From 12 October 2026 lawyers can litigate digitally in commercial writ cases at all district courts via Mijn Rechtspraak, for cases brought on or after the cause-list hearing of 28 October 2026. This is a voluntary route, so first arrange access rights, version control and verifiable proof of submission before making digital filing the standard.
The Raad voor de rechtspraak announced on 8 October 2026 that digital litigation in civil writ cases is being extended further. According to the information page of De Rechtspraak on digital litigation in commercial writ cases, from 12 October 2026 lawyers can litigate digitally at all district courts in commercial cases initiated by a writ, for cases brought on or after the cause-list hearing of 28 October 2026.
This roll-out builds on pilots. The publication of the Raad voor de rechtspraak on the pilot at the Den Haag district court and the Arnhem-Leeuwarden court of appeal states that from 2 June 2025 lawyers could litigate digitally in commercial writ cases at the Den Haag district court. Digital litigation at the Arnhem-Leeuwarden court of appeal has been possible since 2 June 2025.
What exactly changes on 12 October 2026 at the district courts and courts of appeal?
From 12 October 2026 digital litigation in commercial writ cases is available at all district courts; 28 October 2026 is the cause-list hearing at which the cases concerned must have been brought. At the Amsterdam, Den Haag and ’s-Hertogenbosch courts of appeal, voluntary digital litigation by lawyers is possible from 12 October 2026 for all new writ cases with a cause-list date of 27 October 2026 or later; at Amsterdam, cases before the Enterprise Chamber are excluded. The Landelijk Overleg Vakinhoud Civiel anchors this in the procedural rules.
- District courts: from 12 October 2026 lawyers can litigate digitally in commercial writ cases at all district courts, for cases brought on or after the cause-list hearing of 28 October 2026.
- Amsterdam, Den Haag and ’s-Hertogenbosch courts of appeal: according to Annex IX of the procedural rules, voluntary digital litigation by lawyers is possible from 12 October 2026 for all new writ cases with a cause-list date of 27 October 2026 or later; at Amsterdam, cases before the Enterprise Chamber are excluded.
- Arnhem-Leeuwarden court of appeal: digital litigation has been possible there since 2 June 2025.
The annex to the procedural rules for civil writ cases at the courts of appeal formally sets out these dates and the scope. In practice this means, according to the Amsterdam district court, that litigating parties gain access via Mijn Rechtspraak to their digital case file(s) with the associated documents, and can submit documents there or start a new case; sending documents on paper is then no longer necessary.
Is digital litigation via Mijn Rechtspraak mandatory for lawyers?
No. The sources describe digital litigation in these writ cases as a voluntary route for lawyers. The extension broadens access to digital procedural infrastructure; it does not make digital filing mandatory for lawyers.
In our estimation, this voluntary nature is the most important detail for decision-makers. Precisely because nothing is mandatory, the choice of when and how a firm works digitally rests with the firm itself. That makes it an internal governance and control question, and not just a technical connection.
What does this extension mean for law firms and legal decision-makers?
Our analysis: because digital filing via Mijn Rechtspraak is a voluntary route that can be chosen per case, a mix of paper and digital files may arise within a single firm; we therefore recommend recording per case which route is used, so that no one accidentally mixes two tracks. Our analysis: because digital filing calls for clear responsibility within the firm, we recommend designating authorised users per case, using individual authentication and periodically checking authorisations before the first case is brought at the new cause-list hearing. Our analysis: because the availability and scope are tied to specific cause-list hearings (28 October at the district courts and 27 October at the three courts of appeal), we recommend that the responsible lawyer checks per case which cause-list date applies and retains the confirmation of receipt of the submission as a standalone document in the file. Our analysis: to strengthen the firm's own file control, we recommend keeping an independent overview of which version of a procedural document was submitted and when, so that it remains demonstrable later what, according to the firm, was sent to the court and at what moment.
This line connects with broader questions about AI and digital working methods in professional practice and with the way organisations record actions so they can be reliably reconstructed. The discussion about testable workflow requirements for sensitive files is also relevant here: a digital case file demands the same discipline of version and access management.
What steps should a firm take before digital filing becomes the standard route?
Treat the switch as a control and oversight question, not as a switch being flipped. Our analysis of this extension — with digital files, a voluntary route and the named cause-list dates — leads to the following control recommendations:
- Record which case types and instances the firm will henceforth handle digitally, and from which cause-list hearing.
- Designate authorised users per case, use individual authentication and check authorisations to the digital file regularly.
- Check per case the applicable cause-list date (28 October at the district courts, 27 October at the three courts of appeal) and retain every confirmation of receipt.
- Keep your own, independent overview of submitted documents and their version and moment of submission.
- Set up a recovery procedure for technical failures or doubt about whether a submission has arrived, with a paper fallback option for as long as it exists.
Our analysis: if a firm does not arrange these points, it may become less clear to the firm who submitted what and which version was used when; we therefore recommend recording the control measures named above. The extension itself does not require this; responsibility for verifiable evidence remains with the firm. More about these kinds of governance choices can be found in our other analyses on the blog.
Sources and references
Sources: The article relies on official publications from De Rechtspraak, the Amsterdam district court, the Raad voor de rechtspraak and the procedural rules of the Landelijk Overleg Vakinhoud Civiel.