Written by Juliette Poelman
Published on 13 July 2026
From the DES daughters to the WCAM and the WAMCA
In a previous publication, we wrote that the ‘DES daughters case’ made an important contribution to the development of Dutch liability law and to the creation of the Wet collectieve afwikkeling massaschade (WCAM) and subsequently the Wet afwikkeling massaschade in collectieve actie (WAMCA) (English: “Act on collective settlement of mass damages”). In 2005, the WCAM came into force1. This law has relatively recently evolved into the WAMCA, which entered into force on January 1, 20202. In this publication, we focus on the WCAM. A subsequent publication will discuss the WAMCA.
Liability Law
The WCAM and WAMCA are part of liability law. In mass liability, the damage affects many people and is caused by one event or several similar events. The DES daughters case highlighted the need for the possibility of collective settlement of mass damages. Such a collective settlement offers many advantages. Victims litigate jointly in one proceeding and can share the costs. The case can be settled in one joint procedure, saving a lot of time and money. This provides clarity for the parties at once and prevents endless litigation.
The Act on collective settlement of mass damages (WCAM)
The WCAM provides a regulation that allows a so-called settlement agreement to be declared binding for an entire group of victims by the court. In principle, once the settlement is declared binding, it is binding for everyone falling within the scope of the settlement, except for those who make use of the opt-out option. If someone makes use of that, the settlement does not apply to that person.
However, the mechanism of WCAM only works if the parties reach a settlement. If this fails, the claim settlement must still take place on an individual basis. This led to the Wet afwikkeling massaschade in collectieve actie (WAMCA), which is the subject of a subsequent publication.
Main features of the WCAM3
The WCAM allows a settlement to be declared binding by the court on an entire group of victims. The legal procedure essentially boils down to the following:
Hearing prior to proceedings
Before proceedings are pending, the court may be asked to hold a hearing to examine the possibility of reaching a settlement (art. 1018a Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (DCCP)).
Reaching a settlement
The starting point of the proceedings is that a foundation or association with full legal capacity, which, in accordance with its statutes4, promotes the interests of the injured parties concerned, reaches a settlement with one or more other parties who undertake to compensate for the damage (Section 7:907 (1) of the Dutch Civil Code (DCC)).
Amsterdam Court of Appeal has sole jurisdiction
At the joint request of the parties, the settlement is submitted to the Amsterdam Court of Appeal, with the request that this agreement be declared binding ‘on persons to whom the damage was caused’ (Article 7:907 paragraph 1 DCC). The Amsterdam Court of Appeal has sole jurisdiction (Article 1013, paragraph 3 DCCP). Only a limited appeal in cassation is possible against the decision of the Court of Appeal.
Suspension of individual proceedings
Individual proceedings pending at the time the joint application is filed will be suspended (article 1015 paragraph 1 DCCP).
Assessment by the Court of Appeal and declaring binding or not
The Court of Appeal decides whether or not to declare the agreement binding after reviewing the settlement (Article 7:907 paragraph 1 DCC). The settlement must contain a number of elements mentioned in the law (Article 7:907 paragraph 2 DCC), such as a description of the event or events to which the agreement relates. The group or groups of persons for whose benefit the settlement is concluded must also be described. Furthermore, the most accurate possible indication must be given of the number of persons belonging to this group or groups and of the compensation to be granted to these persons.
Grounds for rejection
The law lists a number of (mandatory) grounds for rejection (Article 7:907 paragraph 3 DCC). One is that the amount of compensation granted is not reasonable. Another is that the requesting foundations or associations are not sufficiently representative.
Other procedural safeguards
The victims for whose benefit the settlement was concluded are summoned and may submit a statement of defence (art. 1013 paragraph 5 DCCP). The Court sets a period of at least three months within which the victims may indicate by written notice that they do not wish to be bound (Art. 7:908 para. 2 DCC). Art. 7:908 paragraph 3 DCC stipulates that victims who could only become aware of their damage after the expiry of the said period are not bound by the contract if they declare in writing that they do not wish to be bound. The liable parties can give this category of victims a period of six months in which they may give notice that they do not wish to be bound.
Application of the WCAM
The WCAM has been applied in:
- The DES case (Amsterdam Court of Appeal 1 June 2006, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2006:AX6440)
- The Dexia case (Amsterdam Court of Appeal 25 January 2007, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2007:AZ7033)
- The Vie d’Or case (Amsterdam Court of Appeal 29 April 2009, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2009:BI2717)
- The Shell case (Amsterdam Court of Appeal 29 May 2009, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2009:BI5744)
- The Vedior case (Court of Appeal Amsterdam 15 July 2009, JOR 2009/325, A.C.W. Pijls)
- The Converium case (Amsterdam Court of Appeal 17 January 2012, JOR 2012/51, with comment from B.J. De Jong)
- The DSB case (Amsterdam Court of Appeal 4 November 2014, JOR 2015/10, citing Prof. I.N. Tzankova)
- The Fortis case (Amsterdam Court of Appeal 13 July 2018, JOR 2018, 246, citing Prof. mr. I.N. Tzankova)
1 Stb. 2005, 380.
2 Stb. 2019,447.
3 This section is largely based on Onrechtmatige daad (Mon. Pr. nr. 4) 2023/1.10.2.5.
4 Compare art. 3:305a lid 1 DCC.
