A creditor with an enforceable judgment may attach and sell your assets, but not at any cost. If the creditor abuses that power, for example by enforcing a judgment that clearly rests on an error, by attaching far more than needed, or by using the attachment only to put pressure on you, the preliminary relief judge can suspend the enforcement or lift the attachment; but the starting point remains that a judgment may be enforced.
The general basis is the prohibition of abuse of rights in Article 3:13 of the Dutch Civil Code (BW). The route to the court is the execution dispute (executiegeschil) under Article 438 of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (Rv). Below we explain the limits the law sets, the standard the Supreme Court applies, recent examples from case law, and what debtors and creditors can do.
Why does enforcement have limits?
Enforcement exists to collect a claim, not to punish or destroy the debtor. When enforcement goes further than that purpose, the court can intervene.
Attachment and forced sale are essential to a working legal system. Without them, a court judgment would have little value. At the same time, they are powerful instruments. A creditor can freeze bank accounts, have a car or a home sold and attach wages, often without the debtor being heard first. That is why the law contains limits: some assets and part of a person’s income are protected, and every enforcement measure is subject to the prohibition of abuse of rights.
What does the prohibition of abuse of rights say?
Under Article 3:13(1) BW, a person may not exercise a power to the extent that he abuses it. Enforcement powers are no exception.
Article 3:13(2) BW gives three examples of abuse. A power can be abused if it is exercised:
- with no other purpose than to harm another person;
- for a purpose other than the one for which it was granted;
- while, given the disproportion between the interest in exercising it and the interest that is harmed as a result, the holder could not reasonably have decided to exercise it.
In enforcement, these examples translate into concrete situations. A creditor who has already been paid but still levies an attachment acts purely to harm. A creditor who attaches assets to force the debtor into concessions in an unrelated dispute uses the power for a different purpose. And a creditor who attaches everything a debtor owns for a small claim, while other assets offer ample security, may act disproportionately.
How do you challenge enforcement?
You start an execution dispute in summary proceedings (kort geding) before the preliminary relief judge (voorzieningenrechter) under Article 438 Rv. The judge can suspend the enforcement, lift an attachment, or attach conditions such as the provision of security.
Article 438 Rv provides that disputes about enforcement are brought before the court of the place where the enforcement takes place, and that in urgent cases the preliminary relief judge can decide in summary proceedings. The judge can suspend the enforcement for a set or unlimited period, lift attachments and order either party to provide security. The decision is provisional: it does not decide the underlying dispute about the claim itself.
An execution dispute does not suspend the enforcement automatically. If a sale or eviction is imminent, you must act quickly and ask the court for a hearing at short notice. It is also possible to ask the bailiff or the creditor to postpone enforcement voluntarily while the dispute is pending, but they are not obliged to agree.
Which standard does the court apply?
The court will only stop enforcement if the creditor has no interest worthy of protection in enforcing, taking into account the harm to the debtor. Where an appeal or another remedy is still pending, a more flexible balancing of interests applies.
No remedy pending: the strict standard
The basic rule comes from the Supreme Court judgment in Ritzen/Hoekstra of 22 April 1983. A party that has obtained an enforceable judgment is in principle entitled to enforce it. The court may only stop enforcement if the creditor abuses its power. That can be the case if the judgment clearly rests on a legal or factual error (misslag), or if facts that arose after the judgment create an emergency for the debtor, so that immediate enforcement would be unacceptable.
The Supreme Court refined this in a judgment of 24 April 2020 (ECLI:NL:HR:2020:806). The fact that a judgment is wrong does not by itself mean that enforcing it is an abuse. The court must also consider what the creditor’s prospects are in the further proceedings. The question is always whether, taking into account the harm to the debtor, the creditor has no interest worthy of protection in enforcement.
Appeal or opposition pending: balancing interests
If the debtor has lodged an appeal, opposition or other ordinary remedy, the Supreme Court held on 20 December 2019 (ECLI:NL:HR:2019:2026) that the court must weigh the interests of both parties. The question is whether the debtor’s interest in keeping the existing situation until the remedy has been decided outweighs the creditor’s interest in immediate enforcement. The summary proceedings judge does not decide the appeal itself, so the balancing focuses on the consequences of immediate enforcement for both parties. Where no remedy is pending, the stricter standard described above continues to apply.
This distinction matters in practice. A debtor who has appealed has a better chance of obtaining suspension than a debtor against whom a final judgment is being enforced.
Which assets and income are protected by law?
Certain basic household goods and part of your income cannot be attached at all. These protections apply regardless of whether the creditor acts in good faith.
Goods excluded from attachment
Article 447 Rv excludes from attachment the goods a person needs for basic living: the necessary bed and bedding, the clothing the debtor and the family are wearing, food and drink for one month, and the books and tools needed for the debtor’s work. The purpose is that a debtor is not left without the essentials of daily life or the means to earn an income. A bailiff who attaches such goods acts contrary to the law, and you can have that attachment lifted.
The attachment-free allowance
If your wages or benefits are attached, part of that income is protected by the attachment-free allowance (beslagvrije voet) under Articles 475b to 475d Rv. Since 2021, the bailiff calculates this amount using a standardised method based on your income and household situation, so that you keep enough to cover essential living costs such as rent and health insurance. If the calculation is wrong, for example because your housing costs or household situation have not been taken into account, you can ask the bailiff to correct it, and if necessary go to court.
Proportionality of enforcement
Beyond these specific rules, every enforcement measure must remain proportionate. The creditor may choose which assets to attach, but that freedom is limited by Article 3:13 BW. Attaching assets many times the value of the claim, or attaching everything at once while one attachment already provides sufficient security, can be an abuse of rights. The same applies to an attachment that is timed or designed to exert pressure rather than to collect the debt.
What does recent case law show?
Recent judgments show that courts do intervene when enforcement is clearly disproportionate or used as leverage, but also that a debtor who offers no real alternative will usually not succeed.
Attachments lifted because of disproportion and pressure
In a judgment of 29 October 2025, the Zeeland-West-Brabant District Court lifted executory attachments on a car, a motorcycle and a bank account (ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2025:7910). The creditor already had a mortgage on a property worth considerably more than the debt, so the additional attachments were not needed for recovery. The court also found that the bank attachment had deliberately been timed just after a large maintenance payment had been credited to the account, and that the attachments were apparently meant to pressure the debtor into an unfavourable settlement. That was abuse of rights under Article 3:13 BW. The court did, however, refuse to prohibit future enforcement measures in general.
Partial lifting to pay for legal defence
The Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled on 7 November 2025 in a case where bank accounts had been attached for a claim of many millions of euros (ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2025:3001). The debtors asked for the release of a limited amount to pay their lawyers in the appeal. The court held that refusing to release that amount was an abuse of the power to attach, because access to legal assistance is an important aspect of a fair trial and the release hardly affected the creditors’ recovery. The court lifted the attachment for that limited amount only.
Suspension of a default judgment pending appeal
In a judgment of 29 November 2023, the Overijssel District Court suspended the enforcement of a default judgment until the appeal had been decided, and lifted almost all attachments (ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2023:4835). The creditor had attached nearly all the debtor’s assets for a relatively limited remaining debt, even though the debtor had largely complied with the judgment and had made settlement proposals. One attachment on an apartment was maintained, as that provided sufficient security.
Foreclosure not suspended without a real alternative
By contrast, the Gelderland District Court refused on 4 September 2025 to suspend a mortgage foreclosure on a home (ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2025:7810). The debtor claimed abuse of rights, but had not made a documented payment proposal, and only the sale of the property could generate enough to reduce the substantial debt. The court saw no abuse and allowed the auction to go ahead.
What these judgments teach
The common thread is that the court looks at the facts. A debtor who shows that the creditor already has enough security, that the measures are disproportionate, or that they serve a different purpose, has a real chance. A debtor who only points to the hardship of enforcement, without offering security or a realistic payment proposal, usually does not. Preparing that alternative before the hearing is therefore at least as important as the legal arguments.
Which defences can a debtor raise?
The main defences are abuse of rights, a clear error in the judgment, an emergency caused by new facts, disproportion, and, where an appeal is pending, the balance of interests. These defences can be combined.
Abuse of rights
You argue that the creditor is using its power only to harm you, for a purpose other than collecting the claim, or in a way that is out of all proportion to its interest (Article 3:13 BW). Support this with facts: correspondence in which the creditor links the attachment to demands in another matter, evidence that the claim has already been paid, or an overview of the assets already attached and their value compared with the debt.
A clear error in the judgment
If the judgment being enforced clearly rests on a legal or factual error, enforcing it may be an abuse. The bar is high. It must be an obvious error, not a point on which reasonable people can differ. And as the Supreme Court held in 2020, even then the court also looks at the creditor’s prospects in the further proceedings. If the error can still be corrected on appeal, the court will often weigh that in the balance rather than stop enforcement altogether.
An emergency caused by new facts
Facts that arose after the judgment can make immediate enforcement unacceptable. Examples are a sudden serious illness in the family at the moment of an eviction, or a situation in which enforcement would cause irreparable damage that the creditor’s interest cannot justify. Such an emergency does not cancel the debt. It can, however, justify postponing or limiting enforcement for a period.
Disproportion
You argue that the enforcement goes much further than needed to collect the claim. Examples are attachments on assets worth many times the claim, or on business assets essential for operations while other, less harmful options are available. Propose an alternative, such as maintaining one attachment and lifting the others, or replacing the attachments with a bank guarantee.
Suspension pending appeal
If you have lodged an appeal, you can ask the court to suspend enforcement until the appeal has been decided. Under the 2019 judgment of the Supreme Court, the court then weighs your interest in keeping the existing situation against the creditor’s interest in immediate enforcement. It can also be possible to ask the court of appeal itself to suspend the enforceability of the judgment (Article 351 Rv).
How does the court weigh the interests?
In every execution dispute, the court weighs the creditor’s interest in enforcing against the debtor’s interest in suspension. The starting point is that a judgment may be enforced, so the debtor must make a convincing case.
On the creditor’s side, the court considers the interest in prompt payment, the risk that assets will disappear, and the general interest in respecting court judgments. On the debtor’s side, it considers the risk of irreversible damage, such as the sale of a home or the loss of a business, the proportionality of the measures and, where relevant, the pending appeal. The court often looks for a middle way: suspension on condition that the debtor provides security, or lifting some attachments while maintaining others.
Can you claim damages for wrongful enforcement?
Yes. A creditor that enforces a judgment which is later set aside, or that abuses its enforcement powers, can be liable for the damage caused.
Under settled Dutch case law, a party that enforces a provisionally enforceable judgment does so at its own risk. If the judgment is later set aside on appeal, the enforcement becomes unlawful and the creditor must compensate the resulting damage. The same applies to an attachment levied for a claim that is ultimately rejected. Abuse of rights under Article 3:13 BW can also lead to liability. The damage is claimed in separate proceedings or in the main proceedings, and must be substantiated with evidence of the actual loss.
Are there special rules for certain types of enforcement?
Yes. The sale of a mortgaged home, the collection of penalty payments and conservatory attachments each have their own rules, but the prohibition of abuse of rights applies to all of them.
Forced sale of a mortgaged home
A mortgage lender does not need a judgment to sell the property if the borrower is in default. Under Article 3:268 BW, it can have the property sold at a public auction before a civil-law notary (parate executie). At the request of the lender or the owner, the preliminary relief judge can approve a private sale instead, which often yields a better price. An owner who wants to stop or postpone the auction must start an execution dispute. As the Gelderland judgment shows, the court will want to see a realistic proposal, such as a documented payment arrangement or an imminent private sale that covers the debt.
Penalty payments
A court can order a party to comply with a judgment on pain of a penalty payment (dwangsom) under Articles 611a to 611i Rv. A creditor can collect forfeited penalty payments through enforcement. Here too, the power can be abused, for example if the creditor claims penalty payments for technical breaches while the judgment has in substance been complied with. The debtor can raise this in an execution dispute. In addition, the court that imposed the penalty can, on request, cancel it, suspend it or reduce it if it is impossible for the debtor to comply (Article 611d Rv).
Conservatory attachments
An attachment levied before judgment, to secure a claim, can be lifted in summary proceedings under Article 705 Rv. That happens if formal requirements were breached, if the claim or the need for the attachment appears summarily to be unfounded, or if sufficient security is offered. Abuse of rights can also play a role there, for instance where an attachment is used mainly to exert pressure in negotiations.
The role of the bailiff
Enforcement is carried out by a bailiff (gerechtsdeurwaarder), who acts on the creditor’s instructions but also has his own professional duties. A bailiff must, for example, apply the rules on protected goods and the attachment-free allowance correctly. If you believe a bailiff has acted improperly, you can file a complaint with the disciplinary chamber for bailiffs (kamer voor gerechtsdeurwaarders). A complaint does not suspend enforcement, so if the matter is urgent, an execution dispute remains the route to take.
What should creditors do to avoid problems?
Enforce for the purpose of collecting the claim, keep the measures proportionate, and respond seriously to proposals from the debtor. That protects the enforcement against challenges and limits the risk of liability.
In practice this means: choose the assets to attach with care, and lift attachments that are no longer needed once sufficient security has been obtained. Consider a reasonable payment arrangement or security offered by the debtor instead of immediate sale. Do not link enforcement to demands in unrelated matters. And be careful when enforcing a judgment that is under appeal and may contain an error, because if it is set aside, you bear the risk of the damage.
What should you do as a debtor?
Act quickly, collect the facts and try to find a solution with the creditor before going to court.
- Request the documents on which the enforcement is based: the judgment, the writs of attachment and the bailiff’s statements.
- List all attached assets and their value, and compare this with the amount actually owed.
- Collect evidence of payments made, of the consequences of the enforcement and of any proposals you have made.
- Make a concrete, documented proposal to the creditor, such as a payment arrangement or security.
- If a sale or eviction is imminent, start summary proceedings without delay.
A well-prepared request, supported by documents and a realistic alternative, has the best chance of success. Courts are more willing to intervene when the debtor shows that the creditor’s interest can also be protected in a less harmful way.
In summary
- A creditor may enforce a judgment, but may not abuse that power (Article 3:13 BW).
- You challenge enforcement in an execution dispute before the preliminary relief judge (Article 438 Rv).
- Without a pending remedy, the court only stops enforcement in case of a clear error or an emergency caused by new facts; with an appeal pending, it weighs the interests of both parties.
- Basic household goods and part of your income are protected by law (Article 447 Rv and the attachment-free allowance).
- Disproportionate attachments or attachments used as leverage can be lifted, and wrongful enforcement can lead to liability for damages.
Frequently asked questions
Does starting an execution dispute stop the enforcement?
No, not automatically. You must ask the court for a quick hearing and, where possible, ask the creditor or bailiff to postpone enforcement voluntarily in the meantime.
Can a creditor attach my home for a small debt?
In principle yes, but the court can intervene if the attachment or sale is clearly disproportionate and other, less harmful ways of collecting the debt are available.
Can I have enforcement suspended while my appeal is pending?
Yes, if your interest in keeping the existing situation outweighs the creditor’s interest in immediate enforcement. The court may attach conditions, such as the provision of security.
Which goods can a bailiff never attach?
The goods listed in Article 447 Rv, such as the necessary bed and bedding, the clothing you are wearing, food and drink for one month, and the books and tools you need for your work. Part of your income is also protected by the attachment-free allowance.
Can I claim damages if the judgment is later overturned?
Yes. A creditor that enforces a judgment which is later set aside acts at its own risk and must in principle compensate the damage caused by the enforcement. You will need to substantiate the loss you suffered.
Is offering security a good way to stop enforcement?
Often it is. If you provide a bank guarantee or deposit the amount with a notary, the creditor’s interest in immediate enforcement largely disappears, and courts are more willing to suspend enforcement or lift attachments.
Do I need a lawyer for an execution dispute?
Summary proceedings at the district court require a lawyer, except in cases that fall within the jurisdiction of the subdistrict court.
Law & More assists debtors and creditors in the Netherlands with attachments, execution disputes and claims for wrongful enforcement.
Unsure where you stand? Tell us about your situation. We will let you know your options within one working day.
How Law & More can help you with this is explained on our corporate lawyer page.
