This article was featured in Jus Mundi‘s 2025 Arbitration Year in Review, an annual publication analyzing arbitration developments across 40+ jurisdictions on 6 continents. This edition brings together young practitioners and senior experts to capture the year’s most significant legislative reforms, enforcement trends, and institutional innovations.
THE AUTHORS:
Allard Kool, Associate at Houthoff
Dawit Agoub, Associate at Houthoff
2025 has been an eventful year for arbitration in the Netherlands. Various landmark rulings have been issued by the Dutch courts. This article provides an overview of the most significant issues of those rulings.
Supreme Court Issues Final Ruling in Yukos Set‑Aside Proceedings
On 17 October 2025, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands issued a judgment that brought to an end the set-aside proceedings between Yukos Universal v. Russia. The tribunal seated in The Hague awarded approximately USD 50 billion to the claimants for, among other things, the expropriation of their assets.
The District Court of the Hague initially set aside the award, but this decision was later overturned by the Court of Appeal of The Hague. In 2021, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands issued a first ruling in these proceedings. It held, in short, that the Court of Appeal had failed to recognize that allegations of fraud can be raised during set-aside proceedings. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeal of Amsterdam.
The 2025 Supreme Court appeal concerned the Russian Federation’s complaints that the Court of Appeal of Amsterdam had rejected its arguments that the award had been obtained by fraud. That allegation was only raised in the appeal and not before the District Court of The Hague.
The Court of Appeal of Amsterdam declared the arguments, which in essence constituted a change of claim, inadmissible on due process grounds. The Supreme Court rejected the Russian Federation’s appeal because the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure prohibits appeals against decisions rejecting a change of claim.
Intra‑EU Arbitration
After the European Court of Justice issued decisions in cases such as Achmea v. Slovakia (I), Komstroy v. Moldova, and Micula v. Romania (I), intra-EU arbitration has come under increasing pressure. These rulings eventually led several EU Member States, including the Netherlands, to withdraw from the Energy Charter Treaty (1994) (“ECT”). That withdrawal took effect on 28 June 2025. In case law as well, 2025 proved to be a tumultuous year for intra-EU arbitration.
LC Corp v. Poland
In LC Corp v. Poland, the Court of Appeal of Amsterdam granted an anti-suit injunction that requires LC Corp to end its London-seated United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (“UNCITRAL”) arbitration against Poland. The Court of Appeal of Amsterdam held that the principle of Kompetenz-Kompetenz does not prohibit the Dutch courts from taking action.
It further held that the arbitration clause in the Netherlands-Poland BIT (1992) has been terminated due to its incompatibility with EU law and rejected LC Corp’s reliance on the ECT’s sunset clause. Continuing the arbitration would therefore be unlawful under Dutch law. An appeal is pending before the Supreme Court.
AES Solar and others (PV Investors) v. Spain
In AES Solar and others (PV Investors) v. Spain, the District Court of Amsterdam rules on the enforcement of an intra-EU award and its compatibility with EU State Aid Law. Although enforcement action was pending in the United States, Spain already made claims to obtain the full amounts awarded to AES and AEF arguing that such was required by its standstill obligation under EU State Aid Law. The District Court of Amsterdam rejected the payment claim, but held that any successful enforcement action would give rise to an obligation to repay the amounts to Spain.
Sovereign Immunity
Despite the Supreme Court’s strict case law on the interpretation of sovereign immunity from execution, the Netherlands remains an active forum for levying attachments on the property of foreign sovereign entities. Out- comes, however, differ on a case-by-case basis. Recent case law reflects this with diverging approaches.
Enforcement Action Against the Russian Federation and Its Assets
In Zhnyva v. Gazprom, the District Court of The Hague rejected a request for the recognition and enforcement of a Ukrainian court decision against Gazprom. In that case, a Ukrainian court had held that Gazprom was an alter ego of the Russian Federation. The District Court of the Hague adop- ted this finding and subsequently denied jurisdiction over the request on the ground that Russia’s sovereign immunity can also be attributed to Gazprom. In a separate judgment, the pre-judgment attachments levied by Zhnyva were lifted. The interim relief judge held that its was unlikely that the findings on sovereign immunity would be overturned on appeal.
In DTEK v. Russia, the District Court of The Hague rejected Gazprom’s request to lift pre-judgment attachments. The interim relief judge held that the attached shares in Gazprom International could be regarded as property of the Russian Federation due to the latter’s control over those shares. However, the interim relief judge held that the assets served a commercial purpose, rather than a public purpose, given Gazprom’s activities.
State Immunity Is No Bar for Auction of State-Owned Property
In a case between an undisclosed Iranian state-owned entity and Heuvel Vastgoed, the District Court of Rotterdam rejected a bid to reclaim a property after it was seized and auctioned. The state owned-entity argued that the seizure and the subsequent sale were void because the property was protected by state immunity from execution.
The District Court of Rotterdam ruled that a buyer at a public execution auction is generally entitled to rely on the validity of the transfer of ownership. The District Court of Rotterdam decided that the principle of legal certainty protects the buyer, even where the seizure of the state entity’s property may have violated procedural rules regarding public service goods.
Jurisdiction via Most Favor Nation (“MFN”)-Clause Accepted
In Venezuela US v. Venezuela, the Court of Appeal of The Hague rejected Venezuela’s request for setting aside a PCA (Permanent Court of Arbitration)-administered UNCITRAL award relating to the investments made in the Venezuelan oil sector. The Tribunal rejected jurisdiction by means of the arbitration clause in the applicable Barbados-Venezuela BIT (1994) but upheld jurisdiction based on the MFN-clause. The Court of Appeal of The Hague adopted the tribunal’s reasoning.
