Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Interpretation and Application of the New York Convention in The Netherlands

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards

Part of the book series: Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law ((GSCL,volume 23))

Abstract

Although there are some exceptions, in general, the Dutch courts are very well versed in applying the New York Convention. Besides, the Dutch arbitration statutory law, which has been recently revised, presents significant improvements regarding implementation of the New York Convention in Netherlands. This chapter, while indicating the changes brought by the new law, also provides extended discussions of cases that relate to the application of the New York Convention.

Vesna Lazić is Associate Professor on International Commercial Arbitration at the Utrecht University and a senior researcher in International Commercial Arbitration and Private International Law at the T.M.C. Asser Instituut. In 2013 she was appointed professor of the European Civil Procedure International at the University of Rijeka. Dispute settlement, especially international litigation and commercial arbitration, private international law, insolvency and commercial law are the fields of her particular interest and expertise.

This contribution is based on the research concluded on 1 March 2015 so that the literature and relevant cases published after this date are not considered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 269.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 349.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 499.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Book Four of the Code on Civil Procedure (Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering (Rv) – Boek vier), Arts 1020-1076.

  2. 2.

    The Netherlands has concluded a number of bilateral treaties concerning the enforcement of arbitral awards (eg the Belgian-Dutch Convention of 1925, the German-Dutch Convention on Enforcement of 1962 and the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the United States of America of 1956). Some of those treaties referred to enforcement under the 1927 Geneva Convention and thus have become redundant considering that both signatories have become parties to the Convention.

  3. 3.

    Although it is more appropriate to translate the ‘Voorzieningenrechter” as a ‘judge in summary proceedings’, in the literature on Dutch law he or she is usually referred to as the ‘President of the District Court’, which was the expression used in a previous version of the text. For this reason this expression is maintained here as well.

  4. 4.

    The Arbitration Act is divided into Title One (Arts 1020-1073) relating to arbitration within the Netherlands and Title Two which in Arts 1074-1076 deal with arbitration outside the Netherlands. The provisions of Arts 1074-1076 relate to a stay of court proceedings in the Netherlands and the referral to an arbitration abroad, interim measures of protection and the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.

  5. 5.

    Parliamentary document (Kamerstuk), 33071, n 5, supplement, 8 November 2011.

  6. 6.

    Parliamentary document (Kamerstuk), 33611 Wijziging van Boek 6 en Boek 10 van het Burgerlijk Wetboek en het vierde Boek van het Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering in verband met de modernisering van het Arbitragerecht, nr. 2 Tweede Kamer, vergaderjaar 2012–2013, 33 611, n 2 (2013 Proposal). Commentaries on the changes suggested in the 2013 Proposal are published in the Tijdschrift voor arbitrage (TvA) special, August 2013.

  7. 7.

    33611 Wijziging van Boek 3, Boek 6 en Boek 10 van het Burgerlijk Wetboek en het vierde Boek van het Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering in verband met de modernisering van het Arbitragerecht Nr. 5 NOTA NAAR AANLEIDING VAN HET VERSLAG (2014 Report), http://www.nai-nl.org/nl.

  8. 8.

    33 611 Wijziging van Boek 6 en Boek 10 van het Burgerlijk Wetboek en het vierde Boek van het Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering in verband met de modernisering van het Arbitragerecht NOTA VAN WIJZIGING <http://www.nai-nl.org/nl> and on https://www.eerstekamer.nl/wetsvoorstel/33611_modernisering_van_het .

  9. 9.

    Act of 2 June 2014 on the amendments to Book 3, Book 6 and Book 10 of the Civil Code and the Fourth Book of the Code of Civil Procedure in order to modernise Arbitration law, published in the Official Journal 2014- 200 (Staatsblad 2014-200) ISSN 0920-2064.

    https://www.eerstekamer.nl/wetsvoorstel/33611_modernisering_van_het .

  10. 10.

    Decision of 30 June 2014 on determining the entering into force of the Act of 2 June 2014 2014 on the amendments to Book 3, Book 6 and Book 10 of the Civil Code and the Fourth Book of the Code of Civil Procedure in order to modernise Arbitration law, published in the Official Journal 2014-254 (Staatsblad 2014-254), https://www.eerstekamer.nl/wetsvoorstel/33611_modernisering_van_het . A translation in English language can be found on http://www.nai-nl.org/downloads/Text%20Dutch%20Code%20Civil%20Procedure.pdf.

  11. 11.

    See Ibid, 20 under Q en R. Amendments concerning the enforcement of domestic awards are contained in the revised provisions of Articles 1062 and 1063 of the Act of 2015.

  12. 12.

    Decision of the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) of 25 June 2010, First Chamber, 09/02565 EE, Y OAO Rosneft (Russian Federation) v Yukos Capital s.a.r.l. (Luxembourg), original decision in Case no. LJN: BM1679 available on http://www.rechtspraak.nl, excerpt in English in Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 2010 – Vol XXXV, Netherlands No. 34 (Kluwer Law International 2010) 423 – 426.

  13. 13.

