Abstract
AbstractEuropean private international law has long been recognised as improperly set up to deal with cross-border collective redress. In light of this shortcoming, it seems unfortunate that the private international law implications of the Representative Actions Directive (Directive (EU) No 2020/1828) have not yet been addressed coherently by the European legislator. This article examines to what extent the policy of promoting collective redress can be supported, even if only partially, through a reinterpretation of the jurisdictional rules of the Brussels Ia Regulation. Furthermore, it discusses which legislative measures need to be adopted to better accommodate collective redress mechanisms within the Brussels regime.
Highlights
While the aim of providing effective means of collective redress[1] for citizens across the EU has long been on the agenda of EU political institutions, especially the Commission,[2] the Volkswagen diesel scandal (‘Dieselgate’)[ICLQ, Page 1 of 32]doi:10.1017/S0020589321000403Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core
The Dutch WCAM procedure (Wet Collectieve Afwikkeling Massaschade), according to which out-of-court settlements concluded between a foundation established by the putative victims of a mass tort and the responsible wrongdoer can be declared binding by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal on all victims referred to in the settlement, including foreign victims, raises several unresolved issues regarding jurisdiction and recognition of approved settlements (see XE Kramer, ‘Securities Collective Action and Private International Law Issues in Dutch WCAM Settlements: Global Aspirations and Regional Boundaries’ (2014) 27(2) University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law Global Business & Development Law Journal 235, 248–71; T Bosters, Collective Redress and Private International Law (Springer 2017) 119–41, 199–211
The EU has far refrained from adopting any specific legislative measures in the area of jurisdiction for the purpose of strengthening collective redress mechanisms, the endeavour to ensure procedural efficiency by implementing a centralised model of jurisdiction for EU representative actions might gain further political momentum in the wake of the transposition of Directive (EU) No 2020/1828 into national law and possibly become a key priority for EU policymakers in the course of the forthcoming revision of Brussels Ia
Summary
While the aim of providing effective means of collective redress[1] for citizens across the EU has long been on the agenda of EU political institutions, especially the Commission,[2] the Volkswagen diesel scandal (‘Dieselgate’). Having rejected the introduction of a ‘one-stop-shop jurisdiction’, this article develops an alternative approach to promote collective redress that better complies with the principles of the existing European private international law framework To this end, it calls for a comprehensive overhaul of Brussels Ia18 that should include, inter alia, (i) extending the special grounds of jurisdiction to domiciliaries from third States, (ii) establishing rules that enable a cooperative consolidation of overlapping mass proceedings on a case-by-case basis, and (iii) providing for mutual recognition of court-approved settlements within the EU
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
