Category News

Privacy: is a Dutch employer allowed to check his employees for corona?

Privacy: is a Dutch employer allowed to check his employees for corona? 1920 1280 Ekelmans Advocaten
medische gegevens
Leestijd: 4 minuten
Lesedauer: 4 Minuten
Reading time: 4 minutes
Expertise:

May sensitive personal data, such as medical data, of employees who are (potentially) infected with Corona be used? We will briefly list the most important principles that currently apply in the Netherlands.

May sensitive personal data, such as medical data, of employees who are (potentially) infected with Corona be used?

Also during the Corona crisis the dilemma of the General Data Protection Regulation is evident. On the one hand, the AVG was not designed to create obstacles in the fight against the virus. On the other hand, the AVG does seem to do so in practice. In principle, the AVG prohibits the processing of data relating to health, among other things. Does this complicate the guidance of employees and hinder rapid intervention by employers to prevent further spread of the virus in the workplace?

The European Data Protection Board, the European privacy supervisor, emphasised in a recent statement that the AVG provides foundations for employers to be allowed to process data about Corona infections in the context of combating a pandemic. According to the EDPB, employers can rely on the performance of a task in the area of public health or the protection of vital interests.

However, the Dutch privacy supervisor, the Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens, has a very strict view on the use of health data in an employer-employee relationship. Employers may not ask the employee for the reason for his sickness report, nor may company doctors in principle share health data about the nature of the employee’s illness with the employer.

How can the EDPB’s statement be reconciled with the strict opinion of the Dutch privacy supervisor? Although the EDPB seems to leave the door ajar for the restrictive processing of health data in connection with Corona, it lacks a concrete translation into (Dutch) practice.

Below we will therefore briefly list the most important principles that currently apply in the Netherlands.

As an employer, are you allowed to check for Corona?

Also in the context of the Corona crisis, the Dutch privacy supervisor maintains for the time being, and in general, the position that the employer may not check the employee for Corona, and may not (even) ask him whether he has Corona.

As a Dutch employer, what are you allowed to do?

Although the privacy rules are still strict, the employer does have some other (limited) resources at its disposal that can be used to limit the consequences of Corona on the work floor as much as possible.
For example, the employer is allowed to:

  1. Send home an employee with a cold or flu symptoms, even in case of doubt, or to indicate that he should not come to work;
  2. Ask the employee to keep an eye on his health and, if necessary, temperature himself (also during work);
  3. In case of health problems, insist that the worker contacts the company doctor at an early stage;
  4. Ask the company doctor to have the employee checked (by the municipal health service) for Corona.

Exception for special categories of employers?

For care workers in hospitals and nursing home institutions, however, deviating measures now apply when they contribute to ensuring care for patients and older and vulnerable persons. For these sectors, the Dutch government already allows for more extensive control of employees on Corona. In addition, the testing policy has recently been broadened. Employees in care for the disabled, home care, youth care and the mental healthcare can also be tested.

These measures are in line with the aforementioned statement of the EDPB and are in line with the GDPR, as it stipulates that in the interest of the safety and quality of care, the vital interests of vulnerable others and the management of the institutions concerned, the processing of health data by the employer is permitted.

At this stage, the Dutch privacy supervisor does not comment on exceptional situations.

What to do if the employer knows that an employee is infected?

In the context of both the duty of care as an employer and in the public interest, you may report to the other employees that an employee has been infected, as long as you do not tell them who that employee is.

What does all this mean in practice?

Although the employer’s ability to process health data is still limited, except in exceptional situations, he does have some means at his disposal to limit Corona related risks in the workplace. For example, the employee may be required to carry out active self-monitoring and the employer may exclude the employee from the workplace if only on (possible) suspicion of Corona.

In addition, however, the company doctor continues to play an important role. It is therefore recommended that employees be advised to consult the company doctor themselves in the case of minor health complaints alone. Furthermore, the employer can ask the company doctor to periodically (by telephone) monitor the state of health of healthy employees, and ask him to monitor sick employees for Corona symptoms and, if necessary, have them tested. In this way, a suspicion or confirmation of a Corona infection can be identified as quickly as possible and the risk of further spread on the work floor can be limited.

Incidentally, the government’s Corona measures are still being developed. We will therefore monitor the privacy related changes for the employer and continue to share them with you.

