may 2013 immigration detention and the rule of law ... · may 2013 immigration detention and the...

May 2013

IMMIGRATION DETENTION AND THE RULE OF LAW

NATIONAL REPORT: BELGIUM

Alexandra Brand

Immigration Detention in the Netherlands by Alexandra Brand

for the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law,

London, UK, 2013

1

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 3

1.1 A New Life – Behind Bars ............................................................................................ 3

1.2 The Legal Foundation .................................................................................................. 5

1.2.1 New Develpments ................................................................................................... 6

1.2.2 Detention ................................................................................................................ 7

2 Prevention of Illegal Entry: Border Detention – Article 66 AA .......................................... 9

2.1 Arbitrariness of Detention .......................................................................................... 11

2.2 Authority to Detain .................................................................................................... 14

2.3 Duration of Detention ................................................................................................ 14

2.4 Alternatives to Detention ........................................................................................... 16

2.5 Due Process ............................................................................................................... 16

2.5.1 Placement Decision ................................................................................................ 16

2.5.2 Legal Representation .............................................................................................. 18

2.6 Appeal / Access to Justice .......................................................................................... 19

2.7 Conditions of Detention ............................................................................................. 20

2.8 Children ..................................................................................................................... 21

3 Post-Entry: Immigration Detention – Article 59 AA ........................................................ 22

3.1 Criminalization of Illegality ......................................................................................... 25

3.2 Expulsion v. Voluntary Departure ............................................................................... 29

3.3 Arbitrariness of Detention .......................................................................................... 30

3.4 Reasons for Detention ................................................................................................ 33

3.4.1 Public Interest ........................................................................................................ 33

3.4.2 National Security .................................................................................................... 34

3.5 Authority to Detain .................................................................................................... 35

3.6 Duration of Detention ................................................................................................ 35

3.7 Due Process ............................................................................................................... 37

3.7.1 Interview ................................................................................................................ 39

3.7.2 Legal Representation .............................................................................................. 41

3.7.3 Consular Assistance ................................................................................................ 42

3.7.4 Holidays.................................................................................................................. 43



London, UK, 2013

2

3.8 Appeal/Access to Justice ............................................................................................ 43

3.9 Conditions of Detention ............................................................................................. 44

3.9.1 Isolation ................................................................................................................. 47

3.9.2 Access to Health Care ............................................................................................. 47

4 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 48

5 Bibliography .................................................................................................................. 50

5.1 Legislation .................................................................................................................. 50

5.2 Official Documents ..................................................................................................... 51

5.3 Case Law .................................................................................................................... 53

5.3.1 Administrative Judicial Review Division of the Council of State ............................... 53

5.3.2 Hoge Raad / Supreme Court ................................................................................... 55

5.3.3 Rechtbank Amsterdam ........................................................................................... 55

5.3.4 Rechtbank Dordrecht .............................................................................................. 55

5.3.5 Rechtbank Haarlem ................................................................................................ 55

5.3.6 Rechtbank Rotterdam ............................................................................................. 56

5.3.7 Rechtbank ‘s-Gravenhage ....................................................................................... 56

5.3.8 Rechtbank ‘s-Hertogenbosch .................................................................................. 56

5.3.9 Rechtbank Utrecht.................................................................................................. 56

5.3.10 Rechtbank Zutphen ................................................................................................ 56

5.3.11 Rechtbank Zwolle ................................................................................................... 57

5.4 Scholars ..................................................................................................................... 57

5.5 Organizations and Institutions .................................................................................... 57

5.6 International Instruments .......................................................................................... 58

6 Annex ............................................................................................................................ 59



London, UK, 2013

3

IMMIGRANTION DETENTION IN THE

NETHERLANDS

BY ALEXANDRA BRAND*

1 Introduction

This is a report on the political and legal situation on immigration detention in the

Netherlands with the aim by the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law as part of the British

Institute for International and Comparative Law to facilitate comparison on this topic

between several countries as well as analysis for Human Rights purposes.

To this end, the report will set out the substantive as well as procedural laws of immigration

detention within the national legal framework and will illustrate the effect and scope of

these provisions through case law analysis. Furthermore, the report will discuss the current

policy plans of the government with regard to immigration detention and adjacent issues

that influence this topical area.

1.1 A New Life – Behind Bars

More than 70.000 immigrants came to the Netherlands in 2012, 80% of which in pursuit of a

regular residence permit. This number has remained steady above the 55.000-mark for the

last five years.1 The Dutch authorities counted 13.630 asylum requests last year, which

constitutes an icrease of 7% with 9810 first requests. Overall, asylum requests have

decreased since 2009, placing the Netherlands on place 8 of asyum destinations among EU

member states.2 There is no doubt that the Netherlands is a country of high immigration

numbers. In turn, this leads the WODC, the scientific research and documentation centre of

*Alexandra Brand holds an LLM in Globalization and Law and is currently a lecturer at the Department for

International and European Law at the law faculty of Maastricht University.

1 Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie. 2013. Rapportage Vreemdelingenketen, Periode Januari – December

2012, retrieved on 28-4-2013 from http://www.dienstterugkeerenvertrek.nl/images/rapportage-

vreemdelingenketen-januari-december-2012_tcm66-495405.pdf, p. 11.

2 Ibid pp. 17, 20.



London, UK, 2013

4

the Ministry for Security and Justice, to estimate that several thousands of immigrants live in

the Netherlands illegally. While this number seems to be decreasing as estimations of 2005

with 128.907 and 97.145 in 2009 show,3 it remains of high significance, also in terms of

immigration detention as will become apparent in Chapter 3.

Many of those immigrants are detained to prevent them from illegally entering the territory,

or with the prospect of motivating them to return to their country of origin, using coercive

measures if necessary. In 2012, 5.420 immigrants were detained, most of them for less than

3 months, 690 between three to six months, and 900 for more than 6 months. The last

number is particularly noteworthy, since Dutch legislation on immigration detention aims at

a duration no longer than six months.4 The number of newly detained immigrants decreased

since 2007 and 2009 which counted 9595 and 8590 new detainees respectively.5 Within this

time span, newly detained immigrants were predominantly male6 and came from Iraq,

Algeria, and Morocco.7 While the numbers of newly detained are high, so are the numbers of

those who leave detention, resulting in an average of 1040 detainees in 2012. Including

immigrants that were not detained during their stay in the Netherlands, 2012 saw 10.090

aliens leave the territory. While 41% chose for their departure with help by the Dutch

authorities, 59% were forced to leave by means of expulsion. A further 10.660 aliens have

been estimated to have left without engaging the services of the Dutch authorities. However,

this number includes also those aliens that have not been found to live at their last

registered address any more and are therefore expected to have left the Netherlands

although there is no way of determining whether this is accurate.8

3 Dienst Justitiële Inrichtingen, Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie. 2012. Vreemdelingenbewaring in getal,

2007-2011, retrieved on 28-4-2013 from http://www.dji.nl/Images/vreemdelingenbewaring-in-getal-2007-

2011_tcm93-430853.pdf, p. 16.

4 Supra note 1, p. 33.

5 Supra note 3, p. 15; supra note 1, p. 33.

6 Over 90%, see supra note 3, p. 24





London, UK, 2013

5

1.2 The Legal Foundation

Dutch immigration law is to be found in 4 different sources, namely the Aliens Act 2000

(Vreemdelingenwet),9 the Aliens Decree 2000 (Vreemdelingenbesluit),

10 the Aliens Regulation

2000 (Voorschrift Vreemdelingen 2000)11

and the Aliens Act Implementation Guidelines 2000

(Vreemdelingencirculaire). The Aliens Act (AA) was formally adopted by the Dutch Parliament

and as such constitutes a formal statutory act. The Aliens Decree (AD) contains binding

regulations by the government that support the law of the AA. Pursuant to many provisions

within the AA and the AD, the responsible minister, who often is the Minister of Justice but

may also be the Minister for Immigration and Asylum depending on the constellation of the

respective cabinet, may establish rules and regulations which can be found in the Aliens

Regulation (AR) and which constitute a ministerial order. Furthermore, the Aliens Act

provides for the minister to give specific orders to the authorized officers dealing with the

supervision of aliens.12

These orders are further laid down in the Implementation Guildelines

(IG) which are divided into ‘entry and border control’ under A,13

‘regular residence’ under

B,14

and ‘asylum policy’ under C.15

9 Vreemdelingenwet 2000, 1 April 2001, BWBR0011823, retrieved on 28-4-2013 from

http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0011823/geldigheidsdatum_28-04-2013

10 Vreemdelingenbesluit 2000, 1 April 2001, BWBR0011825, retrieved on 28-4-2013 from

http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0011825/volledig/geldigheidsdatum_28-04-2013#Opschrift

11 Voorschrift Vreemdelingen 2000, 1 Apil 2001, BWBR0012002, retrieved on 28-4-2013 from

http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0012002/volledig/geldigheidsdatum_28-04-2013#Opschrift

12 Article 48 AA: 1. The chief of police and the commander of the Royal Netherlands Military Constabulary shall

furnish Our Minister with the information requested by him about the implementation of this Act and of the

Schengen Borders Code. 2. Our Minister may issue directions to the chief of police and the commander of the

Royal Netherlands Military Constabulary about the implementation of this Act and of the Schengen Borders

Code. Our Minister may issue individual directions to the officials referred to in section 47, subsection 1. 3. Our

Minister may issue directions about the organisation of the job procedures and mode of operation to: (a) the

chief of police, through the intermediary of the Minister of Security and Justice; (b) the commander of the Royal

Netherlands Military Constabulary through the intermediary of the Minister of Defence. 4. Further rules may be

laid down by Order in Council regarding paragraphs 1, 2 and 3.

13 Vreemdelingencirculaire A 2000, 1 April 2001, BWBR0012287, retrieved on 28-4-2013 from

http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0012287/geldigheidsdatum_28-04-2013.

14 Vreemdelingencirculaire B 2000, 1 April 2001, BWBR0012289, retrieved on 28-4-2013 from


15 Vreedemlingencriculaire C 2000, 1 April 2001, BWBR0012288, retrieved on 28-4-20113 from

http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0012288/geldigheidsdatum_28-04-2013; Kampstra, E.M. 2012. Kernzaken

Staats- en Bestuursrecht. Vreemdelingenrecht. Kluwer, Deventer, pp. 5f.



