Jurisdiction and forum disputes in the Netherlands
MAAK Advocaten advises international businesses on jurisdiction and forum disputes involving Dutch law or Dutch courts. When a commercial dispute crosses borders, the first substantive question is rarely the merits of the claim. It is which court has jurisdiction, which law governs, and what happens if parallel proceedings are started in different jurisdictions. Getting the answer right at the start of a dispute is often more important than the substantive arguments themselves.
For disputes involving parties in different EU member states, the primary legal framework is Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Brussels I Recast). For disputes involving parties outside the EU, the applicable rules are found in Dutch private international law (Book 10 of the Dutch Civil Code and articles 1 to 14 of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure), in the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements where applicable, and in any bilateral treaties between the Netherlands and the relevant jurisdictions.
This page explains the main jurisdiction rules that apply to commercial disputes involving a Dutch party, how Dutch courts handle jurisdiction challenges, and how MAAK Advocaten approaches forum disputes for international clients.
Choice of court agreements under Dutch and EU law
Commercial parties can generally agree which court or courts have jurisdiction over their disputes. A choice of court clause is the single most effective way to avoid jurisdictional uncertainty, and a well-drafted clause will largely determine where any future dispute is heard.
Within the EU, choice of court agreements are governed by article 25 of Brussels I Recast. The core rule is that if parties have agreed that a court or the courts of a member state have jurisdiction to settle any disputes that have arisen or may arise in connection with a particular legal relationship, that court has jurisdiction, unless the agreement is null and void under the substantive law of that member state. Brussels I Recast made two important changes compared to the earlier regime: it made clear that the validity of the choice of court agreement is assessed under the law of the chosen court, and it strengthened the exclusive jurisdiction of the chosen court by limiting the ability of other member state courts to proceed when a choice of court clause exists.
Outside the EU, the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements provides a similar framework for exclusive choice of court agreements in international commercial matters, among its contracting states (which include the EU, the United Kingdom, Mexico, Singapore, Montenegro, Ukraine, and a growing number of others). For jurisdictions outside both Brussels I Recast and the Hague Convention, the effect of a choice of court clause depends on national law at both ends of the transaction.
A well-drafted choice of court clause is specific about the chosen court, the scope of disputes covered, whether the jurisdiction is exclusive or non-exclusive, and how the clause interacts with any arbitration or alternative dispute resolution provisions in the same contract. Inconsistencies between clauses are a frequent source of jurisdictional litigation.
Jurisdiction in the absence of a choice of court
When parties have not made a choice of court, jurisdiction is determined by the default rules of Brussels I Recast (within the EU) or by Dutch private international law (for non-EU situations).
Under Brussels I Recast, the basic rule in article 4 is that a defendant domiciled in an EU member state can be sued in the courts of that state. Article 7 provides alternative grounds of jurisdiction in specific matters: for contract claims, the courts of the place of performance of the obligation in question (article 7(1)); for tort, delict or quasi-delict, the courts of the place where the harmful event occurred (article 7(2)); for disputes arising out of the operations of a branch or agency, the courts of the place where the branch is situated (article 7(5)). Article 8 provides jurisdiction where multiple defendants are involved and the claims are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear them together.
For contract claims under article 7(1), the Court of Justice of the European Union has developed substantial case law on where the place of performance is located. For the sale of goods, it is the place where the goods were or should have been delivered. For the provision of services, it is the place where the services were or should have been provided. For other contracts, it is the place of performance of the specific obligation in question, which can be difficult to determine for complex commercial contracts.
Outside the EU framework, Dutch courts apply the jurisdiction rules in articles 1 to 14 of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure. The primary ground is the domicile of the defendant (article 2), with specific rules for contract disputes (jurisdiction at the place of performance, article 6), tort (jurisdiction at the place where the harmful event occurred), insolvency matters, employment disputes, and several other categories. Dutch courts can also exercise jurisdiction where the case has a sufficient connection to the Dutch legal order (forum necessitatis, article 9), although this ground is narrowly applied.
The Netherlands Commercial Court and English-language jurisdiction
The Netherlands Commercial Court (NCC) in Amsterdam has specific jurisdiction over international commercial disputes where the parties have explicitly agreed to its jurisdiction in writing. The NCC is a chamber of the Amsterdam District Court, conducts proceedings in English, and was established in 2019 to provide a forum for international commercial disputes with an international commercial character.
To invoke NCC jurisdiction, the contract must contain a clause that expressly designates the NCC (or the Amsterdam District Court, international commercial chamber) as the competent court for disputes under the contract, and the dispute must have a sufficiently international character and concern a commercial matter of sufficient value. The NCC rules also allow the parties to agree to its jurisdiction after a dispute has arisen, which can be a useful option for parties who want English-language proceedings but did not anticipate the need in the original contract.
