What to Do When a Foreign Counterparty Refuses to Pay a Dutch Contract Claim

When a foreign counterparty refuses to pay sums due under a Dutch contract, speed and strategy determine whether you recover the debt or watch assets disappear across borders. This guide is written for in-house counsel, credit managers, CFOs and SMEs facing non-payment from a counterparty based abroad. It sets out what to do in the first 72 hours, how to assess whether the Netherlands is the right forum, how to secure assets through urgent interim measures, and how to enforce a Dutch judgment across the EU and in third countries.

With cross-border trade friction and insolvency risk elevated, early preservation of rights and assets matters more than ever. The sections below provide a practical playbook grounded in Dutch procedural law and EU enforcement instruments.

Executive summary, quick 10-step recovery checklist

Work through these steps in sequence. Aim to complete the early actions within 24 hours, the preservation steps within 72 hours and a full tactical plan within the first week.

1. Secure the file and prepare a demand. Within 24 hours, secure the contract file, centralise all communications with the debtor and prepare a written demand for payment with a short deadline. Where there is a risk that assets will be moved, consider levying conservatoir beslag before, or at the same time as, sending the demand.
2. Preserve evidence. Collect contracts, invoices, delivery proof, order confirmations and the full email and messaging trail.
3. Map the debtor’s assets. Identify bank accounts, receivables, inventory and property located in the Netherlands.
4. Assess jurisdiction. Review the forum and choice-of-law clauses and determine whether the Dutch courts have jurisdiction.
5. Instruct local counsel. Engage a Dutch commercial disputes lawyer within 72 hours to preserve urgent remedies.
6. Consider conservatoir beslag. Evaluate a pre-judgment attachment to freeze Dutch assets.
7. Decide the forum. Check whether the contract points to the ordinary Dutch courts, the Netherlands Commercial Court (NCC) or arbitration; the NCC and arbitration both require the parties’ agreement.
8. Plan service abroad. Identify the correct route under the EU Service Regulation or the Hague Service Convention.
9. Map enforcement. Identify where the debtor holds assets and the recognition route in each jurisdiction.
10. Budget and escalate. Set a cost budget, define success criteria and prepare to litigate or arbitrate.

How to assess whether the Netherlands is the right forum

Before taking any step, establish where you can sue. The forum determines speed, cost and, crucially, whether a judgment will be enforceable where the debtor holds assets.

Governing law and forum clauses usually decide the question

Start with the contract. A well-drafted agreement usually contains a governing-law clause and a jurisdiction or arbitration clause, and these generally control. If the parties agreed that the Dutch courts have exclusive jurisdiction, that choice will ordinarily be respected; within the EU this follows from Article 25 of Brussels I Recast. Where an exclusive choice-of-court agreement falls within the Hague Choice of Court Agreements Convention (2005), courts in contracting states must generally respect it and enforce the resulting judgment.

Read the clause carefully: a clause nominating a seat of arbitration points towards arbitration rather than the courts, with different consequences for enforcement. Conservatoir beslag in the Netherlands remains available in either case (see below).

Dutch courts can accept jurisdiction on several grounds

Within the EU, jurisdiction is governed by Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels I Recast). A defendant may be sued where it is domiciled and, in contractual matters, at the place of performance of the obligation in question; for the sale of goods and the provision of services, that is the place of delivery or performance. Tort claims may be brought where the harmful event occurred. For defendants in Switzerland, Norway or Iceland, the 2007 Lugano Convention contains equivalent rules.

For defendants domiciled elsewhere, the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering, DCCP) may provide a basis, for example where the obligation was to be performed in the Netherlands (Article 6(a) DCCP).

Whether you can sue here matters less than whether you should

The tactical considerations are speed to a usable remedy, cost, the availability of urgent interim measures and, ultimately, enforceability. If the debtor holds significant assets in the Netherlands, suing here and attaching those assets locally is frequently the fastest route to recovery. If the assets are elsewhere, plan for cross-border recognition from the outset. For example, where a contract specifies Dutch law and delivery in Rotterdam, and the debtor holds a Dutch bank account, the Netherlands is often the pragmatic choice.