London, UK, 2013

6

The Aliens Act and adjacent legal provisions belong to the area of Dutch administrative law

which regulates the executive power held by the public authorities.16

As a consequence,

subjects of immigration law will also be subject to the General Administrative Law Act

(Algemeene Wet Bestuursrecht)17

in so far as the immigration law does derogate from those

provisions as the more specific rule to follow. This is particularly important with regard to

orders and decisions that the minister and the authorized officers issue to the alien in

question which give rise to different legal procedures before the judicial organs. A valid order

has to adhere to the principles of good governance, some of which will be examined more

closely during this report. The priniples of good governance entail, firstly, the prohibition to

abuse power, secondly, the authorities’ duty to investigate the circumstances of a situation

during the careful preparation of an order, thirdly, the weighing of the objectives to be

achieved with this order against the interests potentially harmed as a consequence of it,

fourthly, to give reasons for the order, and lastly, to treat equal cases alike.18

When orders or decisions are addressed to specific individuals, the latter can challenge them

in accordance with legal remedies of administrative law which differ from other areas of

Dutch law such as criminal or civil law. This constitutes an important aspect for the purpose

of discussing immigration detention, since detention orders are directly addressed to the

foreign national in question who can then challenge this decision within the framework of

administrative legal procedure. In situations where the alien does not agree with the

measure by the authorities, he has the possibility to issue an appeal to the administrative

section of a district court (rechtbank). Immigration detention may also be subject to further

or higher appeal before the Administraive Judicial Review Division of the Council of State

(Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak Raad van State).19

1.2.1 New Develpments

Despite the legislation’s short existence, it has been subject to multiple changes. The newest

amendment is a substantial change of the Implementation Guidelines from 1 April 2013

16 Kenniscentrum Commissie van Toezicht, Vreemdelingenbewaring, retrieved on 3-4-2013 from:

http://www.commissievantoezicht.nl/dossiers/vreemdelingenbewaring/vreemdelingenbewaring/; Taekema, S.

2011. Understanding Dutch Law. 2nd

ed. Eleven International Publishing, The Hague, Chapter 6, pp. 165-183.

17 Algemene Wet Bestuursrecht, 1 Jan. 1994, BWBR0005537, retrieved on 28-4-2013 from

http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0005537/volledig/geldigheidsdatum_28-04-2013.

18 Ibid Taekema.

19 Ibid.



London, UK, 2013

7

onwards,20

which will become evident in the discussion below. Many details of procedure

have been taken out of the new version. However, for the purpose of historical account and

to better understand the case law, the prior regulations are also specified where appropriate.

Another point of interest is the fact that the current government plans to criminalize illegal

residence and has proposed a bill to that effect to the 2nd

Chamber of Parliament earlier this

year.21

This criminalization aims at subjecting aliens without a residence permit to criminal

detention on top of administrative detention as already provided for in the Aliens Act 2000.

1.2.2 Detention

The Dutch constitution prescribes that no one may be subjected to a deprivation of his

liberty “other than in the cases laid down by or pursuant to Act of Parliament.22

This

provision is not limited to Dutch citizens, but to everyone on Netherlands territory. In line

with the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR),

the Netherlands impose the administrative measure23

of immigration detention for the

purpose of preventing illegal entry and with a view to expulsion.24

In principle, this means

that immigrants in possession of a temporary or permanent residence permit are not

subjected to this measure. However, those aliens who have been barred from entering the

Netherlands territory and those who are illegally resident in the Netherlands may be

detained on the basis of immigration law. Furthermore, the law provides for specific

circumstances under which aliens awaiting a decision with regard to their residence permit

may be detained as well.

20 Immigratie- en Naturalisatiedienst, Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie. 2 April 2013. Het Nederlandse

vreemdelingenbeleid herschreven. Retrieved on 28-4-2013 from

http://www.ind.nl/Nieuws/Pages/HetNederlandsevreemdelingenbeleidherschreven.aspx.

21 Vaste Commissie voor Veiligheid en Justitie. 13 March 2013. Verslag van een algemeen overleg, gehouden op

woensdag 13 maart 2013, over Opvang, terugkeer en vreemdelingenbewaring – Vreemdelingenbeleid.

Retrieved on 28-4-2013 from

http://www.parlementairemonitor.nl/9353000/1/j9vvij5epmj1ey0/vj8c5lhaymzk#p1, p. 19.

22 Grondwet voor het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden van 24 augustus 1815, BWBR0001840, retrieved on 28-4-

2013 from http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001840/geldigheidsdatum_28-04-2013, Artikel 15.1: Buiten de

gevallen bij of krachtens de wet bepaald mag niemand zijn vrijheid worden ontnomen.

23 For recent political development to criminalize illegality which allows for criminal detention of immigrants,

see Chapter 3.2.

24 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 3 Sept. 1953, 213 UNTS 221

[hereafter ECHR], Article 5.1: Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived

of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: (f) the lawful

arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person

against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.



London, UK, 2013

8

The Aliens Act contains five grounds to restrict25

and four grounds to deprive26

a foreign

national from his freedom. The focus of this report lies on the deprivation measures, but the

restrictive counterparts will be incorporated to the extent that it serves the understanding of

immigration detention. To this end, it is important to distinguish between different concepts

of detention within the Dutch immigration law. The report will analyse border detention in

Chapter 2, which applies to rejected immigrants at the external borders of the Netherlands,

as well as immigration detention in Chapter 3, which is exercised with a view to expulsion for

reasons of public interest or national security. Each form of detention knows its own places

of implementation as well as codes to regulate treatment and behaviour of subjects and

their supervisors. Those will be discussed in the upcoming sections as appropriate.

As the report is mainly concerned with the legal implications of immigration detention, it will

provide for an analysis closely aligned to the provisions in the Aliens Act 2000. Relevant case

law and policy trends will be discussed in the wake of specific issues arising out of these legal

provisions to create a coherent contextual narrative.

For this purpose, each legal provision will be analysed with respect to a set of substantive

and procedural issues that will facilitate ready comparison between different countries and

different aspects in their immigration law and policy.

This report is mainly based on sources of Netherlands origin which are therefore issued in

the Dutch language, including legislation, jurisprudence and policy information. To make the

subsequent analysis more transparent, the Annex includes a selection of the essential

articles of the Aliens Act 2000 in both Dutch and English.27

Where important, the footnotes

give Dutch excerpts to facilitate cross-lingual referencing. Please note that there may be

discrepancies between the translation used in this report and other legal or political

literature, since different authorities, such as the Dutch government or the European Court

of Human Rights, may use different terms to refer to the same concept. This should however

not impair the understanding of the analysis in this report.

25 Article 6.1 AA, Article 50.1 AA, Article 55 AA, Article 56 AA, Article 57 AA.

26 Article 6.1 and 2 AA, Article 50.2 and 3 AA, Article 58 AA, Article 59 AA.

27 English translation of the Aliens Act 2000 is based on but not identical to the translation found on

http://www.legislationline.org/documents/id/4680.



London, UK, 2013

9

2 Prevention of Illegal Entry: Border Detention – Article 66 AA

Since the Schengen Agreement entered into force for the Netherlands on 26 March 1995, the

Dutch national borders common with other member states are no longer subject to controls

and for the purpose of border detention do no longer qualify as external borders of the

Netherlands. Instead, external borders are considered only those borders that touch the

outer seams of the Schengen Area. For the Netherlands, these are the the ports and the

airport Amsterdam Schiphol. Third-country nationals who do not fulfill the requirements for

entering the Netherlands as laid down in Article 5 of the Schengen Borders Code (Schengen

Grenscode)28

or in Article 3 of the Dutch Aliens Act 200029

may be refused entry to prevent

the illegal passing of the Schengen border. This refusal of entry entails that the foreign

national has a duty to leave immediately.30

In order to ensure that the alien who has been

refused entry but cannot leave right away does not attempt to pass the border illegally, he

“may be required to stay in a space or place designated by a border control officer” pursuant

to Article 6.1 AA.31

Article 6.2 contains the possibility to turn the restrictive measure under subsection 1 into

one of border detention by means of a coercive element. This rule establishes that the space

or place where the alien is held “may be secured against unauthorized departure”.32

28 Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, 15 March 2006 establishing a

Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders, Official Journal L 105/1 of

13-4-2006.

29 Article 3 AA: 1. Entry into the Netherlands shall be refused, in cases different from those in the Schengen

Borders Code, to an alien who:(a) is not in possession of a valid travel document or is in possession of a valid

travel document in which the requisite visa is missing;(b) constitutes a serious threat to public order (ordre

public) or national security;(c) does not have sufficient means to defray both the costs of his stay in the

Netherlands and the costs of his journey to a place outside the Netherlands where his entry is guaranteed, or (d)

does not fulfil the conditions laid down by or pursuant to Order in Council. 2. Rules concerning the refusal of

entry on the basis of this law or through implementation of the Schengen Borders Code shall be laid down by or

pursuant to Order in Council. 3. The border control officers shall not, save in accordance with a special direction

issued by Our Minister, refuse entry into the Netherlands to an alien who indicates that he wishes to have

asylum.

30 Article 5.1 AA: An alien who has been refused entry into the Netherlands shall leave the Netherlands

immediately […]

31 Article 6.1 AA: 1. An alien who has been refused entry into the Netherlands may be required to stay in a space

or place designated by a border control officer.

32 Article 6.2 AA: A space or place, as referred to in subsection 1, may be secured against unauthorized

departure.



London, UK, 2013

10

Consequentially, someone who has already factually entered the Schengen Area cannot be

detained under Article 6. This is due to the fact that the justification to detain is tied to the

prevention of illegal entry as to be found in Article 5.1.f of the ECHR. Once the alien entered

the Netherlands, the justification to detain under this provision ceases.33

The alien may be

detained on the basis of different provisions once he has entered as will be discussed in

Chapter 3.

Border detention pursuant to Article 6.1 and 2 can also be invoked subsequent to criminal

detention of an alien.34

In order to continue detention on the basis of Article 6 after criminal

detention, the immigrant must be informed of his prohibition to enter the Netherlands. In

2005, the District Court of Amsterdam ruled that the border detention pursuant to Article 6

of an alien subsequent to his criminal detention was unlawful because he had not been

informed of his prohibition to enter the Netherlands. The Court noted that detaining an

immigrant under criminal law did not automatically imply that he was barred from entry.35

Border detention has received substantial criticism by Human Rights and Migration

organizations. Just in December 2012, the VluchtelingenWerk Nederland, an organization

that concerns itself with the rights of refugees, published an open letter to State Secretary

Teeven to stop border detention altogether. The organization criticises that border detention

often takes longer than the supposed few weeks and that it means deprivation of liberty for

those who come to the Netherlands for refuge from outside the Schengen area. The

organization observes that they are treated more harshly than asylum seekers travelling

overland, who are already inside the Schengen Area when they arrive at the Dutch border

and are therefore not subject to border detention pursuant to Article 6. Instead, asylum

seekers entering the Nehterlands via the surrounding countries are brought to reception

centres instead of being subjected to detention. Incentive for this renewed open criticism is

the fact that the authorities were about to open a new detention centre at Schiphol, where

33 Tweede Kamer en Staten-Generaal. 1998-1999. Algehele herziening van de Vreemdelingenwet

(Vreemdelingenwet 2000). Memoire van Toelichting. Kamerstuk 26 732, Nr. 3, pp. 17f; Rb Haarlem, 23 Oct.

2002, LJN: AF2392; No information on this is provided in the amended Implementation Guildelines from 1 April

2013, in prior version: A6/2.2 IG.

