Jurisdiction and the Dutch Collective Action

  • Thijs BostersEmail author


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 competent court in a collective action procedure, these connecting factors must be put in perspective with the particularities of the collective action procedure (i.e. an interest group is a party to the procedure, rather than the actual plaintiff parties). This chapter sets out whether and how jurisdiction can be conferred to a certain court with respect to a collective action 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.


Collective action Interest group Jurisdiction Choice of forum clause Domicile of the defendant Submission Handlungsort Erfolgsort Place of performance 


  1. Briggs A (2009) Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments. Informa Law, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Danov M (2010) ‘The Brussels I Regulation; Cross-border collective redress proceedings and judgments’. Journal of Private International Law 2Google Scholar
  3. Kuypers PHLM (2008a) Forumkeuze in het Nederlandse internationaal privaatrecht. Kluwer, DeventerGoogle Scholar
  4. Magnus U et al (2016) ‘Brussels I Regulation’. Sellier, MunichGoogle Scholar
  5. Tang S (2011) ‘Consumer collective redress’. Journal of Private International Law 1Google Scholar
  6. Veenstra KJ (2003) ‘Artikel 5 EEX en afgebroken onderhandelingen’. NTBRGoogle 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