Rob specialises in liability matters, insurance law and Dutch Supreme Court litigation (particularly in relation to liability, real estate law, company law, insurance law, transport law and intellectual property law). His work focuses primarily on liability law, both contractual and tortious issues rarely covered by insurance policies, and matters related to intellectual property and transport. In addition, Rob acts as an arbitrator for the Netherlands Arbitration Institute. The cases that he handles are invariably of an international and commercial nature.
Leading individualLegal 500, Dispute Resolution: Commercial Litigation (2017 Edition)
Chambers Europe, Dispute Resolution: Supreme Court Litigation (2017 Edition)
Sources describe him as "a very wise counsellor whose judgement we have a lot of confidence in."Chambers Global & Europe, Dispute Resolution (2017 Edition)
Senior StatesmenChambers Global & Europe, Dispute Resolution (2017 Edition)
Rob is a former chairman of the Advisory Committee on Civil Law, and has been a member of the Advisory Committee on Insurance Law of the Netherlands Bar Association. He is currently a member of the Advisory Committee on Cassation of the Netherlands Bar Association. Rob is also a senior lecturer on private law at the Law Firm School.
Qualifications & Experience
- Law (University of Amsterdam)
- LL.M. (King's College, London)
The Unbundling Act requires that the integrated energy companies unbundle their network companies, and forbids privatization thereof. Three large energy companies argued that the act infringes on the right to free movement of capital and therefore does not bind them. Today, after well over six years since the matter was initiated against the State by the energy companies and a preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Dutch Supreme Court found that the Unbundling Act is in line with the right to free movement of capital. The Supreme Court reasons that with the Unbundling Act, the legislature wanted to secure the supply of gas and electricity on a high level, and to make the energy market transparent. This is in the interest of the purchasers, including consumers. These objectives of the Unbundling Act are ‘important reasons in the public interest’. With the group prohibition and the prohibition of sideline activities, the Unbundling Act meets its objectives, whilst not going further than necessary for that. For that reason the Supreme Court rules that these restrictions on the free movement of capital or freedom of establishment are justified.
Successfully represented the Republic of Colombia and the former state-owned energy company Ecopetrol against Llanos Oil in a Supreme Court litigation. In this litigation, Llanos Oil claimed that they have been wrongly deprived of their exploration license for oil and gas and they demanded billions of Euros as a compensation. The core of the legal battle was whether a Dutch court has jurisdiction in this case that seems to be purely Colombian. Llanos Oil appealed to the Dutch nationality of its shareholders and directors in conjunction with Article 9 of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure, the so-called forum of necessity, which offers jurisdiction to Dutch court where normally competent court is unavailable or unreliable and where there is a sufficient link with Dutch interest. The Supreme Court has decided that a Dutch court has no jurisdiction in this matter.