The jurisdiction of the maritime and shipping courts is primarily governed by the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (DCCP), which contains a special procedural regime for maritime cases and provides for their statutory concentration in Rotterdam. Maritime and shipping disputes are thus handled primarily by the maritime chamber of the Court of Rotterdam.

Other transport matters, such as disputes pertaining to road transport, inland waterway transport, rail transport and transport by air, are also dealt with by other courts pursuant to national laws on relative jurisdiction.

Port state control is exercised as part of the European port state control regime, implemented in accordance with the Paris Memorandum of Understanding and the relevant EU framework, including Directive 2009/16/EC.

The national legal basis for this system is the Port State Control Act (Wet havenstaatcontrole), which aims to ensure compliance of both foreign and domestic seagoing vessels with international safety, environmental and labour standards.

Inspections are carried out by the Human Environment and Transport Inspectorate (Inspectie Leefomgeving en Transport – ILT), which is an agency of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management. The ILT is authorised to conduct (unannounced) inspections of seagoing vessels in Dutch territorial waters. Where deficiencies are identified, the ILT may impose corrective measures, raise fines and detain vessels. In the event of marine casualties, the ILT has similarly extensive enforcement powers.

Independent safety investigations into very serious maritime casualties are conducted by The Dutch Safety Board (Onderzoeksraad voor Veiligheid). Investigations into the conduct of seafarers that may have led to maritime casualties, and the disciplinary proceedings regarding such conduct, are performed by the Maritime Disciplinary Court of the Netherlands (Tuchtcollege voor de Scheepvaart).

Wreck removal is governed by the Wrecks Act (Wrakkenwet) and the implementing legislation for the Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks 2007 (the “Wreck Removal Convention”).

Ship registration is governed by a combination of private law and public law legislation. The private law aspects of registration are handled through the public registers maintained by the Kadaster, in which vessels are recorded together with ownership and limited rights such as mortgages. Registration in these public registers provides legal certainty and publicity with regard to title and security interests.

The entitlement to fly the Dutch flag is regulated under public law. Since 1 July 2025, this has been governed by the Kingdom Act on the Nationality of Seagoing Vessels, which introduced a modernised framework and a dedicated flag register. Registration in this register is required for a vessel to lawfully fly the Dutch flag and to obtain a certificate of nationality.

The Kadaster is responsible for private law registration, including the registration of ownership and mortgages, while the ILT handles public law registration in the flag register and the issuance of certificates of nationality.

Ownership of vessels registered in the Netherlands is not restricted to Dutch citizens. Foreign ownership is permitted, provided that the statutory requirements are met. These requirements focus on the existence of a genuine link with the jurisdiction rather than on the nationality of the owner as such. In practice, particular attention is paid to establishment and organisational connections, especially where vessels are operated commercially. This may include requirements relating to the place of establishment of the owner or the appointment of a qualifying ship manager.

The purpose of these requirements is to ensure effective regulatory oversight and enforcement, rather than to impose nationality-based restrictions. Both natural persons and legal entities from outside the Netherlands may therefore own vessels flying the Dutch flag, subject to compliance with the applicable conditions.

Vessels under construction may also be registered. A ship that is still under construction can be entered in the public registers maintained by the Kadaster, enabling the registration of ownership and limited rights, including mortgages, prior to completion.

The legal framework permits the temporary registration of vessels through the issuance of a provisional certificate of nationality. This provisional certificate is issued by the ILT and is valid for six months. It allows a vessel to provisionally acquire Dutch nationality while the requirements for full registration are being completed.

As a general principle, dual flagging is not permitted. A vessel that holds the nationality of the Kingdom of the Netherlands is required to fly the Dutch flag exclusively and may not simultaneously fly the flag of another state. An exception exists in the form of bareboat out registration. Under this arrangement, a vessel registered in the Netherlands may temporarily operate under a foreign flag while remaining registered in the Dutch ship register. Although this may resemble dual registration in a functional sense, it does not involve the simultaneous flying of two flags and is expressly regulated by law.

Ship mortgages are registered in the public registers maintained by the Kadaster. These registers provide publicity and legal certainty with respect to security interests in vessels and form a central element of the maritime financing framework.

The creation of a ship mortgage requires a notarial deed. The mortgage is constituted by execution of the deed before a civil law notary, followed by registration by the notary of a certified copy in the relevant public register. Registration is a constitutive requirement, meaning that the mortgage only comes into existence and becomes enforceable against third parties upon registration.

The ship ownership and mortgages registry is publicly accessible. The public registers maintained by the Kadaster contain information on registered vessels, including ownership details and registered rights of mortgages.