    See eg Dubai Drydocks v Bureau voor Scheeps- en Werktuigbouw [X] BV, President of the District Court Dordrecht (Voorzieningenrechter, Rechtbank, Dordrecht) of 30 June 2010, Case No. 79684 / KG RK 09-85, Yearbook Commercial Arbitration, Netherlands No. 35 (Kluwer Law International) 299 et seq., relying primarily on Art 1076 and also on Art 1075 of the Act); President of the District Court/Court of First Instance Amsterdam of 18 June 2009, Voorzieningenrechter, Rechtbank, Amsterdam, LoJack Equipment Ireland Ltd (Ireland) v A, 411230/KG RK 08-3652, 18 June 2009, Netherlands No 32; Decision of the District Court (Arrondissementsrechtbank) of Almelo of 19 July 2000, Société d’Etudes et de Commerce SA v Weyl Beef Products BV, Yearbook Commercial Arbitration, Netherlands No. 26 (Kluwer Law International 2001); Decision of the President of the District Court/Court of First Instance (Rechtbank) of Rotterdam of 24 November 1994, Isaac Glecer v Moses Israel Glecer and Estera Glecer-Nottman, Yearbook Commercial Arbitration (1996) Netherlands No. 19.

  14. 14.

    The Draft Arbitration Act published in March 2013 unfortunately did not provide for a solution to remedy the current situation. The wording in final text of the Act of 2015 does not seem to imply changes in that respect.

  15. 15.

    This is in contrast to some other legal systems, such as the case law in the United States, where the Convention can apply if an award is considered to be ‘non-domestic’, see Bergesen v Joseph Muller Corp 710 F.2d 928 (2d Cir. 1983).

  16. 16.

    See eg Decision of Supreme Court of Queensland, 29 October 1999, Resort Condominium v Bolwel, excerpt published in XX Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 1995, 628 in which the Court has held that that an order to refrain from using the know-how and trademark covered by the licensing agreement is not final as it may be suspended, varied or reopened by the tribunal which issued it and as such does not constitute an award within the meaning of the Convention.

  17. 17.

    P Sanders, Het nieuwe arbitragerecht (4th edn Kluwer, Deventer 2001) 74; Van den Berg, Handbook International Commercial Arbitration at 19 (replaced by the new Report in 2012).

  18. 18.

    V Lazić and GJ Meijer, Country Reports: Netherlands in FB Weigand, Practitioner’s Handbook on International Arbitration (Oxford University Press 2009) 661. An injunction or a restraining order in a summary provisional adjudication in référé proceedings (kort geding) before the President of the District Court (Arts 254 et seq. Code of Civil Procedure) is not a decision on the merits. Instead, its purpose is that a party can obtain immediate provisional relief in urgent cases, before a decision on the merits has been rendered by the competent court. The parties are usually not under an obligation to commence proceedings on the merits within a certain time limit. Although the judgment of the President of the District Court in summary proceedings is provisional, in practice the parties often consider it to be final. HJ Snijders, Access to Civil Procedure Abroad (C.H. Beck Verlag, Munich/Kluwer Law International, The Hague, London, Boston 1996) 269.

  19. 19.

    S Kröll, NAI Summary Arbitral Proceedings: Enforceability under the Convention, TvA (Tijdschrift voor arbitrage) (2012) 19.

  20. 20.

    Lazić and Meijer, Country Reports: Netherlands in FB Weigand, Practitioner’s Handbook on International Arbitration 662 para [9.206].

  21. 21.

    For criticism regarding an award rendered in summary proceedings under Dutch law, see eg S Besson, Arbitrage international et mesures provisoires. Étude de droit comparé, Études suisses de droit international, 105, Schulthess, Zürich (1998), n 497, 552 et seq. Some authors expressed doubts as to whether an award rendered in summary arbitral proceedings may be enforced on the basis of Article I of the Convention, see, Bommel, van der, B./Leijten, M./Ynzonides, M., (eds), A Guide to NAI Arbitration Rules (Kluwer Law International, The Hague/London/Boston 2009) 212. See also, Kröll, at 9, stating that the limited finality of the awards rendered in summary arbitral proceedings prevents their classification as awards within the meaning of the Convention. On the other hand, some authors expressed the view that the decisions rendered in summary arbitral proceedings are “arbitral awards” under Dutch law and accordingly can be enforced under the Convention. See, B King and M van Leeuwen, “Summary Arbitral Proceedings: A Powerful New Mechanism in NAI Arbitrations”, Mealey’s International Arbitration Report, Vol 15 (2000) n3, 59.

  22. 22.

    Translation VL.

  23. 23.

    In some other jurisdictions, interim awards on jurisdiction may be the subject to setting aside immediately after they have been rendered. See eg Art 16(3) of the UNCITRAL Model Law; see also decision of the United States Court of Appeal for the Seventh Circuit Yasuda Fire et al v Continental Casualty Co, 37F3d 345 (7th Cir. 1994).

  24. 24.

    Article 1074(d) of the 2014 Act reads as follows: “If a party invokes the existence of an arbitration agreement before submitting a defence in the cases mentioned in the articles 1074(a) to 1074(c) inclusive, the court shall declare its exclusive jurisdiction if the decision requested cannot be brought in arbitration or if it cannot timely be rendered in arbitration.”

  25. 25.

    Decision of the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) of 25 June 2010, First Chamber, 09/02565 EE,Y OAO Rosneft (Russian Federation) v Yukos Capital s.a.r.l. (Luxembourg), original decision in Case no. LJN: BM1679, http://www.rechtspraak.nl, excerpt in English in Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 2010 - Volume XXXV, Netherlands No. 34 (Kluwer Law International 2010) at 423 – 426.

  26. 26.

    AJ van den Berg, The New York Arbitration Convention of 1958: Towards a Uniform Judicial Interpretation (Asser/Kluwer, The Hague/Deventer 1981) 161.

  27. 27.

    In particular, the wording “inoperative or incapable of being performed” are omitted from the text under both provisions.

  28. 28.

    See also the Recommendation on the interpretation of Art II(2) and Art VII(1) of the Convention adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on 7 July 2006 at its thirty-ninth session, www.uncitral.org.

  29. 29.

