How the Dutch Evidence Law Reform (WMB) Is Changing Civil Litigation in the Netherlands, 2026 Practical Guide

The Wet vereenvoudiging en modernisering bewijsrecht (WMB) entered into force on 1 January 2025, marking the most significant overhaul of evidence rules Netherlands courts have applied in decades. For litigation partners, in-house counsel and claims teams, the Netherlands evidence law reform 2025 demands immediate changes to how writs of summons are substantiated, how disclosure requests are framed, and how the new inspection right (inzagerecht) is deployed in commercial disputes. With more than a full year of courtroom application now behind us, early judicial decisions are revealing clear patterns, and exposing the tactical adjustments every practitioner must make in 2026.

This guide distils the legislative changes, explains Articles 194–195 DCCP in practical terms, and provides actionable checklists, sample language and lessons drawn from the first wave of case law.

TL;DR, What Every Litigator Must Know About the WMB

The WMB restructures how evidence is gathered, requested and assessed in Dutch civil procedure 2026 and beyond. Pleading standards are higher, inspection rights are broader, and judges are actively enforcing the new framework. Here are the five things to act on immediately:

• Upgrade your writ of summons. The substantiation obligation is materially stricter, attach core documentary evidence at the outset and explain its relevance in the body of your pleading.
• Learn the new article numbers. The former Article 843a disclosure regime has been replaced and expanded by Articles 194–195 DCCP. Motions citing old provisions risk refusal on procedural grounds.
• Use the inzagerecht proactively. The inspection right now sits within the evidence chapter of the DCCP and can be invoked during proceedings, not only as a standalone preliminary action.
• Anticipate proportionality objections. Courts are applying a structured proportionality and relevance test. Prepare detailed justifications for every document category you request.
• Preserve evidence early. The WMB works alongside provisional measures (Article 205 DCCP) for evidence preservation. Map documents before issuing proceedings and consider pre-suit preservation orders where destruction risk exists.

What Changed Under the Netherlands Evidence Law Reform 2025 (WMB), Legislative Summary

The WMB was part of a broader package of Justice and Security Acts announced by the Government of the Netherlands on 23 December 2024 and effective from 1 January 2025. The reform simplifies and modernises the evidence provisions of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (DCCP), consolidating scattered rules into a coherent framework within the evidence chapter.

Key Textual Changes: Articles 194, 195 and 195a

The most consequential textual changes visible in the 2025 DCCP consolidation published by De Rechtspraak include the recasting of the obligation to produce documents (exhibitieplicht) into Article 194, the codification of the inspection right in Article 195, and the introduction of Article 195a addressing confidentiality regimes. The former Article 843a, long the sole statutory basis for disclosure in Dutch litigation, has been repealed and its substance redistributed across these new provisions with enhanced procedural detail.

Articles 194–195 DCCP Explained, Exhibitieplicht, Exceptions and Procedure

Article 194 DCCP establishes the exhibitieplicht: a party’s obligation to produce specific documents or data in its possession that are relevant to the resolution of the dispute. Article 195 codifies the inzagerecht (inspection right), enabling a party to request access to documents held by the opposing party or by third parties where those documents bear on the claim or defence.

The core criteria a court evaluates under Article 194 are:

• Legitimate interest. The requesting party must demonstrate a legitimate interest in the production of the specific documents.
• Sufficient specificity. The request must identify the documents or categories of documents with reasonable precision, “fishing expeditions” remain impermissible.
• Relevance to a legal relationship. The documents must concern a legal relationship to which the requesting party is a party or in which it has a direct interest.

Common Judicial Grounds to Refuse

Article 194(2) sets out exceptions that courts have actively relied upon in early decisions:

• Compelling reasons (gewichtige redenen). This includes professional privilege (attorney-client, medical), trade secrets and genuinely confidential commercial information.
• Proportionality. Where production would impose a disproportionate burden relative to the interest served, courts may limit or refuse the request.
• Proper administration of justice. A catch-all ground allowing judges to refuse requests that would obstruct efficient case management.

Procedural Steps to Bring an Article 194 Application

An Article 194 application in disclosure in Dutch litigation typically follows these steps:

1. Identify with specificity the documents or categories sought and explain relevance to each element of the claim or defence.
2. State the legal relationship connecting the requesting party to the documents.
3. Address anticipated objections (privilege, proportionality) preemptively in your motion.
4. File the request within the proceeding (interlocutory motion) or, in urgent cases, via preliminary relief proceedings.

