On 12 June 2025, Advocate General Szpunar issued an opinion on the degree of plausibility of a claim that is required under Article 5 of the Antirust Damages Directive for claimants to obtain disclosure of evidence in the context of an antitrust damages action.
Advocate-General Campos Sánchez-Bordona rendered an opinion on how the European jurisdictional rules in relation to the "place where the harm occurred" should be applied in case of a collective action on behalf of a large group. The questions were referred to the European Court of Justice by the Amsterdam district court.
In this post, we analyse the interesting WAMCA decision rendered by the Midden-Nederland district court in the Essure case. Some key lessons are to be learned about the temporal scope of the WAMCA, and a new framework is provided to stress test funding arrangements.
Milieudefensie et al. claimed that Shell has a societal duty of care to reduce its emissions by 2030 with 45% compared to 2019. In first instance the District Court of The Hague ruled in favor of Milieudefensie et al. The Court of Appeal overturned the District Court’s decision and rejected the claims.
AG Szpunar confirms in an opinion for the ECJ that the right for injured parties of a competition law infringement to assign their claims to a litigation vehicle for the purpose of starting damages proceedings follows directly from the cartel prohibition of Article 101 TFEU. Moreover, national rules that make the assignment of antitrust damages claims impossible or excessively difficult should be disapplied.
Lindenbaum B.V.
Concertgebouwplein 13-H
1071 LL, Amsterdam
