Netherlands

The case concerned a European Arrest Warrant issued by a Delegated European Prosecutor of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office in Germany for the surrender of a Dutch national. The Amsterdam District Court had to determine whether the requested person had effective judicial protection in the issuing State, given that the EAW had been issued by a prosecutorial authority rather than by a judge. The central issue was whether the proportionality of issuing the EAW had been reviewed by a German court, either implicitly when the national arrest warrant was issued or through a remedy available before surrender. The Court found that the information provided by the issuing authority was still insufficient, particularly because the national arrest warrant had been issued almost one month before the EAW and it was unclear whether the German judge had actually taken the subsequent EAW into account. The Court therefore reopened and stayed the proceedings, requesting further information from the issuing authority before deciding on surrender.

The case concerned a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Polish authorities for the prosecution of a Polish national accused of robbery and drug-related offences. The District Court of Amsterdam examined whether surrender would expose the requested person to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 ECHR due to detention conditions in the Polish remand regime. Referring to the CJEU’s Dorobantu judgment, the court held that a guarantee of 4 m² of personal living space in a multi-occupancy cell, excluding sanitary facilities, is not in itself sufficient to dispel concerns under Article 3 ECHR, since other material detention conditions — including the amount of time spent outside the cell — must also be assessed. The court therefore reconsidered aspects of its earlier case law and found that the information provided by the Polish authorities was insufficiently concrete to exclude a real risk of rights violations. The proceedings were reopened and additional information was requested from the issuing judicial authority concerning detention conditions.

The case concerned a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Belgian Federal Prosecutor’s Office for the surrender of a Dutch national for the purposes of prosecution. The requested person opposed surrender on the basis of detention conditions in Belgium, arguing that the individual assurances concerning the prison in Mechelen were insufficient in light of overcrowding, sanitation concerns, staff shortages and risks of violence among detainees. The Amsterdam District Court held that the additional assurances provided by the Belgian authorities removed the previously identified general real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment, since Belgium specifically guaranteed placement in a cell with no more than one other detainee and separated sanitary facilities. The Court also refused to make surrender conditional on a return guarantee under Article 6 OLW, finding that the requested person had not shown sufficiently strong ties with the Netherlands to justify execution of any future sentence there. The surrender to Belgium was therefore allowed

The case concerned a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Public Prosecutor at the Paris Judicial Court for the surrender of a Dutch national sought for prosecution in France. The requested person relied on the return guarantee under Article 6 OLW, which the Amsterdam District Court accepted, finding that his social and family ties with the Netherlands were sufficient to require that any future custodial sentence be served in the Netherlands. The main issue concerned detention conditions in Fresnes prison, where the requested person was likely to be held after surrender. Relying on recent CPT findings, the Court held that detainees in Fresnes faced a general real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment due to overcrowding, poor material conditions, a non-functioning intercom system, and inadequate healthcare. Since the information provided by the French authorities did not dispel the individual risk for the requested person, the Court stayed the surrender decision and set a 60-day period for further information or changed circumstances.

The case concerned an execution European Arrest Warrant issued by the Szeged Regional Court for the surrender of a Hungarian national to serve a six-month custodial sentence in Hungary. The defence argued that surrender should be refused under Article 11 OLW because of alleged risks of ill-treatment and inadequate detention conditions in Hungarian prisons, relying in particular on recent CPT findings concerning Tiszalök and Szombathely. The Amsterdam District Court held that the requested person would first be placed in Szeged Penitentiary and Prison and later in Szombathely National Facility, but found no objective, reliable, specific and properly updated information establishing a general real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in either facility. The Court considered that the concerns identified by the CPT in Szombathely appeared to be isolated incidents rather than structural and fundamental deficiencies, and that the material detention conditions there were generally adequate. Since Article 11 OLW did not bar surrender and no other refusal grounds applied, the Court allowed the surrender to Hungary

In the context of the European Arrest Warrant, Law No. 69 of 22 April 2005, as amended in 2021, reduced to five days the time limit for lodging an appeal before the Court of Cassation against decisions on surrender. This reduction is consistent with the criteria set out in Delegation Law No. 117 of 4 October 2019, as it aims to ensure full alignment of domestic legislation with Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, which requires that the European Arrest Warrant be dealt with and executed as a matter of urgency.

The case concerned an extradition request submitted by the Netherlands against a Dutch national born in Ghana who had been convicted in absentia for organized criminal offences involving narcotics trafficking, money laundering, bribery, and criminal organization leadership. Dutch judicial authorities alleged that the requested person participated in:- cocaine importation and trafficking;- laundering of criminal proceeds;- bribery;- organized criminal activities.The Amsterdam Criminal Court sentenced the requested person in absentia to 12 years’ imprisonment.Dutch authorities subsequently issued:- an arrest warrant;- an Interpol Red Notice.The requested person was later apprehended in Türkiye in connection with separate Turkish investigations involving:- criminal organization offences;- money laundering allegations.Dutch authorities formally requested extradition for enforcement of the Dutch conviction.The İstanbul 33rd Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible under Law No. 6706.The defence appealed, arguing inter alia that:- the conviction had been rendered in absentia;- retrial guarantees were insufficient;- the requested person would face racial discrimination because he was Black and Ghanaian-born;- detention measures were unlawful;- defence rights had been restricted.The Turkish Court of Cassation rejected these objections. The Court held that:- Dutch judicial authorities had provided adequate guarantees under Article 3 of the Second Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition;- the requested person would be entitled to participate in renewed appellate proceedings;- no concrete evidence existed indicating discriminatory prosecution, torture, or ill-treatment risks;- procedural defence rights during Turkish extradition proceedings had been respected;- detention measures were lawful and proportionate.The Court therefore upheld the extradition admissibility judgment.

The District Court of The Hague denied an extradition request from the Rwandan authorities for the wanted person’s involvement in the genocide against the Tutsis. In reaching this decision, the Court stated that there are objectively justified doubts about the judicial independence in Rwanda regarding trials of political opponents of the current regime. The Court determined that in view of his active membership of FDU-Inkingi, an opposition party in Rwanda, the wanted person can be regarded as a political opponent. In addition, he is a former high-ranking soldier and remained of interest to the Rwandan government after his emigration to the Netherlands. In the view of the Court, these circumstances create a real risk that in the event of extradition the wanted person will have to deal with political interference in his trial and therefore the right to a fair trial cannot be guaranteed." This summary and the document have been sourced from the National jurisprudence database on core international crimes (NJD) of the European Network for investigation and prosecution of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes (Genocide Prosecution Network).

The case concerned an extradition request submitted by the United States for the prosecution of the requested person for alleged wire fraud and aggravated identity theft in connection with the electronic filing of false tax returns. The requested person challenged the admissibility of extradition before the Supreme Court, arguing that the documents submitted by the United States were insufficient, that the facts for which extradition had been declared admissible were not clearly identified, and that the requirement of double criminality was not met. The Advocate General considered that the extradition documents were sufficient, including as to U.S. jurisdiction and the applicable statutory provisions. Although the description of the facts in the lower court’s decision was not entirely clear, the Advocate General considered that this could be remedied by reading the decision as referring to the facts set out in the supporting affidavit. The Advocate General further found that the alleged conduct corresponded under Dutch law to fraud and forgery, and recommended dismissal of the appeal; the Supreme Court followed that conclusion under Article 81(1) RO.