Immediate steps to preserve rights and evidence (first 72 hours)

The first three days matter disproportionately: evidence degrades, assets move and counterparties prepare their own defences. A disciplined preservation routine protects your position whether you ultimately litigate in the Netherlands or elsewhere.

Preserve documents and electronic evidence

Collect and secure every document relevant to the claim: the signed contract and any amendments, purchase orders, invoices, delivery notes, inspection and acceptance records, and the complete correspondence trail, including email, messaging apps and call logs. Place an internal legal hold so that nothing is deleted on normal retention cycles. Preserve electronic evidence in native format with metadata intact, as authenticity and timing can be important in a Dutch court.

Time the demand carefully

Prepare a formal written demand (an ingebrekestelling where applicable) recording the debt, the due date and a clear payment deadline. A demand preserves your contractual position, but it also alerts the debtor. Where there is a risk that assets will be moved, send it only after, or together with, the conservatoir beslag.

Where Dutch law governs a B2B contract, statutory commercial interest (Article 6:119a of the Dutch Civil Code) generally accrues from the agreed payment date without any prior demand. Where the contract permits, suspend further deliveries or services, notify relevant internal stakeholders and begin quietly mapping the debtor’s financial footprint in the Netherlands, including bank accounts and receivables owed to it by Dutch counterparties.

Preservation letters and data security

A preservation letter can put the debtor on notice to retain its own records. Where conservatoir beslag is contemplated, send such a letter only once the attachment has been levied. Prepare a provisional witness list identifying who within your organisation can speak to the contract, its performance and the non-payment. Handle personal data in line with applicable data-protection obligations, keeping evidence collection proportionate and secure.

Urgent interim measures: conservatoir beslag

The most powerful early tool in the Netherlands is conservatoir beslag: pre-judgment attachment. It allows a creditor to freeze a debtor’s assets before or during proceedings, preserving the value it hopes to recover. Where there is any risk that assets will be moved, this is often the decisive step.

How conservatoir beslag works

Leave is granted by the provisional relief judge (voorzieningenrechter) on an ex parte application, without notice to the debtor, so that the element of surprise is preserved (Article 700 DCCP). The application identifies the assets to be attached: bank accounts, receivables owed to the debtor, movable goods, shares or real property. Once leave is granted, a bailiff (gerechtsdeurwaarder) levies the attachment and records what has been seized. An attachment of a bank account captures the balance at the moment of service.

An arbitration clause or a foreign forum clause does not prevent attachment of assets in the Netherlands (Article 1022(2) DCCP; Article 35 Brussels I Recast).

The court requires a prima facie claim, not proof

The review is summary. The court expects a plausible claim supported by the contract, the invoices and evidence of non-payment, and an application stating the type of attachment, the nature of the claim and its (maximum) amount. In most cases the court does not require evidence that the debtor is dissipating assets, although this can be relevant for certain types of attachment. The fact that the debtor disputes the claim is not in itself a reason to refuse leave.

Costs, security and risks

The court may make leave conditional on the creditor providing security, although this is rare in practice. Proceedings on the merits must be commenced within the period set by the court (at least eight days and in practice usually fourteen days after the attachment is levied, Article 700(3) DCCP), failing which the attachment lapses. Those proceedings need not take place in the Netherlands: proceedings before a competent foreign court or in arbitration also qualify.

The debtor can apply in summary proceedings to have the attachment lifted (Article 705 DCCP), for example where the claim appears to lack merit. If the claim is ultimately rejected, the creditor is in principle strictly liable for any damage caused by the attachment, so assess the strength of the claim honestly before proceeding.

Practical timeline

Where the application is well documented, leave can often be obtained within one or two days. A typical sequence runs: instruct counsel and gather evidence; file the application and obtain leave; the bailiff levies the attachment; the creditor commences the main proceedings within the deadline. If the claim is upheld, the conservatoir beslag automatically becomes an executory attachment, and the creditor can recover from the attached assets.

The Netherlands Commercial Court (NCC) for international claims

For international disputes, the NCC offers a distinctive advantage: proceedings conducted in English. This removes a major friction point for foreign creditors and counsel who would otherwise face Dutch-language litigation.