Further, in the case of registered property such as vessels flying the Dutch flag, any (conservatory) arrests levied on such Dutch flagged vessels must, in principle, be registered in the public register pursuant to 566 (1) DCCP and Article 728a (1) of the DCCP. There is no time limit for registering the arrest in the public registers. Therefore, not all (conservatory) vessel arrests may be visible in the public register. As long as the arrest on a vessel flying the Dutch flag has not been registered, it has no blocking effect and the debtor may still dispose of the attached property.

Third parties may obtain this information by requesting official extracts or registration products from the Kadaster relating to the relevant vessel. These extracts allow interested parties, such as purchasers, financiers and other creditors, to verify the legal status of a vessel. Public access to the registers promotes transparency and legal certainty and is a key feature of the maritime legal framework.

Ship loan financing is typically structured as secured debt provided to a special purpose vessel-owning company. The most common transactions involve bilateral or syndicated term loans used for vessel acquisition, refinancing or newbuilding financing. Facilities are generally amortising and often include a balloon repayment at maturity. Interest is usually calculated on a floating rate basis with an agreed margin. Depending on the operational profile of the borrower, ancillary or working capital facilities may also be included.

Equity is normally injected at the level of the vessel owning company and may consist of share capital and subordinated shareholder loans. Financing documentation commonly includes restrictions on distributions, subordination provisions and, where applicable, equity cure mechanisms that allow shareholders to remedy financial covenant breaches. Group support may be provided in the form of guarantees or similar arrangements, depending on the ownership structure and credit assessment.

Loan financing is secured by a comprehensive security package. In addition to a ship mortgage, lenders typically require pledges over the shares in the vessel-owning company, pledges or assignments of receivables such as charter hire and earnings, assignments of insurances and, where relevant, account pledges. In syndicated financings, security is commonly held by a security agent for the benefit of the lending group.

Enforcement depends on the nature of the security exercised. Mortgage enforcement follows established judicial procedures and may be preceded by arrest as a protective measure, ultimately resulting in a foreclosure sale of the vessel. Enforcement of share pledges focuses on control or disposal of the owning company, while receivables and account security is enforced through notification and cash flow control. Lenders may pursue these routes in parallel or sequentially, subject to contractual arrangements and applicable law.

Ship leasing transactions have increased in recent years. This trend is driven by reduced appetite among traditional banks for shipping exposure, stricter regulatory capital requirements and ship-owners’ need for alternative sources of liquidity and longer tenors. As a result, private equity-backed credit providers have become prominent participants in the shipping finance market.

The legal relationship in a leasing structure differs fundamentally from that in a loan financing. Under a lease, ownership of the vessel remains with the lessor, and the lessee pays hire for the use of the vessel. Risk allocation is largely governed by contractual provisions on maintenance, insurance, redelivery and termination. By contrast, under a loan structure the borrower owns the vessel and grants security to the lender, who is a secured creditor rather than the owner of the asset.

These differences are also reflected in enforcement. Enforcement of a ship mortgage is based on proprietary security rights and follows established judicial procedures, including arrest and executorial sale of the vessel. Lease default enforcement is contractual in nature and typically focuses on termination of the lease and repossession or return of the vessel, with the practical approach depending on the location of the vessel and the applicable forum. Sale and leaseback transactions are common and are used as a tool to release capital while retaining operational control.

The Netherlands is a party to the following international conventions on pollution.

• The International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 1992 (the “CLC 1992”): Establishing strict liability of the registered owner of a tanker for pollution damage caused by persistent oil, subject to limitation of liability and compulsory insurance.

• The International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage 1992 (the “Fund Convention”): Providing additional compensation where the liability limits under the CLC 1992 are insufficient or where the ship-owner is financially incapable of meeting its obligations.

• The International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage 2001 (the “Bunker Convention”): Imposing strict liability on ship-owners for pollution damage caused by bunker oil from seagoing vessels other than tankers – requires mandatory insurance or other financial security.

• The International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea (the “HNS Convention”).

Establishing a comprehensive liability and compensation regime for pollution and damage caused by hazardous and noxious substances. The convention has been ratified and implemented in Dutch national law but is not yet in force internationally.

The Netherlands is also party to an international convention on wreck removal, namely, the Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks 2007. This establishes a regime of strict liability for the registered owner in respect of the locating, marking and removal of hazardous wrecks. The Convention provides public authorities with the right to intervene where a wreck poses a hazard to navigation or the marine environment and introduces compulsory insurance, including a direct right of action against the insurer. The Convention applies in the exclusive economic zone and also extends to Dutch territorial waters. The Convention applies both directly in the Dutch legal system as well as through its implementation in the Wrecks Act (Wrakkenwet),

Maritime Incidents

Liability in cases of vessel collision and allision is governed by the following international conventions and related rules.

