Advertisement

Jurisdiction and the KapMuG

  • Thijs BostersEmail author
Chapter
  • 348 Downloads

Abstract

Various connecting factors can be used in order to confer jurisdiction to a certain court (e.g. the court parties choose in a choice of forum agreement, the domicile of the defendant, the Erfolgsort/Handlungsort, the place of performance of an obligation). In order to determine the compentent court in a KapMuG procedure, these connecting factors must be put in perspective with the particularities of the KapMuG procedure (i.e. one party’s claim is used as an example for all other claims). This chapter sets out whether and how jurisdiction can be conferred to a certain court with respect to a KapMuG procedure. In addition, it is analysed whether the way jurisdiction can be conferred to a certain court is in line with the goals of both collective redress and the Brussels I-bis Regulation.

Keywords

KapMuG Jurisdiction Choice of forum clause Domicile of the defendant Submission Handlungsort Erfolgsort Place of performance 

References

  1. Briggs A (2009) Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments. Informa Law, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Danov M (2011) Jurisdiction and judgments in relation to EU competition law claims. Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Geimer R (2005) Internationales Zivilprozeβrecht. Verlag Dr. Otto Schmidt, CologneGoogle Scholar
  4. Kuypers PHLM (2008) Forumkeuze in het Nederlandse internationaal privaatrecht. Kluwer, DeventerGoogle Scholar
  5. Kuypers PHLM (2008a) Forumkeuze in het Nederlandse internationaal Privaatrecht. Thesis Leiden UniversityGoogle Scholar
  6. Magnus U et al (2016) ‘Brussels I Regulation’. Sellier, MunichGoogle Scholar
  7. Rauscher T (2006) Europaïsches Zivilprozeßrecht Kommentar I. MunichGoogle Scholar
  8. Rauscher T et al (2008) Münchener Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung. Verlag C.H. Beck, MunichGoogle Scholar
  9. Strikwerda L (2010) De overeenkomst in het IPR. Maklu, ApeldoornGoogle Scholar
  10. Tang S (2011) ‘Consumer collective redress’. Journal of Private International Law 1Google Scholar
  11. Tzankova IN (2005) Strooischade: een verkennend onderzoek naar een nieuw rechtsfenomeen. SDU, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  12. Van Houtte H (2009) The law of cross-border securities transactions. Sweet & Maxwell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Vorwerk V et al (2007) KapMuG Kommentar. Verlag C.H. Beck, MunichGoogle 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