Contact

Client praise for Ekelmans & Meijer in Legal 500

Client praise for Ekelmans & Meijer in Legal 500 700 468 Ekelmans Advocaten
Legal 500
Leestijd: 2 minuten
Lesedauer: 2 Minuten
Reading time: 2 minutes
Expertise:

Legal 500 has announced its rankings for 2020. In this leading guide to the international legal profession, Ekelmans & Meijer is recognised as one of the top firms in the field of Insurance Law. We are proud of this recognition.

Rankings Legal 500 and client recommendations

Legal 500 has been assessing the strength of law firms in more than 100 jurisdictions worldwide for over 30 years. The Legal 500 rankings are based on the recommendations of clients provided to the Legal 500 researchers. We thank our clients for sharing their trust in our Insurance team! .

Legal 500 on our Insurance team:

Ekelmans & Meijer Advocaten is ‘always a pleasure to work with'[..]. The group is particularly active in the healthcare sector and recently represented health insurance company De Friesland Zorgverzekeraar in an appeal regarding the remuneration healthcare insurers must pay for services rendered by medical professionals with whom they have not concluded an agreement on their fees. ‘Enthusiastic and excellent insurance lawyer’ Jan Ekelmans is a key name to note, along with practice head Hanco Arnold and ‘highly professional and very capable attorney’ Astrid van Noort.

Legal 500 also quotes the following statements from our clients:

‘[..] Astrid van Noort who handled six claims for us. She strikes me as a highly professional and very capable attorney in her field of expertise.’

‘Astrid van Noort: competent, open, friendly, easily approachable.’

‘We especially like to work with Jan Ekelmans. Due to his keen wits and social skills we don’t need many words for him to understand us completely. We don’t know anybody else who is able to assess a large case as quickly as he does. We also very much appreciate the outstanding work of Hanco Arnold and Astrid van Noort. Hanco Arnold especially in cases that concern fraud and Astrid van Noort for cases that concern privacy matters. Both lawyers are able to take on more then their field of expertise as mentioned before.’

‘Jan Ekelmans is an enthusiastic and excellent insurance lawyer; friendly, quick to respond, highly specialised and pragmatic. I can highly recommend Jan Ekelmans to others.’

‘They have a great deal of knowledge and work with particular care.’

‘They work hard. They are extremely careful. They do what they promise.’

‘It is always a pleasure to work with Ekelmans & Meijer.’

‘We use them as a health insurer for advice and litigation and they are competent and know the market.’

‘They are specialised and have a lot of knowledge in-house.’

‘They are objective – if we need to settle then that is what they will advise us to do.’

Contact

Support measures for companies in effort to tackle the coronavirus crisis

Support measures for companies in effort to tackle the coronavirus crisis 1707 2560 Ekelmans Advocaten
Steunmaatregelen coronacrisis
Leestijd: 5 minuten
Lesedauer: 5 Minuten
Reading time: 5 minutes
Expertise:

The Dutch government has taken various economic support measures to reduce businesses’ liquidity problems due to the coronavirus. We have compiled an overview of the measures for you.

Because of the coronavirus, on 12 March 2020 the Dutch government took various measures aimed at reducing businesses’ liquidity problems. On 17 March 2020, the government announced additional economic support measures for companies in the form of the Jobs and the Economy Emergency Package (Noodpakket Banen en Economie). We have compiled an overview of the measures for you.

Reduction of working hours / Temporary Emergency Bridging Measure for Maintaining Employment

The reduction of working hours scheme (werktijdverkorting, WTV) has been withdrawn with immediate effect. Any exemption granted under this scheme remains in force. The Temporary Emergency Bridging Measure for Maintaining Employment (Tijdelijke Noodmaatregel Overbrugging voor Werkbehoud, NOW) will be made available as soon as possible. This scheme lets employers obtain financial compensation more quickly in order to prevent job losses. The scheme has a different basis for the award of financial compensation. Whereas the WTV scheme was based on the loss of workforce capacity, the NOW scheme applies in the event of a loss of revenue. The scheme does not affect employees’ rights under the Unemployment Insurance Act.

Under the new scheme, a business that expects loss of revenue of at least 20% can apply to the Employee Insurance Agency (UWV) for compensation for three months to cover up to 90% of the wage bill. This period can be extended once only for a further three months. The Employee Insurance Agency will make an advance payment of 80% of the requested compensation.

This will allow the company to continue paying its staff. The compensation is subject to the condition that no employees may be dismissed for commercial reasons during the granted period of the compensation and the employer must continue to pay the employees’ wages. You can apply for the compensation for a decline in revenue to take effect from 1 March. It is an advance payment; the compensation amount will be finalized retrospectively and you may be required to pay back the compensation.

