A kort geding is a Dutch summary proceedings procedure that enables parties to obtain a preliminary court decision on urgent matters within approximately six weeks. This expedited judicial process addresses time-sensitive legal issues through streamlined proceedings before a Dutch district court president, offering substantially faster resolution than ordinary Dutch court procedures that typically exceed one year.
The popularity of summary proceedings in the Netherlands reflects a fundamental shift in Dutch civil litigation. Whereas ordinary proceedings involve extensive written preparation and multiple procedural stages, the kort geding provides immediate access to judicial intervention. Consequently, approximately 15,147 summary proceedings were initiated at district court level in 1994, compared to merely 19 cases in 1900, demonstrating exponential growth that underscores the procedure’s essential role in Dutch legal practice.
How does kort geding jurisdiction work under Dutch law?
Dutch kort geding jurisdiction operates independently from regular court competence rules. A plaintiff may initiate summary proceedings before any district court president in the Netherlands, regardless of which court would normally have jurisdiction in full proceedings. This flexible jurisdictional framework specifically enables parties to access urgent relief without navigating complex competence determinations.
The president’s authority in summary proceedings extends remarkably far, covering diverse legal areas including employment disputes, property evictions, defamation cases, family law matters, and commercial conflicts. Furthermore, Dutch courts have consistently expanded the scope of issues addressable through kort geding as attorneys and parties continue identifying new applications. This jurisdictional flexibility particularly benefits international clients requiring swift intervention in Netherlands-based disputes.
Research indicates that approximately one-third of all kort geding requests are withdrawn before the hearing, as defendants often capitulate under the threat of imminent proceedings or parties reach out-of-court settlements. This statistic demonstrates how the mere initiation of summary proceedings effectively regulates conflicts within the Dutch legal system.
What distinguishes kort geding from regular Dutch court proceedings?
Dutch summary proceedings fundamentally differ from ordinary civil litigation in structure, timeline, and judicial approach. Regular court proceedings in the Netherlands involve thorough written preparation with parties typically absent during courtroom exchanges, while kort geding features direct oral hearings with immediate judicial decision-making. The contrast reflects two competing models of civil justice within Dutch law.
Ordinary proceedings at Dutch district courts average more than one year for first-instance decisions, partly due to caseload pressures but largely because defendants employ delay tactics. The procedural framework requires extensive written submissions that gradually build comprehensive case files. Three judges may preside over regular proceedings, with decisions based primarily on documentary evidence accumulated through multiple procedural stages.
In contrast, kort geding typically concludes within six weeks through a single oral hearing before one senior judge. The president reaches decisions in chambers immediately after the public hearing, consulting with a law clerk. This expedited process costs plaintiffs approximately €5,000-€10,000, making it substantially more accessible than protracted ordinary Dutch proceedings. Therefore, many Dutch lawyers now threaten kort geding as the Netherlands equivalent of “I’ll sue you.”
How do Dutch judges decide kort geding cases?
Decision-making in Dutch summary proceedings involves balancing three communicating vessels: the urgency of the claim, the interests of both parties, and the credibility of presented facts. Netherlands court presidents employ this framework to determine whether preliminary relief is warranted, allowing deficiencies in one area to be compensated by surpluses elsewhere. This flexible approach distinguishes kort geding from rigid application of legal rules in ordinary proceedings.
Dutch law grants court presidents considerable latitude in kort geding reasoning and evidence evaluation. Specifically, presidents are not bound by strict evidentiary rules applicable in regular proceedings—decisions may rest on credibility assessments rather than formal proof. The president can weigh respective party interests and decide based purely on expediency considerations. Consequently, kort geding represents conflict management rather than traditional judicial decision-making.
One Amsterdam-based court president aptly characterized the approach: “Perhaps you’re right. But suppose I would grant the claim: how would it help you? My sentence is just a piece of paper.” This pragmatic perspective reflects Dutch informal legal culture. The law clerk subsequently drafts the decision, which intentionally remains brief. Approximately half of all judicial kort geding hearings result in settlements, with remaining cases receiving chamber decisions.
What types of cases are suitable for kort geding proceedings?
Dutch summary proceedings accommodate remarkably diverse legal matters requiring urgent intervention. Labour strikes, property evictions, defamation claims, post-divorce visitation arrangements, contractual disputes, and intellectual property conflicts all fall within kort geding jurisdiction. The procedure’s versatility stems from its focus on urgency and preliminary relief rather than definitive legal merit determinations.
A notable historical case illustrates kort geding’s expansive application. Before dying, a cancer patient arranged for his hospital to freeze his sperm, permitting his fiancée to use it for insemination. After his death, the hospital announced it would unfreeze the semen, considering the arrangement legally non-binding. The woman initiated kort geding seeking an injunction. The district court president granted temporary relief for two years, reasoning that legal merits required ordinary proceedings but immediate injunctive relief was essential to preserve her claim pending full litigation. Ultimately, she reconsidered and did not claim the semen after two years elapsed.
This example demonstrates how Dutch kort geding can address even highly unusual circumstances requiring swift judicial intervention. Approximately 67% of initiated summary proceedings reach either settlement or judicial decision, with the remaining third withdrawn after defendants comply or parties negotiate resolutions. Your organization should therefore consider kort geding whenever time-sensitive legal issues threaten immediate harm to business operations or legal rights.