Sample application wording: “Claimant respectfully requests the Court, pursuant to Article 194 DCCP, to order Defendant to produce all correspondence and internal memoranda dated between [date] and [date] relating to [specified agreement/transaction], being documents in Defendant’s possession that are directly relevant to the assessment of Claimant’s claim for [breach of contract / damages] and that concern a legal relationship to which Claimant is a party.”

The Inzagerecht (Inspection Right) in Practice, Preparing and Litigating Inspection Requests

The inzagerecht inspection right under Article 195 is the procedural mechanism through which a party gains access to, rather than mere copies of, documents, data and physical objects. In practice, this right is broader than its predecessor under Article 843a because it now sits squarely within the evidence chapter, giving courts a clearer mandate to order inspection as part of case management.

From Article 843a to Articles 194–195: What’s Different

Under the old regime, Article 843a stood outside the evidence chapter, which created jurisdictional ambiguity and limited its procedural integration. The 2025 changes consolidate document production and inspection into a single evidence framework. Industry observers expect this to make judges more willing to order phased disclosure, first inspection, then selective production, reducing costs and scope disputes.

When preparing an inspection request, courts expect the following mandatory elements:

• A clear description of the items to be inspected. Specify document types, date ranges and custodians.
• An explanation of relevance. Link each category to a specific factual issue in dispute.
• A proposed inspection protocol. Offer practical arrangements, location, timing, confidentiality measures, whether copying is sought alongside viewing.
• Proportionality justification. Demonstrate that inspection is the least intrusive means of obtaining the evidence needed.

Provisional Measures to Secure Evidence (Article 205)

Where there is a genuine risk that evidence will be destroyed, altered or lost, Article 205 DCCP provides a basis for provisional measures to preserve evidence before or during proceedings. Practitioners should consider pre-suit preservation orders particularly in disputes involving digital records, where deletion is trivially easy and audit trails may be limited.

Pleadings and Substantiation Under the WMB, Drafting Checklist and Sample Language

The substantiation obligation writ of summons now carries real teeth. The WMB requires parties to substantiate their factual claims with documentary evidence from the outset, not merely at a later procedural stage. This represents a paradigm shift for litigation strategy Netherlands practitioners have long relied on: the practice of holding back evidence until the reply or rejoinder stage is now procedurally risky.

When to Plead Facts vs. Attach Documents

The new regime distinguishes between the obligation to state facts (which remains the baseline) and the obligation to substantiate those facts with supporting evidence. The practical rule is straightforward: if you have a document that supports a factual allegation, attach it to the writ. If you do not yet have the document, explain what evidence exists, where it is located and why an Article 194 request is necessary to obtain it.

Drafting Checklist

• Identify every factual allegation in the writ. For each one, note which document(s) substantiate it.
• Attach core documents as exhibits. Contracts, correspondence, invoices and expert reports that are already in your possession must accompany the writ.
• Cross-reference exhibits in the body text. Each factual claim should explicitly cite the exhibit number and explain its relevance.
• Flag evidence gaps. Where documents are held by the opposing party or a third party, include a specific Article 194 request or signal that one will follow.
• Sequence strategically. Lead with your strongest documentary evidence; follow with witness evidence indications and expert evidence proposals.

Strategic Use of Limited Substantiation

Not every case warrants full disclosure at the writ stage. In disputes where early production would reveal commercially sensitive strategy, such as damages quantification methodology in competition law cases, practitioners can substantiate the existence and general nature of evidence without producing it in full, reserving detailed production for a later stage or subject to a confidentiality order under Article 195a.

How Judges Have Applied the WMB in 2025–2026, Early Case Law and Practical Lessons

With Dutch civil procedure 2026 now operating fully under the WMB framework, early practitioner commentary and published court decisions reveal four concrete lessons for litigators.

Lesson 1: Courts Insist on a Clear Relevance Test

Early indications suggest that judges are taking the relevance requirement seriously and are prepared to refuse requests that do not clearly link each document category to a contested factual issue. Generic requests for “all documents relating to” a broad commercial relationship have been met with judicial scepticism. Practitioner commentary published by LexQuire in early 2026, reflecting on the first year with the WMB, notes that courts are requiring a degree of specificity that exceeds what was typical under Article 843a practice.

Lesson 2: Privilege Boundaries Are Being Actively Policed

Courts have demonstrated a willingness to examine privilege claims in detail rather than accepting blanket assertions. The likely practical effect will be an increase in in camera review proceedings, where judges inspect documents before ruling on whether privilege applies. Litigators should prepare privilege logs with sufficient granularity to survive scrutiny.