Temporary income support for freelancers and SMEs

For a period of three months, self-employed people who run into problems because of the coronavirus crisis can obtain additional income support to cover the cost of living and/or a loan for operating capital through an accelerated procedure. The income support makes up their income to the guaranteed minimum and does not have to be repaid. There is no equity test or test of the partner’s income.

The scheme is operated by the municipalities. The aim is to complete the application process within four weeks of the initial application.

Unemployment insurance premium differentiation

As of 1 January 2020, employers pay a low unemployment insurance premium for permanent contracts and a high unemployment insurance premium for flexible contracts, by virtue of the Balanced Labour Market Act (Wet arbeidsmarkt in balans, WAB). The employer must pay the higher unemployment insurance premium retrospectively for permanent employees if they have worked overtime for more than 30%. As this can have undesirable effects in sectors such as healthcare where a great deal of overtime is currently required due to the coronavirus, the measure will be amended.

Furthermore, the period that employers have to document a permanent employment contract in writing and show that the employee was employed on a permanent basis as at 31 December 2019, thereby meeting the conditions for the low unemployment insurance premium, has been extended from 1 April 2020 to 1 July 2020.

SME Credit Guarantee Scheme

In the SME Credit Guarantee Scheme (Borgstelling MKB-kredieten, BMKB), the government offers a partial guarantee for companies that want to take out a loan but are unable to offer the financer in question sufficient guarantees.

The scope of the BMKB scheme has been extended as of 16 March. The scheme is intended for companies with 250 or fewer employees (FTEs) and annual revenue of up to 50 million euros or total assets of up to 43 million euros.

In the current scheme, the guaranteed credit is 50% of the credit provided by the financer. The guaranteed credit in the BMKB scheme is being increased from 50% to 75% for a maximum of two years.

The self-employed without employees can also make use of the scheme if they have a business in the form of a sole tradership, a partnership (VOF) or a private limited company (BV).

Business Financing Guarantee

SMEs and larger companies can make use of the Business Financing Guarantee scheme (Garantie Ondernemersfinanciering, GO). A 50% guarantee is provided for bank loans and bank guarantees. The maximum per company has temporarily been increased to 150 million euros. The scheme is operated through the banks.

Tax measures

Affected businesses can request a deferral for tax payments without providing reasons. The Tax and Customs Administration will then stop tax collection with immediate effect. This applies to income tax, company tax, wage tax and VAT. The requests will be considered substantively at a later date. Among other measures, the late payment interest has been reduced to 0.01% and no default penalties are being imposed.

Interest rate discount for new companies

Microcredit provider Qredits has introduced a temporary crisis measure. Small-scale businesses affected by the coronavirus crisis are being offered postponement of repayments for a period of six months, with the interest rate automatically being reduced to 2% during that period.

Emergency assistance

A compensation scheme will be introduced for businesses in sectors that have been hit hard directly by the measures the government has taken to fight the coronavirus. Examples are the restaurant and catering sector and the events industry. A requirement for compensation is that the company must have physical premises outside the entrepreneur’s home. These companies will soon receive a donation of 4000 euros. The applicable conditions for the scheme are currently being worked out.

Banks

The banks are also taking measures. Smaller companies with loans of up to 2.5 million euros can obtain a postponement of their loan repayments for six months. This agreement was made by ABN AMRO, ING, Rabobank, Volksbank and Triodos Bank, as announced by the Dutch Banking Association (Nederlandse Vereniging van Banken, NVB) on 19 March.

The banks are still discussing measures for larger companies with loans of more than 2.5 million euros. “This is the minimum scheme, and banks can offer their corporate clients additional tailored solutions,” says the Dutch Banking Association.

Legal advice

If you require legal advice on the consequences of the coronavirus for your business operations, please contact Rob Kossen on +31 6 29 03 44 71.

Contact

Ekelmans & Meijer ranked as leading firm in Chambers Europe

Ekelmans & Meijer ranked as leading firm in Chambers Europe 1000 700 Ekelmans Advocaten
Chambers Europe 2020
Leestijd: 2 minuten
Lesedauer: 2 Minuten
Reading time: 2 minutes
Expertise:

The leading international lawyers guide Chambers Europe has included Ekelmans & Meijer in the list of best Dutch law firms (leading firms) in the field of Insurance Law.

“Most firms have the required knowledge but this firm knows how to use it to our advantage.”

The leading international lawyers guide Chambers Europe has included Ekelmans & Meijer in the list of best Dutch law firms in the field of Insurance Law.

