Isabelle van den Nieuwendijk

Isabelle is a founding partner and co-chair of the firm’s international arbitration and litigation practice. With over 28 years of experience in high-value cross-border disputes, she is widely recognised as a leading arbitration practitioner in the Netherlands.

Isabelle represents clients in both investment and commercial arbitrations under all major institutions and rules. She has extensive experience in arbitration-related court litigation, including the enforcement and annulment of arbitral awards, and is particularly recognised for her expertise in this field. Her practice focuses on complex cross-border disputes where arbitration and court proceedings intersect.

In addition to her counsel work, Isabelle regularly sits as arbitrator. She is a lecturer in arbitration law at Erasmus University Rotterdam, the author of over 50 publications on arbitration and civil procedural law, and was a member of the working group that drafted the current Dutch Arbitration Act.

Isabelle is consistently highly recommended in the Legal 500 EMEA for her arbitration expertise, with clients describing her as ‘the brain of the team’ with ‘extensive knowledge of international arbitration matters’. She is praised for her ability to ‘get to the bottom of the matter in the shortest time’ and for her ‘excellent procedural knowledge and strategic instincts’, and is regarded as ‘a safe pair of hands’.

Track Record

Represented the Russian Federation in annulment and enforcement proceedings of six arbitral awards (‘Yukos Awards’), with a value of over US$50 billion.
Represented a large Italian energy company in a gas price revision arbitration under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules and related Dutch annulment proceedings against a large Dutch energy company, with a value in dispute of over €1 billion.
Representing a foreign state in annulment proceedings relating to an UNCITRAL award.
Representing a high-net-worth investor in annulment proceedings relating to an arbitral award rendered under the Albania-Bulgaria BIT and the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.
Represented the Russian Federation in various investment arbitrations and annulment proceedings, with an aggregate claimed value of over US$6 billion.
Representing Turkmenistan in appeal proceedings on the termination of a commercial contract, with a value in dispute of US$30 million.
Representing an investor in enforcement proceedings of an arbitral award, with a value of over US$140 million.
Represented the Indian company Flemingo in annulment proceedings concerning an UNCITRAL arbitral award against Poland, with a value in dispute of over US$80 million.
Represented Danish Polish Telecommunications Group (DPTG) in enforcement proceedings against Telekomunikacja Polska (TP) of an UNCITRAL arbitral award, with a value of €500 million.
Represented an IT company in an UNCITRAL arbitration, where the tribunal ordered Ghana to pay US$87 million for wrongfully terminating a contract to develop customs processing software.
Represented a South Asian state in annulment proceedings concerning an UNCITRAL arbitral award against an Indian satellite communications company, with a value in dispute of over US$1.2 billion.
Represented Nova Group Investments as Dutch counsel in an investment arbitration under the ICSID rules against Romania, with a value in dispute of US$350 million.
Represented a Hong-Kong-based reinsurer in an arbitration under the ARIAS Arbitration Rules and related attachments proceedings against a large Dutch Caribbean insurance company, with a value in dispute of over US$23 million.
Represented an investor in one of the Solar-arbitrations against Spain.
Represented ICP-IL Europe B.V. in summary proceedings against Potasse & Produits Chimiques S.A.S. concerning the payment of penalties and the question of whether an arbitral award on agreed terms has res judicata effect.
Represented Rosneft in enforcement proceedings of arbitral awards annulled in the Russian Federation, with a value of €300 million.
Represented International Military Services (IMS) in annulment proceedings against Ministry of Defence and Support for Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran (Modsaf) concerning an arbitral award related to a dispute over the early termination of a contract for the delivery of tanks, with a value in dispute of over £300 million.
Advised DPH and Estate in arbitration and annulment proceedings, with a value in dispute of US$200 million.
Represented ING Vastgoed Ontwikkeling in annulment proceedings against Strukton Bouw.
Represented Heidelbergcement Central Europe East Holding (HCCEEH) in annulment proceedings against Alpha Investgroup.
Represented Eureko in an UNCITRAL investment arbitration against Poland, with a value in dispute of €9 billion.