    See also HJ Snijders, Nederlands arbitragerecht (3rd edn Kluwer, Deventer 2007) Art 1074, n1 346.

  30. 30.

    “…een overeenkomst tot arbitrage … waaruit voortvloeit dat arbitrage buiten Nederland moet plaats vinden”.

  31. 31.

    AJ van den Berg, R Deldenvan and HJ Snijders, Arbitragerecht (2nd edn W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink, Zwolle 1992) 172.

  32. 32.

    Decision of the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) of 29 April 1994 (HR 29 april 1994) Edelsyndicaat v Van Hout, NJ (Nederlandse jurisprudentie) 1994, 488, Tijdschrift voor arbitrage (TvA) 1994 at 187.

  33. 33.

    Legislative history/Explanatory Memorandum (Memorie van toeliching - MvT) II, Tijdschrift voor arbitrage (TvA) 1986/2 at 93. See eg decision of the Court of Appeal The Hague (Gerechtshof Den Haag) of 22 February 2000, Petrasol BV v Stolt Spur Inc, excerpt in Yearbook Commercial Arbitration (2004) Netherlands n 28. The Court of Appeal held that the court of first instance had correctly held that the more-favourable-right provision in the Convention allowed for the application of Dutch law, which provided that Dutch courts had no jurisdiction over a dispute which had been referred to arbitration abroad and that the validity of the arbitration clause had to be ascertained under the applicable law, in this case New York law as the parties had agreed that arbitration would take place in New York. The court then held that the issue on the validity of the arbitration clause in the charter party was to be examined under New York law.

  34. 34.

    The 2014 Act contains a new provision on the capacity of a state or a state entity to enter into an arbitration agreement in Article 167 of Book Ten. It provides that “[i]f a state, other legal entity of public law or a state-owned company is a party to an arbitration agreement, it may not rely upon its legislation in order to contest its capacity or authority to enter into the arbitration agreement or the arbitrability of the dispute if the other party had no knowledge of such legislation and was not supposed to have such knowledge.” (translation VL).

  35. 35.

    Art 178(2) of the Swiss Act on Private International Law was considered when drafting the provision on the law applicable to arbitration agreements in the Netherlands. Even though it has been drafted along the lines of the provision in Swiss law, the approach taken in the 2014 Act slightly differs from the relevant provision of the Swiss Act. The latter provides for the alternative application of either the law chosen by the parties, or the law governing the subject-matter of the dispute, “in particular the law governing the main contract”, or Swiss law. In other words, an arbitration agreement is valid if it is valid under either the lex arbitri, or the lex causae or under the law chosen by the parties. The text suggested in the Act and 2014 Proposal differs to some extent from the text suggested in the “Proposals for Changes to Book Four (Arbitration), Articles 1020-1076 Code on Civil Procedure” drafted by a Working group led by Prof. AJ van den Berg. “Tekst van de Voorstellen tot wijziging van het Vierde boek (Arbitrage) Artikelen 1020 – 1076 Rv”, Tijdschrift voor Arbitragerecht, 2005, 36 (the latest version of the text is dated 15 February 2005). The same text is also published on <http://www.arbitragewet.nl>. For comments on this provision and a comparison with the Swiss law, see V Lazić, Arbitration Law Reforms in the Netherlands: Formal and Substantive Validity of an Arbitration Agreement, vol 11.1 Electronic Journal of Comparative Law (May 2007), http://www.ejcl.org/111/art111-16.pdf.

  36. 36.

    See eg decision of the Court of Appeal The Hague (Gerechtshof Den Haag) of 22 February 2000, Petrasol BV v Stolt Spur Inc, excerpt in Yearbook Commercial Arbitration (2004) Netherlands No. 28.

  37. 37.

    See 2014 Proposal (Nota van Wijziging) at 6 and 7, where it states that it was a deliberate choice of the drafters to leave this issue to the interpretation of judiciary in the Netherlands.

  38. 38.

    Art 1021 of the Act was amended on 30 June 2004 so as to implement the European Directive on Electronic Commerce of 8 June 2000 (2002/31/EC, Stb 2004, no. 210). Thereby a new sentence was added expressly stating that an arbitration agreement can also be proved by electronic means. Also it was referred to an analogous application of Art 227a(1) of the Book 6 of the Civil Code.

  39. 39.

    See eg the decision of the Dutch Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) of 20 February 2004, DSM-Chemie v Fox (HR 20 february 2004) NJ 2005, 493; Supreme Court decision of 29 June 2007, Derksen v Homburg (HR 29 juni 2007), NJ 2007, 576; Decision of the Supreme Court of 19 January 2007, Meyer v Pontmeyer (HR 19 january 2007) NJ 2007, 576.

  40. 40.

    Decision of the Dutch Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) of 13 March 1981, Ermex c.s. v Haviltex, (HR 13 maart 1981) NJ 1981, 635. NJ 1981, 635; see also the decision of the Supreme Court of 19 October 2007, Vodafone v ETC (HR 19 oktober 2007) NJ 2007, 565.

  41. 41.

    Decision of the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) of 29 June 2007, Derksen v Homburg (HR 29 juni 2007), NJ 2007, 576; Decision of the Supreme Court of 19 January 2007, Meyer v Pontmeyer (HR 19 januari 2007) NJ 2007, 576.

  42. 42.

    Decision CJEU of 4 June 2009, C-234/08 (Pannon GSM Zrt.); see also Joined Cases C-240/98 to C-244/98 Océano Grupo Editorial and Salvat Editores [2000] ECR I-49 which relate to forum-selection clauses.

  43. 43.

