Netherlands shows weight of arbitration enforcement amid challenge of international issues

The new rules from the nation’s leading arbitration institute NAI (Nederlands Arbitrage Instituut) aim to clarify an earlier 2024 revision by improving the quality of arbitral provision, transparency and procedural efficiency, including the use of a new NAI platform for sharing communications.

• Read more: international arbitration developments and trends for 2025-26

They also introduced a new procedure to challenge the impartiality of arbitrators, and come after concerns about the term for parties to jointly appoint a single arbitrator, the procedure for co-arbitrators to appoint a third arbitrator and provisions around procedural costs.

These changes are designed to maintain arbitration as the preferred dispute resolution mechanism for high stake international disputes in the Netherlands.

Time impacts on arbitral decisions

In October 2025, the Russian Federation failed to get an arbitral award of almost US$50 billion set aside (link in Dutch) in the wake of the insolvency of Yukos Oil.

Hulley Enterprises, along with Veteran Petroleum and Yukos Universal Ltd, was a shareholder in the former Russian oil giant Yukos before its controversial 2006 bankruptcy, and had been previously awarded the sum in compensation for the company’s demise.

Russia had claimed it had uncovered alleged fraud in the arbitral proceedings, and had applied to the Supreme Court to have the decision set aside. However, the court ruled that the Russian Federation was too late in bringing forward the claim, ruling it was against due process to make this claim the basis of its appeal if it had evidence that could have been brought in the original proceedings.

The court decision confirms the need for parties challenging arbitral awards to raise all their potential objections at once, rather than looking to use them later for the basis of an appeal.

Territorial matters

However, the Netherlands’ supreme court did set aside a decision by Court of Appeal at the Hague (link in Dutch) that had upheld a partial arbitral award to a host of Ukrainian companies after the expropriation of their assets by Russia following the seizure of Crimea in 2014.

The ruling in December 2024 came after arbitral proceedings before the Permanent Court of Arbitration commenced by Everest and other firms. against the Russian Federation on the basis on the bilateral investment treaty between Russia and Ukraine.

After the occupation of Crimea, the region’s state council decreed all state and abandoned property of Ukraine in Crimea would be considered the property of the new Republic of Crimea, with the decree subsequently expanded a number of times to eventually include the assets of the companies that brought the case.

The Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague had rendered an award of US$129 million in favour of the companies, but the Russian Federation had sought to set aside the award on the basis that no valid arbitration agreement was in force – claiming the term “territory” in the treaty could not be extended to investments on Crimea without acknowledging Russian sovereignty over Crimea.

The Dutch Supreme Court - amongst others – ruled it could not interpret the bilateral treaty as the Netherlands was not a party to it, but could assess the application of the Court of Appeal of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties in its interpretation of that BIT. According to the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal could judge that the term “territory” used in the BIT referred to Crimea.

Under the ruling, the term is not limited to sovereign territory in view of the purpose of the BIT, but extends to effective controlled territory, without further assessing the conflict between Ukraine and the Russian Federation regarding the sovereignty of Crimea.

Sanctions implications

The Court of Appeal at the Hague upheld an appeal between two Iranian banks against Bahrain (link in Dutch) in April 2025 after finding that it did not violate sanctions.

Bank Melli and Bank Siderat had been awarded €214m by an arbitration tribunal against Bahrain after the Gulf state had liquidated Future Bank, a bank seated in the country, following sanctions against Iran and Iranian parties by the United Nations, the US and the European Union.

The Iranian banks had claimed Bahrain has violated its obligations under investment treaties and international law, which had been upheld by the tribunal before Bahrain’s appeal.

Bahrain appealed the arbitral tribunal stating it lacked jurisdiction but the Court of Appeal dismissed this, as Bahrain only contested the agreement afterwards, not during the arbitral proceedings.  It also ruled the award was not contrary to public policy, with the tribunal considering the sanctions in this instance were against Iran, and not the banks themselves.

EU precedence

In April 2025, the Court of Appeal ordered Dutch firm LC Corp (link in Dutch) to agree to end its participation in London‑seated arbitration proceedings against Poland on the 1992 bilateral investment treaty between the Netherlands and Poland, which was terminated in 2018.

In its ruling, the court determined that the arbitration qualified as tort as the arbitration agreement itself conflicted with EU law. It also ruled that both the treaty and its arbitration clause had already been withdrawn before the corporation initiated the proceedings.

The court pointed out that LC Corp would still be afforded legal protection through the Polish courts, which replaced the BIT arbitration after Poland joined the EU – despite the company’s concerns over the functioning of the Polish courts, adding that the issue would need to be addressed through the EU legal systems.

Administrative error

The Court of Appeal at the Hague ruled in April 2025 against the owners of a Peruvian television network (link in Dutch) that was appealing to set aside an arbitration award against Peru over a tax dispute.

Previously the Peruvian constitutional court had ruled on a dispute between Pantel – operators of the country’s Channel 5 – and Peruvian tax authorities that recovery of a tax debt owed by the firm infringed its right to property.

It came after it emerged an administrator appointed by the Peruvian court had failed to pay Pantel's tax debt during his administration, sparking an exponential increase in the amount of tax owed, interest accrued and subsequent penalties. The court judgment appointing the administrator was later set aside by a higher court.

Pantel had claimed the administrator was guilty of mismanagement during his tenure which dramatically reduced the value of Pantel's company, and as a result Peru was liable for the financial damage

The arbitral tribunal rejected Pantel's claim, but Pantel’s appeal claimed the decision of the constitutional court had ‘res judicata’ effect in the investment arbitration and that the arbitral tribunal failed to take account of that effect or, at the very least, wrongly dismissed its appeal on that basis

However, the Court of Appeal denied the request, assessing that the res judicata principle indeed did not apply because – according to Peruvian law – it related to another legal relationship between the parties.

As a result, it ruled, the arbitral tribunal did not violate its mandate.

Reversing rulings

The reliability and quality of arbitral proceedings in the Netherlands was highlighted in a case in June 2025 (link in Dutch), after the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled a previous arbitration award contrary to public policy.

Brazilian financial consultancy Vitrus had requested the Court of Appeal set aside an award to the defence firm Thales by ICC International Court of Arbitration after a dispute over a tender for a new Brazilian satellite system

Vitrus had argued that its claims had been denied by the ICC, and Thales’ counterclaims awarded, despite the evidence used to make the award having twice been deemed inadmissible by Brazil’s highest court during criminal proceedings, displaying unequal treatment between the parties.

The Court of Appeal agreed and deemed the award against public policy as a result. However, rather than set aside the award, it suspended proceedings for six months to enable the tribunal to reopen proceedings and remedy its original ruling.

The ruling confirms that potential flaws in arbitral proceedings may be remedied under Dutch law even after the proceedings have been concluded, endorsing the quality and the reliability of the outcome of arbitral proceedings.