What the NCC is and who can use it

The NCC consists of specialised chambers of the Amsterdam District Court and the Amsterdam Court of Appeal, together with the NCC Court in Summary Proceedings, established to handle complex international commercial disputes. It hears civil and commercial matters of an international character where the parties have expressly agreed in writing to litigate before the NCC in English. Because the NCC is part of the Dutch judiciary, its judgments carry the same recognition and enforcement status as any other Dutch court decision.

English-language proceedings and their advantages

The NCC conducts proceedings and issues judgments in English. This reduces translation costs, improves the parties’ direct understanding of the process and allows English-language documents to be used without wholesale translation. Where the parties have agreed to NCC jurisdiction, the NCC Court in Summary Proceedings can also grant leave for conservatoir beslag, with the application conducted in English. The NCC charges its own fixed court fees, which are higher than those in ordinary Dutch proceedings; check the current rates before filing.

When to choose the NCC

The NCC suits disputes that are genuinely international and whose value and complexity justify a specialised forum. Compared with an ordinary Dutch court, it offers English-language procedure; compared with arbitration, it delivers a public court judgment that is directly enforceable within the EU under Brussels I Recast. In practice, NCC jurisdiction depends on a clause agreed before the dispute arose: a debtor that refuses to pay will rarely agree to it afterwards.

Serving proceedings and cross-border coordination

Suing a foreign defendant requires valid service of process abroad. Getting this wrong can derail an otherwise strong claim or undermine later enforcement.

Service options

Where the defendant is in another EU member state, service is governed by the EU Service Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2020/1784), which provides structured channels between transmitting and receiving agencies. Outside the EU, the Hague Service Convention is the primary mechanism for contracting states, routing documents through designated central authorities. Use the recognised channel for the destination country and build in time, as service abroad can take weeks or months.

Freezing bank accounts elsewhere in the EU

Where the debtor holds bank accounts in other EU member states (except Denmark), the European Account Preservation Order (Regulation (EU) No 655/2014) allows a creditor to freeze those accounts through a single order obtained in the Netherlands, without notice to the debtor. Unlike conservatoir beslag, the creditor must show a real risk that enforcement will be impeded, and the court will generally require security.

Coordinating measures in multiple jurisdictions

Where the debtor holds assets in several countries, interim measures and proceedings must be sequenced so that an attachment in one country supports, rather than undermines, proceedings elsewhere. Avoid parallel proceedings that could trigger jurisdictional disputes; within the EU, the Brussels I Recast rules on lis pendens and related actions determine which court takes precedence. Keep a single coordinating lead so that filings, service and interim applications are synchronised, and brief local counsel in each jurisdiction on the overall strategy.

Recognition and enforcement: EU and third-country routes

A judgment is only as valuable as your ability to enforce it. When a foreign counterparty refuses to pay under a Dutch contract and holds assets abroad, the enforcement route must shape your litigation strategy from the start.

Within the EU, a Dutch judgment is directly enforceable

Under Brussels I Recast, a judgment given in one member state is recognised in the other member states without any special procedure and is enforceable without a declaration of enforceability (exequatur). The creditor does need a certificate issued by the Dutch court under Article 53, which must be served on the debtor before the first enforcement measure. Local enforcement formalities apply in the state of enforcement, and the debtor retains limited grounds to resist recognition or enforcement.

Outside the EU, it depends on treaties and local law

For Switzerland, Norway and Iceland, the 2007 Lugano Convention provides a regime similar to Brussels I, although a declaration of enforceability is still required. The Hague Judgments Convention (2019), in force for the EU since 1 September 2023 and for the United Kingdom since 1 July 2025, facilitates recognition between contracting states even without a choice-of-court agreement, for proceedings commenced after it entered into force for both states. Where the parties made an exclusive choice-of-court agreement, the Hague Choice of Court Agreements Convention (2005) also applies among its contracting states.

In other countries a separate recognition procedure is usually required, with varying grounds of challenge. Arbitral awards are enforceable in more than 170 states under the New York Convention, which can influence the choice between litigation and arbitration.

Garnishment, seizure and local steps

Once a judgment is enforceable, enforcement proceeds through local mechanisms: garnishment of bank accounts, seizure and sale of movable assets, and attachment of real property. In the Netherlands, executory attachment (executoriaal beslag) is carried out by a bailiff. Effective enforcement depends on accurate, up-to-date asset information, which is why early asset tracing is so valuable.