Article 8 of the BIT stipulates that disputes can be submitted to ICSID-arbitration or, if Venezuela has not become a contracting State of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (1965) (“ICSID Convention”), under either the ICSID Additional Facility Arbitration Rules or UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. The Court of Appeal of The Hague held, in line with the tribunal, that these later options were intended only as temporary solutions, given that the BIT was concluded while Venezuela’s accession to the ICSID Convention was still pending. Eventually Venezuela became a contracting party to the ICSID Convention but withdrew from the convention in 2012. According to the Court of Appeal of The Hague, the arbitration clause in Article 8 of the BIT no longer reflected a valid offer to arbitrate.
However, Article 3 of the BIT grants investors treatment no less favorable than that accorded to investors of any third State. This MFN clause also expressly applies to the arbitration clause in Article 8 of the BIT. In both the arbitration and the set-aside proceedings, the investor relied on various BITs containing more favorable arbitration provisions. In particular, the Ecuador-Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of BIT (1993) allows investors to initiate UNCITRAL arbitration. The Court of Appeal of The Hague, therefore, concluded that the tribunal had rightfully assumed jurisdiction.
Res Judicata Effect of Domestic Judgment in Arbitration
In Panamericana Television v. Peru, the Court of Appeal of The Hague rejected the investor’s request to set aside a PCA-administered UNCITRAL award relating to a dispute involving a local TV station.
The investor argued that the award must be set aside because the tribunal did not apply the principle of res judicata to a prior judgment by the Peruvian Constitutional Court holding the Peruvian authorities accountable for an accruing tax debt.
The Court of Appeal of The Hague first determined that the issue was governed by Dutch law as the procedural law governing the arbitration. It then held that the tribunal did not violate its mandate, having correctly applied the relevant standards for res judicata. The Court further held that res judicata does not form part of Dutch or international public policy and therefore could not justify setting aside the award.
Jurisdiction Over Arbitrator Release of Mandate
On 9 May 2025, the Dutch Supreme Court issued a judgment clarifying which body has jurisdiction to decide a request by an arbitrator to be released from his mandate.
The Court of Appeal of Amsterdam had set aside an arbitral award rendered under the NAI (Netherlands Arbitration Institute) Arbitration Rules 2015 because it was issued by only two of the three arbitrators. The third arbitrator notified all parties at a late stage of the proceedings that he wanted to be released from his mandate. The NAI administrator, who decides over such a request under the applicable rules, denied the request.
One of the parties then initiated summary proceedings before the state courts to secure the arbitrator’s release, but that request was denied. The arbitrator subsequently announced that he would initiate summary proceedings himself. The two remaining arbitrators rendered the award shortly thereafter. The Court of Appeal of Amsterdam held that this sequence of events violated public policy.
The Supreme Court appeal concerned the question whether it was still possible to initiate summary proceedings before the state courts, after the NAI-administrator had already rejected the request for release. Article 1029(2) of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure provides that such a decision is to be made by a third-party designated by the parties, or, in the absence of such designation, by the interim relief judge.
The Supreme Court reversed the decision, holding that Article 1029(2) only grants jurisdiction to the state court if the parties have not designated a third party. Because the parties agreed to the NAI Rules, such a designation had been made.
Independence and Impartiality of the Arbitrators
In a decision dated 7 May 2025, the District Court of Zeeland-West Brabant upheld a challenge against an arbitrator. The challenge arose after it was discovered that the arbitrator had incorporated a new company together with one of the parties involved in the pending arbitration.
The court ruled that this circumstance alone was sufficient to challenge an arbitrator’s independence. The arbitrator had also failed to disclose the relationship with the party in question, which independently gave rise to justifiable doubts regarding his impartiality.
Inadmissible Evidence in Another State – Violation of Public Policy
In Vitrus Consultoria de Mercados v. Thales International Latin America, the Court of Appeal of Amsterdam suspended the set-aside proceedings and remitted the award to the tribunal due to potential violations of public policy. In the arbitration, Thales had relied on statements that were later declared inadmissible in criminal proceedings in Brazil. Vitrus’s objections against relying on these statements were briefly rejected by the tribunal. The Court of Appeal of Amsterdam held that the tribunal therefor could not assume the statements to be reliable. The award was thus rendered contrary to public policy. Because the tribunal could also rely on other admissible evidence, the court remitted the case under Article 1065a of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure.
Evidence of the Arbitration Agreement (Article IV New York Convention)
In Melbourne Investments v. Sodiam, the Court of Appeal of Amsterdam granted a request for leave for the enforcement of an award, despite the fact that the original arbitration agreement could not be produced.
Article IV of the New York Convention requires the party requesting leave for enforcement to provide the authentic arbitration agreement or a duly authenticated copy thereof. The Court of Appeal of Amsterdam held that this requirement had nonetheless been satisfied. The purpose of Article IV is to verify the existence of the arbitration agreement, which was sufficiently established by the parties’ conduct, in particular, the fact that the resisting party had itself initiated the arbitration.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Allard Kool is an associate at Houthoff in the Arbitration and Supreme Court Litigation practice groups. He specialies in international (investment) arbitration, civil law and public international law. Allard also coaches the University of Amsterdam’s team for the Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot.
Dawit Agoub is an associate at Houthoff in the Litigation & Arbitration practice. He focuses on commercial and investment arbitration, as well as arbitration-related litigation before national courts, including proceedings concerning the enforcement and annulment of arbitral awards.
Discover more insights into the latest developments in arbitration in 2025 from around the world now
*The views and opinions expressed by authors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations, employers, or Daily Jus, Jus Mundi, or Jus Connect.
