In traffic accidents in Amsterdam with a cross-border element, such as incidents on the A10 or at Schiphol with foreign drivers, the Rome II Regulation determines which law governs the amount of non-pecuniary damages and other compensations. Differences between EU countries are significant: Amsterdam law, based on Dutch law, often provides higher non-material damage compensations than, for example, German law, which is particularly relevant for cyclists and scooter riders in the city.
Application in Amsterdam Practice
The main rule (Article 4(1)) refers to the law of the place of the tort. A collision on the Haarlemmerdijk with a German tourist leads to Dutch law, which is advantageous for Amsterdammers. However, an accident in Spain during a cycling holiday with Amsterdam victims activates Spanish law with lower rates. An exception under Article 4(2) can activate Amsterdam law in cases of common habitual residence, which is crucial for expats in the Jordaan or De Pijp.
Typical Amsterdam damage items include medical costs at the OLVG hospital, loss of income for self-employed persons (ZZP'ers) in the canal belt, and costs for domestic assistance. The burden of proof differs: in continental law as in Amsterdam, it is stricter on victims than in Anglo-Saxon systems.
Limitation periods vary; three years in Amsterdam versus two in Belgium. Courts such as the Amsterdam district court apply Rome II strictly, inspired by CJEU case C-45/13 where habitual residence was decisive. Local law firms on the Herengracht advise victims of accidents on the Ring A10.
Advice for Amsterdammers: Document habitual residence in the Personal Records Database (BRP) and place of the tort via police reports for optimal claims against insurers. In the vibrant city with many tourists, these strategies maximize your compensation.