    See, decisions CJEU of 6 October 2009, C-40/08 (Asturcom Telecomunicaciones SL), of 26 October 2006, C-168/05 (Elisa María Mostaza Claro v Centro Móvil Milenium SL) EU:C:2006:675 and of 3 April 2014, C-342/13 Katalin Sebestyén v Zsolt Csaba Kővári, OTP Bank, OTP Faktoring Követeléskezelő Zrt, Raiffeisen Bank Zrt EU:C:2014:1857.

  44. 44.

    See eg decision of the Supreme Court of 23 March 1990, Botman/Van Haaster, (HR 23 maart1990) Nederlands Jurisprudentie (1991) 214. See also, decision of the Court of First Instance Zierikzee of 19 February 1988 (Kantonrechter Zierikzee), Tijdschrift voor Arbitrage (1988) 147.

  45. 45.

    Already when the Netherlands Arbitration Act of 1986 was drafted, it was considered whether to place an arbitration clause on the “blacklist”, in particular from the point of view of a consumer in arbitration. See EH Hondius, Tien jaar arbitragewet en BW, Tijdschrift voor Arbitrage 1996 at 139. Although the relevant CJEU case law does not expressly require so, the legislator in the Netherlands opted to place arbitration clauses on the “black list.” Thus, the 2014 Act introduces the amendments to Art 236(n) of the Civil Code so as to omit the wording “one or more arbitrators.”

  46. 46.

    Decision of the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) of 2 November 1990 (HR 2 november 1981) NJ 1991, 123.

  47. 47.

    New Art 167 of Book Ten introduced by the 2014 Act reads as follows: “If a state, other legal entity of public law or a state-owned company is a party to an arbitration agreement, it may not rely upon its legislation in order to contest its capacity or authority to enter into the arbitration agreement or the arbitrability of the dispute if the other party had no knowledge of such legislation and was not supposed to have such knowledge.” (translation VL).

  48. 48.

    For more particulars on various aspects of the binding effect of the arbitration agreement, see Lazić and Meijer, Country Reports: Netherlands in FB Weigand, Practitioner’s Handbook on International Arbitration 621-625. See also National Report – The Netherlands, in J Paulsson (ed), International Handbook on Commercial Arbitration (2012) 17-19.

  49. 49.

    See eg decision of the District Court The Hague of 19 May 2004 (Rechtbank ‘s-Gravenhage) JBPr 200.

  50. 50.

    The general remarks are largely based on V Lazic and GJ Meijer, Country Reports – Netherlands in FB Weigand (ed), Practitioner’s Handbook on International Arbitration (Verlag C.H. Beck München/Copenhague 2002) 943-945 paras [108-110].

  51. 51.

    Van den Berg, New York Convention, 145.

  52. 52.

    P Sanders and AJ van den Berg (eds), The Netherlands Arbitration Act 1986 (Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, Deventer, Antwerp, London, Frankfurt, Boston, New York 1987) 50 Art 1076, n 122.

  53. 53.

    An application for setting aside may be a reason to suspend the enforcement proceedings in the Netherlands. The suspension may be conditioned by the provision of security under Art 1076(7) of the Act. See also Sanders and Van den Berg, The Netherlands Arbitration Act 1986 50 Art 1076, n 123.

  54. 54.

    Lazić and Meijer, Country Reports: Netherlands in FB Weigand, Practitioner’s Handbook on International Arbitration 687.

  55. 55.

    Van den Berg, New York Convention 269 et seq.

  56. 56.

    See also Court of Justice of the EC, 1 June 1999 (C-126/97) (ECO Swiss/Benetton) NJ 2000, 339, excerpt in Yearbook Commercial Arbitration Vol XXIV (1999) 629 et seq.

  57. 57.

    In practice, the Convention is the treaty that will most frequently be applicable, in the light of the number of signatories to the Convention.

  58. 58.

    Van den Berg, New York Convention 161.

  59. 59.

    Decision of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal of 28 April 2009, Yucos v Rosneft, TvA (Tijdschrift voor arbitrage) (2011) 15.

  60. 60.

    See eg decision of the President of the Amsterdam District Court (Judge in Summary Proceedings District Court of Amsterdam; ‘Voorzieningenrechter’) of 17 November 2011, Nikolai Viktorovich Maximov v OJSC Novolipetsky Metallurgichesky Kombinat, 491569/KG RK 11-1722, excerpt in Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 2012 – Volume XXXVII, Netherlands No, 41 (Kluwer Law International 2012) 274 – 276. It should be mentioned, however, that in the National Report – Netherlands, in J Paulsson (ed), Handbook International Commercial Arbitration, ICCA (Kluwer Law International 2012) there is a reference to an unpublished decision of the Amsterdam District Court of 17 November 2011 (n 165) in support of the determination in the Yucos decision of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal of 18 April 2009.

  61. 61.

    See section 3.2.5.

  62. 62.

    Lazić and Meijer, Country Reports: Netherlands in FB Weigand, Practitioner’s Handbook on International Arbitration 634, para [9.70].

  63. 63.

    Ibid para [9.71].

  64. 64.

    The legislative history (Memorie van toelichting – MvT II) refers to general conflict of law rules.

  65. 65.

    Van den Berg, Van Delden and Snijders, Arbitragerecht (2nd edn W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink, Zwolle 1992) 192, n 10.4.3; Snijders, at 385, Art 1076, n 1.

  66. 66.

    It should be mentioned that this is not necessarily the law applicable to the so-called subject-matter of objective arbitrability. See eg Sanders, at 235.

  67. 67.

