Legislation

Treaties

Is your country party to any bilateral or multilateral treaties for the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments? What is the country’s approach to entering into these treaties, and what, if any, amendments or reservations has your country made to such treaties?

The Netherlands is party to several bilateral and multilateral treaties for the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. The most important ones are as follows.

European legislation
  • The Brussels I Regulation (Recast) (1215/2012) sets out the mutual enforcement and recognition of judgments from courts in EU member states. The Brussels I Regulation (Recast) applies to any legal proceedings instituted, authentic instruments formally drawn up or registered and court settlements approved or concluded on or after 10 January 2015.
  • The Brussels I Regulation (44/2001) applies to judgments given in legal proceedings instituted before 10 January 2015.
  • The Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters also applies to the enforcement of judgments from Gibraltar and certain dependent territories of EU member states. The Brussels Convention is the predecessor of the Brussels I Regulation.
  • The EU European Enforcement Order (805/2004) enables the judge of the country of origin to certify a judgment as a European enforcement order for uncontested claims.
International conventions
  • The Lugano Convention (1992 and 2007).
  • The Hague Choice of Court Convention 2005.
  • The Hague Convention on International Access to Justice 1980.

The Netherlands is a member of the European Union, and therefore EU regulations apply directly (without the need for implementing legislation). The international conventions cited above also apply in the Netherlands as they are concluded by the European Union. Most of the bilateral treaties on mutual recognition and enforcement that were concluded by the Netherlands have been superseded by the EU framework, such as the Brussels I Regulation (Recast and predecessors). The Convention on the Enforcement of Judgments between Surinam and the Netherlands (1979) remains important.

On 2 July 2019, the new Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (Hague Judgments Convention) was concluded. This has immediately been signed by Uruguay, but not yet by the Netherlands or the European Union. However, Dutch delegations were active in the drafting process and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands is the depositary of the Convention. Therefore, one would expect that the Netherlands will soon consider accession to the Hague Judgments Convention.

Intra-state variations

Is there uniformity in the law on the enforcement of foreign judgments among different jurisdictions within the country?

Within the Netherlands there is uniformity within the country in the law on the enforcement of foreign judgments. The Kingdom of the Netherlands, however, also consists of the Dutch Antilles. The Dutch Antilles have their own legislation and do not form part of the European Union. EU legislation therefore does not apply in the Dutch Antilles.

Sources of law

What are the sources of law regarding the enforcement of foreign judgments?

The source of law depends on the location of the court of origin where the foreign judgment is rendered:

  • judgments rendered in another EU member state: EU legislation;
  • judgments rendered in a state that is party to a treaty: international conventions and bilateral treaties; and
  • judgments rendered in another state without a treaty: Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (DCCP).

In all cases, the relevant legislation will be supplemented with Dutch case law and, if European legislation is applicable, European case law.

Hague Convention requirements

To the extent the enforcing country is a signatory of the Hague Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, will the court require strict compliance with its provisions before recognising a foreign judgment?

The Netherlands has not yet ratified the Hague Judgments Convention of 2 July 2019. We do not know how strict the courts will interpret the provisions of the Convention if the Netherlands ratifies the Convention. We do not expect a very strict interpretation, because the requirements under the Convention have much in common with the Dutch national laws on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, which are not strictly interpreted either. Moreover, based on article 15 of the Convention, the Convention does not prevent the recognition or enforcement of judgments under national law if they are more beneficial, so the Dutch national rules remain relevant.

Bringing a claim for enforcement

Limitation periods

What is the limitation period for enforcement of a foreign judgment? When does it commence to run? In what circumstances would the enforcing court consider the statute of limitations of the foreign jurisdiction?

In the Gazprombank case (2014), the Supreme Court held that expiry of leave to enforce in and under the laws of the country of origin would not prevent recognition and enforcement in the Netherlands of that foreign judgment. In other words, the foreign statute of limitations is of no consequence for the recognition and enforcement in the Netherlands of a foreign judgment.

In any event, the limitation period for a Dutch court to enforce a judgment (including a court leave to enforce a foreign court judgment) is 20 years, starting from the date that the foreign judgment was rendered.

Types of enforceable order

Which remedies ordered by a foreign court are enforceable in your jurisdiction?