For international clients considering Dutch jurisdiction in their contracts, NCC jurisdiction is often the best choice because it combines Dutch substantive law and Dutch procedural efficiency with a proceeding that runs in English from start to finish. We draft NCC jurisdiction clauses as part of our general contract practice and represent clients in NCC proceedings when disputes arise.
Lis pendens and parallel proceedings in the Netherlands
A common problem in cross-border commercial disputes is parallel proceedings: two different courts being seized of the same or related matters. Brussels I Recast contains detailed rules (articles 29 to 34) on how to handle this, generally based on a "first in time" principle with important exceptions.
Under article 29 of Brussels I Recast, where proceedings involving the same cause of action and between the same parties are brought in the courts of different member states, any court other than the one first seized must stay its proceedings until the jurisdiction of the first court is established. If the first court has jurisdiction, the second court must decline. This "first seized" rule creates an incentive for parties to rush to the court they prefer when a dispute is imminent.
There are important exceptions. Article 31(2) provides that where an exclusive choice of court agreement exists, the designated court can proceed even if it was not seized first. This was introduced by Brussels I Recast specifically to prevent the "Italian torpedo" tactic, whereby a party would race to a slow court to block proceedings in the court designated by a choice of court clause. Article 30 deals with related actions and allows a court seized second to stay its proceedings or, in some cases, decline jurisdiction to consolidate related matters.
Outside the EU context, Dutch courts apply different rules to parallel proceedings, generally based on Dutch private international law principles that can lead to a stay or, exceptionally, to a decline of jurisdiction in favour of a foreign forum where this would serve the interests of the parties and the proper administration of justice.
Challenging jurisdiction before a Dutch court
A defendant who believes that a Dutch court does not have jurisdiction must raise the challenge at the earliest possible stage of the proceedings, typically as a preliminary matter in the first substantive submission (conclusie van antwoord) or in a separate jurisdictional plea (exceptie van onbevoegdheid). Failing to raise a jurisdiction challenge in time can be treated as an implicit acceptance of the court's jurisdiction under article 26 of Brussels I Recast or the equivalent Dutch rules.
Jurisdiction challenges before Dutch courts typically run as a preliminary procedural issue, with the court ruling on jurisdiction before addressing the merits. A successful challenge results in the court declining jurisdiction, sometimes with a referral to the competent court if one can be identified. An unsuccessful challenge leaves the case to proceed on the merits, with the jurisdiction decision subject to appeal under the normal rules.
For claimants, the preparatory work on jurisdiction should happen before the case is filed. Starting proceedings in a court that will decline jurisdiction is an expensive mistake, and the basic analysis (the defendant's domicile, the place of performance, the existence of any choice of law or choice of court clause, the location of relevant assets) should be settled before a summons is drafted.
Working with MAAK Advocaten on jurisdiction disputes
Our jurisdiction practice runs in English, German and Dutch. We advise on choice of court clauses at the drafting stage, on jurisdictional strategy before litigation starts, and on jurisdictional challenges and responses once proceedings are underway. For complex cross-border disputes we coordinate with foreign counsel in the other relevant jurisdictions. Fees are agreed in advance as described on our lawyer fees page. The litigation practice is led by Sander van Someren Gréve.
If you are facing a potential jurisdictional dispute, drafting a choice of court clause, or dealing with parallel proceedings in different jurisdictions, an initial conversation is at no charge. Read more about MAAK Advocaten.
Related terms in our legal dictionary: forum selection clauses, jurisdiction in Dutch proceedings, anti-suit injunctions, choosing the NCC.
Related pages: Litigation in the Netherlands guide, enforcement of judgments, arbitration, international contracting, litigation law firm.
Call +31 20 210 31 38, email mail@maakadvocaten.nl, or visit our contact page. MAAK Advocaten is based at Kraanspoor 34, 1033 SE Amsterdam.
Frequently Asked Questions
What happens if two different EU courts are both seized of the same dispute?
Do Dutch courts apply forum non conveniens?
Can we choose the Netherlands Commercial Court in our contract?
Dutch jurisdiction and forum lawyer
"In cross-border commercial disputes, the jurisdictional question is often decisive. A party that wins the jurisdictional race can force the dispute into a forum it prefers, a party that loses can end up defending in a court it never wanted to be in. Getting the jurisdictional strategy right at the start of a dispute, and ideally at the drafting stage of the contract, is usually worth more than any amount of merits preparation.
Brussels I Recast is the framework for most of our cross-border work, but the interesting cases are the ones that sit at the edges: parallel proceedings, choice of court clauses that interact with arbitration agreements, non-EU defendants, and jurisdictional challenges to Dutch court proceedings. I work through these with international clients in English, German or Dutch."
Contact
Last reviewed: April 15, 2026 by MAAK Advocaten N.V.