• The Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law with respect to Collisions between Vessels 1910 (the “Collision Convention”):
1. establishing fault-based liability for collisions between sea-going vessels, or between sea-going vessels and vessels of inland navigation;
2. provides rules for apportionment of liability where two or more vessels are at fault; and
3. implemented in Dutch law and applied by Dutch courts.
• The International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 (“COLREGs”):
1. setting out internationally binding navigational rules; and
2. used by courts to assess compliance with navigational duties and determine fault in collision cases.

Incidents on Inland Waterways

Liability in incidents in inland waterways is governed by the following.

• The Geneva Convention of 15 March 1960 relating to the Unification of Certain Rules concerning Collisions in Inland Navigation (the “Geneva Collision Convention”):
1. establishing fault-based liability for collisions between vessels of inland navigation;
2. provides rules for the apportionment of liability where two or more vessels are at fault; and
3. implemented in Dutch law and applied by Dutch courts.
• The Strasbourg Convention on the Limitation of Liability in Inland Navigation of 4 November 1988, as amended by the Protocol of 27 September 2012 (CLNI), including regular increases through indexation of the limits of liability per Article 20 CLNI – the latest indexation of the limits of liability, dated 1 June 2024, was implemented on the Dutch jurisdiction on 1 March 2025.

Note that the distinction between the concepts of collision and allision prevalent in common law legal systems does not exist pursuant to Dutch law, and that the foregoing Conventions apply to both kinds of incidents.

Salvage

Salvage liability and remuneration are governed by the International Convention on Salvage 1989 (the “International Salvage Convention”), which:

• regulates entitlement to salvage remuneration and the criteria for fixing salvage awards;
• introduces special compensation for salvors who prevent or minimise environmental damage; and
• is implemented in Dutch law and applied to salvage operations involving vessels and property in navigable waters.

National Law

Pertinent legislation includes the following.

• Book 8, Chapter II, Titles 6 and 7 of the Dutch Civil Code (DCC) apply to (liability) for maritime incidents with respect to sea-going vessels and the global limitation thereof.
• Book 8, Chapter III, Titles 11 and 12 of the DCC apply to (liability) for maritime incidents with respect to vessels of inland navigation and the global limitation thereof.
• The Inland Navigation Police Regulations (Binnenvaartpolitiereglement):
1. set out rules on navigation, signals and right of way on the majority of Dutch inland waterways; and
2. used by courts to assess compliance with navigational duties and determine fault in collision cases.
• The Rhine Navigation Police Regulations (Rijnvaartpolitiereglement):
1. set out rules on navigation, signals and right of way on the River Rhine and waterways connected thereto; and
2. used by courts to assess compliance with navigational duties and determine fault in collision cases.

The Netherlands applies the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976, as amended by the 1996 Protocol (LLMC), including the increased limits introduced by the 2012 International Maritime Organization (IMO) amendments. These international rules are fully incorporated into Dutch law both through direct application of the Convention as well as through implementation in Book 3, Title 1 of the DCC. This implementation allows ship-owners and certain other “ship operating parties” (defined as “owners” in the LLMC) to limit their liability for collision-related claims, subject to the convention’s conditions.

The LLMC and its Dutch implementation apply to personal injury, property damage and other claims for damages arising out of maritime incidents.

The Netherlands is a party to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Its interpretative rules are applied when construing international conventions.

Regarding the concept of “owner”, central in the MSC Flaminia decision and its interpretation under the LLMC, the Dutch courts had a similarly broad interpretation as the UK Supreme Court.

Procedure and Competent Court

Under Dutch law, which applies the international conventions discussed in this section of the guide, a ship-owner may limit liability by constituting one or more limitation funds in accordance with Article 642c of the DCCP. The substantive right to limitation is therefore governed by the implementation of the LLMC in the DCC, while the procedure for constituting a limitation fund, including court involvement, is governed by the DCCP. The maritime chamber of the Court of Rotterdam exclusively handles such matters in first instance.

Who May Constitute a Limitation Fund?

The right to constitute a limitation fund extends to the ship-owner, defined as the person or entity in whose name the vessel is registered. However, for this purpose the right to constitute a fund also extends to charterers, lessees and other users entrusted with the operation of the vessel (Article 8:750(2) DCC). Persons for whose acts the ship-owner is liable may invoke limitation to the same extent. Liability insurers are likewise entitled to rely on limitation in the same manner as their insured (Article 8:751 DCC).

Calculation of the Fund

The categories of claims subject to limitation are exhaustively listed in Article 8:752 of the DCC, subject to the exclusions set out in Article 8:753 of the DCC. The amount of the limitation fund is determined by reference to the LLMC, as amended by the 1996 Protocol and subsequent amendments, as incorporated into Dutch law through Article 8:755 of the DCC. The applicable limits are calculated based on the vessel’s gross tonnage and apply globally to all claims arising out of the same incident.