34 Ibid Kamerstuk 26 732, p. 19; Article 7 AA; Rb Amsterdam, 10 April 2008, LJN BD0607.

35 Rb Amsterdam, 25 Jan. 2005, LJN: AS9656.



London, UK, 2013

11

asylum seekers would be placed together with criminals, which the organization views as

inacceptable.36

The so-called Justitieel Complex Schiphol is in use since January 2013.37

In his response to this letter in February 2013, the State Secretary explains that asylum

seekers in border detention mostly know whether they may stay within two weeks. Should

the assessment take longer, they are relocated to an open reception centre. In principle, he

argues, detention is lifted when the application assessment does not yield results within six

weeks. When they are denied entry, the measure is upheld until departure can be facilitated.

It seems that the State Secretary does not consider alternatives since they cannot guarantee

that the alien illegally enters the territory after all. He also stresses that a difference in

treatment between aliens that arrive via ship or plane and those that travel overland is

justified due to the fact that the latter already are in the Schengen area in contrast to those

who travel via air or sea.38

Thus, the State Secretary in representing the current government

policy defends the status quo situation without addressing the fundamental issues that arise

as a consequence of this policy already in place.

2.1 Arbitrariness of Detention

To invoke border detention pursuant to Article 6 subsecitions 1 and 2, the alien in question

has to have been refused entry prior to this order. The alien is able to file an administrative

appeal against this refusal of entry, which is also open to subsequent judicial appeal.39

The

alien is also able to appeal against the order of border detention before a court in

36 VluchtelingenWerk Nederland. 27 Dec. 2012. Oproep VluchtelingenWerk: ‘Geen vluchtelingen meer in de

cel’. Retrieved on 28-4-2013 from http://www.vluchtelingenwerk.nl/persberichten/geen-vluchtelingen-meer-

in-de-cel.php.

37 Dienst Justitiële Inrichtingen. Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie. Detentiecentrum Schiphol. Retrieved on

28-4-2013 from http://www.dji.nl/Organisatie/Locaties/Detentiecentra-en-uitzetcentra/Detentiecentrum-

Noord-Holland/; Rijksoverheid. 17 Dec. 2012. Nieuw Justitieel Complex Schiphol in gebruik genomen. Retrieved

on 28-4-2013 from http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/nieuws/2012/12/17/nieuw-justitieel-complex-schiphol-in-

gebruik-genomen.html.

38 Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie. 19 Feb 2013. Anwoorden kamervragen over de oproep van

Vluchtelingenwerk Nederland om te stoppen met de grensdetentie van vluchtelingen. Kenmerk 2013-

0000002618, retrieved on 28-4-2013 from http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-en-

publicaties/kamerstukken/2013/02/21/antwoorden-kamervragen-over-de-oproep-van-vluchtenlingenwerk-

nederland-om-te-stoppen-met-de-grensdetentie-van-vluchtelingen.html.

39 No information on this is provided in the amended Implementation Guildelines from 1 April 2013, in prior

version: A2/5.5.4 IG.



London, UK, 2013

12

accordance with Article 94.1 AA.40

According to the Administrative Judicial Review Division of

the Council of State (AJRDCoS), the judge concerned with the lawfulness of border detention

is not in a position to decide upon the lawfulness of refusal of entry, despite the fact that the

latter is a direct condition to the lawfuness of the former. In 2002, a woman of Nigerian

nationality appealed the order of border detention on the basis that she had been subject to

human trafficking and therefore should not have been denied legal entry into the

Netherlands. The District Court Haarlem stated, however, that it was not competent to

adjudge the rightfulness of the refusal of entry in line with the Division’s ruling.41

The

AJRDCoS is not concerned that this artificial separation of the decision on refusal of entry

and the decision to detain is in violation of Article 5.1 of the ECHR.42

The relevant subsection

under f provides that a person’s detention is arbitrary unless he is detained “to prevent his

effecting an unauthorised entry into the country […].”43

Thus, whether the alien was

rightfully refused entry is of great importance in deciding whether his detention is arbitrary

or not.

The matter is different for the determination wether the refusal of entry is lawful. The alien

may apply for a provisional ruling during the ongoing administrative complaint concerning his

rejection to enter the Netherlands.44

The judge may, upon finding that the refusal of entry

was unlawful, also lift the border detention.45

With regard to asylum seekers, border detention is to be applied with caution and as

restrictively as possible. To ensure that those who seek refuge in the Netherlands are not

turned away at the external borders without due reason, asylum seekers may only be

refused entry upon special order by the Minister.46

The Implementation Guidelines lay out

40 Article 94.1 AA: Our Minister shall notify the District Court of an order imposing a custodial measure as

referred to in sections 6, 58 and 59 no later than on the 28th

day after communication of the order, unless the

alien has himself already lodged an application for judicial review. As soon as the District Court has received the

notification the alien shall be deemed to have lodged an application for judicial review of the order imposing the

custodial measure.

41 Rb Haarlem, 23 Oct. 2002, LJN: AF2392.

42 ABRvS, 5 Sept. 2001, LJN: AD4502, zaaknr.: 200103358/1; see also: ABRvS, 17 July 2007, zaaknr.:

200703945/1.

43 Supra note 24.

44 Supra note 17 General Administrative Law Act, Article 8:81.

45 Rb Haarlem, 2 May 2006, LJN: AX3993.

46 Article 3 AA; supra note 33 Kamerstuk 26 732 Nr. 3, pp. 17f.



London, UK, 2013

13

that this entails contacting the Immigration and Naturalization Service (IND) to ensure that

the individual in question is put in a position to request asylum.47

Ironically, the consequence

is that asylum seekers at the external borders are in principle formally refused entry and

detained pursuant to Article 6 subsection 1 and 2.48

The individual is then transferred to the

Registration Centre Schiphol.

In 2001, a Somalian asylum seeker argued that his status protected him from border

detention under Article 6 in accordance with the UNHCR Detention Guidelines. However, the

District Court Haarlem found that border detention was allowed in accordance with the

international guidelines, since they allow for detention to determine the identity of the

asylum seeker.49

The Court further explained that the asylum application procedure provides

for a reassessment of the border detention after the first interview, during which identity

and circumstances of the individual are attempted to be determined. Thus, the Aliens Act

provides for safeguards against unnecessary or arbitrary detention with regard to asylum

seekers in border detention.50


version: A2/5.5.1 and C9/2.1.1.1 IG; Tweede Kamer en Staten-Generaal. 1999-2000. Algehele herziening van

de Vreemdelingenwet (Vreemdelingenwet 2000). Nota naar aanleiding van het verslag. Kamerstuk 26 732, Nr.

7, p. 90.



49 UNHCR. 2012. Detention Guildelines. Guidelines on the Applicable Criteria and Standards relating to the

Retrieved on 28-4-2013 from http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/503489533b8.html, Guideline 4.1, para.

24: Minimal periods in detention may be permissible to carry out initial identity and security checks in cases

where identity is undetermined or in dispute, or there are indications of security risks. 46 At the same time, the

detention must last only as long as reasonable efforts are being made to establish identity or to carry out the

security checks, and within strict time limits established by law (see below).

50 Rb Haarlem, 14 Sept. 2001, LJN: AD7285, para. 2.9: Tenslotte acht de president de toegangsweigering en

daarop volgende detentie van verzoeker niet in strijd met het Vluchtelingenverdrag en de UNHCR-Guidelines.

In Conclusion 44 van de Guidelines is onder meer aangegeven dat detentie noodzakelijk kan zijn om de identiteit

van de vreemdeling te verifiëren elementen waarop de asielaanvraag is gebaseerd te onderzoeken en de

openbare orde te beschermen. Na de toegangsweigering door de Kmar en de toepassing van de artikel 6

maatregel wordt na het eerste gehoor in het AC opnieuw een beslissing genomen of verdere vrijheidsbeneming

geëigend is. Indien de maatregel wordt voortgezet wordt ook binnen korte tijd beslist op het asielverzoek.

Onder deze omstandigheden kan niet worden geoordeeld dat een asielzoeker nodeloos in detentie wordt

gehouden.



London, UK, 2013

14

2.2 Authority to Detain

The Implementation Guidelines state that border control officers as defined in Article 46.1 of

the Aliens Act 2000 have the authority to impose the restrictive measure of Article 6.1 AA.51

They may impose the coercive element under subsection 2 when they are given reason to

believe that the immigrant will not comply with the order to stay in a given space or place in

accordance with Article 6.1 AA. Border control officers include officers of the Royal

Netherlands Military Constabulary as well as of the regional police force in the area of the

Rotterdam port and the director of border accommodation as referred to in Article 3 of the

Border Accommodation Regime Regulations. Furthermore, the Minister may, in agreement

with the Minister of Home Affairs, authorise police officers specifically.52

2.3 Duration of Detention

While the Aliens Act 2000 itself does not provide for a maximum time of border detention,

the Implementing Guidelines speak about a timeframe of 6 months.53

Once this time has

elapsed, the interest of the alien to be free weighs heavier than the fulfillment of the

objective of preventing illegal entry as a consequence of which detention was imposed.54

The

timeframe of 6 months may be prolonged by a maximum of another 12 months. If detention

51 A1/2. IG.

52 Article 46.1: The following are charged with supervising the observance of and implementing the statutory

provisions relating to border control: (a) the officers of the Royal Netherlands Military Constabulary; (b) the

officers of the regional police force in the area of the Rotterdam port; (c) the director of border

accommodations referred to in article 3 of the Border Accommodation Regime Regulations; (d) the police

officers designated by order of Our Minister, in agreement with Our Minister of the Interior and Kingdom

Relations and Our Minister of Defence, as referred to in section 3, subsection 1 (a) and (c), and subsection 2 of

the Police Act 1993;2. Rules shall be laid down by Order in Council concerning: (a) the arrangements made in

the interests of border control; (b) the obligations to which persons are subject for the purpose of surveillance in

the interests of border control. 3. Border Control officers as referred to in Paragraph 1 qualify as the border

control guards named in Article 2 (13) of the Schengen Treaty.

53 A5/6.8 IG, Dutch version: De bewaring duut niet langer dan zes maanden, men een mogelijkheid deze te

verlengen met twaalf maanden(…)Een maand geldt daarbij als 30 dagen.

54 Rb Haarlem, 19 April 2000, LJN: AA5762, para. 2.4: De vreemdeling heeft er terecht op gewezen dat bij

voortduring van de maatregel ex artikel 7a,tweede en derde lid, Vw [today: Article 6 subsection 1 and 2] langer

dan zes maanden zijn belang bij opheffing van die maatregel in beginsel groter is dan het belang van

verweerder bij voortzetting daarvan, welk belang is gelegen in uitzetting en in het voorkomen van verdere

toegang(...).



