Judgment given on 7 April 2026
in the case of:
the Dutch private limited liability company
DOLIKA B.V.,
Amsterdam, the Netherlands,
claimant in appeal,
not appeared in proceedings,
against
1. the company incorporated under foreign law
TIKEHAU SPECIAL OPPORTUNITIES II MASTER FUND,
Luxembourg, Luxembourg,
2. the company incorporated under foreign law
TIKEHAU MERCATI PRIVATI EUROPEI,
Paris, France,
3. the company incorporated under foreign law
TIKEHAU SPD III,
Paris, France,
4. the company incorporated under foreign law
KRESK DÉVELOPPEMENT,
Paris, France,
5. the company incorporated under foreign law
S1 HOLDING,
Paris, France,
defendants in appeal,
represented by G.J.L. Bergervoet, M.M.A. Serphos, F.A.M. de Vries, E.J.R. Verwey and R. Sarkis, lawyers.
The parties are referred to below as Dolika and Tikehau.
The procedure
By writ dated 10 December 2025, Dolika filed an appeal against the judgment rendered by the NCC District Court on 10 September 2025, under the abovementioned case number, with notice of representation by J.F.H.M. Bartels, lawyer. Tikehau was summoned to appear on the docket of 3 February 2026.
By anticipation writ dated 15 December 2025, Tikehau summoned Dolika to appear on the advanced docket date of 23 December 2025.
The case was subsequently registered on the docket of 23 December 2025, under case number 200.362.861/01.
On 23 December 2025, Dolika did not submit a notice of representation by a lawyer. The case was stayed until 6 Januari 2026, allowing Dolika to submit a notice of representation by a lawyer or to declare in writing that it wishes to continue the proceedings.
By letter of 5 January 2026, Mr. Bartels informed the NCC Court of Appeal (hereinafter: the Court) that Dolika had withdrawn its writ and will not appear in these proceedings. Mr. Bartels concluded his letter requesting the Court to limit its fees.
By letter of 8 January 2026, Tikehau requested that the Court issues a judgment granting Tikehau discharge from the instance (ontslag van instantie) and ordering Dolika to pay the costs of the proceedings, including court fees.
By letter of 30 January 2026, Tikehau maintained its request.
The considerations
As Dolika did not appear in the proceedings, Tikehau will be discharged from the instance pursuant to Article 127(2) in connection with Article 353(1) of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure. In principle, this leads to Dolika being ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.
By letter of 5 January 2026, Mr. Bartels requested a limitation of the court fees, as he had informed Tikehau’s lawyer that the writ would be withdrawn and requested Tikehau to withdraw the anticipation writ. The Court sees no grounds for such limitation. As Tikehau rightly pointed out, Dolika withdrew its writ only after Tikehau had submitted the case to the Court. As a result, both parties were at that time liable for court fees.
The conclusion is that Dolika will be ordered to pay the costs of the appeal. The costs on the part of Tikehau are set at EUR 25.282,-. As no statement (memorie) had been submitted on behalf of Tikehau, the lawyer’s fees are set at nil.
The decision
The NCC Court of Appeal:
discharges Tikehau from the instance;
orders Dolika to pay to Tikehau the costs of these proceedings, quantified at EUR 25.282,-.
Done by P. Glazener, C.A. Joustra and P.M. Arnoldus-Smit, appeal judges, assisted by M.A. Kloppenburg, Clerk of the Court.
Issued in public on 7 April 2026.