Chambers and Partners annually compares the performance of law firms in key areas of law in 53 European countries. For each country, the researchers determine which law firms and which individual lawyers are among the best in the country. They base this on extensive and independent research, in which clients also assess the services provided. This makes the results all the more valuable.

Leading firm in Insurance

We are therefore particularly proud that Ekelmans & Meijer is recognised by Chambers as a ‘leading firm’ in the field of Insurance Law.

Chambers recommends our firm and writes:

Renowned for its litigation expertise and has a long track record advising on high-profile cases before the Supreme Court. Has a broad liability practice, covering professional, D&O and general liability concerning construction, property damage and marine. Particularly well known for its expertise regarding healthcare insurance matters.

Clients value the team’s depth of knowledge and quality of advice, with one stating: “They always do their very best and are a pleasure to work with. Most firms have the required knowledge but this firm knows how to use it to our advantage.”

Another adds: “We enjoyed the personal approach. We felt like we knew what was going on, which gave us enough comfort during the process.”

An overview of the Chambers Europe 2020 ranking for Ekelmans & Meijer can also be found on the Chambers website.

Contact

De Zorgverzekering (‘Health Insurance’) — the first clear overview of the law in Dutch healthcare

De Zorgverzekering (‘Health Insurance’) — the first clear overview of the law in Dutch healthcare 2560 1707 Ekelmans Advocaten
overzicht zorgverzekeringsrecht
Leestijd: 2 minuten
Lesedauer: 2 Minuten
Reading time: 2 minutes
Expertise:

Dutch health insurance and long-term healthcare are riddled with rules and customary practices, in which it is easy to lose your way.

But now the first edition of the book De Zorgverzekering (i.e.: healthcare insurance) has appeared.

Dutch health insurance and long-term healthcare are riddled with rules and customary practices, in which it is easy to lose your way. But now the first edition of the book De Zorgverzekering (i.e.: healthcare insurance) has appeared. In this book, Jan Ekelmans provides a picture of the health insurance scene and unpicks it layer by layer. Health insurers, healthcare providers, regulatory bodies, consumers and their advisors can use this book to help them make better, faster choices on what action to take.

Market worth 80 billion euros

Insured healthcare is a market with a turnover of 80 billion euros. Producing an overview of what happens in that market is quite a challenge, one that has been taken up by this book. It focuses on four topics: the various kinds of insurance (health insurance, insurance under the Long-Term Care Act and supplementary insurance); the legal relationship between the healthcare provider and the health insurer; privacy protection and possible breaches of privacy; and the audits and fraud investigations by health insurers, plus the consequences attached to the findings from these investigations.

Practical approach

The book has a practical approach; it devotes attention to different perspectives on decisions and includes examples from actual practice, future developments and sources for further information and application. It contains a wealth of facts and legal information that has never before been brought together in one place, ordered and made accessible in this way.

About the author

Jan Ekelmans is a lawyer and partner at Ekelmans & Meijer Advocaten. He is an authority in the field of insurance law in the Netherlands. Insurers ask him for advice on complex and politically sensitive matters. For a number of years Jan was a deputy justice at the Arnhem–Leeuwarden court of appeal and a member of the advisory committee that advises the Dutch Parliament and Government on civil procedural law. His extensive experience with insurance law enables him to provide a clear overview of health care insurance in the Netherlands.

Contact

Unclear clauses in a bourse policy

Unclear clauses in a bourse policy 150 150 Ekelmans Advocaten
Leestijd: 3 minuten
Lesedauer: 3 Minuten
Reading time: 3 minutes
Expertise:

This article will discuss in which way an unclear clause in a bourse policy, concluded on the Dutch insurance bourse on the basis of co-insurance, should legally be determined. This is relevant because the insurer and the policyholder at the bourse usually do not discuss the policy wording, but rather use a wording that is often used at the bourse.

This topic is recently discussed in an opinion of the Procurator-General of the Dutch Supreme Court in a case in which Ekelmans represented the insurers in the Supreme Court trial.

Bourse policies

In the Netherlands, insurance is taken out either directly from an insurance company (on the basis of a company policy) or with the help of a broker through the Dutch insurance bourse (on the basis of a so called bourse policy). These different insurance products follow different rules whenever there is a dispute concerning the meaning of the policy wording at hand. Bourse policies are mainly taken out for grave and complex risks when coverage is not provided by just one insurer, but by multiple insurers. In the Netherlands this is often called co-insurance. An example might be the insurance of a big ship.

Usually, a professional bourse broker assists the future policyholder. Therefore, the policy between the insured and the insurer is mainly formed through negotiations between the insurer and the intermediary bourse broker. In co-insurance, the policyholder concludes an individual agreement with each participating insurer, always for the percentage the concerning insurer has accepted the risk for.