London, UK, 2013

15

will be extended beyond the original 6 months, the Repatriation and Departure Service is

obliged to inform the alien about this in writing before the end of the first 6 months.55

Reasons for prolongation are that the alien either does not cooperate or that documents are

still awaited from a third country. The alien can appeal against this prolongation.56

Border detention can also be extended because the alien or his family is not able to travel

due to medical reasons.57

Border detention ends either when the alien has left the Netherlands territory or when the

measure is lifted by the authorities or by a court. It is important to note that the decision to

lift the border detention does not automatically result in the alien having rightful stay in the

Netherlands. Even after detention pursuant to subsection 2 of Article 6 is lifted, the alien

may still be restricted in his freedom of movement in accordance with subsection 1 of the

same article.58

However, once the alien is released on the Netherlands territory, there is no

longer a formal refusal of entry on basis of Article 3. Since this is a condition for Article 6,

authorities may not invoke the latter measure any longer.59

Having said that, being factually

present on the Dutch territory within its external borders is not equal to having rightful stay

under one of the options laid out in Article 8. Thus, the alien will still be illegal and thereby

may be subject to immigration detention pursuant to Article 59.60

As has been discussed with regard to arbitrariness of detention, when the court lifts the

refusal of entry, the border detention ceases to apply at the same time. When a departure

does not go through as planned and the alien comes back, the authorities need to assess

anew whether the conditions for border detention are fulfilled. The alien cannot be taken

55 Supra note 53.


version: A6/2.7 IG; Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008

on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals,

Official Journal of the European Union, L 348/98 of 24.12.2008 [hereafter: Return Directive], Article 5.6. Please

note that it is debatable whether aliens who have been refused entry qualify as subjects of this Directive as

they are strictly speaking not illegally staying in the Netherlands at the moment of detention.

57 Article 64 AA; A3/7 IG.


version: A6/2.8 IG.

59 Rb Amsterdam, 15 Dec. 2008, LJN: BG7919; see also: Rb Haarlem, 16 Oct. 2002, LJN: AF2389.

60 See Chapter 3.



London, UK, 2013

16

back into border detention on the basis of the prior placement decision but needs to receive

a new one.61

2.4 Alternatives to Detention

Foreign nationals who seek asylum are formally refused entry and placed in border detention

under Article 6 subsection 1 and 2 as a matter of principle.62

This means that there is no

assessment whether less intrusive means than detention could be invoked to guarantee that

the individual will not illegally enter the territory of the Netherlands. Hence, the question

arises whether this way of application of Article 6 is in conflict with the principles laid down

in the UNHCR Detention Guidelines and the Return Directive63

that immigration detention

should be handled as a matter of last resort.

2.5 Due Process

2.5.1 Placement Decision

When the border control officer dealing with a refused immigrant has reason to believe that

the alien will not stay in the assigned place or when the alien constitutes a risk to public

order or national security, the officer may impose border detention.64

The reasoned65

61 Rb Haarlem, 30 Dec. 2003, LJN AO2652, No information on this is provided in the amended Implementation

Guildelines from 1 April 2013, in prior version: A6/2.8 IG.

62 The prior version of the Immigration Guildelines clearly states in A2/5.5.1: Ingevolge artikel 3, derde lid, Vw

dient in het geval een vreemdeling te kennen geeft asiel te willen vragen, (...) [i]n beginsel [...] de toegang

worden geweigerd en een vrijheidsontnemende maatregel worden opgelegd ex artikel 6, eerste en tweede lid

Vw (...). , The amended Implementation Guildelines from 1 April 2013 formulate more neutrally, stating that

those who seek asylum for the first time shall in principle not be presumed to try to evade surveillance.

However, certain situations, such as having been refused entry, are seen as indicating the opposite. Since

evasion of surveillance is enough reason to detain an alien on basis of Article 6 subsection 1 and 2, this equals

the principle detention of first-time asylum seekers as described in the prior version of the IG. The current IG

state in A3/3: Een risico dat de vreemdeling zich aan het toezicht zal onttrekken wordt in beginsel niet

aangenomen bij de eerste aanvraag van (...) asiel voor bepaalde tijd. In all volgende situaties wordt een risico

dat de vreemdeling zich aan het toezicht zal onttrekken bij de eerste aanvraag (...) wel tegengeworpen: als het

een grensgeweigerde vreemdeling betreft (...).

63 Supra note 49, Guideline 2, para. 14; Supra note 56 Return Directive, preamble para. 20; Article 15.1.


version: A6/2.4 IG: (...)Het opleggen van de vrijheidsontnemende maatregel is in ieder geval geïndiceerd



London, UK, 2013

17

palcement decision (plaatsingsbeschikking) enters into force from the moment that the

responsible officer delivers a copy of the order, the so-called M19-form, to the alien in

question. In accordance with the ECHR, The Implementing Guidelines to the Dutch Aliens Act

2000 provide for the essential duty to inform the alien about the content of the order of

border detention under Article 6 as well as about the possibility to appeal against this order

in a language that the alien can understand.66

Non-fulfillment of this essential duty on part of

the authorities leads to the detention being unlawful.67

In principle, every time the place of detention changes the authorities are required to draw

up a new M19-form. A temporary change of place which does not exceed 48 hours and

which is based on reasons put forward in the Aliens Act does not require a new placement

decision.68

Equally, exceptional circumstances may not leave the opportunity to issue a new

placement decision. On 27 October 2005, the Detention Centre Schiphol (detentiecentrum

Schiphol) was severely damaged due to a fire, as a consequence of which many detained

immigrants were relocated to other detention facilities. One of them was a Chinese national,

who was transferred to the detention boat “Reno” in Rotterdam on the very same date

without a new placement decision. The District Court of Amsterdam found that there was no

infringement on the alien’s rights since the necessary order had been handed to the judicial

authorities on 3 November. According to the Court the delay in producing this placement

decision did not challenge the lawfulness of detention.69

Another alien of Kenyan nationality

from the Schiphol centre was also placed on a detention boat in Rotterdam on 27 October

2005. His placement decision was issued on 1 November, i.e. 2 days earlier than the order in

wanneer naar het oordeel van de ambtenaar belast met de grensbewaking aanwijzingen bestaan dat de

vreemdeling zich niet zal houden aan de aanwijzing om zich op te houden in de bedoelde ruimte of plaats en/of

omdat aspecten van openbare orde of nationale veiligheid dit vorderen(...).


version: A5/2.5.3.2 IG.

66 A5/3.1 IG, prior version: A6/2.5 IG

67 Rb Haarlem, 3 Dec. 2004, LJN: AR8529, para. 2.5 – 2.7: (…)De rechtbank is evenwel van oordeel dat niet is

gebleken dat bij uitreiking ook de inhoud en strekking van de beschikking aan de vreemdeling zijn meegedeeld

(...)Uit het bovenstaande concludeert de rechtbank dat de vreemdeling niet op de hoogte is gesteld van de

inhoud en strekking van de plaatsingsbeschikking en de mogelijkheid tot het instellen van een rechtsmiddel. De

rechtbank acht het feit dat een vreemdeling op de hoogte wordt gesteld van de inhoud en strekking van de

maatregel en de mogelijkheid een rechtsmiddel in te stellen in het licht van het onder r.o. 2.4 bepaalde dermate

essentieel, dat het ontbreken hiervan de bewaring van aanvang af onrechtmatig maakt.

68 Article 5.5.1 AD; A5/3.1 IG, the timespan of 48 hours can only be found in prior version of IG: A6/2.5 Vc.

69 Rb Amsterdam, 8 Nov. 2005, LJN: AU7456.



London, UK, 2013

18

the other case. Still, the Court found that the period between the transfer to the boat and

the issuing of the decision did not have a legal basis. While the Court acknowledged that the

fire posed exceptional circumstances that could justify the lack of a legal basis, it also stated

that it was the authorities’ responsibility to keep this period of time as short as possible. The

evidence was found not to establish that the authorities took an extra effort during these

days. As a result, the measure needed to be lifted.70

2.5.2 Legal Representation

The law does not provide for the right of the immigrant to be informed of the possibility of

legal representation before border detention under Article 6 subsections 1 and 2. This is in

contrast to the procedural safeguards put into place concerning Article 59, the legal

foundation for immigration with a view to expulsion, which provides for the right to be

informed by the authorities within a reasonable time before the first interview that legal

representation is granted upon request.71

Furthermore, in principle the authorities are under no obligation to organize legal

representation for the individual in question. This has been affirmed in case law shortly after

the new Aliens Act 2000 had entered into force on 1 April 2001. The AJRDCoS stated in

November 2001 that neither law nor guidelines of immigration policy nor Article 5 ECHR

contained such a right that in every case of invoking a measure under Article 6 AA the state is

obliged to facilitate that the alien receives a visit by an assigned lawyer.72

The District Court

Haarlem reinforced this statement in August 2002, but pointed to the Implementation

Guidelines which state that the officer has to inform the Legal Aid Service if the alien

requests the assistance of a lawyer upon rejection of his residence permit application.73

In 2007, the District Court Amsterdam interpreted this provision as equally applicable to

aliens detained under Article 6. The Court stated that the criterion that led to a responsibility

on part of the authorities was the fact that the alien had been barred from entering the

Netherlands. Whether he was subsequently put into border detention or not was not of

relevance in the court’s opinion. Since the applicant in the case had asked for legal

70 Rb Haarlem, 9 Nov. 2005, LJN: AU6550.

71 See Chapter 3

72 ABRvS, 15 Nov. 2001, LJN: AH9538.

73 Rb Haarlem, 19 Aug. 2002, LJN; AE8447, the Court mentions Article A2/5.2.1 IG, which was later renamed

A2/ 5.5.4 and can be found in the current IG as A1/7.3.



London, UK, 2013

19

representation, the authorities were under the legal obligation to follow this request, given

that the immigrant had just been refused entry.74

A violation of this restricted right to legal representation is itself not a reason to declare the

border detention unlawful. Both Courts Amsterdam and Haarlem recognized that the

interest of keeping the border safe and preventing illegal entry has to be weighed against the

infringement of the right to legal representation of the alien. In the case before the Haarlem

Court it was found that the fact that the alien had the possibility to contact a lawyer himself

but failed to do so should be regarded relevant and let to the conclusion that lifting the

detention was not in order.75

The Court Amsterdam came to the same conclusion because

the alien had received legal representation after all, just with some delay, which could not

outweigh the interest of keeping the border safe.76

2.6 Appeal / Access to Justice

The individual in border detention pursuant to Article 6 may appeal to this decision at any

time on the basis of Article 94 AA in conjunction with Article 69.3 AA. The possibility for

higher appeal is given in Article 95 AA, which has a filing deadline of one week attached to it.

Appeal may be filed by the indivual himself, his lawyer or authorized representative.77

Next

to that, the Minister has the obligation to inform the court on the detention of the individual

in question within 28 days, should the immigrant not have filed an appeal himself already.

