Netherlands, AKD The Netherlands updates

Employment & Benefits

Contributed by AKD The Netherlands
Dutch dismissal law in a nutshell
  • Netherlands
  • 13 March 2019

Dutch dismissal law contains certain distinguishing elements which make it unique within Europe. For example, it is based on a dual system, which includes a preventive dismissal assessment. Employers that intend to dismiss employees must be mindful of these unique features. Otherwise, the dismissal attempt may fail, resulting in the nominated employee remaining in the company's employment or the employer paying a higher severance payment to the employee.

Employers beware! Right of access to personnel files under GDPR
  • Netherlands
  • 19 December 2018

For most employers, the threat of high fines has been sufficient to encourage them to try and comply with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Now, more than six months after the GDPR's introduction, the question has arisen as to whether employers' concerns in this regard were justified. Recent case law and an incremental penalty imposed by the Dutch Data Protection Authority show that employers should be taking the GDPR seriously when it comes to personnel files.

Is this the end of traditional employment contracts?
  • Netherlands
  • 10 October 2018

According to the European Commission, the growth of flexible contracts in the Dutch labour market, as well as the inequality between flexible contracts and employment contracts for indefinite periods, is a problem. As such, one of the commission's recommendations for the Dutch government is to tackle the barriers to entering into traditional contracts or employment contracts for indefinite periods and facilitate the transition from definite contracts to employment contracts for indefinite periods.


Intellectual Property

Contributed by AKD The Netherlands
Assessing the real risk of market partitioning and the burden of proof
  • Netherlands
  • 15 February 2016

A recent interlocutory judgment on assessing the real risk of market partitioning in an unauthorised parallel import case examined the rationale for reversing the burden of proof and whether the risk of partitioning assessment should take place retroactively or not. Rights holders will welcome the judgment because of the high standard it sets for what evidence qualifies as proof of a real risk of market partitioning.

Communication to the public: how much involvement is required?
  • Netherlands
  • 14 December 2015

The Supreme Court has referred another question to the European Court of Justice regarding 'communication to the public' as defined by the EU Infosoc Directive. The referral concerns a dispute between anti-piracy association the BREIN Foundation and two internet service providers hosting the notorious online index of digital content, The Pirate Bay.

Hyperlinks and copyright: courts seek ECJ guidance
  • Netherlands
  • 16 November 2015

The relationship between hyperlinking and copyright has been the subject of various court judgments. The outcome of such cases depends on the accessibility of the content, whether the content was uploaded lawfully, whether the link qualifies as a communication to the public and whether the rights holder's permission was obtained. Dutch courts recently made two new references to the European Court of Justice on this issue.

Copyright Contract Law comes into force
  • Netherlands
  • 03 August 2015

The new Copyright Contract Law was recently inserted into the Copyright Act 1912. The amendment aims to strengthen the position of authors, particularly in relation to parties which exploit their works (eg, publishers, film producers and record companies). The new law requires a signed deed in relation to exclusive licences, as well as introducing a section on exploitation contracts into the act.

Amsterdam District Court denies authority for seizure of Community trademark
  • Netherlands
  • 08 June 2015

The Amsterdam District Court recently decided that it was not authorised to grant permission to seize trademarks registered as a Community trademark before the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM). The court argued that, as OHIM has its seat in Alicante, Spain (ie, outside the Netherlands), the trademarks were outside the court's remit and it therefore had no authority to grant permission for seizure.


Litigation

Contributed by AKD The Netherlands
Rotterdam court rules in favour of Petrobras investors by accepting jurisdiction
  • Netherlands
  • 26 February 2019

The Rotterdam District Court recently assumed jurisdiction over the international securities class action lawsuit against Petrobras Brasileiro SA and others in the Netherlands. The judgment offers valuable insight into how the Dutch courts assess jurisdiction in cross-border collective redress cases. It also illustrates that the Netherlands could act as a collective redress venue in matters relating to events that mainly take place in foreign jurisdictions.