Judgments rendered in an EU member state

All types of EU judgments (including but not limited to decrees, orders (interim or permanent), decisions or writs of execution) issued by an EU member state court are enforceable pursuant to the relevant EU regulations. The Brussels I Regulation (Recast) applies in civil and commercial matters, excluding revenue and customs administrative matters. It does not apply to the status or legal capacity of natural persons, matrimonial matters, wills and succession, bankruptcy, social security or arbitration. A judgment given in an EU member state that orders a penalty is enforceable only if the amount of the payment has been finally determined by the court of origin. A provisional or protective measure by another EU member state’s court is enforceable only if that court also has jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter. Ex parte judgments are enforceable only if the measure is served upon the defendant before enforcement.

Judgments rendered in a state that is party to a treaty

The applicable treaty will describe in general which judgments can be enforced on the parties to the treaty. To be enforceable in the Netherlands, the judgment should also be enforceable in the state of origin.

Judgments rendered in any other state without a treaty

Article 431 of the DCCP applies only to condemnatory judgments that are enforceable. Constitutive judgments, declaratory judgments and judgments dismissing a claim fall outside the scope of this chapter. However, according to case law, the judge may attach his or her own conclusion on the law applicable to these judgments and will in principle recognise such judgments if they comply with the conditions as set out in the Dutch Supreme Court case law (the Gazprombank case).

Competent courts

Must cases seeking enforcement of foreign judgments be brought in a particular court?

Yes. The competent court is the district court or the cantonal section of the district court in the district where the party against whom enforcement is sought is domiciled or where the judgment is to be (or might be) enforced.

Separation of recognition and enforcement

To what extent is the process for obtaining judicial recognition of a foreign judgment separate from the process for enforcement?

Recognition and enforcement are legally distinct in that sense that, depending on the legal framework governing the judgment, not all judgments that are recognised must be enforced. If the foreign judgment concerns the establishment of a certain status, it is sufficient, for example, to invoke recognition of that status in ongoing proceedings. It is then not necessary to also seek the court’s leave for enforcement in the Netherlands or to seek recognition in separate proceedings. However, if the foreign judgment concerns an order to perform a certain act (for example, make a payment or transfer ownership), mere recognition is insufficient and leave for enforcement must be sought from the Dutch courts. Recognition is also sometimes a prerequisite for enforcement.

Opposition

Defences

Can a defendant raise merits-based defences to liability or to the scope of the award entered in the foreign jurisdiction, or is the defendant limited to more narrow grounds for challenging a foreign judgment?

The defendant is limited to narrow grounds for challenging a foreign judgment. The grounds for challenging differ and depend on the state where the judgment was rendered.

Judgments rendered in an EU member state

Recognition and enforcement of the judgment will be refused if:

  • recognition is manifestly contrary to Dutch public policy;
  • the judgment was given in default of appearance, if the defendant was not served with the document that instituted the proceedings or with an equivalent document in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable him or her to arrange for his or her defence, unless the defendant failed to commence proceedings to challenge the judgment when it was possible for him or her to do so;
  • the judgment is irreconcilable with a judgment given between the same parties in the Netherlands;
  • the judgment is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment given in another member state or in a third state involving the same cause of action and between the same parties, provided that the earlier judgment fulfils the conditions necessary for its recognition in the Netherlands; or
  • the judgment conflicts with:
    • jurisdiction matters relating to insurance, consumer contracts or individual employment contracts, where the defendant was the insured or beneficiary, injured party, consumer or employee; and
    • exclusive jurisdiction under the Brussels I Regulation (Recast).

In the examination of the grounds of jurisdiction, the court will be bound by the findings of fact on which the court or origin based its jurisdiction. However, under no circumstances will a judgment given in a member state be reviewed as to its substance as addressed by the original member state.

Judgments rendered in a state that is party to a treaty

The enforcement leave can be refused by the Dutch court on the grounds mentioned in the relevant treaties. However, the treaties typically include some of the following recognition and enforcement refusal grounds that also follow from Dutch case law:

  • the foreign judgment is not based on an internationally recognised ground for jurisdiction (or grounds summed up in the treaty);
  • recognition and enforcement would violate Dutch public order;
  • principles of due process were violated in the proceedings that resulted in the foreign judgment;
  • the judgment is not a result of proceedings compatible with Dutch concepts of due process;
  • the foreign judgment is incompatible with an earlier foreign judgment between the same parties that is recognisable in the Netherlands;
  • the foreign judgment is incompatible with a Dutch judgment between the same parties;
  • the foreign judgment is by its terms not, no longer or not yet enforceable; or
  • the foreign judgment has already been satisfied.

