On 30 March 2022, the Amsterdam District Court rendered judgment in the case of Stichting Diesel Emissions Justice versus Volkswagen et al. ^[1]Amsterdam District Court 30 March 2022, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2022:1541 In this dispute, the foundation is claiming, inter alia, damages from Volkswagen et al. because it manufactured and sold diesel cars with “cheating” software. In this judgment, the District Court rendered a decision on jurisdiction and applicability of the WAMCA.

Because this dispute contains international aspects (defendants domiciled in various EU countries), the District Court is obliged by law to first decide whether it has jurisdiction to assess the substance of the claims. The claims of the foundation involve the peculiarity that not all the claims have been lodged against all the defendants for the benefit of the same groups of persons whose interests the foundation claims to represent. According to the District Court, this affects the assessment of jurisdiction, which is why it distinguishes between persons who purchased a vehicle in the Netherlands and persons who purchased a vehicle in another country of the European Union. The dealers and the importer are all domiciled in the Netherlands. The claim lodged against them that serves to protect similar interests of persons residing in the Netherlands who purchased a vehicle in the Netherlands is therefore not of an international nature. The Dutch court has jurisdiction with regard to that claim. These defendants can act as anchor defendant with regard to the claim against the car manufacturers and the software manufacturer that serves to protect the similar interests of persons who purchased a vehicle in the Netherlands; after all, there is a sufficiently close connection between the aforementioned claims. According to the District Court, this close connection is lacking with regard to the claim aimed at protecting the similar interests of persons who purchased a vehicle in another country of the European Union. With regard to that claim, the District Court finds that it has no jurisdiction on the basis of Article 8(1) Brussels I Regulation Recast. Nor can jurisdiction with regard to that claim be derived from Article 7(2) Brussels I Regulation Recast, because the place of the act (handlungsort) and the place where the damage occurred (erfolgsort) is not located in Amsterdam, according to the District Court.

The District Court subsequently gave an opinion on the applicability of the WAMCA. The WAMCA applies if the claim is lodged after 1 January 2020 and the harmful event or events occurred on or after 15 November 2016. The District Court finds that the initial, common and essential harmful event to which the legal claim and the proceedings pertain is, in this case, the putting in place of the illegal manipulation tool. That is why, according to the District Court, Article 3:305a (old) DCC applies in this case.

On 30 March 2022, the Amsterdam District Court rendered judgment in the case of Stichting Diesel Emissions Justice versus FCA et al. ^[1]Amsterdam District Court 30 March 2022, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2022:1541 In this dispute, the foundation is claiming, inter alia, damages from FCA et al. because it manufactured and sold diesel cars with cheating software. In this judgment, the District Court rendered a decision on jurisdiction and applicability of the WAMCA.

Because this dispute contains international aspects (defendants domiciled in various EU countries), the District Court must assess of its own motion whether it has jurisdiction to assess the substance of the claims. FCA N.V. (parent company), FCA NL and the dealers are all domiciled in the Netherlands. Consequently, there is no international connection for the legal claims instituted by the foundation that serve to protect the persons residing in the Netherlands. The legal claims instituted by the foundation that serve to protect persons who are not resident in the Netherlands do, however, involve an international aspect. Since FCA N.V., FCA NL and the Dealers are domiciled in the Netherlands, the international jurisdiction of the Dutch court in this respect is based on Article 4(1) Brussels I Regulation Recast. The international jurisdiction of the Dutch court with respect to FCA Italy and Alfa Romeo (domiciled in Italy) must also be determined based on the Brussels I Regulation Recast. According to the District Court’s opinion, jurisdiction can be derived with regard to FCA Italy and Alfa Romeo on the basis of Article 8(1) Brussels I Regulation Recast because FCA N.V. can be qualified as anchor defendant; the claims against the various defendants are sufficiently related, whereby it was not unforeseeable for FCA Italy and Alfa Romeo that they would be summoned in the Netherlands, since this is the country where their parent company has its registered office. The District Court therefore declares that it has jurisdiction with regard to all defendants.

The District Court subsequently gave an opinion on the applicability of the WAMCA. The WAMCA applies if the claim is lodged after 1 January 2020 and the harmful event or events occurred on or after 15 November 2016. The District Court finds that the initial, common and essential harmful event to which the legal claim and the proceedings pertain is, in this case, the development of the illegal manipulation tool. According to the District Court, it has not been sufficiently asserted or demonstrated that this activity also took place after 15 November 2016, as a result of which Article 3:305a (old) DCC applies in this case.

On 25 November 2020, the Amsterdam District Court rendered an interlocutory judgment in a case between four government bodies in the Gulf States of Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Oman ^[1]Electricity & Water Authority of the government of Bahrain (Bahrain), GCC Interconnection Authority (Saudi Arabia), Kuwait Ministry of Electricity and Water (Kuwait) and Oman Electricity … Continue reading on the one hand and 15 legal entities involved in groups of Prysmian, ^[2]The defendants are Prysmian Netherlands B.V., Draka Holding B.V., and Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi S.R.L ABB, ^[3]The defendants are ABB B.V., ABB Holdings B.V., ABB AB, and ABB Ltd. Pirelli,^[4]The defendant is Pirelli & C S.p.A. Goldman Sachs ^[5]The defendant is The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. and Nexans ^[6]The defendants are Nexans Nederland B.V., Nexans Cabling Solutions B.V., Nexans Participations S.A., Nexans S>A. and Nexans Franse S.A.S. on the other. ^[7]Amsterdam District Court 25 November 2020, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2020:5882.

The backdrop is the power cable cartel whose existence was established by the European Commission in 2014. ^[8]Decision of the European Commission of 2 April 2014 in case AT.39610 (‘Power Cables’). The European Commission established that European, Japanese and South Korean manufacturers of underground and submarine power cables had divided power cable projects between themselves between 18 February 1999 and 29 January 2009. The defendants are (indirectly) connected to the addressees of the Commission decision.

The claimants of the Gulf States are seeking a declaratory judgment that the defendants acted unlawfully because they participated in the cartel, or that the knowledge of the parent companies addressed must be imputed to them. In separate ancillary actions, the defendants are seeking that the District Court decline jurisdiction.

The District Court partially concurred with the defendants in this respect. It held that, although it had jurisdiction to rule with regard to the Dutch defendants, this was not the case for the foreign defendants. Nor could the Dutch defendants serve as anchor defendants. The first requirement of a sufficiently close connection between the claims had not been satisfied. The mere fact that the Dutch defendants are (indirectly) connected with the addressees of the decision did not mean that they were also involved in the infringement under competition law or that parent companies’ liability could be imputed to them. The District Court therefore deemed itself to lack jurisdiction with regard to the foreign defendants.