    Decision of the Court of Appeal (Gerechtshof) in The Hague of 4 August 1993, Owerri Commercial Inc v Dielle Srl, excerpt in Yearbook Commercial Arbitration XIX (1994) Kluwer Law International, Netherlands n 15 at 703 et seq.

  68. 68.

    Ibid, 706. See also aecision of the Court of Appeal The Hague (Gerechtshof Den Haag) of 22 February 2000, Petrasol BV v Stolt Spur Inc, excerpt in Yearbook Commercial Arbitration (2004) Netherlands No 28, even though this decision does not relate to the enforcement of a foreign award, but concerns the referral to arbitration. Yet the same “conflict of law rule” was applied.

  69. 69.

    Decision of the Court of First Instance (Arrondissementsrechtbank) Almelo of 19 July 2000, Société d’Etudes et de Commerce SA v Weyl Beef Products BV, Yearbook Commercial Arbitration (2001) Netherlands n 26 at 826 et seq.

  70. 70.

    Decision of the Supreme Court (HR) of 25 May 2007, Anova Food BV, NJ 2007, 294; LJN BA2495; see also decision of the Supreme Court (HR) of 24 April 2009, IMS v Modsaf, NJ 2010, 171. NJ 2010, 171; RvdW 2009, 580; JBPr 2009, 54 NJB 2009, 923.

  71. 71.

    The decision of the President of the District Court of Amsterdam of 26 July 2012, 505950/KG RK 11-3695, 26 July 2012 Nova Shipping Ltd v. Med Marine Kilavuzluk ve Romarkaj Hizmetleri Insaat Sanayi ve Ticaret AS, excerpt in Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 2012 – Volume XXXVII, (Kluwer Law International Netherlands 2012) 282 – 284, No. 43.

  72. 72.

    Ibid para [10].

  73. 73.

    Decision of the President of the District Court of Rotterdam (Provisions Judge – voorzieningenrechter) of 28 February 2011 and the Court of Appeal of The Hague of 20 December 2011, 370214/KG RK 10-3521 and 370216/KG RK 10-3523, Catz International BV v Gilan Trading KFT, Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 2012 – Volume XXXVII, (Kluwer Law International Netherlands 2012) 271 -273 No. 40. The allegations of a violation of due process were carefully examined and it was concluded that the party was in a position to react to every submission but had failed to avail itself of this opportunity.

  74. 74.

    Decision of the President of the District Court/Court of First Instance (Rechtbank) Amsterdam of 24 April 1991, excerpt in V/O Tractoroexport v Dimpex Trading BV, Yearbook Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer Law International (1992) Netherlands No. 14, where a party raised the objection of being unable to present the case in arbitral proceedings, the Court concluding that the “defence must be considered as apparently relying on the fact that recognition or enforcement of the award would be in violation of public policy, as provided in Art 1076(1)(B) of the Code of Civil Procedure.”

  75. 75.

    Sanders and Van den Berg, The Netherlands Arbitration Act 1986 Art 1076, n 122.

  76. 76.

    Decision of the President of the District Court of Dordrecht (Voorzieningenrechter, Rechtbank) of 30 June 2010, Dubai Drydocks v Bureau voor Scheeps- en Werktuigbouw [X] BV, Dordrecht, 30 June 2010, excerpt in Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 2011 - Vol XXXVI, Netherlands No 35 (Kluwer Law International 2011) 299 – 301.

  77. 77.

    Decision of the President of the District Court of Amsterdam (Provisions Judge – voorzieningenrechter) of 24 February 2011, KG RK 10-969, Shalom v IPC Holland BV et al., Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 2012 – Vol XXXVII, (Kluwer Law International Netherlands 2012) 268-270, No 39.

  78. 78.

    Ibid.

  79. 79.

    V Lazić, ‘Enforcement of the Arbitral Awards Annulled in the Country of Origin’, Croatian Arbitration Yearbook, Vol 13 (2006) 179-204.

  80. 80.

    J Paulsson, ‘Enforcing Arbitral Awards Notwithstanding a Local Standard Annulment (LSA), 9 ICC International Court Bulletin 14, n 1 (1998)

  81. 81.

    Chromalloy Aeroservices v Arab Republic of Egypt, 939 F.Supp. 907 (D.D.C. 1996); Mealey’s International Arbitration Report 11 (1996) 8, C-54.

  82. 82.

    AJ van den Berg, ‘Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Annulled in Russia’, Journal of International Arbitration, Vol 27 Issue 2 (Kluwer Law International 2010) 186.

  83. 83.

    V Lazić, Croatian Arbitration Yearbook (2006) n 80, 202-203. Generally, on the possible approaches in the enforcement of annulled arbitral awards, see A.J. van den Berg, ‘Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Annulled in Russia’, Journal of International Arbitration, Vol 27 Issue 2 (Kluwer Law International 2010) 182-197.

  84. 84.

    See eg Hilmarton Ltd v Omnium de traitement et de valorisation (OTV), Cass. Civ. 1re, 23 March 1994, Revue de l’arbitrage (1994) 327, excerpt in XX Yearbook Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer Law International (1995) 663 et seq.; see also the subsequent decisions of Ministry of Public Works of Tunisia v Société Bec Frères, 24 February 1994, Cour d’appel de Paris, Revue de l’arbitrage (1995) 275 et seq., excerpt in XXII Yearbook Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer Law International (1997), France no 25, 682 et seq.; Chromalloy Aeroservices v Arab Republic of Egypt, Cour d’appel de Paris, 14 January 1997, Mealey’s International Arbitration Report, 12 (1997) 4, B-1 (stating, inter alia, that the application of Art V ‘must then be set aside’ B-2); Société PT Putrabali Adyamulia v SA Rena Holdings, Cour de cassation, 29 June 2007, excerpt in XXXII Yearbook Commercial Arbitration, France no 42 (Kluwer Law International 2007).