Under most treaties, it is up to the judgment creditor to establish that the foreign judgment is by its terms enforceable in the country of origin, while the other grounds for refusal may be raised by the Dutch courts ex officio or must be asserted and evidenced by the judgment debtor. The Dutch courts will not review the merits of the foreign judgment.

Judgments rendered in any other state without a treaty

A foreign judgment is eligible for recognition and enforcement if:

  • the competence of the court issuing the judgment is grounded in competency principles that are generally accepted under international standards;
  • principles of due process were not violated in the proceedings that resulted in the foreign judgment and the foreign judgment was rendered in judicial proceedings that meet the requirements of and include safeguards for the proper administration of justice;
  • the recognition of the foreign judgment does not contravene Dutch public order;
  • the foreign judgment is not irreconcilable with any judgment rendered by a court in a matter between the same parties or with any earlier judgment by a foreign court in a matter between those same parties in a dispute regarding the same issue and the same cause, subject to the proviso that this earlier judgment is eligible for recognition in the Netherlands;
  • the foreign judgment is by its terms still enforceable; and
  • the foreign judgment has not yet been satisfied.

In this event, the Dutch court will render a similar decision as the foreign court and that decision, as a Dutch decision - will be enforceable in the Netherlands (or the court will recognise the foreign judgment in ongoing proceedings). If the requirements are not met, then the claim has to be re-litigated as to the substance and the court is permitted to review the foreign judgment on its merits.

Injunctive relief

May a party obtain injunctive relief to prevent foreign judgment enforcement proceedings in your jurisdiction?

There is no injunctive relief available to defendants against the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in the Netherlands. The defendant has several possibilities to challenge the recognition or enforcement. However, once the court has ruled that the foreign judgment is enforceable in the Netherlands, the defendant may attempt to prevent enforcement.

The dispute may relate to, for example:

  • the significance and scope of the enforceable document;
  • the impact of facts emerging after the judgment (the enforceable document);
  • the validity of an attachment; or
  • the question of who owns the attached assets.

An enforcement dispute relates solely to the matter of enforcement. The substance of the main action in which a judgment has already been handed down is not re-appraised.

Requirements for recognition

Basic requirements for recognition

What are the basic mandatory requirements for recognition of a foreign judgment?

Unless agreed in an international convention, foreign judgments will not be recognised outright in the Netherlands. The pursuit of the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment depends on the location of the court of origin where the foreign judgment was rendered.

Judgments rendered in an EU member state

Judgments rendered in an EU member state are automatically recognised in the Netherlands if the Brussels I Regulation (Recast) is applicable. This means that no special procedure is necessary for recognition of the foreign judgment.

Any interested party (usually the defendant) may initiate proceedings in the addressed member state to prevent the recognition of the judgment. Recognition of the judgment will be refused by a member state court if:

  • recognition is manifestly contrary to Dutch public policy;
  • the judgment was given in default of appearance, if the defendant was not served with the document that instituted the proceedings or with an equivalent document in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable him or her to arrange for his or her defence, unless the defendant failed to commence proceedings to challenge the judgment when it was possible for him or her to do so;
  • the judgment is irreconcilable with a judgment given between the same parties in the Netherlands;
  • the judgment is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment given in another member state or in a third state involving the same cause of action and between the same parties, provided that the earlier judgment fulfils the conditions necessary for its recognition in the Netherlands; or
  • the judgment conflicts with:
    • jurisdiction matters relating to insurance, consumer contracts or individual employment contracts, where the defendant was the insured or beneficiary, injured party, consumer or employee; and
    • exclusive jurisdiction under the Brussels I Regulation (Recast).
Judgments rendered in a state that is party to a treaty

The recognition of judgments rendered in a state that is a party to a convention on execution of judgments alongside the Netherlands arises from the convention. The treaties typically include some of the following recognition refusal grounds that also follow from Dutch case law:

  • the foreign judgment is not based on an internationally recognised ground for jurisdiction;
  • recognition and enforcement would violate Dutch public order;
  • principles of due process were violated in the proceedings that resulted in the foreign judgment;
  • the judgment is not a result of proceedings compatible with Dutch concepts of due process;
  • the foreign judgment is incompatible with an earlier foreign judgment between the same parties that is recognisable in the Netherlands;
  • the foreign judgment is incompatible with a Dutch judgment between the same parties;
  • the foreign judgment is by its terms not, no longer or not yet enforceable; or
  • the foreign judgment has already been satisfied.
Judgment rendered in another state without a treaty