Deposit and Form of Security

The actual constitution of the limitation fund requires the provision of security in accordance with Article 642c of the DCCP, typically by way of a cash deposit or a bank or insurer’s guarantee acceptable to the court.

Where the fund is constituted by a cash deposit, statutory interest ceases to accrue upon deposit. Where the fund is constituted by a guarantee, statutory interest continues to accrue until the guarantee is provided in the form and amount ordered by the court. Therefore, the prevailing interest rate will be the crucial criterion for determining whether security is to be put up through cash deposit or a guarantee.

Another aspect to take into account is that the Court of Rotterdam no longer offers the possibility to use the Court’s bank account to put up security through a cash deposit. Therefore, other arrangements with financial or escrow institutions would have to be explored before such a deposit is possible.

The Maritime Labour Convention 2006 (MLC) is fully applicable in the Netherlands. The Netherlands ratified the convention in 2011. The Convention applies to Dutch-flagged vessels, and, through port state control, to foreign vessels calling at Dutch ports. Compliance is ensured through certification and inspection. Enforcement is carried out by the ILT through flag state and port state control.

The MLC is implemented partly through the Law on the Crewing of Seagoing Vessels (Wet Bemanning Zeeschepen), which entered into force on 1 July 2025 and replaced the former Law on Seafarers (Wet Zeevarenden). The Law on Seafarers regulates seafarers’ rights and crew requirements, including manning, certification, medical fitness, hours of work and rest.

Part of the MLC is also implemented in Book 7 of the DCC. In this legislation, seafarers’ rights are stipulated, such as payment during sickness, repatriation rights and holidays. It is important to note that this part of the law is also applicable to non-Dutch-flagged vessels in case Dutch employment law is applicable.

Occupational health and safety is governed by the Working Conditions Act (Arbeidsomstandighedenwet), while operational safety is addressed in maritime safety and navigation legislation, including the Shipping Traffic Act (Scheepvaartverkeerswet).

The Netherlands is a signatory to The Hague-Visby Rules (HVR). Therefore, the HVR apply in the Dutch jurisdiction if they are applicable pursuant to Article 10 of the HVR.

The Netherlands has signed but not yet ratified the Rotterdam Rules. Therefore, they do not (yet) apply in the Dutch jurisdiction.

Pursuant to Article 8:441 of the DCC, only the lawful holder of the bill of lading has title to sue the carrier under the bill of lading for cargo damages.

If it concerns transport under a bill of lading or similar document of title, or if the HVR have been declared applicable to the contract of carriage, the liability of the ocean carrier is governed by the HVR. Therefore, in such cases the liability is, in principle, limited to 2 Special Drawing Rights (SDR)/kg or 667 SDR/package.

If it does not concern transport under a bill of lading, the liability of the ocean carrier is governed by the contractual liability regime. In such cases, freedom of contract applies.

Under Dutch law, a carrier may in principle establish a claim against the shipper for misdeclaration of cargo. Such claims are expressly recognised in Article 8:394(1) of the DCC and Article 3(5) of the HVR. Under these provisions, the shipper is obliged to provide the carrier, in due time, with all information concerning the goods and their handling, which the shipper knows or ought to know to be of importance to the carrier. The shipper must in principle indemnify the carrier for all loss, damage and expenses resulting from inaccuracies in those particulars. These rules are of particular relevance to the carriage of dangerous goods.

Dutch law applies this duty to inform using objective standards. A freight forwarder acting as shipper is expected to possess the knowledge of a reasonably diligent cargo-interested party. The information does not necessarily have to be included in a transport document. in certain cases, oral notification may suffice. The shipper must ensure the correctness of the cargo particulars at the time the goods are taken into the carrier’s charge.

Recent case law has reaffirmed these principles. In an appeal between cargo insurers, acting as subrogated claimants, and a carrier, before the Hague Court of Appeal, the court confirmed that, save in special circumstances, a carrier is entitled to rely on the accuracy of the cargo description provided by the shipper (Hof Den Haag, 21-09-2021, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2021:2872, S&S 2022/33). This judgment confirms that, save in special circumstances, a carrier is entitled to rely on the cargo description provided by the shipper, thereby reflecting the principle laid down in Article 8:394(2) of the DCC.

The time bar for cargo claims is one year. In case of carriage under a bill of lading, the one-year time bar of the HVR cannot be interrupted but can only be extended by or on behalf of the carrier. In the case of carriage other than under a bill of lading, the time bar can, in principle, be interrupted unilaterally through a notice of liability in which the claimant explicitly preserves his or her right of recourse.