  85. 85.

    For more particulars on the issue of the possibility to follow the approach of the French courts in other jurisdictions, see Lazić, Croatian Arbitration Yearbook (2006) n. 80 179-204 and generally the extensive literature on the issue of the enforcement of annulled arbitral awards following the decision in Hilmarton (France) and Chromalloy (US) referred to therein. See also, AJ van den Berg, ‘Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Annulled in Russia’, Journal of International Arbitration, Vol 27 Issue 2 (Kluwer Law International 2010) 179 – 198, addressing the possibilities of the enforcement of annulled awards.

  86. 86.

    The same appeared to be true in the unconvincing and unsuccessful attempt to apply the French formula in the Chromalloy case in the United States.

  87. 87.

    Decision of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal (Gerechtshof) of 28 April 2009, 200,005,269, Yukos Capital s.a.r.l. (Luxembourg) v OAO Rosneft (Russian Federation), (Tijdschrift voor arbitrage 2011) 15, excerpt in Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 2009 - Volume XXXIV, Netherlands No 31 (Kluwer Law International 2009) 703 – 714.

  88. 88.

    Here only the relevant legal issues are addressed. References to the rather peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as well as other “arbitration unrelated” aspects and considerations are omitted.

  89. 89.

    Decision of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal (Gerechtshof) of 28 April 2009 200,005,269, Yukos Capital s.a.r.l. (Luxembourg) v OAO Rosneft (Russian Federation), www.rechtspraak.nl case no. LJN BI2451, excerpt in XXXIV Yearbook Commercial Arbitration, Netherlands no 31 (Kluwer Law International (2009) para [21].

  90. 90.

    For a criticism of this decision, see A.J. van den Berg, ‘Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Annulled in Russia’, Journal of International Arbitration, Vol 27 Issue 2 (2010) 179 – 198.

  91. 91.

    President of the District Court of Amsterdam (Provisions Judge, voorzieningenrechter) of 7 November 2011, 491569/KG RK 11-1722, Nikolai Viktorovich Maximov v. OJSC Novolipetsky Metallurgichesky Kombinat, excerpt in Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 2012 – Volume XXXVII, Netherlands 41 (Kluwer Law International 2012) 274 – 276.

  92. 92.

    Decision of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal (Gerechtshof) of 28 April 2009 200,005,269, Yukos Capital s.a.r.l. (Luxembourg) v OAO Rosneft (Russian Federation), www.rechtspraak.nl case no LJN BI2451, excerpt in XXXIV Yearbook Commercial Arbitration, Netherlands no 31 (Kluwer Law International 2009) para [4] of the excerpt.

  93. 93.

    AJ van den Berg, ‘Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Annulled in Russia’, Journal of International Arbitration, Vol 27 Issue 2 (2010) 189.

  94. 94.

    L Strikwerda, Inleiding tot het Nederlandse internationaal privaatrecht (Kluwer, Deventer 2012) 278-279.

  95. 95.

    Decision of the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) of 25 June 2010, First Chamber, 09/02565 EE,Y OAO Rosneft (Russian Federation) v Yukos Capital s.a.r.l. (Luxembourg), original decision in Case no LJN: BM1679 available on http://www.rechtspraak.nl, excerpt in English in Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 2010 - Volume XXXV, Netherlands No 34 (Kluwer Law International 2010) 423 – 426.

  96. 96.

    For the first time the issue of the “prohibition of discrimination under Article III of the Convention on leave for an enforcement procedure in the Netherlands” was raised in a publication by the Dutch practising lawyer Ph. De Korte, “Welke consequenties heft het discriminatieverbod van artikel III van het Verdrag van New York voor de Nederlandse exequaturprocedure” TvA no 3 (2007).

  97. 97.

    Decision of the Court of Appeal (Gerechtshof) Amsterdam of 16 July 1992, G.W.L. Kersten & Co BV v Société Commerciale Raoul-Duval et Cie, excerpt in Yearbook Commercial Arbitration, Netherlands 16 (Kluwer Law International 1992) – the Court of First Instance Utrecht granted the request for enforcement and an appeal was permitted.

  98. 98.

    AJ van den Berg, Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Annulled in Russia – Case Comment on Dutch Supreme Court of 25 June 2010, 28 Journal of International Arbitration, Issue 6 (2011) 617-641.

  99. 99.

    For criticism of the judgment of the Supreme Court, see Berg, A.J. van den, Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Annulled in Russia –Case Comment on Dutch Supreme Court of 25 June 2010, Journal of International Arbitration, Vol 28 Issue 6 (Kluwer Law International 2011) 617-641.

  100. 100.

    Such a result may be contrary to the constitutional right to legal remedies, a right which is also incorporated in the EU (Charter on Fundamental Rights).

  101. 101.

    The different approach in applying these provisions has been explained by the Supreme Court to the effect that these provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure apply unless a treaty provides otherwise (and Article III allegedly does provide otherwise in the view of the Court).

  102. 102.

    No changes in this respect are provided under the new 2014 Act.

  103. 103.

    For more particulars on a comparative view concerning approaches to “define” the notion of objective arbitrability in France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United States, see Lazić, V., Insolvency Proceedings and Commercial Arbitration (Kluwer Law International, the Hague/London/Boston 1999), Chapter IV on the Subject-matter arbitrability, 143 et seq.

  104. 104.

    In general, on subject-matter arbitrability in the Netherlands, see V Lazić, ‘Arbitration Law Reforms in the Netherlands: Formal and Substantive Validity of an Arbitration Agreement’, vol 11.1 Electronic Journal of Comparative Law (May 2007), http://www.ejcl.org/111/art111-16.pdf.