This way, review to the measure of detention on the ground of Article 6 is automatic in the

Netherlands. The court has to hear the case within 14 days of the Minister‘s notice or the

74 Rb Amsterdam, 22 Feb. 2007, LJN: BA1740, paras. 2.7.2.f: In het beleid inzake de toegangsweigering,

neergelegd in paragraaf A2/5.5.4 van deVreemdelingencirculaire 2000 (Vc 2000) is het volgende omtrent

rechtsbijstand is opgenomen: “Indien een geweigerde vreemdeling om een raadsman verzoekt, zendt de

grensbewakingsambtenaar hieromtrent een faxbericht aan de meldcentrale rechtsbijstand.” (...) De rechtbank

ziet niet zonder meer in dat dit beleid niet zou kunnen worden toegepast wanneer een vreemdeling om

rechtsbijstand verzoekt wanneer hij, nadat hem de toegang tot Nederland is geweigerd, op grond van artikel 6

van de Vw 2000 is onderworpen aan vrijheidsontneming.

75 Supra note 73.

76 Supra note 74.

77 Aritcle 70 AA.



London, UK, 2013

20

appeal by the immigrant.78

If these 14 days are not respected, detention becomes unlawful

from the due date onwards and has to be lifted.79

As has been elaborated on with regard to arbitrariness of detention, the Dutch immigration

law separates the matter of refusal of entry from the lawfulness of border detention, i.e. the

judge who rules on whether border detention is lawful cannot decide on the lawfulness of

the refusal of entry although the two issues are closely interconnected.80

One might question

whether this is in line with the right to a speedy trial pursuant to Article 5.4 of the European

Human Rights Convention.

Furthermore, within the framework of border detention, the detainee has the possibility to

complain about infringements of his rights in accordance with the rules and regulations

applicable in border detention facilities, namely the Border Accommodation Regime

Regulations (Reglement Regime Grenslogies).81

According to Article 14 of these rules, the

alien has a right to complain about orders imposed on him, such as solitary confinement, or

any other measures not based on legal grounds, about the rejection of his visitors, or the

taking away of his property described in Article 6. Once asylum seekers receive a negative

decision on their application, they remain in border detention until they can adhere to their

duty to leave in accordance with Article 5 AA.

2.7 Conditions of Detention

When an alien is restricted in his freedom of movement in accordance with Article 6.1 AA in

a room or place assigned by the authorized officer, there is no specific set of rules applicable

to this measure. The lounge of Schiphol Airport, for example, constitutes a room within the

scope of Article 6.1. The idea is that the alien is restricted because he cannot leave the

lounge to enter the Netherlands territory, but he is still there by choice because he can

78 Article 94.1 AA.

79 Rb Zwolle, 28 Dec. 2000, LJN: AB0124.

80 ABRvS, 17 July 2007, zaaknr.: 200703945/1.

81 Article 6.3 AA; Reglement Regime Grenslogies, 1 April 1993, BWBR0005848, retrieved on 28-4-2013 from

http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0005848/geldigheidsdatum_30-04-2013, Article 1.



London, UK, 2013

21

access outgoing flights from the lounge and it is essentially up to him when and how long he

stays and when he leaves.82

In contrast, any room which is secured against unauthorized departure, and thereby

becomes a place of detention under Article 6.2 AA must adhere to the rules and regulations

laid down in the Border Accommodation Regime Regulations, the set of rules designed to

regulate the administrative detention in order to prevent illegal entry.83

As long as this rule is

complied with, Article 6.2 can be imposed in any place the Minister chooses for.84

Upon arrival at this facility, the detainee will receive a copy of the Border Accommodation

Regime Regulations. Should the rules in force at the place of border detention divert from

the Border Accommodation Regime Regulations, this does not automatically mean that the

law has been violated. Instead the court has to adjudge whether the alien’s damage weighs

heavier than the objective reached through the implementation of the diverging rules.85

Under no circumstances is it permitted to place border detainees together with criminal

offenders. The District Court Haarlem found in 2000 that because border detention is an

administrative measure and not a penitiary one, it was not acceptable to place foreign

nationals together with convicted criminals. The Court stressed that, in contrast to prison

rules, the Border Accomodation Regime Regulations may only infringe freedoms of aliens as

far as it is necessary.86

2.8 Children

The Implementation Guidelines stress that the measure of border detention may only be

imposed on minors after careful consideration of alternatives. The law gives more specific

rules on how to deal with children until the age of 12 and then until the age of 16 and so

forth. In any case, border detention of minors is only acceptable under strict safeguards that

find expression in a less coercive regime of rules and a place of implementation that is

82 Rb Amsterdam, 19 Feb. 2002, LJN: AE2024.

83 Supra note 81; Rb Haarlem, 26 Jan. 2001, LJN: AB0012.


version: A6/2.6 IG.

85 Rb Haarlem, 26 Jan. 2001, LJN: AB0012.

86 Rb Haarlem, 19 Apirl 2000, LJN: AA5762.



London, UK, 2013

22

appropriate for children.87

In 2006, the District Court Amsterdam ruled that minors are not to

be placed in detention without pressing reasons specific to the individual circumstances, but

that the child in question should be placed in an open reception centre where he could await

the outcome of his asylum application.88

When children travel together with their parents, it is always desirable to impose a restrictive

measure instead of full deprivation of liberty.89

In 2011 the District Court Haarlem ruled that

the Detention Centre Schiphol was not accurate for minors and that the authorities were not

within the law to detain three children there. The fact that their mother was with them did

not change anything about this. The Court found that the detention on the mother and her

three children was to be lifted.90

Also, the time factor is a sensitive one. In 2010, the District

Court Amsterdam ruled that the authorities did not take a decision to prolong a family’s

detention in the Detention Centre Rotterdam in good faith, thereby subjecting the parents

and their children to arbitrary detention.91

3 Post-Entry: Immigration Detention – Article 59 AA

Once foreign nationals have crossed the external borders of the Netherlands – irrespective of

doing so with permission of the authorities – they can no longer be subjected to border

detention pursuant to Article 6 AA as explained above. Nevertheless, immigrants may, even

after years of living in the Netherlands, be subjected to detention. The Aliens Act 2000

provides for the possibility to restrict certrain groups of immigrants, for example those who

are illegally resident or are still awaiting the outcome of their asylum applications, in their

freedom of movement on the basis of keeping those aliens available for the duration of their

87 A5/2.4; A5/3.1-3.2 IG.

88 Rb Amsterdam, 13 Juni 2006, LJN: AZ2577, para. 11: De rechtbank overweegt voorts dat het door verweerder

voor deze groep vreemdelingen voorheen gevoerde beleid (...) expliciet inhoudt dat minderjarigen niet worden

geplaatst in het Grenshospitium en dat in dat geval de maatregel ex artikel 6, eerste lid, van de Vw 2000 wordt

toegepast. (...)Uit de toelichting op het Wijzigingsbesluit Vreemdelingencirculaire 2005/12, waarbij het thans

geldende beleid is vastgesteld, blijkt niet dat een wijziging is beoogd in die zin dat plaatsing in een gesloten

inrichting, waaronder een huis van bewaring dat is aangewezen als ruimte in de zin van artikel 6, eerste en

tweede lid, van de Vw 2000, thans wel is toegestaan.

89 Supra note 87.

90 Rb Haarlem, 1 April 2011, LJN: BQ0203.

91 Rb ‘s-Gravenhage, 18 Nov. 2010, LJN: BO7499.



London, UK, 2013

23

application process,92

after their application has been rejected,93

or for reasons of public

interest or national security.94

As the prior concern of this report is to demonstrate the

situation in immigration detention and not regarding restrictive measures, these regulations

will not be further elaborated on at this point. Immigrants resident in the Netherlands may

be deprived of their liberty on three different legal grounds. Firstly, the Aliens Act 2000

provides for the possibility of authorized officers to stop and check persons to check their

identity and residence status, and furthermore, to take those persons into custody and hold

them there to determine information that cannot be immediately asserted under Article 50

AA. Secondly, immigrants who are illegally resident in the Netherlands, or whose status as

lawful resident has not yet been ultimately determined may be deprived of their liberty with

a view to expulsion for reasons of public interest or national security pursuant to Article 59

AA. Thirdly, Article 58 AA allows for the detention of rejected asylum seekers with a view to

expulsion, even when the decision to reject the asylum application is not yet final before the

courts, i.e. the alien may still appeal.95

Since many asylum seekers are already subjected to

border detention pursuant to Article 696

and immigration detention under Article 5997

also

extends to rejected asylum seekers, Article 58 is scarcely used to detain immigrants98

and will

therefore not be further discussed here. Equally, stop and search provisions under Article 50

do not lie in the focus of this report and will therefore not be further elaborated upon at this

point.

Pursuant to Article 59 subsection 199

of the Aliens Act 2000, immigrants that have taken up

illegal residence100

in the Netherlands and immigrants still awaiting a (final) decision on their

92 Article 55.1 AA; A5/4 IG.

93 Article 57 AA.

94 Article 56 AA; A5/5 IG.

95 Article 58.1 AA in conjunction with Article 57.1 AA.

96 See Chapter 2.

97 See Chapter 3.2.

98 Kox, M. 2007: 48 Vreemdelingen. Utrecht, retrieved on 24-4-2013 from

http://www.schipholwakes.nl/achtergrondinformatie-schipholwakes.htm, pp.10f.

99 Supra note 47, Kamerstuk 26 732, Nr. 7, p. 200.

100 Article 59.1.a.



London, UK, 2013

24

residence status101

may be deprived of their liberty “for reasons of public interest102

or

national security (…) with a view to expulsion”.103

Subsection 2 of Article 59 specifies that every alien not “lawfully resident on the grounds of

Article 8 subsection a-e and l” may be detained “if the papers necessary for the return of the

alien are available or will shortly become available”.104

The (prospective) availability of travel

documents constitutes a reason of public interest valid to detain an alien of this category.

However, the information that the travel documents will be available has to be explicit. In

2001, the Dutch authorities invoked Article 59.2 on an alien with an expired Yugoslavian

passport. They based this action on their experience that, in the past, Yugoslavia had

allowed for extension of validity periods of expired passports so that their nationals could

travel back. The Court held that experience on part of the Dutch authorities did not qualify

as a legitimate reason to assume that the documents would become available shortly or that

the alien would be expelled soon. Therefore, the implicit knowledge from experience that

documents might be available does not constitute a basis to invoke Article 59.2.105

Detention pursuant to Article 59 constitutes a measure of last resort and not a standard

procedure to expel aliens.106

To justify detention pursuant to Article 59, the judge always has

101 Article 59.1.b; In accordance with the Aliens Act 2000, immigrants can only lawfully stay in the Netherlands

on basis of Article 8. Furthermore, subsection b allows for those immigrants to be detained who are awaiting a

decision on request for a temporary residence permit (Article 8, f), a decision on request for permanent

residence permit or extension or change of a temporary residence permit (Article 8, g), or a decision on an filed

objection or appeal (Article 8, h). Immigrants falling under other subsections of Article 8 may not be detained

on the basis of Article 59.

102 Openbare orde (translated as reasons of public interest) can also be translated into “public policy” or “public

safety”.

103 Article 59.1: If necessary for reasons of public interest or national security, Our Minister may, with a view to

expulsion, order the remand in custody of an alien who: a. is not lawfully resident; b. is lawfully resident on the

grounds of article 8 subsection f,g and h.