The International Convention relating to the arrest of seagoing ships 1952 (the “Arrest Convention”) applies in the Dutch jurisdiction to the arrest of seagoing vessels flying the flag of a signatory of that convention. Pursuant to Article 10 of the Arrest Convention, the Netherlands has reserved the right not to apply the provisions of Article 1, subparagraphs (o) and (p) (disputes as to the title to or ownership of any vessel, and disputes between co-owners of any vessel as to the ownership or operation of the vessel, respectively). Instead, the Netherlands opted to apply Dutch law to such claims, and not to apply the sister-ship arrest provision of Article 3, subparagraph 1 of the Arrest Convention for claims set out in Article 1, subparagraph (q) of the Arrest Convention (the mortgage or hypothecation of any ship).

For arrests of seagoing vessels in respect of claims as per Article 1, subparagraphs (o)–(q) of the Arrest Convention on seagoing vessels flying the flag of a state that is not a party to the Arrest Convention, the Dutch national arrest regime of Book 3, Title 4 of the DCCP applies.

The concept of a general maritime lien does not exist under Dutch law. However, Dutch law does contain statutory privileged claim rights against the owners for certain claims in relation to the vessel. Such statutory privileges are set out in Book 8, Chapter II, Title 3, Section 3 of the DCC. Examples of such privileged claims are:

• claims for the costs of wreck removal;
• claims under a maritime employment contract;
• general average claims; and
• salvage claims.

The privilege aspect provides that (i) the claimant can enforce his or her claim by an arrest on the vessel even when the owner of the vessel is not the (contractual) debtor of the claim, and (ii) the claim has a higher rank than mortgages on the vessel and ordinary claims against the owner.

Foreign maritime liens can be accepted in the Dutch jurisdiction provided that they are valid under both the law that governs the legal relationship on which the lien is established and the law of the flag state. Therefore, such foreign maritime liens can, in principle, be enforced in the Dutch jurisdiction.

To enforce a claim on a vessel and thus to arrest the vessel, the owner of the vessel or the demise charterer must be liable in persona. This is only different in case of the situation described in 5.2 Maritime Liens.

As per 5.3 Liability in Personam for Owners or Demise Charterers, a vessel can only be arrested if the owner or demise charterer thereof is the debtor of the claim. Therefore, a bunker supplier can only arrest a vessel for bunkers supplied to the vessel if he or she has sold the bunkers to the owner or to the demise charterer.

The Netherlands is regarded as an arrest-friendly jurisdiction. Under Dutch law, conservatory ship arrest is governed by general principles of property law and civil procedure, supplemented by specific maritime provisions. For seagoing vessels, the 1952 Arrest Convention – where applicable – limits arrest to maritime claims as defined therein. This limitation does not apply to inland navigation vessels, which may in principle be arrested in respect of any type of claim.

There is in principle no material distinction between the arrest of an inland vessel and that of a seagoing vessel, save for the potential applicability of the 1952 Arrest Convention. Dutch law also recognises circumstances in which recourse may be taken against a vessel owned by a third party.

A conservatory ship arrest commences with an ex parte application to the interim relief judge, supported by documentary evidence substantiating the claim. Power of attorney and/or notarised and apostilled copies of documents are not required. Documents drafted in English, French, German or Dutch are not, as a matter of course, required to be translated. The court may, however, order a translation where this is necessary for the proper assessment of the matter.

The applicant must present all relevant facts fully and truthfully; failure to comply with this duty of full disclosure may result in the arrest being lifted. The court generally grants permission swiftly, including outside office hours and during weekends in urgent cases. The court retains the discretion to require counter-security in exceptional circumstances. The arresting party bears strict liability for any loss arising from a wrongful arrest.

A claimant may in principle arrest any and all assets of his or her debtor. Therefore, if freight is due to the debtor or bunkers are owned by the debtor, such assets can in principle be arrested. Obviously, the Arrest Convention does not then play a role.

It should be emphasised that, in principle, only assets of the debtor can be arrested. Therefore, cargo can only be arrested if the cargo is owned by the debtor. Cargo of a third-party merchant cannot be subject to arrest as security for the debts of a carrier. On the other hand, it is possible to arrest assets owned by the debtor that are (temporarily) held by a third party. Freight payable but not yet transferred by a merchant to a debtor, and cargo owned by a debtor held by a logistic service provider, are obvious examples of this.

If the sister-ship is flying the flag of a state that is a party to the Arrest Convention, then the arrest is subject to Article 3 of the Arrest Convention (with the exception of arrests for claims as per Article 1, subparagraphs (o)–(q); see 5.1 Ship Arrests). If the Arrest Convention is not applicable, the principle that a claimant may enforce his or her claim on all assets of his or her debtor provides that he or she may also arrest a sister-ship owned by his or her debtor.

Apart from ship arrests, one can arrest, in principle, all assets of the debtor. For instance, one can arrest bunkers (if owned by the debtor). Alternatively, one can arrest the positive balance (if any) held by the debtor on a bank account. Further, one can arrest assets of the debtor held by third parties, including debts owed by those third parties to the debtor.

In short, the Dutch legal system provides for broad and accessible means of obtaining security for claims against debtors. It should also be noted that the legal threshold and costs for obtaining such security are relatively low compared to other jurisdictions.

Arrest may be lifted voluntarily upon payment of the claim or upon provision of adequate security, such as a guarantee on the basis of the NVB form (Nederlandse Vereniging van Banken) or the Rotterdam Guarantee Form 2008. Failing an agreement on the release of the vessel, the arrested party may seek judicial release, usually by way of summary proceedings. Grounds for release include procedural errors, a prima facie lack of a valid claim, unnecessary arrest due to sufficient security having been offered, breach of the duty of full disclosure or a balancing of interests.

Pursuant to Article 6:51(2) of the DCC, “adequate security” means that the security offered must be of such a kind (nature and volume) that the debt claim and, if need be, the costs and interests are covered sufficiently, and that the creditor is able to recover his or her debt claim from it effortlessly.

For these purposes, a recognised first-class Dutch banking institution, or an independent insurer or P&I club providing guarantees in the context of an insurance relationship, is deemed to be financially sound. Moreover, the creditor must be able to recover his or her debt claim from it effortlessly. A guarantee that can only be enforced outside Europe is, as a rule, not considered to meet this requirement.

The foreclosure of an arrested vessel is done via a court sale. The arrestor who has obtained an enforceable title against the owner of the vessel can file an application for the court sale. He or she will then have to advertise the court sale of the vessel in a number of newspapers published in the country in which the vessel is registered, and in a Dutch newspaper.

The arrestor will have to inform all other parties who have arrested the ship. The ship will then be sold during an auction overseen by the court. The proceeds of the foreclosure sale will first be applied to the costs of maintaining the vessel from the date of the arrest until the date of the court sale, and to the costs of the court sale proceedings. The in-principle remaining balance will be distributed between the creditors who have arrested the vessel pro rata to their claims. In this distribution, the statutory privileges and the ranking of the claims of the creditors will be taken into account. 

The Dutch Insolvency code (Faillissementswet – FW) applies to Dutch insolvency proceedings. Moreover, in the Netherlands, Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings applies.

Pursuant to the Insolvency Code, the assets of the bankrupt person will be sold, and the proceeds will be used to settle the claims of his or her creditors based on their privileged rights and pro rata to the amounts of their claims. Via the aforementioned EU Regulation, the insolvency proceedings against debtors in other EU member states are recognised in the Netherlands.

As stated in 5.1 Ship Arrests, the arrestor will bear strict liability for damages caused by a wrongful arrest. The arrest is deemed wrongful if the owner of the arrested asset is not the debtor of the claim for which the arrest was made and/or none of the claims for which the arrest was made will be awarded in the proceedings on the merits between the claimant and the debtor against whom the arrest was made.

In the Netherlands, liability for the carriage of passengers by sea in the event of accidents is primarily governed by Regulation (EC) No 392/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the liability of carriers of passengers by sea in the event of accidents (“EU Regulation 392/2009”), which incorporates the 1974 Athens Convention as amended by the 2002 Protocol (the “Athens Convention”). The Regulation applies beyond purely international carriage and harmonises the passenger liability regime within the EU. In addition, Dutch domestic law applies, specifically Book 8 of the DCC, Title 5, Section 3.

Actions for passenger death, personal injury, or luggage loss or damage are determined by the passenger liability regime of the Athens Convention and are subject to a two-year limitation period. This period generally runs from disembarkation, with specific rules for death cases and luggage claims. While national law governs suspension and interruption, claims are subject to absolute long-stop periods of five years from disembarkation or three years from the claimant’s knowledge, whichever expires first. The limitation period may be extended only by a written agreement or declaration after the claim has arisen.

The Athens convention passenger liability regime determines the limitation of liabilities available to owners. The carrier’s liability for death or personal injury of a passenger is capped at 400,000 SDR per passenger per incident, including where compensation is awarded as an annuity. States may set a national limit, provided it is not lower than this amount.

For luggage and vehicles, liability is limited to 2,250 SDR for cabin luggage per passenger, 12,700 SDR per vehicle including its contents and 3,375 SDR for other luggage per passenger. The parties may agree on limited deductibles within specified maximum amounts.

The carrier and passenger may expressly agree in writing on higher liability limits than those set out for personal injury, luggage and vehicles. Statutory interest and legal costs are excluded from the applicable liability caps. The carrier loses the right to limit liability if the damage resulted from an act or omission committed intentionally or recklessly with knowledge that such damage would probably result. The same loss of right to limitation applies to the carrier’s servants or agents if the damage was caused by their intentional or reckless conduct.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, Article 5 of EU Regulation 392/2009 clarifies that the application of the Athens Passenger Liability Regime does not prejudice the carrier’s right to limit liability under the LLMC 1976, as amended by the 1996 Protocol. Accordingly, passenger-specific liability limits apply alongside and do not exclude the possibility of global limitation of liability under the LLMC.

Liability for the carriage of passengers by inland waterways in the event of accidents is governed by Dutch domestic law, specifically Book 8 of the DCC, Title 10, Section 3 for inland navigation, supplemented by general rules of obligations and Dutch civil procedural law governing matters such as evidence, limitation, interim measures and security.

Lastly, EU Regulation No 1177/2010 governs the rights of passengers travelling by sea and by inland waterways. It focuses on passenger protection in cases of delay, cancellation and denied boarding, including rights to information, assistance and, in certain cases, compensation. The Regulation also contains specific provisions aimed at safeguarding the rights of persons with disabilities or reduced mobility and operates separately from the carrier’s liability regime for personal injury or death.

Duly agreed law and jurisdiction clauses are recognised by the Dutch courts. The criteria for choice of law clauses are set out in Rome I, Article 3 (Regulation (EU) 593/2009). The criteria for choice of jurisdiction clauses opting for a court in an EU member state are set out in Article 25, Brussels I bis Regulation (Regulation (EU) 1215/2012).

The criteria for choice of jurisdiction clauses opting for a court of a state that is party to the Convention of Lugano on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (the “EVEX Convention”) are set out in Article 17 of the EVEX Convention.

The criteria for choice of jurisdiction clauses in a bill of lading opting for a court of a state that is not an EU member state nor a state that is party to the EVEX Convention are laid down in Article 8, subparagraph 2 of the DCCP and Article 629 of the DCCP. The criteria for such jurisdiction clause are as follows.

• The jurisdiction clause should be proven to exist and to have been agreed (Article 8, subparagraph 2 DCCP).
• Specifically for claims of a consignee under a bill of lading for damage to or loss of cargo to be delivered in the Netherlands, the jurisdiction clause should:
1. provide for the exclusive jurisdiction of the court in the place of domicile/establishment of the carrier or of the consignee; and
2. be explicitly laid down in writing and not merely in general conditions (Article 629 DCCP).

In the Netherlands, a law and arbitration clause of a charterparty that has validly been incorporated into a bill of lading is recognised and enforced by the Dutch courts. The main criterion is that the clause is clear based on the text inserted in the bill of lading.

The 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the "New York Arbitration Convention") applies in the Netherlands. Book 4 of the DCCP applies to Dutch arbitration proceedings.

In the Dutch jurisdiction, one can arrest a vessel as security for the claim that is to be decided in proceedings on the merits in foreign arbitration or foreign court proceedings.

Parties often agree to declare the UNUM Arbitration rules applicable. UNUM is a Dutch arbitration and mediation institute that specialises in maritime, logistics and transport related matters.

Further, maritime matters are overseen by the Netherlands Arbitration Institute (Nederlands Arbitrage Instituut – NAI). The NAI does not specialise exclusively in maritime matters; it also handles matters of a more general commercial and civil nature. However, the NAI provides a professional and efficient way of conducting proceedings in maritime-related matters.

Additionally, the Netherlands Association for Forwarding and Logistics (Nederlandse Organisatie voor Expeditie en Logistiek – FENEX) has its own dispute resolution mechanism and arbitration regulations. FENEX arbitration mainly concerns matters of freight forwarding, transport and logistic services.

The defendant will have to appear in the court proceedings and will have to raise an appeal contesting jurisdiction before submitting a defence on the merits of the dispute. In such a motion, the defendant argues that the Dutch court lacks jurisdiction to hear the claim. In that case, the court will first – in incidental proceedings – decide on its jurisdiction before making any decision on the merits of the case.

The Dutch fiscal system has an elective profit determination system for owners’ companies called the tonnage tax (the “tonnage regime”). Instead of being taxed on the actual commercial profit, owners can opt to be taxed a lump sum based on the net tonnage of the ships operated by them and the number of operating days. The statutory basis is found in Articles 3.22–3.24 of Wet inkomstenbelasting 2001 (“Wet IB 2001”). For many owners of vessels and fleets, this option results in a lower tax rate compared to both regular Dutch profit taxes and even some open-register states.

The owner must request application of this elective regime in the first year in which it generates profits from the operation or exploitation of ships intended for (among other things) international sea transport of goods or passengers. Once granted, the regime applies for a ten-year period before it must be renewed.

