This article explores
when Dutch courts may set aside or refuse to recognize arbitral awards, whether
issued in the Netherlands or abroad. It sets out the relevant legal framework
under the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (DCCP) and the New York Convention,
highlighting the distinction between domestic and foreign awards. Drawing on
more than 500 court decisions, the analysis focuses on the grounds most often
accepted in practice. These include breaches of public policy – especially where
the right to be heard was denied – the absence of a valid arbitration
agreement, failure to provide adequate reasoning, and situations where the
tribunal exceeded its authority. While Dutch courts have the power to intervene
on these grounds, they exercise that power with caution. The data show that
set-aside or refusal has been granted in only about 20% of cases. This suggests
that although losing parties in arbitration do have procedural options to
resist enforcement, the bar remains high. Dutch courts continue to favour
enforcement in principle and intervene only where there is a clear and serious
defect. The article offers a practical and doctrinal look at how Dutch courts
balance deference to arbitral autonomy with the protection of core procedural rights.