104 Article 59.2: If the papers necessary for the return of the alien are available or will shortly become available,

it is deemed to be for reasons of public interest that the alien be remanded in custody, unless the alien has been

lawfully resident on the grounds of article 8 subsection a- e and l.

105 Rb ’s-Hertogenbosch, 19 April 2001, LJN: ZA7047, pp.f: Gelet op het vorenstaande is de rechtbank van

oordeel dat verweerder heeft gehandeld in strijd met de achterliggende gedachte achter de bevoegdheid

neergelegd in artikel 59, tweede lid, van de Vw (...) De enkele – niet nader onderbouwde – verklaring ter zitting

van de gemachtigde van verweerder dat het op grond van ervaringsgegevens bekend is dat de Joegoslavische

autoriteiten, indien met in het bezit is van een verlopen paspoort, overgaan tot hetzij verlenging van dat

paspoort, hetzij tot afgifte van een laissez passer, leidt niet tot een ander oordeel(...).

106 Supra note 47, Kamerstuk 26 732, Nr. 7, p. 199.



London, UK, 2013

25

to weigh the personal interests of the alien to be detained against the reasons of public

interests served with the detention. All information relating to the personal situation of the

alien may be taken into account.107

Amongst those that may be detained, special attention in the jurisprudence is given to

asylum seekers. With regard to those that seek refuge in the Netherlands, the

Implementation Guidelines108

state that the provision of detention should be applied as

restrictively as possible, carefully weighing the facts and circumstances under which an

asylum application is submitted against the indications for necessity of detention.

Furthermore, detention before a decision on a 1st

request for asylum is received may only be

imposed after consulting with the IND.109

3.1 Criminalization of Illegality

Until now, immigration detention constitutes an administrative measure, not one of penal

nature. This may change in the future. Criminalization of persons who are illegally resident in

the Netherlands is not a new topic in Dutch politics. The Balkende cabinets in the early years

of 2000 discussed criminalization of illegality on and off.110

The first Rutte cabinet focused

mainly on illegal aliens who caused nuisance or engaged in criminal deeds. Since then, the

Netherlands experiences a trend toward a stricter immigration policy.111

Currently, under

Rutte II, the government has engaged in a broader view on criminalization of immigration

detention. On 7 January 2013, State Secretary Teeven sent a proposal to the 2nd

Chamber of

the Dutch Parliament on “Amending the Aliens Act 2000 concerning the criminalization of

107 Tweede Kamer der Staaten Generaal.2006-2007. Terugkeerbeleid. Verslag van een schriftelijk overleg.

Kamerstuk 29 344, Nr. 58, p. 18; supra note 47, Kamerstuk 26 732, Nr. 7, p. 199.

108 A5/6.1 IG; prior version: A6/5.3.3.5 IG.

109 ABRvS, 17 Nov. 2009, LJN: BK6033; see also: ABRvS, 21 Jan. 2008, zaaknr.: 200707652/1; ABRvS, 16 June

2008, LJN: BD5536.

110 Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal. 1999-2000. Algehele herziening van de Vreemdelingenwet

(Vreemdelingenwet 2000). Kamerstuk 26 732, Nr. 12, p. 28.

111 Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal. 2012-2013. Wijziging van de Vreemdelingenwet 2000 in verband met

de strafbaarstelling van illegaal verblijf van vreemdelingen in Nederland. Kamerstuk 33 512, Nr. 3, pp. 25-29.



London, UK, 2013

26

illegal residnece of aliens within the Netherlands”.112

The amendment entails an aggravation

of the return policy for third country nationals, i.e. immigrants not of EU Member State

nationality, who are 18 years or older. It proposes an additional Article 108a to the Aliens Act

2000 which allows for the authorities to impose a fine of up to 3900EUR upon encounter

with an alien who is residing in the Netherlands illegally, i.e. not staying in the Netherlands

on basis of Article 8 AA. When the alien has been fined twice, he may be subjected to a

severe entry ban.113

A violation of this entry ban is a criminal offence114

and may be punished

with imprisonment of up to six months.115

The commentary to this amendment identifies illegal residence as an exploitation of Dutch

society, since persons not legally present in the Netherlands do not fully engage in the

society but profit from it. Also, illegality is depicted as going hand in hand with crime. In

consequence, the government pleads for a prevention of illegal immigration and illegal

residence. Sanctioning illegal residence promises to have a deterrent effect on third country

nationals and will thereby prevent illegal residence in the long term. While the government

advocates for a stricter return policy and the punishing of illegal residence, the commentary

also recognizes that the fine has to be applied with caution, always taking the individual

circumstances of each case into account, for example whether the alien is willing to foster his

return upon being discovered by the authorities.116

While EU policy rejects imprisonment or any other kind of criminalization that contravenes

the possibility for humane facilitation of return for the foreign national in question, recent

case law by the European Court of Justice asserts that imposing criminal sanctions on illegal

immigrants is permitted as long as this does not go against the aim of the Return Directive

and the facilitation of departure or expulsion is not hampered or infringed upon. The Dutch

government added a safeguard into the bill, stating that the fine or the imposed prison-time

for non-compliance with the payment is to be suspended in the wake of departure or

expulsion. This means that the alien cannot be withheld from leaving the Netherlands

because he has not paid the fine yet or served the assigned prison time. However, the

112 Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal. 2012-2013. Wijziging van de Vreemdelingenwet 2000 in verband met

de strafbaarstelling van illegaal verblijf van vreemdelingen in Nederland. Kamerstuk 33 512, Nr. 4; supra note

21.

113 Artilce 66.a.7 AA

114 Article 197 Criminal Code (Wetboek Strafrecht).

115 Supra note 111, p.2.

116 Ibid.



London, UK, 2013

27

measure officially expires after 4 years,117

so that, should the alien come back within this

timespan, he may still be punished.118

The bill has raised concerns by the Council of State, who advises the government on new

legislation, as well as by other institutions inside the Nehterlands. Foremost, there is doubt

about the added value of the criminalization. The law as it stands today envisages that an

illegal alien who is encountered by the police on the street or during a check of a working

place will receive a return decision together with an entry ban. Violation of this entry ban

can be punished. Hence, when an alien returns despite the entry ban and is recognized by

the police again, he may be fined for this breach. Also, the number of illegal aliens is

decreasing since 2002 which further undermines the initiative for the new law. The

government reacts to this by arguing that the possibility to fine illegal aliens upon first

encounter already sends a strong signal against acceptance of illegal residence and tightens

the return policy to a significant extent. Furthermore, it is argued that the numbers are of

little significance since the EU has grown post-2002 which resulted in many illegal aliens

becoming EU-country nationals which are exempt from immigration detention. On the

contrary, the number of illegal immigrants is still so high that the new law will have an

impact.119

Secondly, concerns are that aliens involved in a criminal investigation or subject to criminal

punishment will receive a double-punishment, since upon arresting them they will be

identified and punished for residing in the Netherlands illegally separately to any further

punishment for their criminal deed. The Advisory Committee on Migration Affairs (ACVZ)

acknowledges that this is not a discrimination de jure, but de facto; however, this does not

render it less significant. The government takes the view that the bill is not directed at any

group of illegal immigrants in particular and therefore, double-punishment is not in order.120

Thirdly, the Council of State is troubled by the fact that the bill does not adhere to the lex

certa principle within Dutch criminal procedure. This principle entails that provisions of

criminal law have to be as precise as possible. However, the bill as it was submitted subjects

aliens to a fine that have no lawful stay under Article 8 AA. Since there are several categories

of aliens who do not have lawful stay under this provision but still remain in the territory due

117 Article 76 Criminal Code.

118 Supra note 111.

119 Supra note 112.

120 Supra note 111.



London, UK, 2013

28

to technical reasons of departure or on exceptional grounds on policy by the Dutch

government, they may be subjected to sanctioning although they have no choice in the

matter to prevent this situation. One example given by the Council of State are immigrants

who are undergoing a process before the UN Human Rights Committee and are therefore

allowed by the Dutch authorities to remain in the Netherlands until the procedure is

closed.121

Those immigrants have however no lawful stay and might therefore fall victim to

criminalization in the future. As a response, the government refers to the possibility for those

aliens to apply from exemption from the fine due to “force majeure” (overmacht).122

Forthly, and in direct connection to the prior criticism, this bill turns aliens into criminals for

whom it is impossible to leave (niet uitzetbar) due to the fact that they have no identification

and their country of origin does not cooperate with the Dutch authorities or does not

recognize the alien as a citizen.123

Those persons are already caught in the loops of the

system since they remain illegal in the Netherlands because their application for residence

permit is rejected, but the authorities cannot expel them due to circumstances beyond their

control. Therefore, those aliens do not only end up in immigration detention every time they

are encountered by the police, but on account of the proposed bill will also be fined every

one of these times for being illegal. Since this group of people is usually not one of wealth,

illegal aliens are likely to serve prison time for not being able to pay those fines in addition to

their time in immigration detention.124

Finally, the institutions are concerned that criminalization will further marginalize aliens

within society. Illegal aliens will not apply for a residence permit any more because they are

afraid to be punished and victims of human trafficking or violence will be more reluctant to

come forward and work together with the police to eliminate those issues. The government

is more optimistic. It is argued that illegal immigrants will not be fined when they apply for a

residence permit. However, should the application be rejected, the fine may still be imposed.

The government is also more positive on the future of victims coming to the fore. Their illegal

residence status will at that moment of investigation not be in the focus of the authorities.


122 Supra note 111; supra note 112.

123 See example of Suriname national Ahmed in Musch, S. 14. April 2013. Humanist Association: Immigration

Policy in the Netherlands is in violation of human rights. Retrieved on 27-4-2013 from

http://svj.hu.nl/mensenrechten/2013/04/14/humanist-association-immigration-policy-in-the-netherlands-is-in-

violation-of-human-rights/.

124 Ibid.



London, UK, 2013

29

Instead, the police will focus on the elimination of the danger imposed by those who profit

from human trafficking or violence against this group of aliens. However, the government

omits to clarify whether the illegality status will resurface later and lead to a fine, for

example after the perpetrator is tried and sentenced. This insecurity might still pose an

obstacle to illegally resident victims in approaching the police.125

3.2 Expulsion v. Voluntary Departure

Article 59 contains the coercive element of expulsion, which means that the state will take

measures that leave the person in question no choice but to cross the border. This coercive

element imposes an obligation on the authorities to diligently work toward the expulsion of

the alien from the moment that he is detained. If this requirement of due process is not

followed, the detention becomes illegal and has to be terminated.

In parallel to this obligation of the authorities, the alien retains the duty to actively pursue

his departure once he is refused entry.126

Therefore, Article 59.3 maintains the possibility for

the alien to leave on his own accord. Detention shall not be started, or continued “as soon as

the alien has indicated that he wishes to leave the Netherlands and also has the opportunity

to do so”.127

In this case, he may be transferred to an open reception centre or stay with

friends of family in the Netherlands until he leaves.

