2014.

(“motion Dijksma”)

to

A draft Bill was consulted on the

In the second half of 2015 a group of lawyers—stakeholders

12

prepareci a set of Recornmendations wh.ich were endorsed in a stakehoiders meeting
held in November 2015..

In June 2016,

a revised draft Bill was sent to the

Council of State for advice.
Dutch Bill on a Collective Damages Action:
Further information on the Bill can be found via https://www.rijksoverheid.nl
/documenten/kamerstukken/2016/11/16/wetsvoorstel—afwikkeling-van—massaschade—in—
een—collectieve-actie

(text of the Bill as submitted to Parliament)

https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/kamerstukken/20l6/ll/l6/memorie—van—

toelichting—afwikkeling-van—massaschade-in—een—ccllectieve—actie

(explanatory

note)
https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst—34608-5.htmi

(report by Parliament)

Do you want to report another case?
Yes

C) No

Part H

-

Your experience on missed opportunities for injunctive collective

redress
Question 19: Are you aware of any illegal practice that affected large numbers of people but where no
collective injunction action was taken to stop It?
Ves
a No
Question 20: It you answered yes’ to the previous question, please name or describe
The alleged author of the illegal practice

The people affected by the illegal practice

Queslion 21: Area of law concerned:

D Consumer protection
Competition

D Environmental
El Passenger rights
LI Financial services
El Employment
13

El Personal data protection
El Equality and non-discrimination
El Fundamental rights (please specify)
El Other (please specify)
Question 22: National or cross-border nature
The illegal practice took place in:
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
ltaly
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Pol and
Portugal
Romania
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
Other
Please specify

El All people affected were from the same Member State
El The people affected were from two or more Member States
El The alleged author of the illegal practice/damage was from the same Member State as all the
people affected

El The alleged author of the illegal practice/damage was from another Member State than all or some
of the people affected

14

Please describe any cross-border elements of the case

Question 23: Please describe the circumstances of the case, if possible specifying the following:
Number of people affected (if unknown, please provide an estimate)

Were these people dentifiable?
Yes
No
Did damage occur?
Yes
No
Circumstances of the case

Question 24: What were the reasons for not bringing an action?

El No availability of injunctive collective redress
El Difficulties in identifying the people affected
El Difficult access to evidence
El Excessive costs
El Restrictive procedural rules on legal standing
El Restrictive procedural rules on admissibility of the action
El The action would have had to be taken in another Member State
El Possible benefits stemming from the action would have not outweighed the time and costs
involved in taking t

El Overall complexity of the procedure
El Overall length of the procedure
El Compensatory collective redress was taken instead
El Individual actions were taken instead
Please give details of the above or other problems
15

*

Do you want to report another case
Yes
No

Part 1H

-

Your experience on missed opportunities for compensatory

collective redress
Question 25: Are you aware of any mass harm situation that affected large numbers of people but
against which no cornpensatory collective redress action was taken?
Yes
No
Question 26: It you answered ‘yes to the previous question, please describe or name:
The alleged author of the mass harm
In none of the collective actions in the Netherlands compensatory rel.ief could

be granted,

In many cases parties have reached a coilective settlement after

the injunctive relief or declaratory statement was given by the court.
for some cases a further inceritive is needed.

However,

This is why a bill introducing a

collective domages action was submitted to Parliament in November 2016.

The people harmed

Question 27: Area of law concerned:

Ei Consumer protection
Ei Competition

Ei Environment
El Passenger rights
Ei Financial services
• El Employment
Ei Personal data protection

Ei Equality and non-discrimination
Ei Fundamental rights (please specify)
Ei Other (please specity)
Question 28: National or cross-border nature
The mass harm situation happened in:
Austria
CS Belgium

16

Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus

C) Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
() Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Roman i a
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
Other
Please specify

LI All people harmed were from the same Member State
LI The people harmed were from two or more Member States
El The alleged author of mass harm was from the same Member State as people harmed
El The alleged author of mass harm was from another Member State than all or some of the people
harmed
Please describe in detail the above or other cross-border elements of the case

Question 29: Please describe the circumstances of the case
Please specify:
The number of people affected (if unknown, please provide an estimate)

17

Were these people identifiable?
Yes
No
Did damage occur?
Yes
No
Circumstances of the case

Question 30: What where the reasons for not bringing an action?
No availability of compensatory collective redress

EZ Difficulties in identifying the people harmed
LI Lack of interest of the people harmed
El Difficulties in joining the action
El Difficult access to evidence
LI Excessive costs
EI Restrictive rules on legal standing
El Restrictive procedural rules on admissibility of the action
El The action would have had to be taken in another Member State
EI Possible benefits stemming from the action would have not outweighed the time and costs
involved in taking t

El Overall oom plexity of the procedure
El Overall length of the procedure
El Injunctive collective redress was taken instead
El Iridividual actions were taken instead
El The distribution of compensation would have been excessively difficult or costly
EI Other (please specify)
*

Do you want to report another case
Yes
g

No

Part IV

-

Feedback on this public consultation
18

*

Question 31: Did you find this questionnaire dear enough?
Yes
No
It you answered no, please state what could have been improved:
Some questions could have been better drafted
The entire questionnaire could have been better drafted
Other
Please specify
—

very detailed information per case is asked but very little space is left to

give information
—

the questionnaire does not seem to have taken into account the possibility of

large numhers of cases to de reported as is the case for the Netherlands

*

Question 32: What is your opinion about the layout of the questionnaire?
• Easy to understand and user friendly
Could be mproved
Please specify
—the questionnaire does not allow for using boldtype etc.

which would help to

make the answers easier to read

THANK YOU FOR YOUR INPUT

Contact
just-al -civil-justice@ec.europa.eu

19