Practical example

A Dutch supplier is owed payment by a German buyer. The supplier levies conservatoir beslag on the buyer’s Dutch receivables, commences a claim and obtains judgment. The attachment then automatically becomes an executory attachment, so the supplier recovers from those receivables directly. For any remaining balance, the Dutch judgment can be enforced against the buyer’s assets in Germany under Brussels I Recast, subject to German enforcement formalities.

Litigation versus arbitration

Whether to litigate or arbitrate is one of the most consequential early decisions. It should be driven by where the debtor’s assets are and how quickly you need relief, and in most cases it has already been made in the contract.

Pros and cons

Both court litigation and arbitration can be combined with conservatoir beslag in the Netherlands. Court litigation additionally offers public judgments and, within the EU, direct enforceability under Brussels I Recast. Arbitration offers confidentiality, procedural flexibility and awards that are enforceable in a very wide range of countries under the New York Convention. The trade-offs are cost, speed and the breadth of enforcement.

Drafting seat and choice-of-law clauses

Enforcement often turns on clauses agreed long before any dispute. A clearly drafted arbitration clause specifying the seat and the governing law, or an exclusive choice-of-court clause capable of benefiting from the Hague Choice of Court Agreements Convention, materially improves enforceability. Where contracts are still being negotiated, this is the moment to build in enforcement-friendly terms.

When arbitration may be preferable

Arbitration is frequently preferable where the debtor’s assets are in New York Convention states in which court judgments face uncertain recognition, or where confidentiality is important. Choosing arbitration does not mean giving up urgent relief in the Netherlands: an arbitration agreement does not prevent a creditor from seeking conservatoir beslag from the Dutch court (Article 1022(2) DCCP).

Practical timelines, costs and success factors

Realistic expectations help manage internal stakeholders and budgets. Timelines vary with complexity, the debtor’s conduct and the enforcement jurisdiction.

Typical timelines

Leave for conservatoir beslag can often be obtained within one or two days. Where the claim is essentially undisputed, summary proceedings (kort geding) for an advance payment can produce an enforceable decision within weeks. A substantive claim before an ordinary Dutch court or the NCC typically takes months, depending on complexity and whether the defendant contests jurisdiction and the merits. Enforcement within the EU is comparatively quick once judgment is obtained; in third countries with a separate recognition procedure it can take considerably longer.

Budgeting and cost-saving tips

Control costs by front-loading evidence gathering and instructing coordinated counsel across jurisdictions. Where the claim qualifies, consider simplified EU procedures such as the European Order for Payment or, for claims up to EUR 5,000, the European Small Claims Procedure. Early, accurate asset mapping avoids wasted spend on enforcement in the wrong place. Where the amount and strength of the claim justify it, a focused conservatoir beslag can prompt early settlement, saving the cost of full proceedings.

Key success factors and red flags

Success factors include a strong documentary record, assets within reach, a clear enforcement route and prompt action. Red flags include a debtor rapidly shifting assets, contractual clauses pointing to difficult enforcement jurisdictions, and delay: every week lost increases the risk that recoverable value disappears.

Comparison: Dutch interim measures and common alternatives

The table compares conservatory measures in four jurisdictions. It is a general orientation only; local rules and thresholds differ and should be checked with counsel in each country.

Next steps

Secure the file, map the debtor’s assets and instruct local counsel within 72 hours, following the checklist above. Where there is any risk of dissipation, move on conservatoir beslag before the debtor is alerted, and design the enforcement route before you file. For jurisdiction-specific strategy, you can contact a Netherlands commercial disputes expert through the Global Law Experts directory.

Sources

1. Wetten.overheid.nl, Dutch government legislation portal
2. Rechtspraak.nl, Official Dutch judiciary portal
3. Netherlands Commercial Court (NCC), official information
4. EUR-Lex, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels I Recast)
5. HCCH, Hague Choice of Court Agreements Convention (2005)
6. European e-Justice Portal, Enforcement of judgments and service of documents
7. Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten, Dutch Bar Association