Collective action update: limitation periods and Greenpeace can litigate to protect Bonaire

The Dutch collective redress system continues to be dynamic, with interesting decisions being provided by the courts. In this class action update, Noor Hogerzeil and Damiën Berkhout provide comments on two recent cases. In the first case, the Dutch Supreme Court provides an important decision on the applicable limitation period for individuals after a successful collective action. In the second case, the court provides more clarity on the admissibility requirements in case of general interest and ESG claims.

Dutch Supreme Court: new limitation period of up to five years for individual connected claims after final awarding declaratory collective action judgment

In the Netherlands the limitation period of a legal claim can be interrupted by a letter, and also by formally submitting a claim to court. In previous case law, the Supreme Court had already confirmed that under Dutch law a representative organization is able to interrupt limitation periods of individual claims by initiating a collective action (both by sending a letter and by initiating a procedure at court).

However, there remained a debate which limitation period applies after (i) a successful collective action, whereby a final decision is rendered, (ii)  that is not subject to enforcement. An example of such a final and not directly enforceable decision is a declaratory ruling that certain actions are unlawful. How fast after such a final decision must an individual claimant take action, for example to claim damages on the basis of the declaratory judgement?

The Dutch Supreme Court has answered this question in the Groeivermogen case. Here, the defendant Groeivermogen had argued that after the final declaratory judgment in collective action, article 3:316 (2)  Dutch Civil Code of Procedure (“DCCP”) should apply. Thus, Groeivermogen argued that individual claimants should file their action within 6 months.

The Supreme Court provides a much more claimant friendly reading of the law, and sides with the court of appeal. The decision of 27 September 2024 confirms that after a final decision in a collective action, in which a declaratory judgement is awarded, a limitation period equal to the previous applicable limitation period – but not longer than five years – starts. The Supreme Court finds that application of the six month period of article 3:316 (2) DCCP to individuals who are not a party to the collective action, and perhaps are not even aware of the collective action, would conflict with the effective and efficient legal protection of concerned individuals.

The Supreme Court decision is important for Dutch legal practice. First, many cases under the pre-WAMCA regime are cases that involve declaratory judgments. This because under the old collective action regime, it was not allowed to claim damages (schadevergoeding). To get around this representative organizations entered a claim for declaratory judgement, with the intention to follow up with individual (or group bundled) claims after a positive outcome. Second, also under the WAMCA it remains possible to claim declaratory relief. The Supreme Court decision confirms that the individuals will remain able to follow up on the declarative judgment for quite some time.

The Supreme Court has therewith rightly avoided the unwelcome and unintended outcome that individuals – who are perhaps are not even aware of the collective action – only have six month after the declaratory judgment to file their claim for damages.

Greenpeace admissible in climate case against the Dutch State

In January 2024, Stichting Greenpeace Nederland (“Greenpeace”), as representative of the population of Bonaire, and eight individual claimants initiated a WAMCA action against the Dutch State. In this collective action, the claimants claim, inter alia, that the State be ordered to take all necessary measures to protect Bonaire and its residents against the consequences of climate change and to limit the emissions from the Dutch territory faster. You can find the writ here: writ.

On 25 September 2025 the District Court of The Hague (“District Court”) found Greenpeace admissible in its claims, while ruling at the same time that the individual claimants do not have standing because, in essence, their interests are already represented by Greenpeace as representative organization (finding 3.18 and 3.21), because they have asserted no specific, separate own interest (finding 3.19) and because the system of the WAMCA only allows other representative organizations to be co-claimant (finding 3.20). The decision can be found here: https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2024:14834

The decision is interesting for future Dutch legal practice for several reasons.

First, the decision confirms that in case of noncommercial claims, the courts are more lenient when assessing whether the representative organization has standing. The WAMCA explicitly provides for this possibility of leniency, given that in case of noncommercial claims the court can apply article 3:305a (6) Dutch Civil Code (“DCC”). Based on this provision, the court can decide that the admissibility conditions set by article 3:305a (2) (a) – (e) and (5) DCC do not apply (these are in essence various infrastructure and governance requirements). This ability to apply a “light” test whether interests are sufficiently safeguarded is important in practice. The need to for example establish a supervisory board, and publish certain data can in practice lead to significant additional administrative and other expenses.

Second, the district court finds that in case of general interest cases (algemeen belang zaken), a “large group of persons which is diffuse and undetermined” is represented (finding 3.10). Therefore the condition of sufficient representativeness is “difficult to interpret”, and the proper question should therefore be whether the representative organization is an adequate representative to protect the asserted interests (finding 3.10. – 3.11). Thus, in general interest claims – such as ESG collective actions – the representativeness test is a qualitative test, instead of a quantitative test (where one would count the number of persons supporting the action). This finding is similar to the decision by the Amsterdam district court in the FTV/Abbvie case (please find comments on this case by our colleagues here: Collective action on excessive pricing of pharmaceuticals moves on to merits phase – Lindenbaum). Thus, the Hague and Amsterdam courts are moving in the same direction in this respect.

Third, when assessing whether the interests of the general interest are sufficiently safeguarded (as necessary under 3:305a DCC), the court considered that Greenpeace is an adequate representative to protect the interests it asserts to represent in this case, because  (i) Greenpeace has been around for decades, (ii)  represents many environmental interests on the basis of its articles of association, (iii) has a direct link with the Dutch legal sphere and (iv) has on the basis of its specific expertise and experience been recognized by Dutch governments and courts as a representative of climate related interest  in the past (finding 3.11). Also relevant, according to the court, is the fact that Greenpeace is not attempting to claim damages or otherwise establish legal relationships between individuals and the Dutch State through the collective action.

Contact Lindenbaum to learn more

If you want to learn more about these or other cases, do not hesitate to contact the experts at Lindenbaum. Our attorneys have been litigation counsel in in several of the leading collective actions in the Netherlands and Europe. We look forward to speaking with you.