Thus, the professional bourse broker, acting as an intermediary on behalf of the aspiring-policyholder, offers the insurable risk(s) to the bourse insurer. A distinctive feature of a bourse policy is that the policy is concluded within a circuit of professional bourse brokers and insurers and that the policy wording is concluded through negotiations between these professional bourse brokers and insurers.

Explanation of an unclear clause

Within this framework, it is important to understand how an unclear wording should be interpreted in the event of a conflict.

In the case Chubb/Dagenstead (2008) The Dutch Supreme Court ruled that for the interpretation of a policy wording concluded on the insurance bourse, the focus should particularly be on the phrasing of the clauses and related comments, in light of the policy wording as a whole.

Recently, Ekelmans has assisted insurers at the Dutch Supreme Court in such a dispute with the insured. The case concerned a policy wording that was concluded on the insurance bourse on the basis of co-insurance. The Procurator-General of the Dutch Supreme Court argued that – besides the phrasing of a clause – judges should specifically take note of:

  • the meaning of the used term(s) in common speech;
  • the meaning of the used term(s) in a specific setting, for example the meaning of the term(s) within the insurance bourse circles;
  • the purpose of the specific clause and the nature of the insurance;
  • the ‘plausibility of the legal consequences to which various text interpretations could lead’ in case the phrasing of the clause offers (too) little grip for the case.

Knowledge of the bourse broker

Furthermore, the (assumed) knowledge of the bourse broker who represented the insured can also affect the interpretation of the wording . The legal allocation of the (assumed) knowledge of the bourse broker regarding the meaning of the product or the clause to the insured is not only based on the fact that a bourse broker (as a representative of the policyholder) concludes the insurance agreement on behalf of the policyholder, but also on the fact that the policy conditions are (mainly) the outcome of negotiations within bourse circles. This implies that the (assumed) knowledge of the bourse broker on the matter at hand can be hold against the policyholder whenever interpretation of an unclear wording needs to be established in a Dutch court of law.

Bron: Insurance Law Global

Author

A step into the Dutch world of product liability: subrogation claims

A step into the Dutch world of product liability: subrogation claims 150 150 Ekelmans Advocaten
Leestijd: 5 minuten
Lesedauer: 5 Minuten
Reading time: 5 minutes
Expertise:

The basis of liability in case of a defective product

In case of a defective product that causes damage, the liability of the producer can be based on:

Strict liability for defective products (art. 6:185 – 191. DCC). This regulation is the implementation of The European Product Liability Directive of June 1985.
General tort liability (article 6:162 DCC). This liability is a fault-based liability.
Contractual liability (article 6:74 DCC). If there is a breach of a contract, according to article 6:74 DCC, a party can be held liable for a defective product.

It is self-evident that the claim of the insurer against the producer based on subrogation cannot be based on contractual liability since the insurer and the producer do not have any contractual obligations against each other.

Furthermore, according to article 6:197 DCC, insurers who pay compensation in a product liability case, have no subrogated claim for indemnity against the producer under the Product Liability Directive. Consequently the only bases for liability of the producer in case of subrogation is the general tort liability.

General Tort Liability

General principles

The general principle of Dutch tort liability is contained in article 6:162 DCC. This basic tort rule is one of negligence. Under Dutch general tort law the plaintiff will have to prove all the elements of the claim, namely: the unlawful act, the damage, and the causal connection between those two. Furthermore, contrary strict liability, the insurer has to argue convincingly that the unlawful act is attributable to the producer.

Unlawful act and the notion of a defective product

According to art. 6:186 DCC a product is defective if it does not offer the safety which a person is entitled to expect, taking all circumstances into account, including the presentation of the product, the use to which it could reasonably be expected to be and the time it was put into circulation. The question is if a defective product is considered to be unlawful in the framework of 6:162 DCC.

The Dutch Supreme Court ruled that a product is defective under 6:162 DCC if it does not offer the safety a user is entitled to expect, given the circumstances of the case. Therefore, the Dutch Supreme Court uses a similar definition under general tort law as for a defective product under the Product Liability Directive.

In principle it is up to the plaintiff to proof that the product is defective, however, a reversal of this burden of proof is possible. The Dutch Supreme Court considered in the Leebeek/Vrumona landmark case that if a plaintiff proves that damages occurred while the product was being used in a normal fashion, that state of affairs would lead to the factual presumption that the damage must have been caused by a defect in the product. It is then up to the producer to rebut this presumption.