This ‘opportunity to leave’ is defined in the Implementation Guidelines as being in

possession of the necessary valid travel documents and a ticket or sufficient means to put

departure into effect.128

Without these criteria, the alien’s willingness alone to leave the

Netherlands is not sufficient to end detention under Article 59.129

Even if the alien is

suspected of mischief or lying, the court has to weigh the personal interests of the alien and

the circumstances of the situation against the interest of the authority to secure the

125 Supra note 112.

126 Supra note 33 Kamerstuk 26732, Nr. 3, p.61; see Articles 5 and 61 AA.

127 Article 59.3 An alien shall not be remanded in custody or the remand shall be ended as soon as the alien has

indicated that he wishes to leave the Netherlands and also has the opportunity to do so.



129 ABRvS, 23 March 2009, LJN: BH8487; see also: ABRvS, 20 July 2009, LJN: BJ3641.



London, UK, 2013

30

departure through the imposition of detention. In 2008, a woman detained pursuant to

Article 59 declared that she was willing to leave the country and could show a plane ticket

from Brussels to Guinea, as well as a valid passport and a visa for Benelux. Still, the State

Secretary did not lift the detention because he suspected that she engaged in criminal

actions since she had offered a counterfeit 100-Euro banknote in a casino before. The

AJRDCoS, however, in balancing the interests and circumstances at hand decided that the

State Secretary’s suspicion did not change the fact that the alien declared her willingness to

leave and had a valid ticket for a plane soon in the future. Therefore, the detention was

lifted and declared unjustified under Article 59 AA.130

3.3 Arbitrariness of Detention

The absoltue condition to invoke Article 59 AA constitutes the ‘view to expulsion’. Thus, once

the view to expulsion lapses, there is no longer a justification to detain the alien pusuant to

Article 59 AA.131

In a rather special case in 2007,132

the AJRDCoS found that command of the

Dutch language did not entail that someone is of Netherlands nationality, even though the

individual asserted to have Netherlands nationality. In another case in 2008, the authorities

detained an individual who could not cooperate with regard to his nationality due to the fact

that he was traumatized and received medication to manage his condition.133

The Council

ruled that putting him in detention was lawful, even though the insecurity about his

nationality put a hold on progressing the expulsion. Thus, the view to expulsion does not

automatically lapse just because nationality cannot be determined right away. However, in

the latter case, the individual did not show signs of recovery after having been treated for

three weeks. Nevertheless, the State Secretary continued with detention under Article 59

AA. The Council ultimately decided that the psychological condition of the immigrant

outweighed expulsion within a reasonable time after the three-week reconsideration. Thus,

130 ABRvS, 14 Feb. 2008, LJN: BC4719.

131 ABRvS, 1 July 2009, LJN: BJ1600, para. 2.4.1: Zoals de Afdeling eerder heeft overwogen (...), is, omdat

bewaring krachtens artikel 59 van de Vw 2000 moet zijn gericht op uitzetting van de desbetreffende

vreemdeling, inbewaringstelling in strijd met die bepaling, indien zicht op uitzetting ontbreekt.; see also: ABRvS,

17 Dec. 2004, zaaknr.: 200409206/1; see also prior version of Implementation Guidelines: A6/5.3.1 and

A6/5.3.8.

132 ABRvS, 2 April 2007, LJN: BA2831.

133 ABRvS, 23 Jan. 2008, LJN: BC4384.



London, UK, 2013

31

detention after those three weeks was decided to be unlawful.134

The District Court

Rotterdam took the ‘view to expulsion’ as being explicit and concrete which is evident from a

case involving extension of stay of a foreign national in 2005. In the night from 26 to 27

October that year, the detention centre at Schiphol airport experienced severe damages

through fire, as a consequence of which the detainees were replaced in other facilities and

quesioned as part of the investigation. Among many others, the alien in question had

received a date of departure for early November prior to the fire, but this date was lifted due

to the opened investigation into the fire. The Court found that the view of expulsion lapsed

since the alien was kept longer in detention without having been given an alternative date of

expulsion in the near future. Since view to expulsion required the element of ‘reasonable

time’, this treatment was not considered lawful.135

Baudoin et. al. see a problem with Article 59.1.b with regard to Human Rights standards of

detention. In general, Article 59 needs the ‘view to expulsion’ as discussed above. However,

in case of subsection 1.b, aliens are already granted legal stay under some subsections of

Article 8 Vw prior to detention since they are awaiting a decision by the court on their

residence status. Once they become detainees under Article 59, this rightful stay lapses

which means that they have to leave the country.136

This lapse is only justified if detention is

lawful.137

The problem here is that the ‘view to expulsion’ arises as a consequence of

detention, and is not a justification to impose it in the first place. Baudoin et. al. raise the

point whether this is still in accordance with Article 5.1.f ECHR.138

The view to expulsion as a justification to detain is not automatically present when an alien’s

application for residency is rejected. In accordance with the EU Return Directive139

and

national law140

the alien has to be given the chance of voluntary departure. In a case before

the District Court ‘s-Hertogenbosch in 2001, an asylum seeker had received a rejection

134 Ibid.

135 Rb Rotterdam, 17 Nov. 2005, LJN: AU7340.

136 Tweede Kamer en Staten-Generaal. 1999-2000. Algehele herziening van de Vreemdelingenwet

(Vreemdelingenwet 2000). Tweede Nota van Wijziging. Kamerstuk 26 732, Nr. 44, p. 5.

137 ABRvS, 17 April 2003, LJN: AH9320.

138 Baudoin et. al. 2008. Vrijheidsontneming van vreemdelingen. 2nd ed. Sdu Uitgevers, den Haag, pp. 183f.

139 Supra note 56 Return Directive, Article 3.4 in conjunction with Article 7.1.

140 Article 62.1 AA; no information on this is provided in the amended Implementation Guildelines from 1 April

2013, in prior version: A4/3.1.



London, UK, 2013

32

concerning his application with the order to leave the Netherlands within 24 hours. However,

he was detained on the basis of Article 59.2 before the timespan provided for had lapsed.

The Court ruled that this detention was unlawful because there was no view to expulsion

given at the time. The justification to expel, so the Court argued, would only start if the alien

remained in the Netherlands after his mandatory date of departure had passed.141

Despite

this ruling, the District Court Haarlem came to a different conclusion only three days later in

a similar case.142

An immigrant had given wrong information about his age and his request

for asylum was subsequently rejected. He received an order to leave the country

immediately, within 24 hours. The Court ruled that in accordance with the law, the immigrant

was rightfully detained for reasons of public interest. According to the Court, the law allows

for the authorities to shorten or abandon a voluntary departure time frame in special

circumstances that always have to be reasoned on a case by case basis. Shortening or

abandoning a timeframe to a period of 24 hours equals zero days, so that the alien can be

detained immediately after receiving his order to leave. The fact that the immigrant in the

case lied about his age was sufficient to suspect that he would try to evade expulsion, which

justifids detention for reasons of public interest.

In 2001, the District Court Utrecht stressed that in accordance with the EU Return Directive

the alien has to be given a chance to leave voluntarily within seven to thirty days. Any

shortening or lifting of this deadline needs to be justified with regard to the facts of the

individual case and the date of departure must still be proportionate and suitable.143

Voluntary departure ceases to apply when the alien is detained on the grounds of national

security. In which case the threat for national security weighs heavier than the alien’s right to

voluntary departure.144

141 Rb ‘s-Hertogenbosch, 7 May 2001, LJN: ZA7046.

142 Rb Haarlem, 10 May 2001, LJN: AD6733; see also: ABRvS, 7 Feb. 2011, LJN: BP5114.

143 Rb Utrecht, 6 June 2011, LJN: BQ7242; see also: Rb Utrecht, 8 Nov. 2011, LJN: BU4116.

144 Rb Zutphen, 14 Dec. 2005, LJN: AU8217.



London, UK, 2013

33

3.4 Reasons for Detention

Detention on the basis of Article 59 AA always requires an official order that needs to be

reasoned, dated and signed in accordance with Article 5.3 AD.145

Article 59 contains two

reasons for detention, public interest and national security.

3.4.1 Public Interest

The Aliens Decree defines reasons of public interest as the risk that the alien will evade

surveillance or that the alien boycotts the preparation of departure or expulsion.146

Article

5.1.b AD lays out a non-exhaustive list of circumstances that may lead to the assumption that

the immigrant will evade surveillance. However, the presence of one of those circumstances

alone is not enough to detain an immigrant. The amended version of the Implementation

Guidelines states that two of these reasons justify the suspicion that the immigrant might

elude expulsion.147

However, in accordance with the case law, it has to be shown based on

the specific facts and circumstances of the case at hand that detention is necessary to

prevent elusion or circumvention of departure.148

Those specific reasons need to be present

in the order and may not be complemented or supplemented later, for example on the basis

of information obtained during the first interview.149

Reasons of public interest may already be fulfilled as a justification to detain in cases where

the alien omits from following specific provisions of immigration law that regulate his

presence in the Netherlands, such as registering with the authorities or reporting to the

Aliens Police frequently. Therefore, in 2002, the AJRDCoS ruled that a woman who entered

the Netherlands and did not register with the authorities within three days as required by

law, was rightfully detained on the basis of reasons of public interest. The fact that she was

unaware of this law was not of relevance.150

In 2006, the Council found that an alien who did

not comply with an order to leave and remained in the Netherlands beyond this date, could

145 ABRvS, 1 May 2002, LJN: AE3705.

146 Article 5.1.a.1 AD; See also prior version of IG: A6/5.3.3.1.

147 A3/3 IG.

148 ABRvS, 1 May 2002, LJN: AE3705.

149 ABRvS, 3 Feb. 2009, zaaknr.: 200900047/1.

150 ABRvS, 24 July 2002; LJN: AE8061.



London, UK, 2013

34

be detained on the basis of public interest.151

Furthermore, in 2008, the Council ruled that

the fact that an immigrant can name an address where he lives is not enough. In the case at

hand, an alien told the authorities that he stayed with his mother. However, he was not

registered with the municipality. Therefore, he could not prove that he had a fixed place to

live and could therefore be detained.152

Finally, in 2009, the AJRDCoS had before it a case in

which an immigrant was detained on the basis of boycotting the preparatory work for

departure. He damaged his finger tips to an extent that made it impossible to identify him by

analysing his fingerprints. The Council ruled that detention was lawful.153

Apart from this, it is

in principle sufficient to declare an alien “undesireable” (ongewenst) in order to justify

detention as a measure to protect reasons of public interest.154

As already explained above,

subsection 2 of Article 59 states that the (prospective) availability of travel documents

constitutes a reason of public interest valid to detain an alien.

When considering the necessity to detain an immigrant for reasons of public interest, special

regard has to be had to the specific facts and circumstances of the case at hand. In line with

this principle of weighing interests, in 2008, the Council found that pursuant to the UN

Refugee Convention Handbook it is not allowed to detain asylum seekers on the basis alone

that they travel without necessary documents.155

There is a need to give further case-based

reasons for detention. In the case at hand, the asylum seeker was not only unable to show a

proof of identity, but had applied for asylum in France before. Instead of waiting for the

outcome there, however, he had left. Thus, the AJRDCoS ruled that the authorities acted in

pursuit of public interest in detaining the immigrant because it was likely that he would try to

elude expulsion.

