In this article the authors compare Belgian and Dutch (draft) regulation of mass damage claims, and notably the prominent place reserved for the collective amicable settlement of such claims. Though collective action for the recovery of damage is still not possible in the Netherlands, Dutch law does provide for the possibility of the court endorsing collectively agreed settlements, since 2005. One of most notorious settlements, i.e. the Dexia case, is discussed, illustrating how individual victims may retain their standing to sue in court, although in such cases the courts show a tendency to cling to the terms of the collective settlement just the same (‘reflex effect or shadow of the settlement’). Mediation in brokering such high profile settlements does not necessarily follow the vested principles of mediation in ‘regular’ one to one disputes.

On 1 January 2015 a new arbitration act entered into force in the Netherlands. This article discusses the main amendments to the old legislation. The purpose of this new act is to improve the efficiency and flexibility of the arbitration process. Partially, the changes consist of codification of existing case law. However, also new elements are introduced such as for example the possibility of remission. Another reason for this revision of the arbitration legislation is to make the Netherlands internationally more attractive as an arbitration venue.
The main changes are related to, for example, the enforcement proceedings, which are significantly shortened for foreign awards, and making the annulment procedure more efficient. Furthermore, consumers are given more protection from arbitration clauses in general conditions, the rules regarding the challenging of arbitrators are amended and allow for the appointment of a third party to decide on the challenge. Summary proceedings are introduced as a possibility. The registration of the arbitral award with the district court is no longer required.