Hema crocodile takes bite out of Lacoste trademark
  • Netherlands
  • 19 February 2019

The Hague District Court recently issued a preliminary ruling in which it held that Lacoste could not invoke its famous crocodile trademark in order to prohibit the use of a crocodile motif on children's underwear. This preliminary judgment is one of only a few examples in which the use of a sign has been considered purely decorative (and thus could not be perceived as trademark use). Typically, the courts are restrictive in accepting such a defence.

Amsterdam Court of Appeal declares Fortis settlement binding under WCAM
  • Netherlands
  • 18 December 2018

The Amsterdam Court of Appeal recently declared the settlement between Fortis (since renamed Ageas) and multiple claimant organisations binding. The €1.3 billion settlement is the largest of its kind to have been entered into in Europe. It emphasises the usefulness of the Act on Collective Settlement of Mass Claims when resolving cross-border disputes before the Dutch courts, irrespective of whether proceedings on the merits on behalf of the whole class can be litigated on in the Netherlands.

Onus on party seeking to limit liability to provide all information at early stage
  • Netherlands
  • 11 December 2018

A recent decision by the Rotterdam Court regarding a major oil spill in the port of Rotterdam emphasises the importance of assessing at an early stage which liability regime applies when a party seeks to limit its exposure to claims in the event of an oil spill at sea. The court held that in procedures concerning limitation of liability, it is the responsibility of the party seeking to rely on limitation to provide all of the information available at an early stage.

adidas knocked out in trademark infringement case: McGregor IP maintains right to use Conor McGregor's name
  • Netherlands
  • 27 November 2018

The Hague District Court recently rendered an interim judgment in a matter between Dutch limited liability company McGregor IP BV and adidas. The key question in this case was whether adidas – in using the name of a sports hero on items such as hoodies, shorts and jerseys – had infringed McGregor IP's trademark rights. Notably, the outcome of this matter could have been different had the design and display of the signs at issue been different.


Shipping & Transport

Contributed by AKD The Netherlands
Volume guarantees under transport and logistics contracts
  • Netherlands
  • 27 March 2019

A recent Utrecht District Court decision sends a strong reminder to parties in the transport and logistics industry that they must be precise and clear about what they are agreeing to in dealings with their trading partners. While the less formal requirements for concluding an agreement under Dutch law seem to benefit the transport industry, this decision shows that there are pitfalls to be considered.

Onus on party seeking to limit liability to provide all information at early stage
  • Netherlands
  • 12 December 2018

A recent decision by the Rotterdam Court regarding a major oil spill in the port of Rotterdam emphasises the importance of assessing at an early stage which liability regime applies when a party seeks to limit its exposure to claims in the event of an oil spill at sea. The court held that in procedures concerning limitation of liability, it is the responsibility of the party seeking to rely on limitation to provide all of the information available at an early stage.

Supreme Court confirms right to limit liability
  • Netherlands
  • 08 August 2018

The Supreme Court has reconfirmed the right to limit liability under Dutch law, even in personal injury cases. It held that limitation as such is not a violation of the human right to protection of property under the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, and that it is nationally and internationally considered necessary that the liability of the carrier is limited or may be limited in the event of a passenger's death or personal injury.

Netherlands prepares to adopt Rotterdam Rules
  • Netherlands
  • 01 August 2018

With two bills recently submitted to Parliament, the Netherlands is preparing to adopt the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea (the Rotterdam Rules) into Dutch law. This legislative effort is a clear sign of support in respect of the rules and will be appreciated by those convinced that the rules are the way forward for the carriage of goods in this age of e-commerce.

Dutch court rules that tank storage provider cannot invoke exoneration clause contained in VOTOB conditions
  • Netherlands
  • 16 May 2018

The Rotterdam District Court recently ruled that a tank storage provider could not invoke the exoneration clause of the General Conditions for Tank Storage in the Netherlands (the VOTOB conditions), which are frequently used by Dutch tank terminals and storage companies. The decision is relevant, as it appears to contravene the rather strict approach adopted in Dutch case law in relation to successfully setting aside a VOTOB exoneration clause.


Current search

Refine search

Work area