Public enforcement and A(O)DR as mechanisms for resolving mass problems: a Belgian perspective

Mass litigation is on the reform agenda across Europe and the legislative landscape has changed impressively in recent years. Many aspects of collective redress litigation, particularly the comparative and international perspective, have been highlighted in various publications recently. Most of them have a focus on the political context such as whether to strengthen private or public enforcement of consumer and/or competition law or on questions raised in the context of contentious litigation, such as how to design procedural instruments effectively, or how to handle cross-border multiparty cases. The focal point of the contributions in this book is a different one. We take as a starting-point the observation that mass claims are a “nuisance” for both parties and courts. Preventing contentious litigation and encouraging parties to settle disputes is particularly important for mass claims. Therefore the contributions are about new ways of settling mass disputes. Whereas there is vast experience and plenty of case law on settlements in the classic class action countries like the USA, Canada and Australia, for many courts in Europe mass disputes and settlement approval are a completely new terrain. Notably the US class action system has repeatedly refined its rules, enhanced the court’s managerial role and made considerable efforts to minimize the risks typical of class actions. Within Europe, the Dutch Mass Settlement Act of 2005 (Wet collectieve afwikkeling massaschade, WCAM) is unique and very interesting. It is an excellent example of how courts struggle to find standards and instruments to improve settlement proceedings