In the absence of an applicable treaty, in principle the claim must be re-litigated before a Dutch court in order to obtain a court order enforceable in the Netherlands. However, if the criteria following from Supreme Court case law (the Gazprombank case) are met, the foreign judgment will be recognised if:

  • the competence of the court issuing the judgment is grounded in competency principles that are generally accepted under international standards;
  • principles of due process were not violated in the proceedings that resulted in the foreign judgment and the foreign judgment was rendered in judicial proceedings that meet the requirements of and include safeguards for the proper administration of justice;
  • the recognition of the foreign judgment does not contravene Dutch public order;
  • the foreign judgment is not irreconcilable with any judgment rendered by a court in a matter between the same parties or with any earlier judgment by a foreign court in a matter between those same parties in a dispute regarding the same issue and the same cause, subject to the proviso that the earlier judgment is eligible for recognition in the Netherlands;
  • the foreign judgment is by its terms still enforceable; and
  • the foreign judgment has not yet been satisfied.
Other factors

May other non-mandatory factors for recognition of a foreign judgment be considered and, if so, what factors?

Apart from the requirements following from legislation and case law, there are no other non-mandatory factors for recognition of a foreign judgment to be considered. Reciprocity is not a factor that is taken into account.

Procedural equivalence

Is there a requirement that the judicial proceedings where the judgment was entered correspond to due process in your jurisdiction and, if so, how is that requirement evaluated?

Yes, due process is taken into account. A judgment will not be recognised or enforced insofar as there is a severe violation of due process, such as violation of the right to adversarial proceedings.

Jurisdiction of the foreign court

Personal jurisdiction

Will the enforcing court examine whether the court where the judgment was entered had personal jurisdiction over the defendant and, if so, how is that requirement met?

Under Dutch law, the court does not distinguish specifically between personal jurisdiction and subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court’s power to review the jurisdiction of the foreign court depends on the origin state of the foreign judgment. Judgments rendered in EU member states and Lugano Convention member states are subject to a review of their jurisdiction only in regard to certain specific situations. Recognition and enforcement will be refused only if the judgment conflicts with:

  • jurisdiction matters relating to insurance, consumer contracts or individual employment contracts, where the defendant was the insured or beneficiary, injured party, consumer or employee; or
  • exclusive jurisdiction provisions under the Brussels I Regulation (Recast) or the Lugano Convention.

In other situations, the member state court’s jurisdiction may not be reviewed.

Judgments from a state party to another treaty will mostly have a broader range of review of the jurisdiction of the court of origin. Judgments from states with which the Netherlands has no regulation or treaty will not be enforced by the court if the foreign judgment is not based on an internationally recognised ground for jurisdiction. In such cases, the specific basis under which the court of origin has assumed jurisdiction is irrelevant. It is relevant whether the elements of the case would provide jurisdiction on internationally recognised grounds (ie, domicile of the defendant or execution of the service).

Subject-matter jurisdiction

Will the enforcing court examine whether the court where the judgment was entered had subject-matter jurisdiction over the controversy and, if so, how is that requirement met?

See question 14.

Service

Must the defendant have been technically or formally served with notice of the original action in the foreign jurisdiction, or is actual notice sufficient? How much notice is usually considered sufficient?

The defendant must have been properly served with the original action in the foreign jurisdiction. If service had to take place in accordance with the Hague Service Convention 1965 or the EU Service Regulation, the requirements of those instruments will be taken into account, as well as the rules of service under the foreign jurisdiction of the original action. If a judgment has been given in default, the recognition or enforcement will be refused if the defendant was not served with the document that instituted the proceedings or with an equivalent document in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable him or her to arrange a defence, unless the defendant failed to commence proceedings to challenge the judgment when it was possible for him or her to do so. The Dutch court will take all relevant circumstances into account.

Fairness of foreign jurisdiction

Will the court consider the relative inconvenience of the foreign jurisdiction to the defendant as a basis for declining to enforce a foreign judgment?

No. Dutch courts will not consider the fairness or the relative inconvenience of a foreign judgment when deciding upon the enforceability of the judgment, as long as the judgment does not violate Dutch procedural or substantive public policy. The same applies to the application of the defendant to refuse recognition or enforcement under EU legislation.

Examination of the foreign judgment

Vitiation by fraud

Will the court examine the foreign judgment for allegations of fraud upon the defendant or the court?