Culpability

Contrary to strict liability, it is not sufficient that a defective product leads to liability of the producer under general tort law. The unlawful act (defective product) must also be attributable to the defendant. The Dutch Supreme Court has never accepted strict liability for defective products based on general tort law, however as set out above the burden of proof with respect to fault has more or less been shifted to the defendant. Whether or not the subrogated insurers also have the benefit of a shifted burden of proof with respect to fault is still an unsettled issue.

In the case Du Pont/Hermans the Dutch Supreme Court decided:
”Due to the nature of the unlawful act, the question whether the producer was at fault, can only be answered in the light of the circumstances to be stated by the producer.”

In the Rockwool case the Supreme Court defined the duty of care of a producer:
“Generally a producer will have to take all measures reasonably required, as a prudent manufacturer, to prevent damage caused by the product which is marketed. The producer of a new product, or a product that has been altered, has a duty to ascertain which effects the product has when used for foreseeable purposes.’’

Apart from this, The Dutch Association of Insurers (‘’Verbond van Verzekeraars’’) has imposed a restriction on this principle. If the insurer is a member of the Dutch Association of Insurers, the insurer is bound by the Regulation Subrogated Fire Insurers 2014 (‘’Bedrijfsregeling Brandregres 2014’’). Article 2 of this regulation states that the right of subrogation against non-individuals (companies) can only be exercised “if the liability is related to a negligent act” (‘’onzorgvuldig handelen’’).

There is much debat about the interpretation of the concept ‘’negligent act’’. In my opinion, the most obvious explanation is that there must be a culpable action. This explanation is also in line with the explanatory notes of the Regulation.

So the question of culpability under general tort law is answered on the basis of the circumstances invoked by the producer. If the insurer is a member of the Dutch Association of Insurers, the Regulation plays an important role in this since the definition of culpability is restricted by this regulation.

Causal connection

According to 6:162 DCC the plaintiff will have to prove causal connection between the unlawful act and the damages suffered.

However, also in the field of causation the courts have come to the aid of plaintiffs. A new rule on the burden of proof has gained momentum in recent years. It states that in case a wrongful act consists of a breach of a safety standard and the purpose of this standard is to prevent damages as suffered, the courts will consider the causal link established, unless the producer can prove that abiding by the safety standard would not have prevented the damage from occurring.

Recoverable damage

The rules of compensation are laid down in art. 6:95-110 DCC. There are no specific rules limiting compensation according to the type of injury in products liability cases based on general tort law. This means that not only physical harm and damage to property is recoverable under Dutch law, but also pure economic loss.

A successful appeal to general tort law

In the context of product liability, a subrogated insurer cannot rely on strict liability or contractual liability. Therefore, the only bases for liability of the producer in case of subrogation is the general tort liability.

For a successful appeal to general tort law, the insurer has to prove the unlawful act, the culpability, the damage and the causal connection between the unlawful act and the damage. The Supreme Court uses the definition of defective product from the Product Liability Directive to answer the question whether or not an act is unlawful in the context of 6:162 DCC.

The disadvantage of the general tort liability regulation is that – contrary to strict liability – not only the unlawful act, damage and causal connection must be proven, but the unlawful act must also be attributable to the defendant. If the claiming subrogated insurer is bound by the regulations of the Dutch Associaton of Insurers, the requirement is even higher and requires a negligent act.

This makes the threshold for a successful claim for damages on the basis of general tort law higher than for a claim based on strict liability. This threshold can be nuanced due the fact that the court has the authority to order a reversal of the burden of proof. Whether or not the insurer will have the benefit of this shifted burden of proof is an unsettled issue though.

Bron: Insurance Law Global

Author

Abdi Youssuf: the most driven mentor

Abdi Youssuf: the most driven mentor 1900 1357 Ekelmans Advocaten
Abdi Youssuf-Ekelmans Advocaten
Leestijd: < 1 minuut
Lesedauer: < 1 Minute
Reading time: < 1 minute
Expertise:

We are proud of Abdi! “The most driven mentor” is how he was described by the jury tasked with selecting the mentor of the year.

And our best wishes to Annemieke Hazelhoff, who won the ‘best mentor of the year award’.

Abdi, a lawyer specialized in insurance law at Ekelmans & Meijer, acts as a mentor to young lawyers (trainees) during the first three years of their career.

Our firm attaches a high priority to coaching and training for our young lawyers. An excellent mentor makes an important contribution to this. We see the nomination of Abdi as recognition of his qualities. And not only is Abdi a great mentor and fantastic person to work with, he is also an outstanding lawyer with a successful practice!