  105. 105.

    Decision of the Supreme Court (HR) of 10 June 1955, Duval v Kian, NJ 1955 n 570; See also Snijders, Art 1020, n 5.

  106. 106.

    Ibid, Art 1020. n 5.a.

  107. 107.

    P Sanders, Het nieuwe arbitragerecht (4th edn Kluwer, Deventer 2001) 36.

  108. 108.

    P Snijders, Art 1020, n 5.a.

  109. 109.

    P Sanders, Het nieuwe arbitragerecht (4th edn Kluwer, Deventer 2001) 36.

  110. 110.

    Decision of the Supreme Court (HR) 20 June 1969, NJ 1969, n 332; Decision of the District Court of ‘s-Hertogenbosch (Rechtbank ‘s-Hertogenbosch ) of 12 November 1980, NJ 1981, n. 372; President of the Utrecht District Court (Pres. Rechtbank Utrecht) 12 May 1992, NJ 1993, no. 443; P Sanders, Het nieuwe arbitragerecht (4th edn Kluwer, Deventer 2001) 36-38; Van den Berg, Van Delden and Snijders, Arbitragerecht (2nd edn W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink, Zwolle 1992) 33.

  111. 111.

    V Lazić, ‘Arbitration Law Reforms in the Netherlands: Formal and Substantive Validity of an Arbitration Agreement’, vol 11.1 Electronic Journal of Comparative Law (May 2007), 6. (http://www.ejcl.org/111/art111-16.pdf).

  112. 112.

    P Snijders, Art 1020, n 5.

  113. 113.

    Decision of the Supreme Court (HR) of 21 March 1997 (Eco Swiss/Benetton), NJ 1998, 207. See also the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 1 June 1999 (Eco Swiss/Benetton) (C-126/97).

  114. 114.

    Decision of the Supreme Court (HR) of 26 November 2010, Silver Lining Finance v Perstorp Waspik, NJ 2011, 55.

  115. 115.

    Arbitral proceedings concerning a claim for payment against the estate, which are pending at the moment of the commencement of bankruptcy, may be continued after such claim is contested in the bankruptcy verification proceedings (Art 29 of the Bankruptcy Act).

  116. 116.

    Snijders, Art1020, n 6; M Ynzonide, ‘De invloed van faillietverklaring op arbitrage’, (1991) 6008 Weekblad voor privaatrecht, notariaat en registratie (WPNR) 390, 394. P Sanders, ‘Arbitrage en faillissement (1988) 6 Tijdschrift voor arbitrage (TvA) 169. Generally, on the summary of the positon in the legal writings in the Netherlands, see Lazić, Insolvency Proceedings and Commercial Arbitration, 165. V Lazić, ‘Arbitration and Insolvency Proceedings: Claims of Ordinary Bankruptcy Creditors’, (1999) 3 Electronic Journal of Comparative Law, 8 http://www.ejcl.org/33/art33-2.html.

  117. 117.

    Sanders, TvA 88/6, 169; P Sanders, Het nieuwe arbitragerecht (4th edn Kluwer, Deventer 2001) 43; AJ van den Berg, R van Delden and HJ Snijders, Netherlands Arbitration Law (Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, Deventer/Boston 1993) 33.

  118. 118.

    HJ Snijders and SL Buruma, Bouwarbitrage en civile rechter, Publikatie van de Vereniging voor Bouwrecht, n 23 (Kluwer, Deventer 1995) 50-51.

  119. 119.

    Decision of the Supreme Court (HR) of 16 April 1999, NJ 2001, 1, Brown v Ultrafin; RvdW 66.

  120. 120.

    See eg, National Report – the Netherlands, Handbook International Commercial Arbitration 17, n 51 and 52 and the literature and case law referred to.

  121. 121.

    See eg, case law in the United States, illustrating that the courts in the United States have applied various approaches when addressing the enforceability of arbitration agreements in bankruptcy, eg Hays & Co v Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc, 885 F.2d 1149 (3d Cir. 1989); In re FRG, 115 B.R. 72 (E.D.Pa. 1990); United States Lines, Inc v American Steamship Owners Mutual Protection Association Inc, (In re United States Lines, Inc) 199 B.R. 465 (S.D.N.Y. 1996), 1997 US Distr. Lexis 1915 (S.D.N.Y. 1997); In re Mintze, 434 F.3d 222, 231 (3d Cir. 2006); In re S.W. Bach & Co., 2010 WL 810128, (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2010). In re D&B Swine Farms, Inc, 2010 WL 358493, at 4-6 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 23, 2010); Moglia v Public Employers Ins Co, 547 F.3d 835, 837 (7th Cir. 2008); In re Fleming Cos, 2007 WL 788921, (D. Del. Mar. 16, 2007).

  122. 122.

    See eg the decision of the Court of First Instance Zierikzee of 19 February 1988 (Kantonrechter Zierikzee), Tijdschrift voor arbitrage (TvA) (1998) 147 and the decision of the Haarlem District Court (Rechtbank Haarlem) of 11 May 1993, Tijdschrift voor Arbitrage (TvA) (1993) 238.

  123. 123.

    V Lazić, ‘Cross-Border Insolvency and Arbitration: Which Consequences of Insolvency Proceedings Should be Given Effect in Arbitration?’ in S Kröll, LA Mistelis, P Perales Viscasillas, V Rogers (eds), International Arbitration and International Commercial Law: Synergy, Convergence and Evolution (Liber Amicorum Eric Bergsten, Kluwer Law International 2011) 343.

