No urgent interest: substantive summary proceedings averted via separate hearing

In a recent decision of the Amsterdam Court in preliminary relief proceedings a special procedural form was applied: a separate hearing in preliminary relief proceedings in which only the urgent interest was judged. This approach, comparable to an American motion to dismiss, resulted in the case being dismissed without substantive assessment.

Brief outline of the case

Mondex has been helping victims and relatives recover works of art lost during World War II since the 1990s. In November-December 2023, NRC published an eight-part podcast series entitled Hier hangen een schilderij, which focused on the restitution of the painting Bild mit Häusern. The heirs of the original owner argued, with the help of Mondex, that the painting had been sold under Nazi duress. Although the Restitutions Committee advised negatively in 2018 and the court rejected a claim by the heirs in 2020, the City of Amsterdam decided to return the work after all. The painting was subsequently sold for 60 million euros. The podcast makers contacted Mondex during their research and incorporated an interview with a person involved.

After publication of the podcast series, Mondex complained in June 2024 that the podcast would be unlawful for a number of reasons. NRC subsequently amended two sections. Nevertheless, additional summonses followed in October 2024 and February 2025, after which Mondex initiated summary proceedings in April 2025 and requested removal of the podcast.

NRC first requested the interim relief judge to rule on its claim that there was no urgent interest.

Urgent interest in preliminary relief proceedings

In order to have a claim awarded in preliminary relief proceedings, the court in preliminary relief proceedings must find, among other things, that there is a so-called urgent interest (Article 254 of the Code of Judicial Procedure).

The question of whether a plaintiff in summary proceedings has a sufficiently urgent interest in the relief sought must be answered on the basis of a weighing of the parties’ interests and the outcome of the assessment of the preliminary merits of the case. The plaintiff has an urgent interest in any case if he or she cannot be required to wait for proceedings on the merits. It is up to the plaintiff to substantiate the urgent interest.

In the present case, the judge in preliminary relief proceedings ruled during a separate hearing, in which only the urgency of the case was dealt with, that there was an urgent interest was (no longer) an issue. Without going into the further substantive aspects of the case, the court subsequently rejected Mondex’s claims. The judge in preliminary relief proceedings took into account that quite some time had already passed since the publication, that the current reach of the podcast was very small and that there was no active promotion anymore. Moreover, according to the judge, Mondex had had sufficient time to institute preliminary relief proceedings earlier, especially since it was clear early on that NRC would not voluntarily remove the podcast.

Separate hearing on urgency, tactical possibility

This judgment illustrates that assessment of urgency during a separate hearing, prior to any substantive hearing, is legally possible and practically valuable. The defendant can thus try to bring the summary proceedings to an (early) end.

Questions?

Would you like to know more about the possibilities of summary proceedings and the strategic use and/or avoidance thereof? Please contact us by email, phone or fill out the contact form for a no-obligation initial consultation.