In <span class="news-text_italic-underline">National Iranian Oil Company v Heuvel Vastgoed BV (ECLI:NL:RBROT:2025:8965)</span>, a preliminary relief judge of the Rotterdam District Court declined to suspend execution of a judgment confirming the sale at auction of property owned by the National Iranian Oil Company (“<span class="news-text_medium">NIOC</span>”). The sale was carried out to satisfy an arbitral award rendered by a London-seated ICC tribunal ordering payment of USD 2.67 billion to Crescent Gas Corporation Limited (“<span class="news-text_medium">Crescent</span>”).
Following recognition and enforcement of the award in the Netherlands, confirmed on appeal, Crescent seized NIOC’s Rotterdam property and sold it at auction to a third party, Heuvel Vastgoed BV (“<span class="news-text_medium">Huevel</span>”). NIOC subsequently imposed a conservatory attachment over the property and commenced proceedings seeking annulment of the sale and restitution on grounds of state immunity. Those claims were dismissed by the Rotterdam District Court.
NIOC then applied to a preliminary relief judge seeking suspension of the enforcement decision. It argued that the court had committed manifest errors of law and fact and that allowing enforcement would place the Netherlands in breach of its international obligations to respect immunity from execution.
The preliminary relief judge dismissed the application. The court emphasised that suspension of provisional enforcement is available only where new facts or circumstances arise or where the first instance court failed to give reasons or committed a manifest error of law or fact. As no new facts were advanced and the enforcement decision was fully reasoned, the court confined its analysis to whether any manifest error had been shown.
Each of NIOC’s arguments was rejected as amounting to disagreement with the court’s reasoning rather than demonstrable error. In particular, on state immunity, the court accepted that legal certainty under Dutch law prevents retroactive invalidation of enforcement measures that have already been completed.
The court also found it appropriate to draw comparative guidance from European case law indicating that transfers to third parties effected through enforcement proceedings are not susceptible to annulment on later challenges. In balancing interests, the court held that Heuvel’s interest in being able to rent or sell the property outweighed NIOC’s interest in retaining ownership.
The application to suspend enforcement was refused and Heuvel was authorised to lift the land registry attachment. The court declined, however, to increase the daily penalty imposed on NIOC for failing to remove the attachment.
<span class="news-text_medium">Case:</span> <span class="news-text_italic-underline">National Iranian Oil Company v Heuvel Vastgoed BV, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2025:8965</span>, Rotterdam District Court, 23 July 2025.