Yes, allegations such as fraud upon the defendant or the court are taken into account and fall within the scope of the refusal grounds of a violation of Dutch public policy. A foreign judgment is considered to be in violation of Dutch public policy if fundamental principles of law have been violated. Fraud upon the defendant or the court can also be considered as a violation of public policy.

Public policy

Will the court examine the foreign judgment for consistency with the enforcing jurisdiction’s public policy and substantive laws?

Yes, the court will examine whether the foreign judgment violates Dutch public policy. A foreign judgment is considered to be in violation of Dutch public policy if fundamental principles of law have been violated. This can be a violation of European Convention on Human Rights rules, mandatory EU law or fundamental principles of due process. The case law on this point results from individual cases. However, the general perception is that a violation of public policy may be assumed only in exceptional situations.

Conflicting decisions

What will the court do if the foreign judgment sought to be enforced is in conflict with another final and conclusive judgment involving the same parties or parties in privity?

If the judgment is rendered in a foreign state (regardless of the state of origin), the court will refuse recognition or enforcement of the judgment on the application of any interested party if the judgment is irreconcilable with:

  • a judgment given between the same parties in the Netherlands; or
  • an earlier judgment given in another member state or in a third state involving the same cause of action and between the same parties, provided that the earlier judgment fulfils the conditions necessary for its recognition in the Netherlands.
Enforcement against third parties

Will a court apply the principles of agency or alter ego to enforce a judgment against a party other than the named judgment debtor?

No, in principle, the judgment can only be enforced against the named judgment debtor, save for exceptions such as legal succession after a merger.

Alternative dispute resolution

What will the court do if the parties had an enforceable agreement to use alternative dispute resolution, and the defendant argues that this requirement was not followed by the party seeking to enforce?

In the case of an arbitration clause, also taking into account the New York Convention if applicable, the Dutch court may refuse recognition and enforcement of that judgment in the Netherlands.

Favourably treated jurisdictions

Are judgments from some foreign jurisdictions given greater deference than judgments from others? If so, why?

The level of deference on the foreign judgment depends on the origin state. If the judgment was rendered in an EU member state, and it thus falls within the scope of the Brussels I Regulation (Recast), the judgment will automatically be recognised and enforced (unless the defendant opposes the recognition or the enforcement). If a judgment is rendered in a state that is party to a treaty, the level of deference depends on the applicable treaty. If a judgment is rendered in a state that is not party to a treaty, the requirements of the Gazprombank case apply, which means that it will not be recognised or enforced without proceedings (in which the defendant can put up a defence). In the latter case, the general reputation of the foreign court system may be of some circumstantial relevance, such as its position on the World Justice Project and corruption indexes. However, as a rule, the Dutch court will not assess the foreign court system as a whole, but will assess the particularities of the specific judgment that will or will not be enforced.

Alteration of awards

Will a court ever recognise only part of a judgment, or alter or limit the damage award?

The court can grant partial recognition or enforcement of the award, insofar as the claims covered by the judgment can be separated. This could particularly be the case when a part of the award consists of a compensatory damages component that can be recognised without any problem and a punitive damages component that is usually deemed in breach of Dutch public policy (see, for example, Amsterdam District Court, 12 December 2018 ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2018:9144, and see also consideration 32 of the Rome II Regulation).

Awards and security for appeals

Currency, interest, costs

In recognising a foreign judgment, does the court convert the damage award to local currency and take into account such factors as interest and court costs and exchange controls? If interest claims are allowed, which law governs the rate of interest?

In enforcement proceedings, no conversion of foreign currencies is made. Interest depends on what is determined in the foreign judgment, but it may be granted. The law that determined the amount of interest in the foreign judgment governs the interest.

Security

Is there a right to appeal from a judgment recognising or enforcing a foreign judgment? If so, what procedures, if any, are available to ensure the judgment will be enforceable against the defendant if and when it is affirmed?

Yes, there is a right to appeal (there are a few very limited exceptions, such as cases concerning a monetary value of less than €1,750). A claimant seeking enforcement can make a pre-judgment attachment against the defendant against whom enforcement is sought to ensure the judgment will be enforceable against the defendant. Such proceedings are ex parte and leave will be granted within one or two days if the claimant provides a claim that appears on the face of it to justify preliminary relief. If the petition for leave is granted, such leave will be provided under the condition that a principal action relating to the underlying claim is instituted within a certain period of time. If there is already a foreign judgment (and no treaty is applicable), the principal action may consist in Dutch proceedings to request recognition of that foreign judgment and request for the same decision as the foreign judgment by the Dutch court (the quasi-exequatur proceedings; see above). A special feature of Dutch procedural law is that leave for such a pre-judgment attachment can be requested while the foreign main proceedings are still pending.

Enforcement and pitfalls

Enforcement process

Once a foreign judgment is recognised, what is the process for enforcing it in your jurisdiction?

Recognition and enforcement are legally distinct in that sense that, depending on the legal framework governing the judgment, not all judgments that are recognised must be enforced. If the foreign judgment concerns the establishment of a certain status, it is sufficient, for example, to invoke recognition of that status in ongoing proceedings. It is then not necessary to also seek the court’s leave for enforcement in the Netherlands or to seek recognition in separate proceedings. However, if the foreign judgment concerns an order to perform a certain act (for example, make a payment or transfer ownership), mere recognition is insufficient and leave for enforcement in a quasi-exequatur procedure must be sought from the Dutch courts.

Judgments rendered in EU member states

No enforcement proceedings are necessary for judgments from EU member states and no further enforcement order (or exequatur) or declaration of enforceability is required. Such an enforceable judgment carries with it the power to use any protective measures that exist under the law of the addressed member state.

A party that wishes to invoke a judgment issued in another member state must provide the court or authority:

  • a copy of the judgment that satisfies the conditions necessary to establish its authenticity (for example, a certified copy); and
  • a certificate issued by the state of origin that certifies enforceability and contains formal details of the judgment (for example, information on the recoverable costs of the proceedings and the calculation of interest).

If the judgment grants a provisional or protective measure and this was ordered without the defendant being summoned to appear, the claimant must also submit proof of service of the judgment. The competent enforcement authority can, where necessary, require the enforcing party to provide a translation or a transliteration of the contents of the certificate if it is unable to proceed without a translation. The competent authority in the Netherlands is the bailiff.

Judgments rendered in a state that is party to treaty

The applicable treaty provides the formal and documentary requirements for enforcement of judgments. For example, in order to enforce judgments rendered by the courts of Lugano Convention states, the claimant must apply for a declaration of enforceability.

Most treaties that discuss the enforcement of a foreign judgment in the Netherlands reference Dutch domestic law (the DCCP) enforcement procedure (ie, enforcement by means of exequatur). The application for an enforcement order must be submitted by petition. The request should be accompanied by a complete and authenticated copy of the foreign judgment and evidence of formal enforceability in the country of origin. The court may require those documents to be authenticated and translated into Dutch by a sworn translator. Some treaties require that the party seeking recognition and enforcement provide evidence of proper notification to the defendant of the initiation of the foreign proceedings. In addition, the party seeking recognition and enforcement in the Netherlands must provide evidence that the counterparty was properly notified of the request to recognise and enforce the foreign judgment.

Judgments rendered in any other state without a treaty

The procedure in article 431 of the DCCP does not formally entail recognition or enforcement of a foreign state court judgment. However, in practice it gives binding effect to a foreign court judgment in the Netherlands. The procedure can be used to initiate new simplified proceedings in the Netherlands, seeking the same outcome as the foreign court judgment without review of the merits of the foreign judgment. The proceedings are initiated by summons. A complete and authenticated copy of the foreign judgment and a legal opinion confirming enforceability of the judgment in the country of origin are usually sufficient in terms of evidence. The court may require those documents to be legalised and translated into Dutch by a sworn translator.

Pitfalls

What are the most common pitfalls in seeking recognition or enforcement of a foreign judgment in your jurisdiction?

If the foreign judgment is rendered in an EU member state, recognition and enforcement of that judgment is obtained easily. However, if the judgment is rendered in a state that is not party to a treaty, proceedings have to be initiated. These proceedings can take up to 24 months in the first instance and are subject to appeal. The duration of such proceedings can, therefore, be a pitfall. Furthermore, there is some debate on whether the foreign judgment (if rendered in a state that is not party to a treaty) should be final before it can be recognised, and whether the recognition of such a judgment is in itself a Dutch judgment that can be recognised elsewhere in the European Union.

Update and trends

Hot topics

Are there any emerging trends or hot topics in foreign judgment enforcement in your jurisdiction?

Hot topics29 Are there any emerging trends or hot topics in foreign judgment enforcement in your jurisdiction?

The legislator is currently considering a redraft of the DCCP and a codification of the criteria following from the Gazprombank case (2014). However, these developments are still in a premature phase. Furthermore, the Dutch government must decide whether it will sign the Hague Judgments Convention (which also requires subsequent ratification by parliament).