Contact

Beware of the Cyber Security Act!

Beware of the Cyber Security Act! 1920 1280 Ekelmans Advocaten
cybersecuritywet
Leestijd: 4 minuten
Lesedauer: 4 Minuten
Reading time: 4 minutes
Expertise:

The Network and Information Systems Security Act (Wbni) is applicable in the Netherlands. The act is also known as the Cyber Security Act. The directive applies to operators of essential services and providers of digital services. This directive may also apply to your organisation.

Since 9 November 2018, the Network and Information Systems Security Act (in dutch: “Wet beveiliging network – en informatiesystemen”) has been applicable in the Netherlands, also known as the Cyber Security Act. This Act is the Dutch translation of the European Cyber Security Directive (EU Network and Information Security Directive 2016/1148). Each Member State is mandatory to have its own translation of the directive. The directive applies to operators of essential services and providers of digital services. This directive may also apply to your organization. In this article the operators of essential services and digital service providers are explained first and then the duty of care arising from the European Cyber Security Directive will be discussed.

When are you a operator of essential services or a provider of digital services?

Essential service operators include organizations in the energy, financial and transport sectors. The digital service providers includes for example cloud services, search engines and online market places, also known as “DSPs”. However, not every party that offers a digital service is automatically covered by the European Cyber Security Directive. For example, social media and web shops also offer digital services, but do not necessarily have to comply with the European Cyber Security Directive. Required is that the organization must have a head office or representation in the Netherlands. In addition, more than 50 employees must be employed within the organization or there must be a balance sheet total or an annual turnover of more than 10 million euros. Small and micro-enterprises therefore do not fall under the scope of the European Cyber Security Directive.

The failure or disruption of operators of essential services or digital service providers can lead to major social disruption. The European Cyber Security Directive therefore includes a duty of care for security measures.

The duty of care

The duty of care means that operators of essential services and the digital service providers must take appropriate organizational and technical measures to manage security risks and to reduce the consequences of incidents. In the GDPR (art. 24) we also have such an arrangement for the processing of personal data. However, the European Cyber Security Directive specifically focuses on digital security and includes the operators of essential services and the digital service providers in the broad sense.

The European Cyber Security Directive works out five aspects that operators of essential services and the digital service providers must take into account. This elaboration is based on art. 2 Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/151 and consists – in brief – of taking the following measures:

First of all, the network and information systems must be adequately secured. In addition, organizations must be able to demonstrate that they take measures in the event of incidents. This could include processes for reporting incidents and for identifying shortcomings and weaknesses in the system. Provision must also be made for measures to properly maintain or restore business continuity and services after an incident. These measures include the establishment and use of contingency plans. It is also relevant that regular checks are made to ensure that the measures in question work properly and are therefore periodically tested. Finally, international standards must be taken into account in all of this.

All these measures aim to ensure that operators of essential services and the digital service providers comply with the principle of duty of care as set out in the European Cyber Security Directive: “taking appropriate measures to prevent incidents and, if incidents do occur, the consequences thereof so as much as possible “.

The duty of care in practice

The European Cyber Security Directive mainly indicates what needs to be done, but not how the implementation of this duty of care should subsequently be given shape.

Operators of essential services and the digital service providers must complete the implementation of the duty of care and the measures themselves, whereby each Member State needs to have a supervisory body (the Telecom Agency in the Netherlands) to supervise and take enforcement action if needed. However, because the duty of care and the measures are lacking, it is to be expected that organizations have many uncertainty about this. This could result in a failure to fulfill their duty of care.

Recommendation therefore deserves legal advice in applying the duty of care arising from the European Cyber Security Directive as correctly as possible in practice. It is important thereby that a balance is found in complying with the duty of care and respecting the commercial interests of companies and the privacy of natural persons. Creating a security protocol with a concrete step-by-step plan/checklist could be an example of this. However, due to the diversity of organizations that fall within the scope of the European Cyber Security Directive, this is a matter of customization.

What does this mean for the insurer?

The imposition of a specific duty of care on one hand, but the absence of specific standards on the other hand, makes the operators of essential services and the digital service providers vulnerable not only to the regulator but also to (possible) claims.

This increases the risk of an insurer that insures operators of essential services and the digital service providers. For insurance companies it is therefore advisable to take this into account in the underwriting processes regarding these operators and providers. For example this can be done by checking whether protocols and step-by-step plans to meet the duty of care are present within the organization. It is also advisable to oblige insured operators of essential services and digital service providers to inform the insurer of any changes to this duty of care within the organization.

