Netherlands: An Arbitration Overview

Introduction

The Netherlands remains an attractive seat for international arbitration and a favourable jurisdiction for the enforcement of foreign awards because it offers a robust ecosystem: the Netherlands has a modern Arbitration Act, independent courts, prominent domestic arbitral institutions, and is a Contracting State to the 1958 New York Convention (the “New York Convention”). The Netherlands’ standing was recently confirmed by the 2025 International Arbitration Survey, in which The Hague ranks among the most popular seats of arbitration.

The Netherlands: What Makes It So Attractive?

The Netherlands Arbitration Act

The Netherlands Arbitration Act (NAA) was last revised with effect from 1 January 2015. Though inspired by the UNCITRAL Model Law, it departs from the Model Law on certain points, generally to limit court intervention or enhance procedural efficiency. Party autonomy is central: proceedings are conducted as the parties agree, and mandatory provisions are essentially limited to fundamental due process norms. Efficiency is likewise built in: the NAA codifies a duty to prevent undue delay, permits replacement of a tribunal that proceeds too slowly, and sets a single round of written submissions as the default. The regime is well established and operates effectively alongside the arbitration rules of leading institutions, including the NAI, ICC, LCIA and SIAC.

Independent, internationally oriented courts

The Netherlands has independent, internationally oriented courts which rank among the world’s best for independence and efficiency: the Netherlands sits fourth in the Civil Justice category of the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index 2025 – ahead of other popular seats such as Singapore (sixth), the United Kingdom (21st), France (27th) and the United States (37th).

Dutch courts furthermore have substantial experience in arbitration-related proceedings, including setting aside, and recognition and enforcement proceedings. For instance, some of the largest awards ever rendered have passed through the Dutch court system, such as the Yukos-award worth over USD50 billion. With respect to ongoing arbitration proceedings, Dutch courts generally take a non-interventionist approach. Where the arbitral framework provides a remedy, they will not intervene or at least as little as possible. The converse also holds. Dutch courts will assist parties where needed to ensure that a Dutch-seated arbitration (or even an arbitration without a seat) can proceed.

Setting-aside proceedings before the Dutch courts are generally efficient: there is only a single instance on the merits (and appeal in cassation can be excluded by the parties), the grounds for setting aside are limited (largely mirroring the grounds for refusal under Article V of the New York Convention), and the procedure, in principle, involves just one round of written pleadings followed by a hearing. Where the seat of arbitration is situated in the district of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal and the parties so agree, these proceedings can be conducted in English before the Netherlands Commercial Court – yet another example of the internationally minded approach of the Dutch judiciary.

Signatory to the New York Convention and creditor-friendly regime

Exequatur proceedings regarding New York Convention awards are equally efficient: again, there is only a single instance on the merits (with cassation available only against a refusal of exequatur), the Article V grounds for refusal are limited, and the procedure, in principle, involves one round of written pleadings followed by a hearing. In exceptional cases, Dutch courts have granted leave for enforcement of foreign awards that were set aside at the seat – particularly where the setting-aside decision was considered inconsistent with fundamental standards generally accepted in international practice.

Enforcement in the Netherlands is further aided by the ease of securing an award debtor’s assets. The threshold for obtaining leave for a pre-judgment attachment (conservatoir beslag) from the preliminary relief judge is relatively low: the applicant need only make a prima facie showing of a claim against the debtor. Leave for attachment can be obtained before or during exequatur proceedings, and even before the arbitration itself has commenced.

Geopolitical and Economic Developments Affecting Businesses

As geopolitical tensions rise and the multilateral order weakens, states increasingly use trade and economic policy – tariffs, export controls, sanctions, investment screening and supply-chain measures – to advance foreign-policy and national-security goals. This so-called “economic statecraft” is reshaping the business landscape: outcomes that once turned mainly on price and logistics now often hinge on political developments, and assets and contracts can be caught up in measures aimed at rival states. The result is a sharp rise in litigation and arbitration risk.

Gazprom’s systematic curtailment of gas supplies to European counterparties from 2021 onwards is a prime example of economic statecraft and an important cause of the 2021–2022 European energy crisis, which triggered a wave of litigation and arbitration across Europe. Russia’s annexation of Crimea has likewise given rise to a wave of (investment) arbitrations – many of them seated in the Netherlands. That fight has now largely shifted to the enforcement stage, generating further proceedings – including in the Netherlands – that raise difficult questions of jurisdiction, immunity and attachment.

Economic statecraft also plays a major role in the semiconductor sector, due to its strategic importance in the race for advanced technology. The Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs’ recent intervention in the operations of Nexperia, the Chinese-owned chip manufacturer, has been described as a form of economic statecraft. In response, Nexperia’s shareholder Wingtech has reportedly threatened an investment-treaty claim against the Dutch State worth up to USD8 billion under the China–Netherlands BIT.

As economic statecraft is unlikely to recede any time soon, businesses would do well to prepare, as far as possible, for the litigation and arbitration risks that come with it.

Trends and Other Developments Regarding Arbitration in the Netherlands

Arbitration in the Netherlands currently reflects two contrasting trends. A strong pro-arbitration movement is driving greater speed and efficiency through summary arbitration procedures. At the same time, a clear anti-arbitration trend has emerged in intra-EU investment arbitration following the CJEU’s Achmea judgment.

Summary arbitration proceedings

Most leading arbitral institutions – including the NAI, ICC, SIAC and LCIA – now offer rules on summary arbitration (often also referred to as “emergency arbitrator proceedings”), under which an arbitrator can grant urgent interim relief, usually in anticipation of an arbitration on the merits.

A particularly valued aspect of the NAA is that it permits stand-alone arbitral summary proceedings: parties need not commence a subsequent arbitration on the merits. This option has been incorporated into the NAI Rules.

Its popularity stems partly from the relatively low threshold for relief: the relief sought must be urgent, and there must be a prima facie case that it would be granted in a merits arbitration. It also appeals because of the broad range of measures available (where Dutch law governs the substance), some of which are not obviously provisional in nature – notably specific performance (nakoming) on pain of a penalty.

Intra-EU investment arbitration under pressure: the aftermath of Achmea

In stark contrast, parties to intra-EU investment arbitration face severe constraints flowing from the CJEU’s landmark Achmea judgment and its fallout.

Crucially, Dutch courts no longer confine themselves to setting aside intra-EU investment awards after they are rendered; they increasingly grant anti-arbitration relief to prevent such proceedings from advancing at all – even where the arbitration is seated outside the EU.

A prime example is a ruling of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ordering a Dutch investor to co-operate in terminating an ongoing Poland–Netherlands BIT arbitration seated in London. The case is now on appeal before the Supreme Court.