Introduction
Interim relief proceedings (kort geding) are the fastest route to a judicial ruling. A party with an urgent interest can ask the interim relief judge (Section 254 DCCP) for an interim measure: an order, a prohibition or a holding measure that takes effect at once. The judgment is usually enforceable notwithstanding appeal, so it can be acted on immediately, even if the other party appeals. Interim relief proceedings do not, however, produce a definitive ruling. The judge assesses provisionally, on the documents and a short hearing, and a decision given by way of interim relief causes no prejudice to the case on the merits (Section 257 DCCP). The final decision falls only in proceedings on the merits.
Urgent interest: the gateway to interim relief
Interim relief proceedings stand or fall with the urgent interest: there must be a concrete, present reason why the outcome of proceedings on the merits cannot be awaited, and that interest must be well substantiated. The judge then weighs the interests of both parties, and the matter must lend itself to swift assessment. There is no room for witness examinations or extensive evidence in interim relief proceedings; facts that can only be established after an evidentiary order remain out of reach.
A pure monetary claim is subject to a stricter test. Alongside urgency, the existence and size of the claim must be sufficiently plausible, and the balance of interests takes account of the restitution risk: can the amount awarded be repaid later if the court on the merits rules otherwise? Less exacting demands are made of the urgent interest where the claim seeks recovery of a restitution obligation flowing from an earlier decision, as the case law on the applicable test shows (Court of Appeal Arnhem-Leeuwarden 18 December 2018, ECLI:NL:GHARL:2018:11020). Where the urgent interest is absent, the claim fails, regardless of its substantive merits.
What the interim relief judge can award
The judge can impose a range of interim measures. An order or prohibition makes a party do or refrain from something, for instance to enforce performance or block a termination. Where a claim is sufficiently plausible, an advance on a monetary claim can be awarded. A holding measure regulates a situation temporarily while the main proceedings run. And in the field of attachment and enforcement, the judge can lift a prejudgment attachment (Section 705 DCCP) or stay the enforcement of a judgment (Section 438 DCCP).
Lifting an attachment and staying enforcement
Lifting a prejudgment attachment is governed by Section 705(2) DCCP: the attachment is lifted where the unsoundness of the right invoked by the attaching party, or the needlessness of the attachment, is summarily established. The interim relief judge also weighs the parties' interests, in which the prospects of the claim in the main proceedings play a part (Supreme Court 30 June 2006, ECLI:NL:HR:2006:AV1559). Where the claim has been dismissed at first instance by the court on the merits, the judge takes into account how likely the appeal against that decision is to succeed (Supreme Court 17 April 2015, ECLI:NL:HR:2015:1074).
The room for staying the enforcement of a judgment is limited. The classic test is that enforcement is halted only where the enforcing party, having regard also to the interests of the party against whom enforcement is sought, has no interest worthy of protection in enforcing (Supreme Court 22 April 1983, ECLI:NL:HR:1983:AG4575, Ritzen/Hoekstra). The Supreme Court refined this framework in 2019 (Supreme Court 20 December 2019, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:2026). Where an appeal against the judgment is still available, a balancing of interests applies in which the starting point is that a judgment declared enforceable notwithstanding appeal may be enforced. Where the judgment is final, the 1983 test applies in full and only abuse of power (Section 3:13 DCC) is a ground for a stay: a manifest legal or factual error, or facts arising only after the judgment that create an emergency.
Applications in practice
Interim relief touches almost every area of law. In shareholder disputes the judge can temporarily block a resolution or a vote, or provisionally arrange a transfer of shares while the underlying dispute runs. Where proceedings on the merits are already pending, the interim relief judge as a rule aligns the ruling with that outcome (District Court Midden-Nederland 9 March 2026, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2026:892).
In commercial disputes it often concerns enforcing performance, blocking a wrongful termination or continuing a supply pending proceedings on the merits.
In real estate and tenancy, an eviction can be sought or resisted, or a pressing situation around construction or use can be arranged temporarily.
In insolvency and enforcement, an enforcement can be stayed or an attachment lifted where the enforcing party abuses its power or the attachment is unjustified.
More on attachment and enforcement
And an announced termination of a credit or banking relationship can be challenged where the bank breaches its duty of care or the termination is insufficiently substantiated.
More on the banking duty of care
Interim relief or proceedings on the merits?
Interim relief proceedings give a swift provisional outcome, but no definitive ruling: the legal relationship is not established with res judicata. Where proceedings on the merits run alongside the interim relief proceedings, the interim relief judge must as a rule align the ruling with that of the court on the merits, whether that view was given in an interim or a final judgment and whether or not it has become final (Supreme Court 7 January 2011, ECLI:NL:HR:2011:BP0015). A party who wants a lasting decision or needs to adduce evidence must turn to proceedings on the merits. Often, however, the interim measure is enough to keep the situation under control or to move the parties towards a settlement. An appeal against the interim relief judgment is available, but through its enforceability notwithstanding appeal the order continues to take effect in the meantime.
What decides the outcome
The outcome of interim relief proceedings turns on the urgent interest and on whether the measure sought lends itself to a provisional assessment without extensive evidence. A party that shows clearly why the proceedings on the merits cannot be awaited, and asks for an order that fits, stands strongest.