Publications

‘Time limits for correction and supplementation’, in: Klaassen et al. (ed.), Arbitration in the Netherlands, in particular NAI Arbitration, Deventer: Wolters Kluwer 2025, p. 533-566
Arbitration in the Netherlands, Lexology 2023 (co-author J. Angelier & R. Verkerk)
De termijnen voor de vordering tot vernietiging (co-author G.J. Meijer), in: R.S. Meijer et al. (ed.), Accompli, Liber Amicorum Prof. mr. dr. M.E. Koppenol-Laforce, Den Haag: Boom Juridisch 2021, p. 173-196
Interpretatie van arbitrale vonnissen, TvA 2020/02, p. 47-55
ICC Guide to National Rules of Procedure for Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Awards under the New York Convention 2020 (co-author A.J. van den Berg & M.E. Koppenol-Laforce)
Termijnen voor verbetering en aanvulling, mede in het licht van het NAI Arbitragereglement, alsmede aanbevelingen ter voorkoming van kennelijke fouten en nalaten te beslissen, in: Klaassen, Meijer, Schleijpen, Going Dutch: ADR in Nederland, in het bijzonder bij het NAI, Deventer: Wolters Kluwer 2019, p. 621-650
Dutch Arbitration – revising the rules; how substantial are the changes introduced by the new Dutch Arbitration Act and the new Netherlands Arbitration Institute (NAI) rules?, LexisNexis PSL Arbitration, January 2015
De nieuwe arbitragewet bezien vanuit het perspectief van de gewone rechter, TCR 2014/4, p. 103-112
Aanvulling van de motivering; het meerdere dus ook het mindere! In: Piet Sanders – Een honderdjarige vernieuwer, Boom Juridische Uitgevers 2012, p. 233-242
Qs & As on the Dutch Arbitration Act, Global Arbitration Review, the Netherlands, 2011
Characterization of Competition Law as Public Policy, in: Practical Aspects of Arbitrating EC Competition Law, red: T. Zuberbühler and C. Oetiker, Schulthess 2007, p. 25-41 (AIJA’s Past Presidents’ Award 2006 for best Working Paper International Arbitration)
Kroniek Arbitrage 2003-2006, co-author G.J. Meijer, O&F 2007/1, nr. 74, p. 21-35
Verbetering van rechterlijke uitspraken (art. 31 Rv), JBPr 2004/2, p. 111-120
Herziening van de Arbitragewet, JBPr 2004/1, p. 3-9
Aanvulling van arbitrale vonnissen (art. 1061 Rv), TvA 2002/1, p. 3-10

Annotations in Dutch Journal on Civil Procedure (Jurisprudentie Burgerlijk Procesrecht (JBPr))

