Recognition and Enforcement of a WCAM Judgment

  • Thijs BostersEmail author


Although under the Brussels Regulation it is not required to commence a procedure in order to have a judgment recognised and/or enforced in another Member States, the Regulation contains various grounds based on which the recognition and/or enforcement can be refused. These grounds relate to—among others—the correct service of the parties involved, the rules on public order in the Member States were recognition/enforcement is sought, and possible conflicts with other judgments or procedures in other states. A lot of parties are involved in a collective redress procedure and it depends on the type of mechanism whether and how the parties involved need to be served correctly. This chapter will set out whether a WCAM judgment can be recognised and or enforced in another Member State based on the rules in the Brussels Regulation.


Recognition Enforcement Judgment Court settlement Public order Service of documents Conflicting judgments 


  1. Alvarez de Pfeifle ME (2009) Der ordre public-Vorbehalt als Versagungsgrund der Anerkennung und Vollstreckbarerklärung internationaler Schiedssprüche. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main Google Scholar
  2. Briggs A (2009) Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments. Informa Law, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Fairgrieve D (2012) ‘The impact of the Brussels I-bis enforcement and recognition rules’. In: Fairgrieve D, Lein E (eds) Extraterritoriality and collective redress. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Halfmeier A (2012) ‘Recognition of a WCAM settlement in Germany’. NIPR 2Google Scholar
  5. Halfmeier A, Wimalasena P (2012a) ‘Rechtsstaatliche Anforderungen an Opt-out-Sammelverfahren: Anerkennung ausländischer Titel und rechtspolitischer Gestaltungsspielraum’. JuristenZeitung 13Google Scholar
  6. Kramer XE (2014) ‘Securities Collective Action and Private International Law Issues in Dutch WCAM Settlements: Global Aspirations and Regional Boundaries’. Pacific McGeorge Global Business & Development Law Journal 2Google Scholar
  7. Magnus U et al (2016) ‘Brussels I Regulation’. Sellier, MunichGoogle Scholar
  8. Pinna A (2008) ‘Recognition and res judicata of US class action judgments in European legal systems’. Erasmus Law Review, volume 1, issue 2Google Scholar
  9. Spindler JC (2001) Anerkennung und Vollstreckung ausländischer Prozessvergleiche unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der US-amerikanischen Class Actions Settlements. Thesis, Konstanzer Schriften zur Rechtswissenschaft, Hartung-Gorre Verlag, KonstanzGoogle Scholar
  10. Ten Wolde MH et al (2013) ‘De wet collectieve afwikkeling massaschade: wat is zij waard in het buitenland?’ NTBRGoogle Scholar
  11. Van Lith H (2011) The Dutch collective settlements act and private international law. Maklu, ApeldoornGoogle Scholar
  12. Wasserman R (2010) ‘Transnational Class Actions and Interjurisdictional preclusion’. University of Pittsburg Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2010-04Google Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. Asser Press and the author 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Supreme Court of the NetherlandsThe HagueThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations