How to enforce a foreign judgment in the Netherlands

To enforce a foreign judgment in the Netherlands you need a title that Dutch bailiffs can act on, and how you obtain it depends entirely on where the judgment comes from. A judgment from another EU member state is enforced directly under the Brussels Ia Regulation, without any Dutch declaration of enforceability. A judgment covered by a treaty or Hague convention goes through the exequatur procedure in articles 985 to 994 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A judgment from a state with which the Netherlands has no applicable treaty cannot be enforced as such at all: article 431 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires fresh proceedings before a Dutch court, which in practice adopts the foreign decision if four recognition conditions are met.

Which route applies to your judgment

Getting this classification right at the outset decides the cost, the timeline and the documents you have to collect, and choosing the wrong route is the most common way to lose months. There are three routes, not two.

Two preliminary checks belong at the same stage. First, is the judgment enforceable in the country where it was given, and is that capable of being proved. Second, does the debtor actually have recoverable assets in the Netherlands: a bank account, receivables from Dutch customers, real estate, shares, a vehicle. Enforcement is a costly exercise and an asset search before you start is cheaper than a title you cannot use. If assets may disappear, prejudgment attachment should be arranged before the debtor becomes aware of the claim, and our note on prejudgment attachment in Dutch law explains how that works.

Judgments from EU member states

Within the European Union the exequatur was abolished. Under the Brussels Ia Regulation, Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, a judgment given in a member state that is enforceable there is enforceable in the Netherlands without any declaration of enforceability being required. The Regulation applies to civil and commercial matters and to proceedings instituted on or after 10 January 2015; older cases still run under the previous regulation, which did require a declaration.

The mechanics are administrative rather than judicial. The creditor obtains from the court of origin a copy of the judgment that satisfies the conditions for authenticity, together with the certificate provided for in the Regulation, in which that court records the judgment, the parties, the enforceable obligation and any interest. The certificate, and where required a translation of it or of the judgment, is served on the debtor before the first enforcement measure. From that point a Dutch bailiff can proceed.

The debtor is not without remedies, but it has to take the initiative. It may apply to the Dutch court for refusal of enforcement on the limited grounds in the Regulation: manifest contrariety to Dutch public policy, a default judgment where the document instituting the proceedings was not served in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable a defence, irreconcilability with a judgment between the same parties in the Netherlands, or irreconcilability with an earlier judgment given elsewhere that qualifies for recognition here, and breach of the protective jurisdiction rules for consumers, employees and insured parties or the exclusive jurisdiction rules. The Dutch court may never review the substance of the foreign decision, and a difference in applicable law or in outcome is not a ground for refusal.

Several neighbouring EU instruments do the same work in specific situations and are often faster. The European Enforcement Order applies to uncontested claims certified as such by the court of origin. The European Order for Payment and the European Small Claims Procedure produce titles that circulate directly. Maintenance decisions travel under the Maintenance Regulation, and parental responsibility decisions under the Brussels IIb Regulation. Denmark sits outside several of these instruments and is covered by a separate arrangement, which is worth checking before assuming the ordinary EU route applies.

Judgments covered by a treaty: the exequatur procedure

Where an instrument other than Brussels Ia provides that a foreign judgment is enforceable in the Netherlands, the procedural route is the exequatur in articles 985 to 994 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This is the point most often misunderstood: the exequatur exists because a treaty says the judgment is enforceable. It is not a general fallback for judgments that no treaty covers.

The instruments that matter in commercial practice are these. The Lugano Convention of 2007 governs judgments from Switzerland, Norway and Iceland, and it still requires a declaration of enforceability, so the exequatur applies. The Hague Convention of 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements covers judgments given by a court designated in an exclusive choice of court agreement, which makes it particularly relevant for commercial contracts with a jurisdiction clause. The Hague Judgments Convention of 2019 is the broadest recent development: it has applied for the European Union, and therefore for the Netherlands, since 1 September 2023, and it entered into force for the United Kingdom on 1 July 2025, for Ukraine in 2023, for Uruguay in 2024 and for Albania, Montenegro and Andorra in 2026. Maintenance decisions from a wider group of states travel under the Hague Convention of 2007. In addition the Netherlands is party to a number of older bilateral conventions, whose continued application in a given case should be verified rather than assumed.

The United Kingdom deserves a separate word, because the position changed twice. After Brexit the Brussels regime stopped applying, and the United Kingdom is not a party to the Lugano Convention. Since 1 July 2025 the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention provides a route for judgments falling within its scope and given in proceedings started after that date, and the 2005 Choice of Court Convention covers cases with a qualifying exclusive jurisdiction clause. Outside those two, an English judgment is treated like any other judgment from a state without an applicable treaty.

How the procedure runs

The creditor files a petition with the district court, addressed to the interim relief judge, in the district where the debtor is domiciled or where the assets are located. Representation by a Dutch lawyer is required. The petition identifies the judgment, sets out why the instrument relied on applies, and asks for leave to enforce.

The court does not review the merits. It checks that the instrument applies, that the formal requirements are met, and that none of the refusal grounds under that instrument is present. The debtor is heard, or given the opportunity to be heard, depending on the instrument. If leave is granted, the decision plus the foreign judgment together form the enforceable title, which is served on the debtor by a bailiff before enforcement measures start. An appeal lies to the court of appeal, and cassation to the Supreme Court on points of law; an appeal does not automatically suspend enforcement, but the appeal court can order suspension.

Arbitral awards follow their own track and should not be confused with judgments. Recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award runs through the New York Convention of 1958 and the corresponding provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, with its own limited grounds for refusal.

Judgments from states without a treaty: article 431

Article 431(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure states the starting point bluntly: apart from the cases provided for by treaty or statute, foreign judgments cannot be enforced in the Netherlands. Paragraph 2 then provides that the case may be dealt with afresh by the Dutch court.

In theory that means starting from scratch. In practice it does not, because the Supreme Court has developed a route that gives the foreign judgment nearly its full effect. In its Gazprombank judgment of 26 September 2014 the Supreme Court held that in proceedings under article 431(2) a foreign decision is recognised, and the Dutch court gives judgment in the same terms without examining the merits again, if four conditions are met. Later decisions have confirmed and refined that framework.

The conditions are cumulative:

• the jurisdiction of the foreign court was based on a ground of jurisdiction that is generally acceptable by international standards;
• the foreign decision was given in proceedings that meet the requirements of proper and sufficiently safeguarded administration of justice;
• recognition is not contrary to Dutch public policy; and
• the foreign decision is not irreconcilable with a decision of a Dutch court between the same parties, or with an earlier decision of a foreign court between the same parties in a dispute concerning the same subject matter and based on the same cause, provided that earlier decision qualifies for recognition in the Netherlands.

If all four are satisfied, the Dutch court will not reopen the substance; if one of them fails, the claim is dealt with on the merits under the law that applies to it, and the foreign judgment then has evidential value rather than binding force. The proceedings are ordinary civil proceedings begun by writ of summons, with the usual costs and timescales, and the outcome is a Dutch judgment that the bailiff can enforce. Where the claim is essentially a debt, this route sits naturally alongside international debt collection, and our overview of the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments goes into the case law in more detail.

The four conditions in practice

The same four tests, in slightly different wording, decide most contested enforcement cases whichever route applies. It is worth knowing what actually persuades a Dutch court under each.

Jurisdiction that is internationally acceptable

The Dutch court asks whether the foreign court’s basis for hearing the case would be regarded as acceptable internationally, not whether it matches Dutch jurisdiction rules exactly. The domicile or place of business of the defendant, the place of performance of a contract, the place where a tort occurred and a valid choice of court agreement are all comfortably within that range. What is not is jurisdiction founded on a tenuous link: the mere presence of assets, the claimant’s own nationality, or service on a defendant briefly passing through. Where the parties agreed on the jurisdiction of that court, this condition is rarely a problem.

A properly conducted procedure

This is the condition on which enforcement is most often refused, and almost always for one reason: service. The defendant must have been notified of the proceedings in good time and in a manner that allowed a defence. A default judgment where the summons went to an address the defendant had left years earlier, or where the international rules on service of documents were not followed, is vulnerable. Other elements of the test are an impartial and independent court, a genuine opportunity to be heard and to present evidence, and reasons for the decision, at least to the extent that the outcome can be understood.

Creditors can protect themselves at the start. Serving the original proceedings through the proper international channel, and keeping the proof of service, is what makes the judgment portable later. Documents produced years afterwards to reconstruct service rarely convince.

Public policy

Public policy is narrow and is not a general fairness review. It is engaged where recognition would conflict with fundamental principles of the Dutch legal order: a judgment obtained by fraud, proceedings that breached the right to a fair trial under the European Convention on Human Rights, a decision that discriminates on prohibited grounds, or an order that would compel conduct Dutch law regards as unacceptable.

Punitive damages deserve a more careful answer than they usually receive. Dutch damages law is compensatory, and a foreign award of exemplary damages does not fit that system, but the size of an award is not by itself contrary to public policy. The Dutch court looks at what the award actually compensates and whether the punitive element can be separated from the compensatory part, and it is entirely possible for enforcement to be granted for one part and refused for another. The same partial approach applies to other components of a foreign judgment, such as costs orders calculated on a basis unknown here.

No irreconcilable decisions

A Dutch decision between the same parties prevails, whenever it was given. As between two foreign decisions, the earlier one prevails, provided it qualifies for recognition here. This matters in practice where parallel proceedings have been run in more than one country, and it is a reason to think about sequencing before starting litigation abroad rather than afterwards.

Documents, legalisation and translation

Whichever route applies, the file has to establish four things: that the judgment exists in the form claimed, that it is enforceable in the state of origin, that the defendant was properly brought before that court, and what exactly is owed. In practice that means a certified copy of the judgment issued by the court of origin, a certificate or other official confirmation that it is enforceable and that any appeal period has expired or that appeal does not suspend enforcement, the proof of service of the original proceedings and of the judgment itself, and a calculation of the principal, interest and costs to the date of enforcement.

For EU judgments the standard certificate replaces most of this, which is the main practical advantage of the Brussels Ia route. For other judgments, documents from outside the European Union normally need an apostille under the Hague Convention of 1961, or full legalisation where the state of origin is not party to it. That step is administrative but slow, and it should be started early.

Translation is not optional. Documents in a language other than Dutch are translated by a sworn translator registered in the Dutch register of sworn interpreters and translators. Courts sometimes accept English without translation in commercial matters, but that is a courtesy rather than a right, and a judgment or certificate that is central to the application should always be translated. A poor translation is worse than none, because ambiguity in the operative part of the judgment is resolved against the party relying on it.

Finally, check the limitation position before you file. The power to enforce a judgment lapses twenty years after the day following the judgment, and for obligations to pay interest or other periodic sums the period is five years for each instalment. Interruption is possible, but it has to have happened; a creditor who returns to an old judgment after many years should establish first that there is anything left to enforce.

From title to money: the enforcement itself

Obtaining a Dutch title is only half the job, and creditors regularly discover that the second half is where the money is won or lost. Enforcement in the Netherlands is carried out by a court bailiff (gerechtsdeurwaarder), a public official with statutory powers, on the instruction of the creditor. The title is served on the debtor first, with a demand for payment, and enforcement measures follow after the statutory period.

The bailiff’s toolkit is broad. Attachment of a bank account freezes the balance at the moment of attachment, which makes timing critical and makes it worth knowing where the debtor banks. Attachment in the hands of third parties reaches receivables owed to the debtor by its own customers, which is often the most effective measure against a trading company. Wages can be attached, subject to the protected minimum that must be left to the debtor. Movable assets can be seized and sold. Registered property, including real estate, shares and vessels, can be attached and sold by public auction, which is slow and expensive but effective against a debtor with fixed assets in the Netherlands.

Two further instruments deserve mention. A creditor who fears that assets will disappear can obtain prejudgment attachment from the interim relief judge, generally without the debtor being heard, on a short application supported by a summary of the claim; the court then sets a period within which substantive proceedings must be started, and the attachment converts into an enforcement attachment once a title exists. For cross-border cases within the EU, the European Account Preservation Order allows a creditor to freeze bank accounts in other member states through a single procedure, with a mechanism for obtaining account information in defined circumstances.

Where enforcement produces nothing because the debtor genuinely has no assets, the realistic options narrow. A company without assets can be put into insolvency proceedings, which is sometimes the right commercial answer and sometimes simply throws good money after bad. An examination of the debtor’s financial position before enforcement, rather than after two failed attachments, is what tells you which of the two you are looking at.

Interest, currency, costs and timing

What the Dutch title is worth in practice depends on details that are easy to overlook until the bailiff asks for them.

Interest is carried over from the foreign judgment as that judgment awarded it, which means the creditor has to be able to state the rate, the starting date and the basis on which it runs. Where the foreign judgment is silent, or where the claim is dealt with afresh under article 431, Dutch statutory interest applies from the date it fell due; the statutory rates for commercial and non-commercial obligations are fixed by government decree and are adjusted periodically, so the applicable rate has to be looked up for each period rather than assumed.

Currency causes fewer problems than creditors expect. A debt expressed in a foreign currency can be paid in euro, converted at the rate on the day of payment, so a judgment in dollars or pounds does not have to be reworked before it can be enforced. What does have to be done is the calculation: the bailiff enforces for a specific sum, and a schedule showing principal, interest per period and costs is part of the instruction.

On costs and timing, honest ranges are more useful than averages. Enforcing an EU judgment is largely a matter of obtaining the certificate, serving it and instructing a bailiff, and can be underway within weeks. An exequatur under a convention is a court procedure with a hearing and therefore runs in months, longer if the debtor appeals. Proceedings under article 431 are ordinary civil proceedings and take as long as any contested claim before a Dutch court. Court fees are set by statute and depend on the amount at stake, bailiff charges are largely regulated, and lawyers’ fees depend on how hard the case is fought. The costs awarded against a losing party in the Netherlands are calculated on a fixed scale and rarely cover the actual spend, which is a reason to weigh the size of the claim against the effort before starting.

Common defences and how to reduce the risk

Debtors resisting enforcement tend to run the same arguments, and most of them can be anticipated at the stage of the original foreign proceedings.

The service defence is the most successful and the most avoidable. If the original proceedings were served through the proper international channel, with documentation retained, it disappears. The jurisdiction defence is neutralised in advance by a clear exclusive choice of court clause, which also opens the route under the 2005 Hague Convention. The public policy defence is managed by drafting the claim so that compensatory and punitive elements are separable, and by ensuring the judgment states what it awards and why.

The delay defence is not a legal defence at all but a commercial one: appeals, procedural objections and asset movements are used to make enforcement expensive enough that the creditor settles. The counter to it is preparation. A complete file at the outset, prejudgment attachment where assets are at risk, and a realistic assessment of what can be recovered are worth more than any argument made later.

One strategic point is worth stating plainly. Where the judgment comes from a state without an applicable treaty and the claim is contractual, it is sometimes faster to sue the debtor in the Netherlands on the underlying claim than to litigate the recognition of the foreign judgment, particularly where the Dutch court would have jurisdiction anyway and the evidence is documentary. That choice should be made deliberately at the start, with an eye on limitation periods and on the risk of contradictory decisions. Our civil law practice assesses that trade-off as part of the initial advice, and for parties operating across borders our international practice covers the jurisdiction question before proceedings are started anywhere.

Frequently asked questions on Dutch judgment enforcement

The practical questions below come up in almost every enforcement file.

Law & More acts for creditors enforcing foreign judgments in the Netherlands and for debtors resisting enforcement. We assess which route applies, assemble the file, run the exequatur or article 431 proceedings and instruct the bailiff, and we arrange prejudgment attachment where assets are at risk. If you are holding a judgment that has not yet been paid, contact us so we can establish quickly what can be recovered here.