How do Dutch kort geding procedures vary between jurisdictions?
Netherlands court presidents exercise remarkable discretion in organizing summary proceedings according to personal preferences, creating significant regional variations that Dutch lawyers must navigate strategically. Amsterdam district courts, for instance, do not require plaintiffs to prove claim urgency and provide expedited hearing schedules when needed. This plaintiff-friendly approach reflects Amsterdam’s position as the Netherlands’ primary commercial center, where businesses require immediate access to judicial intervention.
Conversely, some presidents outside the Randstad consider kort geding inferior to ordinary proceedings and refuse to allocate additional judicial resources for increasing summary proceedings demand. These contrasting philosophies materially impact pretrial stages. Obtaining short-notice hearings may prove difficult in districts with restrictive kort geding policies. Islamic groups attempting to prevent publication of Salman Rushdie’s “The Satanic Verses” Dutch translation encountered this obstacle—the publishing house’s Utrecht district court seat assigned a president who refused pre-publication hearings, allowing release before judicial review.
Since kort geding competence belongs exclusively to court presidencies, delegation decisions to vice presidents remain personal presidential prerogatives. Vice presidents handling summary proceedings frequently become strong candidates for presidencies elsewhere. Most presidents delegate routine cases to vice presidents while retaining particularly interesting matters personally. International clients seeking Dutch legal representation should therefore discuss jurisdictional strategies with Netherlands-qualified lawyers familiar with regional kort geding practices.
What costs and timelines apply to Dutch kort geding?
Dutch summary proceedings typically cost between €5,000-€10,000 and conclude within approximately six weeks from initiation to decision. These figures represent averages across Netherlands district courts, with actual costs and timelines varying based on case complexity, jurisdictional practices, and whether settlement negotiations occur. The expedited timeline contrasts dramatically with ordinary Dutch court proceedings exceeding one year on average.
The kort geding timeline encompasses several stages: immediate case filing, brief written submissions exchange, single oral hearing scheduling, and prompt chamber decision. Dutch law does not impose mandatory waiting periods between procedural stages, enabling rapid progression when circumstances warrant urgent intervention. Furthermore, approximately one-third of kort geding cases resolve before hearing through defendant compliance or settlement negotiations, further reducing actual timelines and costs.
Cost considerations include court fees, attorney fees for preparation and hearing representation, and potential expert witness expenses. Netherlands-based law firms typically provide fixed-fee quotations for straightforward kort geding matters, offering clients cost certainty. Complex commercial disputes may justify higher investment given the substantial business interests at stake. Your legal budget should account for potential appeal proceedings if the kort geding decision proves unfavorable, though preliminary relief often achieves practical resolution of underlying disputes.
When should international businesses consider Dutch kort geding?
International companies operating in the Netherlands should consider kort geding whenever time-sensitive disputes threaten immediate business harm. Contractual breaches requiring swift enforcement, intellectual property infringements demanding urgent cessation, employment disputes necessitating interim measures, and commercial relationships requiring immediate judicial intervention all warrant summary proceedings evaluation. Dutch law’s flexible kort geding jurisdiction particularly accommodates cross-border commercial conflicts.
Approximately 15,147 kort geding cases were filed at Netherlands district court level in 1994, with growth rates since 1984 exceeding ordinary proceedings increases. This trend reflects how Dutch litigation increasingly substitutes expedited summary proceedings for lengthy ordinary court battles. Statistics demonstrate that large and medium-sized district courts especially favour kort geding over full procedures for commercial matters. Therefore, international businesses should strategically leverage this preference when structuring Netherlands jurisdiction clauses and dispute resolution mechanisms.
The kort geding procedure proves particularly valuable when irreversible harm threatens pending full litigation. Even if legal merits ultimately favor ordinary proceedings resolution, preliminary relief through summary proceedings preserves the status quo and protects business interests. Your organization should consult Amsterdam-based Dutch lawyers experienced in international commercial kort geding to assess whether this expedited procedure suits your specific dispute circumstances.
How does kort geding fit within broader Dutch legal strategy?
Dutch summary proceedings function as both standalone dispute resolution and strategic preliminary relief within comprehensive litigation strategies. Savvy Netherlands-based lawyers leverage kort geding’s speed and flexibility to gain tactical advantages, test legal theories before committing to full proceedings, and pressure opponents toward favorable settlements. The procedure’s preliminary nature means decisions do not constitute final merit determinations, preserving parties’ rights to pursue ordinary litigation subsequently.
Approximately half of all kort geding hearings result in settlements, demonstrating the procedure’s effectiveness as conflict regulation rather than purely adjudicative mechanism. This settlement rate reflects Dutch legal culture’s pragmatic emphasis on practical problem-solving over rigid legal formalism. Consequently, experienced Dutch lawyers often recommend kort geding as negotiation leverage, with the mere threat of imminent proceedings prompting opponent concessions.
International clients should recognize that kort geding decisions, while preliminary, carry significant practical weight. Dutch presidents can issue far-reaching orders that, though theoretically subject to later modification through ordinary proceedings, often prove difficult to reverse. The expedited timeline means opponents have limited opportunity to marshal comprehensive defenses. Furthermore, winning kort geding creates momentum that frequently translates to favorable full proceedings outcomes or enhanced settlement leverage. Your legal team should therefore integrate kort geding considerations into overall Netherlands litigation strategy from dispute inception