Lesson 3: Proportionality Is a Live Issue, Not a Formality

Several early rulings have weighed the burden of production against the value of the evidence to the dispute. Industry observers expect proportionality to become the most frequently litigated aspect of Articles 194–195 DCCP, particularly in complex multi-party disputes where document volumes are large. Courts have shown a preference for phased or category-based production over wholesale disclosure.

Lesson 4: Sanctions for Non-Compliance Are Real

Where parties fail to comply with production orders, courts have drawn adverse inferences, treating the non-produced documents as supporting the requesting party’s position. Practitioner observations indicate that this sanction mechanism, while available under the old regime, is being invoked more readily under the WMB’s clearer procedural framework.

Tactical Playbook, Disclosure, Evidence Preservation and Argumentation

The following checklist distils the key tactical steps for in-house counsel and litigation teams preparing cases under the new evidence rules Netherlands courts are now applying.

• Map documents before issuing proceedings. Conduct an internal document audit to identify what you hold, what the other side likely holds, and where third-party documents may be relevant.
• Issue litigation hold notices immediately. Ensure all relevant custodians preserve electronic and physical records from the moment a dispute is foreseeable.
• Time your Article 194 requests strategically. Early requests can shape the procedural narrative, but premature requests without adequate substantiation may be refused and weaken credibility.
• Budget for disclosure costs. The WMB’s broader inspection and production framework means disclosure costs may increase in complex cases. Build these into case budgets from the outset.
• Prepare for refusals and appeals. Draft contingency motions for situations where the opposing party resists production. Include alternative relief (e.g., adverse inference, witness examination) in your fallback strategy.

Opposing Party Tactics to Anticipate

• Overbroad privilege claims. Challenge blanket privilege assertions by requesting privilege logs and, where appropriate, in camera judicial review.
• Proportionality objections as delay tactics. Counter with a focused, category-specific request that demonstrates the targeted nature of your application.
• Late substantiation. If the opposing party fails to attach key documents to its defence, move promptly for an adverse inference or an order compelling production.

Cross-Border Evidence and Enforcement Considerations

For international counsel coordinating cross-border disputes involving Dutch proceedings, the WMB framework interacts with two key instruments: the EU Evidence Regulation (Regulation 2020/1783) and the Hague Evidence Convention. Under the EU regime, requests for the taking of evidence in another member state can be submitted using standardised forms available through the European e-Justice portal. The Hague Evidence Convention applies for non-EU jurisdictions and typically involves letters rogatory processed through central authorities.

The practical impact of the WMB on cross-border evidence is that Dutch courts now have a more robust domestic framework to order inspection and production, which strengthens the enforceability of Dutch judgments ordering disclosure, including where enforcement is sought against parties with assets or documents in other jurisdictions. Practitioners managing multi-jurisdictional disputes should coordinate their Dutch disclosure strategy with parallel proceedings abroad, particularly regarding privilege standards that may differ between jurisdictions.

Conclusion, 10 Things to Do Now

The Netherlands evidence law reform 2025 is not a theoretical exercise, it is reshaping courtroom practice in real time. Here is a consolidated checklist for immediate action:

1. Audit all pending and anticipated writs of summons against the new substantiation standard.
2. Update template pleadings to include exhibit cross-references and Article 194 request language.
3. Replace all references to Article 843a with Articles 194–195 DCCP in motions and procedural documents.
4. Train litigation teams on the inzagerecht inspection right, when to invoke it, how to structure requests and what judges expect.
5. Establish litigation hold protocols that comply with the broader preservation expectations under the WMB.
6. Build proportionality arguments into every production request, anticipate and preempt objections.
7. Prepare privilege log templates that meet the granularity courts now require.
8. Review cross-border evidence strategies and coordinate with EU and Hague Convention procedures where applicable.
9. Monitor early case law from Rechtspraak and practitioner commentary for evolving judicial approaches.
10. Consult Netherlands litigation specialists with direct experience applying the new framework in court.

Sources

1. De Rechtspraak, NCC: Dutch Code of Civil Procedure 2025 (PDF)
2. Government of the Netherlands, New Justice and Security Acts as from 1 January 2025
3. OfficieleBekendmakingen, WMB Publication (Staatscourant)
4. Fieldfisher, Simplification and Modernisation of Dutch Evidence Law
5. Law & More, Evidence Rules in Dutch Civil Litigation: What’s New Under Articles 194/195 DCCP
6. LexQuire, Het eerste jaar met de Wet vereenvoudiging en modernisering bewijsrecht: wat valt op?
7. Kennedy Van der Laan, WMB: Wat is er nieuw?
8. European e-Justice Portal, Taking of Evidence Forms
9. De Haij & van der Wende, Simplified Law of Evidence Applies Since 1 January 2025