Summary Oral Hearing - March 2th, 2026

After a detailed introduction to the facts and legal issues, the court first stated that it considered itself to have international jurisdiction. Since the defendant is based in Ireland, the provisions of the Brussels I Regulation apply. In the opinion of the Senate, Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation, which refers to the place of the harmful conduct, is relevant. The Senate does not agree with the defendant's view that the plaintiff association is asserting its own claim, as the basis for such an original association claim already appears questionable. In this respect, Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Regulation could be invoked, the requirements of which are also fulfilled in the court's view.

Mar Thu 05 2026

The Senate also considers the plaintiff to have standing to sue. It is undisputed that it is entered in the European Commission's register pursuant to Art. 5(1) sentence 4 of Directive (EU) 2020/1828. In the opinion of the Senate, a review of the registration or designation requirements under Dutch law is out of the question, if only because this would otherwise lead to potentially different decisions regarding the designation requirements in different jurisdictions. The respective Member State is responsible for the review in this respect.

In the court's opinion, there is also no inadmissible third-party financing. The lawsuit is financed by donations. The remedy proceedings do not provide for the withholding of compensation by the plaintiff or third parties.

However, the Senate considers the similarity of the claims asserted to be problematic. With regard to the implementation procedure, it must be possible for the trustee to satisfy the claims in accordance with the operative part of the remedial judgment without assessing the evidence or examining the content, solely on the basis of the proof of entitlement. The court sees the greatest hurdle here in relation to claims for immaterial damages: with regard to internal circumstances such as worries or negative feelings, the Senate considers it questionable how this could be proven in the implementation proceedings by means of proof of entitlement.

The Senate also sees difficulties with regard to an alleged loss of control. It must be proven that control over data had not already been lost previously. Furthermore, it is not clear from the plaintiff's submissions to date how the "average use" of the app or the internet can be reflected in the implementation proceedings. In its landmark decision, the Federal Court of Justice made it clear that immaterial damage must always be determined on the basis of individual circumstances. Nevertheless, the Senate recognizes that the plaintiff naturally has no contact with registered consumers or those still registering, nor can it have any, and therefore cannot determine individual circumstances relevant to the assessment of damages.

The plaintiff is given the opportunity to comment on the question of the similarity of the claims by March 31, 2026.