  124. 124.

    Dutch courts have denied effect to an arbitration clause in certain circumstances by applying the relevant provisions of the Civil Code. Thus, an arbitration clause contained in the general conditions was considered unacceptable as being unreasonably onerous to the other party by the application of Art 6:233 of the Civil Code. See eg decision of the Supreme Court of 23 March 1990, Botman/Van Haaster, (HR 23 maart1990) Nederlands Jurisprudentie 1991, 214; Decision of the Court of First Instance Zierikzee of 19 February 1988 (Kantonrechter Zierikzee), Tijdschrift voor Arbitrage 1988, 147. It should be emphasized that these decisions relate to the “indirect enforcement of arbitration agreements and referral to arbitration”, and not to the enforcement of an arbitral award.

  125. 125.

    Court of Justice of the EC, 1 June 1999 (C-126/97) (ECO Swiss/Benetton) NJ 2000, 339, also published in Yearbook Commercial Arbitration Vol XXIV (Kluwer Law International 1999) 629 et seq.

  126. 126.

    It was also the intention of the legislator to develop the concept of “international public policy” by case law as expressed in the legislative history (Memorie van toelichting).

  127. 127.

    Sanders and Van den Berg, Art 1076, n 124. See also, decisions of the President of the District Court/Court of First Instance (Rechtbank) of Breda of 8 March 1995 and the Court of Appeal (Gerechtshof) ‘s Hertogenbosch of 14 July 1995, Sneek Hardhout Import BV v Karl Schlüter KG (GmbH & Co.), excerpt in Yearbook Commercial Arbitration Netherlands No. 20 (Kluwer Law International 1993), where the Dutch Courts enforced an award rendered by two arbitrators in Germany, even though an award rendered in the Netherlands by an even number of arbitrators would be set aside as being contrary to public policy. See also, the Decision of the Court of Appeal The Hague of 3 May 1962, S&S (Schip &Schade) 1963, 42.

  128. 128.

    See eg, Decision of the Supreme Court of 24 April 2009, IMS v Modsaf, NJ 2010, 171; Supreme Court 25 May 2007, Spaanderman v Anova Food BV, NJ 2007, 294.

  129. 129.

    Article 991 was deleted in 1992, but the text of Articles 1075 and 1076 has not yet been adjusted.

  130. 130.

    President of the District Court of Amsterdam (Judge in summary proceedings; Provisions Judge; ‘ Voorzieningenrechter’ ), 482043/KG RK 11-362, 10 May 2012, Kompas Overseas Inc v OAO Severnoe Rechnoe Parokhodstvo (Northern River Shipping Company), excerpt in Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 2012 – Vol XXXVII, Netherlands No 42 (Kluwer Law International 2012) 277 – 281, para [26].

  131. 131.

    For a criticism of this decision, see AJ van den Berg, ‘Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Annulled in Russia’, Journal of International Arbitration, (Kluwer Law International 2010) Vol 27 Issue 2 179-198.

  132. 132.

    For a criticism of the decision of the Dutch Supreme Court, see AJ van den Berg, ‘Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Annulled in Russia – Case Comment on Dutch Supreme Court of 25 June 2010, 28 Journal of International Arbitration, Issue 6 (2011) 617-641.

  133. 133.

    See section 2.1.

  134. 134.

    Discussed under 3.2.5.

  135. 135.

    See eg Hilmarton Ltd v Omnium de traitement et de valorisation (OTV), Cass. Civ. 1re, 23 March 1994, Revue de l’arbitrage (1994) 327, excerpt in XX Yearbook Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer Law International (1995) 663 et seq.; see also the subsequent decisions, Ministry of Public Works of Tunisia v Société Bec Frères, 24 February 1994, Cour d’appel de Paris, Revue de l’arbitrage (1995) 275 et seq., excerpt in XXII Yearbook Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer Law International (1997), France no 25, 682 et seq.; Chromalloy Aeroservices v Arab Republic of Egypt, Cour d’appel de Paris, 14 January 1997, Mealey’s International Arbitration Report, 12 (1997) 4, B-1 (stating, inter alia, that the application of Art V ‘must then be set aside’ B-2); Société PT Putrabali Adyamulia v SA Rena Holdings, Cour de Cassation, 29 June 2007, excerpt in XXXII Yearbook Commercial Arbitration, France no 42 (Kluwer Law International 2007).

  136. 136.

    Chromalloy Aeroservices v Arab Republic of Egypt, 939 F.Supp. 907 (D.D.C. 1996); Mealey’s International Arbitration Report 11 (1996) 8, C-54.

  137. 137.

    Text and commentary are available at www.newyorkconvention.org. It is summarised in AJ van den Berg, ‘Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Annulled in Russia’, Journal of International Arbitration (Kluwer Law International 2010 Vol 27 Issue 2) 195-198.

REFERENCES

  • P Sanders, Het nieuwe arbitragerecht, 4th edn (Kluwer Deventer, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  • H J Snijders, Nedrelands Arbitragerecht, 4th edn (Kluwer Deventer, 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  • ‘National Report – The Netherlands’, in J Paulsson (ed) International Handbook on Commercial Arbitration (2012).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, Utrecht University, Janskerkhof 12, Utrecht, 3512 BL, The Netherlands

    Vesna Lazić

Authors
  1. Vesna Lazić
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vesna Lazić .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Columbia Law School, New York, New York, USA

    George A. Bermann

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lazić, V. (2017). Interpretation and Application of the New York Convention in The Netherlands. In: Bermann, G. (eds) Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 23. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50915-0_27

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50915-0_27

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-50913-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-50915-0

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation