Arbitration in the Netherlands: law, NAI rules, costs and enforcement

The short version

• Arbitration in the Netherlands is governed by Book 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering, Rv), arts 1020 to 1077, modernised with effect from 1 January 2015.
• Dutch arbitration law is not based on the Model Law of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). It is an autonomous regime, like England and Wales and unlike the Model Law seat of Germany.
• Most institutional cases run under the NAI Arbitration Rules 2024, in force as from 1 March 2024. The NAI is the Netherlands Arbitration Institute (Nederlands Arbitrage Instituut).
• The NAI took 78 new cases in 2025, with about EUR 5.4 billion in dispute across all pending cases at year end.
• A Dutch award is binding and, once final, has the force of res judicata (gezag van gewijsde); there is no appeal on the merits (arts 1059, 1064).
• An award can be set aside only on five grounds, before the Court of Appeal of the place of arbitration, within three months.
• The Netherlands has been a New York Convention party since 1964, and the NAI Rules do not mention AI (checked 30 October 2026).^{1,5,6,12,29,30}

What law governs arbitration in the Netherlands?

The Dutch Arbitration Act is Book 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, arts 1020 to 1077; its First Title covers arbitration seated in the Netherlands (art 1073(1)) and its Second Title arbitration seated abroad.¹

The modernised Book 4 entered into force on 1 January 2015, by the commencement decree of 30 June 2014 (Staatsblad 2014, 254); the amending Act is the Act of 2 June 2014 (Staatsblad 2014, 200). It applies to arbitrations commenced on or after that date, so earlier cases keep the pre-2015 Book 4. That is why the Yukos judgments, explained in the setting-aside section below, cite the articles as “(oud) Rv”, the old text.^4,5

The Model Law is UNCITRAL’s 1985 template for national arbitration laws, amended in 2006. The Netherlands did not adopt it and is absent from the UNCITRAL list. Dutch law is an autonomous regime, like the law of England and Wales; for a civil-law seat that did follow the Model Law, see arbitration in Germany. A few structural rules run through this guide. The tribunal rules on its own jurisdiction (art 1052(1)). The arbitration agreement is treated as separate from the main contract, so the tribunal can rule on that contract; this is separability (art 1053). The tribunal decides by the rules of law and the parties’ choice of law, and may instead decide by what is fair (as amiable compositeur) if the parties ask (art 1054).^1,30

Why do parties choose the Netherlands as a seat?

The Netherlands is a long-established seat for international arbitration. It sits on a modern 2015 statute, a national institution running since 1949, and an English-language commercial court, the Netherlands Commercial Court (NCC). It has been a New York Convention party since 1964, so a Dutch award travels well. The government calls it the “international legal capital of the world”, and The Hague hosts many international legal bodies, including the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA).^1,8,15,26,29

For seat comparisons, see arbitration in London, arbitration in Singapore and arbitration in Germany.¹

Which institutions run arbitrations in the Netherlands, and under what rules?

The NAI runs most Dutch institutional arbitration. It is a foundation under Dutch law, founded in 1949 and based in Rotterdam, with a Case Management Committee and an independent Challenge Committee, and it also administers mediation and binding advice (bindend advies). Its current rules are the NAI Arbitration Rules 2024, in force from 1 March 2024.^6,8

NAI caseload is modest: 70 new cases in 2023, 56 in 2024 and 78 in 2025, with the amount in dispute at year end at about EUR 4 billion (2023), EUR 3.4 billion (2024) and EUR 5.4 billion (2025). In 2024 half the proceedings ran in English.^10,11,12

The PCA was created by the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, agreed in 1899 and confirmed in 1907, in force for the Netherlands on 26 January 1910. It sits at The Hague and is the default body that designates an appointing authority under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 2013 (art 6); its caseload could not be opened, so we state none.^15,16,17

The NCC is a chamber of the Amsterdam courts, created 1 January 2019, hearing international commercial disputes in English under art 32a Rv. It is a state court, used instead of arbitration, not inside it, though an arbitration-related claim can be routed to it by agreement (see courts below). The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) also administers Netherlands-seated cases; for the ICC’s position on AI, see our ICC explainer.^2,13

What should the clause say, and what can be arbitrated?

Parties can agree to arbitrate present or future disputes arising from a defined legal relationship, whether or not it is contractual (art 1020(1), (2)); a reference in a contract to a set of arbitration rules is part of the agreement (art 1020(6)). There is one hard limit on arbitrability: the agreement may not lead to “the determination of legal consequences which are not at the free disposal of the parties” (art 1020(3)): matters the parties cannot settle freely stay with the courts.¹

Consumer contracts are the main exception. In standard terms used against a consumer (a natural person not acting in a profession or business), a clause sending disputes to arbitration instead of the legally competent court is unreasonably onerous, and so voidable, unless it gives the consumer at least one month after the business invokes it in writing to choose that court (art 6:236(n) of the Civil Code).³

The agreement is proven by a document, which can be one that refers to general conditions providing for arbitration, and it can also be proven by electronic means (art 1021). The NAI recommends a short model clause under its Rules; its generator lets parties add the place, the number of arbitrators, the language, and an option to grant the NCC exclusive jurisdiction over connected court proceedings. Where the parties do not fix the place, the default under the NAI Rules is Amsterdam, and hearings may be held anywhere (art 27).^1,6,9

How does an NAI arbitration run, step by step?

A case starts when the NAI Secretariat receives the request (art 8(1)). The request describes the dispute, the relief and the value of each claim, and discloses any outside funder (art 8(2)). The Secretariat invites a short answer, which the respondent files within 14 days and may use to counterclaim (art 9).⁶

A tribunal is a sole arbitrator or another odd number; where the parties have not agreed, the responsible member of the NAI Case Management Committee sets it at one or three and appoints within three months of commencement (arts 14, 15(4)). An arbitration is confidential and everyone involved is bound to secrecy, unless the law or the parties require disclosure; the NAI may publish an award with the parties’ identities removed, unless a party objects within two months (art 7).⁶

Two fast routes sit inside the Rules. Expedited arbitration applies automatically where the clause was entered into on or after 1 March 2024, the total claimed is EUR 1,000,000 or less, and the parties have not ruled it out. Parties can also opt into it by written agreement (art 42). Emergency arbitration, for urgent interim measures whether or not proceedings on the merits are pending, runs under Appendix C (art 41, read with art 40(1)(b)). Related arbitrations can be consolidated (samenvoeging) on request to the preliminary-relief judge of the Amsterdam District Court, unless the parties agreed otherwise (art 1046).^1,6

How long does arbitration in the Netherlands take, and what does it cost?

An NAI arbitration has no published average length. The tribunal must make its award within eight weeks of the last hearing or submission, and in all cases expeditiously (art 46(1)).⁶

What an NAI arbitration costs has three parts: the NAI administration fees, the arbitrators’ fees and disbursements, and any other costs the tribunal considers necessary (arts 56 to 59 and Appendix F). The administration fee is set by Table A on the amount in dispute, and arbitrator fees are hourly by band under Table B; both are in the table below, for proceedings from 1 July 2025.⁷

NCC court fees are flat per-party amounts (in the table); lawyers’ fees run EUR 1,000 to EUR 12,000 per act of process.^7,14

What role do the Dutch courts play during an arbitration?

If a party sues in a Dutch court over a matter covered by an arbitration agreement, the other party can point to that agreement before filing any defence. The court then declares that it has no jurisdiction, unless the agreement is invalid (art 1022). The same applies where the agreement names a seat abroad, under the law that governs it (art 1074). Otherwise the courts support rather than supervise. A party can still ask the ordinary court or the preliminary-relief judge (voorzieningenrechter) for interim relief in summary proceedings (kort geding) and provisional evidence (arts 1022a to 1022c).¹

Enforcing an award inside the Netherlands needs leave, meaning the court’s permission (verlof), from the preliminary-relief judge of the district court of the place of arbitration (art 1062(1)). A setting-aside claim is heard by the Court of Appeal of that place. Where that court is the Amsterdam Court of Appeal and the parties agreed, the claim can go to the NCC Court of Appeal in English (art 1064a(1), read with art 32a Rv).^1,2

Can you appeal or set aside an award in the Netherlands?

The only two remedies against a final award are setting aside (vernietiging) and revocation (herroeping) (art 1064); there is no appeal on the merits. A setting-aside claim goes to the Court of Appeal (gerechtshof) of the place of arbitration, within three months of the day the award is sent (art 1064a). A final appeal to the Hoge Raad (the Dutch Supreme Court), called cassation, is available on points of law; the parties can exclude it, unless one of them is a consumer (art 1064a(5)).¹

The grounds are a closed list of five (art 1065(1)): there is no valid arbitration agreement; the tribunal was wrongly constituted; the tribunal did not comply with its mandate; the award is not signed or reasoned (art 1057); or the award, or how it came about, is contrary to public policy (openbare orde). A non-serious breach of mandate, or one not objected to in time, does not lead to setting aside (art 1065(4)). The Court of Appeal can also suspend a setting-aside case to let the tribunal cure a ground, a step known as remission (art 1065a). Revocation is a separate route for fraud or forged or withheld documents, within three months of discovery (art 1068).¹

Two Hoge Raad judgments shape the public-policy ground, both in the table below. In Russian Federation v Hulley Enterprises, Veteran Petroleum and Yukos Universal, the court held in 2021 that fraud (bedrog) can be raised in setting aside on the public-policy ground, not only in revocation ([5.1.8], with the contrary Court of Appeal ruling set aside at [5.1.12]). In the same litigation in 2025, over UNCITRAL awards seated in The Hague under art 26 of the Energy Charter Treaty, it dismissed the Russian Federation’s cassation, so the awards stood (facts at [2.1], dismissal at [3.2.2] and the operative order).^19,20

How are awards enforced in and from the Netherlands?

A Dutch award is enforced at home by that leave, also called exequatur, from the preliminary-relief judge (art 1062). Leave is refused only on a summary showing the award is likely to be set aside (art 1065(1)) or revoked (art 1068(1)) (art 1063).¹

A foreign award under the New York Convention 1958 is recognised and enforced on request, with the Court of Appeal taking the place of the district court (art 1075). Where no treaty applies, art 1076 still allows it, on refusal grounds that track New York Convention art V, plus public policy (art 1076(1)).^1,29

A Netherlands award is enforced abroad under the New York Convention, the 1958 treaty on recognising and enforcing foreign arbitral awards, which has 172 parties; see New York Convention grounds. The Netherlands ratified it on 24 April 1964, in force from 23 July 1964, and applies it only to awards made in another contracting state, a limit known as the reciprocity reservation. For enforcing a Dutch award into England or Germany, see those guides; for the grounds in practice, enforcing an award and AI.²⁹

The leading enforcement authority is National Iranian Oil Company v Crescent Gas Corporation and Crescent Petroleum (Hoge Raad, 23 January 2026). It held a London-seated award is enforced under art 1075 with the New York Convention. There is no appeal against the grant of leave to enforce a foreign award: an appeal would make foreign awards harder to enforce than Dutch ones, against the non-discrimination rule in New York Convention art III ([2.2], [2.5], [3.1] to [3.2]). It rests on Rosneft v Yukos Capital (Hoge Raad, 25 June 2010).^18,21

What changed, and what is pending?

The big change is the 2015 modernisation. The Act of 2 June 2014 rewrote Book 4 from 1 January 2015: it allowed arbitration documents, communications and awards to be handled and signed by electronic means (arts 1072b and 1057(2)), and moved setting aside to a single court instance at the Court of Appeal (art 1064a). The NCC Court of Appeal option in English came later, with the Netherlands Commercial Court, in force 1 January 2019.^4,5

One treaty step is pending. In 2026 the Council of State (Raad van State) advised, without substantive objection, on approving the United Nations Convention on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration (the Mauritius Convention, New York, 10 December 2014). The Netherlands has not yet ratified it, so it is not yet in force for the Kingdom; the Convention itself entered into force on 18 October 2017.²²

There are also political signals, not law. In December 2025 a parliamentary motion asked the government to include no arbitration in new agreements with companies, in the Groningen gas context. In April 2026 a further motion asked it to study how to limit or exclude company arbitration against the State, over the 2022 solidarity contribution. Neither is a binding instrument.^23,24

What does the Netherlands say about AI in arbitration?

There is no Dutch rule on AI written for arbitration. The NAI publishes none: a site search for “artificial intelligence” returned nothing, its sitemaps list no AI item (checked 30 October 2026), and the NAI Arbitration Rules 2024 do not mention it. The guidance that exists is aimed at courts and the legal profession.^6,27

The Dutch judiciary (De Rechtspraak) has a published AI strategy. It focuses AI on low-risk support work and rules out AI for judicial findings, in its words no “robot judge”. It says the strategy complies with the EU AI Act. The Netherlands Bar (Nederlandse orde van advocaten, NOvA) published recommendations at the end of 2025. The lawyer stays responsible for the final advice and must verify any output, and confidential or client data should not go into free tools.^25,27

From 2 August 2026, the EU AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689) can treat AI that helps a court or an alternative dispute resolution body decide a case with legal effects as high-risk (Annex III point 8(a)). For how the Act applies to arbitration, including its reach to seats, see AI in dispute resolution in Europe and the EU AI Act in dispute resolution.²⁸

How a Dutch setting-aside court would treat an award drafted with heavy AI help is untested. In our reading, that sits in the mandate and public-policy grounds (art 1065(1)), because the tribunal’s decision-making cannot be delegated (non-delegation). For the wider picture, see AI in arbitration and awards set aside over AI use; a tribunal can record what is agreed about AI tools in Procedural Order No. 1.¹

What is still open in Netherlands arbitration?

• If and when the Netherlands ratifies the Transparency (Mauritius) Convention.
• Whether the two anti-State-arbitration motions turn into any binding instrument.
• The NAI has published no AI guidance as of 30 October 2026, and whether it will is unclear.
• How a Dutch court treats an award drafted with heavy AI help; no case yet (art 1065(1)).
• Where the Yukos litigation goes after the 2025 Hoge Raad judgment.^{1,6,20,22,23,24}