Einde inhoudsopgave
Remedies for infringements of EU law in legal relationships between private parties (LBF vol. 18) 2019/3.3.5.3
3.3.5.3 Abuse of rights (Article 3:13 BW)
mr. I.V. Aronstein, datum 01-09-2019
- Datum
01-09-2019
- Auteur
mr. I.V. Aronstein
- JCDI
JCDI:ADS141402:1
- Vakgebied(en)
EU-recht / Algemeen
Burgerlijk procesrecht / Algemeen
Voetnoten
Voetnoten
HR30 May 1986, ECLI:NL:HR:1986:AC9402 (NS), para. 3.5. Cf. Rb. ’s-Gravenhage 18 June 1993, ECLI:NL:RBSGR:1993:AG0436 (Teteringen/ABVAKABO) (collective action in the public sector). Rb. Utrecht 11 March 1982, ECLI:NL:RBUTR:1982:AG9625.
Warendorf, Thomas & Sumner 2009, p. 435. Asser/Hartkamp & Sieburgh 6-IV 2015/85-87. Parl. Gesch. Inv. Boek 3, 5 en 6, Boek 3, p. 1037 ff (Toelichting Meijers).HR17 February 1927, ECLI:NL:HR:1927:53 (De Wild/Utrechtse Hypotheekbank);HR13 March 1936, ECLI:NL:HR:1936:13 (Berg en Dalse watertoren I);HR 2 April 1937, ECLI:NL:HR:1937:13 (Berg en Dalse watertoren II).HR3 April 1998, ECLI:NL:HR:1998:AN5655 (Alkemade/Hornkamp). See alsoHR17 April 1970, ECLI:NL:HR:1970:AC5012 (Grensoverschrijdende garage).HR20 April 1951, ECLI:NL:HR:1951:349;HR7 February 1957, ECLI:NL:HR:1957:81. HR8 October 1976,ECLI:NL:HR:1976:AC0522.
There has been one exceptional case in which a Municipality was held liable to pay damages on the basis of Article 3:13 BW:HR5 June 2009, ECLI:NL:HR:2009:BH7845 (Amsterdam/Geschiere). Asser/Hartkamp & Sieburgh 6-IV 2015/85-87, 146 and 356.
In the Dutch literature diverse opinions are expressed in relation to the question whether abuse of rights as such constitutes a tortious act. In my view Article 3:13 BW is an autonomous ground that can be applied outside the scope of tortious acts, but that can also be invoked in support of claims based on Article 6:162 BW. Cf. Asser/Hartkamp & Sieburgh 6-IV 2015/85.
The tortious character of the abusive exercise is assessed on the basis of the third ground of unlawfulness; the duty of care (maatschappelijke betamelijkheid). See Asser/Hartkamp & Sieburgh 6-IV 2015/49 and 85-87. Schrage 2012, pp. 31-36. Parl. Gesch. Inv. Boek 3, 5 en 6, Boek 3, p. 1048 et seq. and p. 1044.
E.g. Rb. ’s-Gravenhage 18 June 1993, ECLI:NL:RBSGR:1993:AG0436 (Teteringen/ABVAKABO). Rb. Utrecht 11 March 1982, ECLI:NL:RBUTR:1982:AG9625. Cf. Schrage 2012, pp. 31-36. Heerma van Voss 1993, pp. 63 and 68. In France and Belgium the concept of abuse of rights is the pre-eminent vehicle applied to assess the lawfulness of a collective action. Pelissier, Auzero & Dockès 2012, no. 1343, nos. 1400-1403; Luttmer-Kat 1989, p. 647. Dorssemont 2002.
Heerma van Voss 1993, p. 68. Cf. Tweede Kamer 1968-1969, 10 111, no. 2, Ontwerp van wet (Bill). And Tweede Kamer 1968-1969, 10 111, no. 3, Memorie van Toelichting (Explanatory Memorandum), pp. 5-6. Tweede Kamer 1970-1971, 10 111, no. 7, Memorie van Antwoord (Memordandum in Reply), p. 3.
132. The pre-eminent provision for the assessment of collective actions is Article 6:162BW, on the basis of which a party can claim a prohibition of unlawful collective actions and compensation for damages suffered by such actions.1 In case of unlawful collective actions there is no right to collective action. In relation to the right to collective action, in the NS case the Hoge Raad mentioned the concept of abuse of rights – codified in Article 3:13BW since 1992 – as being an accepted ground for restriction of the right to collective action allowed by (what is now) Article G ESC.2 That is, the right to collective action exists, but the holder of the right may not exercise it to the extent that the exercise is abusive.3 The exercise of a right is abusive, when amongst other things, the exercise has no other purpose than to harm another person, when the exercise has another purpose than the purpose for which the right is granted, or when the exercise is unreasonable, given the disproportion between the interests in the exercise of the right and the harm caused by the exercise.4
133. Unlike Article 6:162BW, Article 3:13BW is, in principle5, not an autonomous ground for compensation for damages.6 The abusive exercise of a right is not a tortious act per se7, but if it can be classified as such Article 3:13 BW can be invoked to support a claim for compensation for damages based on Article 6:162 BW.8 Such a combined application of the concept of abuse of rightsand Article 6:162 BW has occurred in the realm of collective actions.9 However, apart from being mentioned in a number of cases, the concept of abuse of rights is barely given any further attention in case law on the right to collective action.10 In all probability this can be explained by the (increasing) focus on the role of Article 6:162 BW in such disputes.