Under Dutch law, non-performance of a shipping contract (eg, late delivery, non-arrival of a chartered vessel or slow loading/discharging) is assessed primarily under the doctrines of force majeure (overmacht), based on Article 6:75 of the DCC, and unforeseen circumstances (onvoorziene omstandigheden), based on Article 6:258 of the DCC. The common law concept of “frustration” does not exist as such in the Netherlands.

Non-performance qualifies as force majeure if it is not attributable to the debtor because it is not due to fault, or because it is not the debtor’s responsibility under law, legal act (contract) or generally accepted standards. This is a strict test. Force majeure may only be accepted in exceptional circumstances. Increased costs, longer voyage times (eg, rerouting), congestion at ports or shortages of crew, containers or capacity will generally not qualify as force majeure.

The doctrine of unforeseen circumstances is the closest Dutch equivalent to “frustration”, but it does not automatically terminate the contract. Courts apply this doctrine very sparingly, especially in commercial shipping contracts. It may be considered where the contractual equilibrium is fundamentally disrupted, the risk clearly falls outside normal commercial risk allocation, or the event was genuinely unforeseeable at the time of contracting. Mere delay, increased costs or market disruption will rarely suffice.

IMO 2020 limits the sulphur in fuel oil used on board ships operating outside designated emission control areas to 0.50% m/m (mass by mass). IMO 2020 is implemented through national legislation. In emission control areas, the regulations are even stricter, as they limit the sulphur content to 0.1%. These environmental areas currently cover Northern Europe, the Baltic Sea area, USA, Canada and parts of Asia. Vessel operators have three options to ensure their vessels comply with these regulations:

• place scrubbers on ships;
• switch to very-low-sulphur fuel oil (VLSFO); or
• switch to alternative fuels such as liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) or liquefied natural gas (LNG).

The ILT is the competent authority responsible for monitoring and enforcing compliance.

The Netherlands implements sanctions adopted by the EU and the United Nations within the EU sanctions framework. EU decisions are transposed into Dutch law through sanctions orders issued pursuant to the Sanctions Act 1977, while EU regulations are directly applicable and prevail over conflicting national legislation.

Dutch sanctions apply to designated countries, individuals and entities, and are binding on all persons and entities operating in or from the Netherlands, including international companies with a Dutch presence. The Sanctions Act 1977 has extraterritorial effect, extending to Dutch nationals acting abroad.

The Central Import and Export Office (CDIU) is responsible for licensing and authorising the import, export and transit of designated strategic goods and services, and issues the relevant licences.

The Customs Authority (Team Precursoren, Oorsprong, Strategische goederen en Sanctiewetgeving – Team POSS) organises customs controls and checks the compliance of companies to sanctions legislation.

The Houthi attacks in the Red Sea have led to large-scale rerouting of commercial vessels via the Cape of Good Hope, resulting in significantly longer transit times (an additional 10–14 days) and increased costs for shipping companies (due to higher fuel consumption and insurance premiums). These developments have caused disruptions to global supply chains, contributed to container shortages and created a risk of overcapacity once the original shipping routes are reopened.

In addition, the situation entails serious safety risks for seafarers, including fatal casualties and incidents of hijacking, as well as environmental damage caused by the sinking of vessels. Against this backdrop, the debate as to whether the deployment of armed security personnel on board Dutch-flagged vessels should be permitted continues to resurface periodically.

There is also growing concern about the presence of the shadow fleet, especially in the ports of Rotterdam and Flushing. The shadow fleet comprises aging and often uninsured vessels engaged in the transport of Russian crude oil and oil products to jurisdictions where sanctions do not apply. These vessels frequently change flag, name and ownership and deliberately obscure their movements, including by disabling automatic identification systems (AISs), thereby complicating monitoring and increasing safety risks. In addition to port operations, shadow vessels conduct high-risk ship-to-ship transfers at sea, where any incident may result in significant environmental harm.

A declaratory judgment based on Article 3:302 of the DCC is a judicial decision that definitively and bindingly determines the legal relationship or the rights and obligations between parties, without ordering any specific performance (such as payment).

Declaratory proceedings are frequently used as a procedural tool to ensure that Dutch courts, as the first seized courts, have jurisdiction in an international context in which courts in multiple jurisdictions could potentially be seized. The use of declaratory actions is well known – and sometimes controversial – in cases relating to the carriage of goods by road, but they may also be employed in many other situations.

Parties often opt for declaratory proceedings because certain procedural and/or substantive rules under Dutch law, or the interpretation of a treaty, may be advantageous to the claimant. Declaratory proceedings can be instituted at short notice, which makes it a highly effective legal instrument.