Contact

When are you entitled to immaterial compensation under Dutch law?

When are you entitled to immaterial compensation under Dutch law? 1000 465 Ekelmans Advocaten
immaterial compensation
Leestijd: 4 minuten
Lesedauer: 4 Minuten
Reading time: 4 minutes
Expertise:

The Dutch Supreme Court ruled on immaterial compensation. This time in a case involving a detainee who was placed under a too strict detention regime by the Dutch government.

In March this year, the Supreme Court ruled (again) on this question and this time in a case involving a detainee who was placed under a too strict detention regime by the Dutch government. It was already legally established that the state had acted unlawfully. But does that also mean that there is a right to compensation for immaterial damage claimed by the detainee?

This article discusses how compensation for immaterial damage is regulated by Dutch law and what kind of development you see at the Supreme Court.

The case

In 2013, the claimant was sentenced to life imprisonment. During his pre-trial detention, the claimant was placed in the so-called “Extra Secure Institution” (ESI). After the claimant objected to this at the Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice and Protection of Juveniles, it considered that his stay there was unjustified. He was then transferred to another institution.

For this unjustified stay (of 350 days) the State paid a fixed compensation based on the ground of fairness of €1.375,00. However, the detainee believed he was entitled to higher compensation. He claimed he had suffered immaterial damage and that he had been affected in his person by the unlawful stay. He had never felt safe there. This was due to the many physical examinations and the intimate, body searches. He also had experienced his stay as social isolation.

Mental injury

Under Dutch law, one can only claim compensation for immaterial damage if the law provides for this. This because of the legislator’s idea that a claim is only justified in serious cases. One of the legal bases can be found in Article 6:106 of the Dutch Civil Code, paragraph 1, sub b. According to that article, a right to compensation is foreseen if the injured person (i) has sustained a physical injury, (ii) has been compromised in his honor or good name or (iii) has been affected otherwise in his person.

In this case, there was no physical injury nor a compromising in his honor or good name, so the question here is whether or not the detainee had been affected otherwise in his person.

The Supreme Court already judged on this topic in other cases a few times earlier. According to the Supreme Court in 2002, it is not enough to speak of personal harm when there has been more or less strong mental discomfort or feeling hurt. The starting principle is that the existence of mental injury is established in court, which in general will only be the case if there is a disease recognized in psychiatry. A year later, the Supreme Court considers that in any case, the injured party must provide sufficient and specific information that shows that psychological damage has occurred in connection with the circumstances of the case, which requires that the existence of mental injury be established by objective standards.

Almost ten years later, in 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that an exception can be made to the principle that mental injury must be established in court, in connection with the serious severity of the violation of standards and the consequences thereof for the injured party.

Consequences for the injured party

Both the court of the first instance and the appeal court rejected the view of the claimant. The Court of Appeal considers if the exception to the principle that there must be mental injury occurred here. But in this case – according to the court – there were no grounds for accepting such an exception since the claimant had not furnished sufficient facts about the consequences that the stay in the ESI had for him.

Immaterial compensation for violation of a fundamental right?

In the appeal in cassation, the claimant complains, among other things, that there has been a violation of a fundamental right and that the Court of Appeal has misunderstood that in the event of a violation of certain rights, it must be assumed that immaterial harm has been suffered. After all, the unlawful deprivation of liberty is a serious (fundamental) violation of his privacy.

The Supreme Court does not agree with that. First, the Supreme Court repeats its earlier judgments. The Supreme Court then rules that when someone takes the position that he has been affected in his person, he must substantiate that with specific facts. However, the nature and seriousness of the violation of standards may – where appropriate – mean that the adverse consequences for the injured person are so obvious that an impairment in his person can be assumed.

However, impairment in his person as referred to in art. 6: 106 (1) (b) of the Dutch Civil Code, can not be assumed with only a violation of a fundamental right. Even then, there must be sufficient certainty about the consequences of that violation. Therefore, the above-mentioned complaint is unsuccessful.

In addition, the Supreme Court finds the Court of Appeal’s opinion that the claimant’s consequences of the breach of standards have not been established legally, not incomprehensible. The claimant must, therefore, be satisfied with the compensation of € 1.375,00.

Bron: Insurance Law Global

Contact

Ekelmans Advocaten N.V. uses necessary and analytical cookies to ensure that our website functions in the best possible way and to analyse and improve the use of our website. We do not use cookies for marketing purposes. Please read more about this in our privacy statement and cookiestatement