Het moment van verzending van een arbitraal vonnis: art. 1058 lid 2 Rv gaat voor op art. 1072b lid 5 Rv. Annotation to Court of Appeal Amsterdam 25 June 2024, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2024:1744, JBPr 2024/65
De terughoudende toetsing van de toepassing van procedureregels. Annotation to Dutch Supreme Court 17 March 2023, ECLI:NL:HR:2023:422 (Attero/De Gewesten en Gemeenten), JBPr 2023/54
Termijn voor en omvang van vernietiging na een herstelvonnis. Annotation to Court of Appeal ’s-Hertogenbosch 12 July 2022, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2022:2350, JBPr 2022/78
Ontvankelijkheid eis in reconventie in vernietigingsprocedure. Annotation to Court of Appeal The Hague 21 June 2022, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2022:1320, JBPr 2022/76
Overgangsrecht arbitragewet. Annotation to Dutch Supreme Court 24 December 2021, ECLI:NL:HR:2021:1990, JBPr 2022/23
Asymmetrisch rechtsmiddelenverbod bij erkenning van buitenlands arbitraal vonnis (art. 1075 Rv). Discriminatieverbod art. III NYC. Geen strijd met art. 6 EVRM. Annotation to Dutch Supreme Court 31 March 2017 (Nelux), JBPr 2017/46 and JOR 2017/254
Beroep op arbitrageovereenkomst in hoger beroep tijdig (art. 1022 Rv)? Annotation to Court of Appeal Amsterdam 4 August 2015, JBPr 2016/24
Hoger beroep tegen verlening verlof tot tenuitvoerlegging van Zwitsers arbitraal vonnis. Asymmetrisch rechtsmiddelenverbod (art. 1075 Rv en art. III NYC). Afstand van recht om arbitraal vonnis ten overstaan van overheidsrechter aan te tasten (art. 6 EVRM). Rechtsmacht Nederlandse rechter. Verbonden met Nederlandse rechtssfeer (art. 3(c) Rv). Annotation to Dutch Supreme Court 17 April 2015 (NRSL/Kompas) and Dutch Supreme Court 1 May 2015 (Çukurova/Sonera), JBPr 2015/57 en 59
Verzoek tot verbetering na berusting. Verbetering kennelijke fout. Ontvankelijkheid hoger beroep (art. 31 Rv). Annotation to Court of Appeal Arnhem-Leeuwarden 1 July 2014, JBPr 2015/8
Arbitraal beding dat geen effect meer kan sorteren (art. 1022 lid 1, 1052 lid 2, 1074 lid 1 Rv). Annotation to Court of Appeal Arnhem-Leeuwarden 18 March 2014, JBPr 2014/40
Termijnen voor vernietiging arbitraal vonnis (art. 1061, 1064, 1065 Rv). Annotation to District Court Amsterdam 8 August 2012, JBPr 2012/73
Benoeming van arbiters. Hoger beroep mogelijk van afwijzing tot benoeming van arbiters? Geldige arbitrageovereenkomst? (art. 1027, 1070 Rv). Annotation to Dutch Supreme Court 21 October 2011 (Hasfeld/Cohen c.s.), JBPr 2011/53
Wijziging uitspraakdatum bij herstelbeschikking. Geen nieuwe appeltermijn (art. 31, 358 Rv). Annotation to Dutch Supreme Court 20 May 2011 (Moeder/de Raad c.s.), JBPr 2011/44
Hebben partijen recht op afgifte van aantekeningen van scheidsgerecht of secretaris van mondelinge behandeling in arbitrage? Annotation to Dutch Supreme Court 29 January 2010 (Van Wassenaer van Catwijck/Knowsley), JBPr 2011/15
Anti-suit injunction op grond van arbitragebeding in strijd met EEX-Verordening? Annotation to ECJ 10 February 2009, nr. C-185/07 (Allianz/West Tankers), JBPr 2010/1
Benoeming van arbiters. Hoger beroep mogelijk van afwijzing tot benoeming van arbiters? Geldige arbitrageovereenkomst? (art. 1027, 1070 Rv). Annotation to Court of Appeal Amsterdam 3 November 2009, JBPr 2010/48
Immuniteit van jurisdictie. Verstek(verlening). Verzettermijn. Daad van bekendheid (art. 139, 143 Rv). Annotation to Dutch Supreme Court 26 March 2010 (Azeta/Chili), JBPr 2010/43
Verzet. Aanvang verzettermijn. Daad van bekendheid (art. 143 Rv). Annotation to Dutch Supreme Court 2 October 2009 (Bangladesh/Tulip Computers International) and Dutch Supreme Court 9 October 2009 (Shamshum/Mahuko), JBPr 2010/3 and 4
Bevoegdheid tot houden van voorlopig getuigenverhoor bij buitenlandse arbitrage (art. 1074 Rv)? Annotation to District Court Amsterdam 4 June 2009, JBPr 2009/60
Aanvulling uitspraak op de voet van art. 32 Rv. Annotation to Dutch Supreme Court 10 April 2009 (Teeuwe/Trijber), JBPr 2009/25
Verzet. Aanvang verzettermijn. Daad van bekendheid (art. 143 Rv). Annotation to Court of Appeal ‘s-Hertogenbosch 8 January 2008, JBPr 2008/44
Ontvankelijkheid hoger beroep. Beslissing a quo een beschikking houdende verbetering of aanvulling (art. 31 Rv resp. art. 32 Rv)? Annotation to Dutch Supreme Court 13 juli 2007, JBPr 2007/76
Oneerlijk (arbitraal) beding in consumentenovereenkomst (art. 1052 Rv en art. 1065 Rv). Annotatie bij HvJ EG 26 October 2006 (Mostaza/Claro), JBPr 2007/26
Vernietiging o.g.v. motiveringsgebrek (art. 1065 lid 1 onder d Rv). Annotation to Dutch Supreme Court 22 December 2006 (Kers/Rijpma), JBPr 2007/35
Rechtbank zet institutionele wrakingsregeling opzij (art. 1035 Rv). Annotation to District Court Rotterdam 8 June 2006, JBPr 2006/92
Partiële vernietiging van arbitraal vonnis (art. 1065 Rv). Annotation to Dutch Supreme Court 20 January 2006 (ASB Grünland en ASB Greenworld/Sagro), JBPr 2006/43
Verzet. Aanvang verzettermijn. Daad van bekendheid (art. 143 Rv). Annotation to Dutch Supreme Court 23 September 2005, JBPr 2006/4
(On)mogelijkheid tussentijds hoger beroep tegen bevoegdverklaring op de voet van art. 1022 lid 1 Rv. Annotation to Court of Appeal Amsterdam 21 October 2004 (298/04), 4 November 2004 (425/04) and 11 November 2004 (1678/02) and Court of Appeal The Hague 30 November 2004 (2004/814), JBPr 2005/40, 41, 44
Herstelarrest Hoge Raad (art. 31 Rv). Annotation to Dutch Supreme Court 13 February 2004 (ABN AMRO en ING/Zanders q.q. en Berghs q.q.), JBPr 2005/6
Vernietiging van arbitraal vonnis (art. 1065 lid 1 onder d Rv). Annotation to Dutch Supreme Court 9 January 2004 (Nannini/SFT Bank), JBPr 2004/31
Vordering tot herroeping van arbitraal vonnis (art. 1064 Rv en art. 1068 Rv). Annotation to Dutch Supreme Court 20 June 2003 (Waterschappen/Milieutech Beheer), JBPr 2003/57
Vordering tot vernietiging van arbitraal vonnis (art. 1065 lid 1 onder c en e Rv). Annotation to Dutch Supreme Court 17 January 2003 (IMS/Modsaf), JBPr 2003/38
Samenvoeging van arbitrale gedingen (art. 1046 Rv). Annotation to District Court Amsterdam 11 October 2002 and District Court Amsterdam 26 November 2002, JBPr 2003/16 en 17

International Law Office

Supreme Court Rules on Setting Aside of Arbitral Awards (Spaanderman/Anova Food), International Law Office, 27 October 2007
Supreme Court Rules on Setting Aside of Arbitral Awards (Kers/Rijpma), International Law Office, 21 June 2007
District Court Sets Aside Institutional Rules on Challenge of Arbitrators, International Law Office, 10 August 2006
Supreme Court Rules on Setting Aside of Arbitral Awards (Nannini/SFT Bank), International Law Office, 26 January 2006

Isabelle van den Nieuwendijk

Attorney | Partner