3.4.2 National Security

The second reason for detention in Article 59.1 is national security, such as espionage or

terrorist activities. The Implementation Guidelines explain, however, that this reason is rarely

used to detain immigrants.156

In any case, invoking reasons of national security requires a

151 ABRvS, 13 Jan. 2006, LJN: AU9837.

152 ABRvS, 29 Dec. 2008, LJN: BG9512.

153 ABRvS, 18 Nov. 2009, LJN: BK4688; see also: ABRvS, 9 Dec. 2009, LJN: BK6174.

154 ABRvS, 25 Jan. 2002, LJN: AE1108.

155 ABRvS, 22 July 2008, zaaknr.: 200804746/1.

156 see prior version of Implementation Guidelines A6/5.3.3.2.



London, UK, 2013

35

special authorization by the Minister as laid down in Article 48.2 AA.157

It important to note

that the risk of jeopardizing national security outweighs the imperative right in Article 59.3 of

the alien to voluntary departure. In 2005, the District Court Zutphen found that the alien’s

declaration that he wanted to leave and his possession of valid documents and sufficient

resources to actually pursue this endeavour could not be given priority over national

security. The Court ruled that there still remained a risk, due to the fact that the alien was

also declared undesireable, that he would try to abscond. Since he posed a threat to national

security, this risk could not be taken. Thus, his detention remained lawful.158

3.5 Authority to Detain

Article 59 AA as well as Article 1.3 AR state clearly that the Minister, meaning the Minister of

Justice, has the authority to order detention under Article 59. However, a close reading of

the case law and political documents shows that the authority concerned with immigration

detention is the State Secretary of Justice,159

who is responsible to the Minister.

Furthermore, detention may be invoked or lifted by officers responsible for border control or

surveillance of aliens, who are officers with the auhtority to investigate under the Minister of

Justice (hulpofficier van justitie).160

These include police officers under Article 2, a, c and d of

the Police Act, officers of the Royal Military Constabulary161

and officers directly authorized

by the Minister pursuant to Aricle 1.4 AD.

3.6 Duration of Detention

The duration of detention differs depending on what category the individual in detention

belongs to. For aliens detained under Article 59.1 subsection a, who have no right to lawfully

stay in the Netherlands, the statute does not provide for a maximum detention period.

However, their detention may last for six months in accordance with established case law.

157 A5/6.1 IG; Rb Zutphen, 23 Nov. 2005, LJN: AU8219.

158 Rb Zutphen, 14 Dec. 2005, LJN: AU8217.

159 “Staatssecretaris” can also be found to be translated into „deputy minister“ in international literature.

160 A1/2 IG; prior version IG: A6/5.3.2 Vc.

161 Article 47.1.a and b AA



London, UK, 2013

36

After those six months, the individual’s interest to be free from detention weighs heavier

than the authorities’ interest to expel the alien.

In a case before the District Court Dordrecht in 2007, an immigrant from Suriname appealed

against an extension of detention pursunat to Article 59 AA.162

The authorities reasoned this

extension by the fact that Suriname authorities only issue a re-entry permit after a

presentation of the alien in person. Presentation of up to four persons was only possible

every two weeks and the individual in question was placed as number 42 on the waiting list.

Upon that point in time, the alien had already been in detention for four months. The Court

estimated that the immigrant would have to wait for presentation for approximately five

months, plus additional time until the paperwork would be completed to make departure

possible. Thus, the Court found that there was no view to expulsion within a reasonable time

and that the detention had to be lifted in the interest of the immigrant.

Aliens detained under Article 59.1 subsection b or Article 59.2 have a statutory provision to

fall back on: They may only be detained for a maximum of four – and in some cases of six –

weeks before duration of detention becomes unlawful. In 2008, the AJRDCoS decided in a

case where the immigrant had been lawfully resident under Article 8 f AA awaiting the

decision on his appeal against the rejection of his asylum application. The decision took

longer than four weeks and the immigrant was let go, only to be re-detained a few weeks

later. This second time, the Council ruled, detention was unlawful from the start because the

law was very clear on the matter: It only allowed for a detention of four (or maximum of six)

weeks. Since the decision on the appeal had still not been taken, there was no reasonable

view to expulsion and detention was therefore unlawful.163

However, if the delay in time is due to the behavior of the alien, detention might take longer.

If, for example, the alien frustrates the facilitation of expulsion, the duration might be

extended.164

162 Rb Dordrecht, 27 Feb 2007, LJN: BA0563, para. 2.2: (…)Gelet op de duur van de onderhavige bewaring, thans

bijna vier maanden, de lange duur van de periode tot de presentatie, alsmede de omstandigheid dat de

eventuele afgifte van een laissez-passer ook enige tijd in beslag zal nemen (...)is de rechtbank van oordeel dat

zicht op uitzetting van eiser binnen een redelijke termijn ontbreekt, zodat geoordeeld dient te worden dat de

voortduring van de bewaring bij afweging van alle daarbij betrokken belangen in redelijkheid

ongerechtvaardigd is te achten. De bewaring dient derhalve te worden opgeheven.

163 ABRvS, 21 Nov. 2008, LJN: BG5680.

164 REK, 21 Aug. 1997, LJN: ZA3477; Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal. 2006-2007. Terugkeerbeleid.

Kamerstuk 29 344, Nr. 58, p. 18.



London, UK, 2013

37

The duration of transfer to the appropriate facility, e.g. the removal centre (uitzetcentrum) is

also part of the detention. Jurisprudence puts the maximum reasonable time for transfer at

ten hours. If this timespan is exceeded due to actions or omissions on part of the authorities,

they have to reason the longer period of transfer. However, as long as the time of transfer

stays within the 10-hour-limit, the Minister does not have to give a motivation for the

duration.165

Detention on the basis of Article 59 ends either with the execution of expulsion, or by a

judicial decision delcaring detention to be over, or because the reason for detention ceases

to exist, for example when the alien declares to want to leave the territory and when he has

the opportunity to do so as discussed above.

3.7 Due Process

Once the Minister, or the authorized officers, made the decision to impose detention on the

basis of Article 59, the individual subject to this measure will be heard in order to collect first

information on identity, nationality and personal circumstances. The process of expulsion is

managed at one of the removal centres (uitzetcentrum), to which the individual will be

transferred. Once the nationality and country of origin are clear, the authorities apply for a

re-entry permit with the authorities of the home country. The individual will be interviewed

again in view of departure and departure will be organized for a specific date and executed

with a ‘strong arm’, making sure that the individual leaves the Netherlands territory for sure.

During this process, the authorities concerned with detention with a view to expulsion on

the basis of Article 59 AA have an obligation to work with due diligence. While this is not a

statutory provision, case law grants the State Secretary 14 days to start preparatory work for

expulsion from the day the alien is placed in detention.166

However, these 14 days are not

granted as a matter of principle. Assessment of whether due process grants the full 14 days

depends on the facts and circumstances of each individual case.167

In 2009, the AJRDCoS

faced a case in which the immigrant in question had sufficient identification documents. The

Council found that since no time had to be spent on determining where the immigrant was

from and consequentially, where he could be sent back to, the authorities were expected to

165 ABRvS, 23. Jan. 2008, LJN: BC4384.

166 ABRvS, 29 Aug. 2007, LJN: BB3120.

167 ABRvS, 16 July 2007, LJN: BB1374.



London, UK, 2013

38

handle expulsion quicker than in cases where no identity documents were available.168

More

specifically, the jurisprudence chooses for a narrow interpretation of what includes action of

due process. In 2009, the Council ruled on two cases where the immigrant had been

transferred to a removal centre subsequent to detention and an application for a re-entry

permit had been filed with the competent authorities of the alien’s home country. While the

Council stated that these actions indicated that the preparatory work had been started, they

could not be seen as directly relevant to the expulsion of the alien and therefore did not

qualify as indications for due process. In constrast, the departure interview and the date on

which the actual departure was organized, by booking a flight ticket or a similar action, were

seen as directly relevant. In the wake of this determination, the AJRDCoS found the time

period of ten days between the start of the detention and the first relevant action taken by

the authorities in excess of the time allowed under due process.169

As stated above, the alien retains the duty, and therefore principle possibility, to leave the

country on his own. The Implementation Guidelines affirm that the International

Organization for Migration (IOM) may support the alien in his voluntary departure,170

a line

of action that would then run parallel to the preparatory work of the authorities for

expulsion of the immigrant. Therefore, action taken by the IOM cannot substitute for the

authorities’ obligation to prepare the expulsion of the alien.171

Furthermore, the alien’s

obligation to pursue his departure goes even further and contains the duty to cooperate with

the authorities in preparation of his expulsion. If he does not support this line of action, his

detention might be rightfully extended beyond the customary timespan.172

This extension

cannot be used to argue a violation of due process by the authorities.173

Next to the work of the IOM, another line of action might run parallel to the efforts of the

authorities to expel an alien, namely the assessment of an asylum request of the immigrant

168 ABRvS, 29 June 2009, LJN: BJ1619.

169 ABRvS, 28 Aug. 2009, LJN: BJ6909; see also: ABRvS, 29 Oct. 2009, LJN: BK2270.

170 A3/5 IG.

171 ABRvS, 22 Aug. 2007, LJN: BB2452; see also: ABRvS, 17 June 2009, LJN: BJ1651.

172 ARticle 59.6 AA: In derogation from subsection 5 but without prejudice to subsection 4, remand in custody

pursuant to subsection 1 may be extended by 12months at most, when the expulsion despite all reasonable

efforts may require more time on the grounds that the alien does not cooperate in his expulsion or that the

necessary documentation from 3rd

countries is still missing.; supra note 33 Kamerstuk 26 732, Nr. 3, p. 62.

173 ABRvS, 11 Dec. 2007, LJN: BC1070.



London, UK, 2013

39

in detention by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (IND). Immigrants may have

submitted this request before they became subject to detention or after they have been

subjected to measures under Article 59. If the latter is the case, the authorities have a duty

to provide aliens in detention with the opportunity to make such requests within a

reasonable time.174

. IN 2009, an immigrant required to file an applicaton for asylum but was

only granted this possibility after ten days. The AJRDCoS found that this was in excess of due

process.175

Moreover, the work of the IND on an asylum request is no excuse for the national

authorities to stay passive and wait for a result. They still have to take efforts toward

expulsion parallel to the asylum procedure.176

3.7.1 Interview

A cornerstone of due process under Article 59 is the interview upon start of detention. It is

important to note at this point that the interview before detention pursuant to Article 59 is

not equal to, and cannot be substituted for the interview during stop and search pursuant to

Article 50.177

Before being put in detention, the alien must be heard unless the interview

cannot take place at the destined moment but cannot be awaited because the immigrant

needs to be put into detention right away.178

If the alien cannot be interviewed before

detention, this part of the process has to be executed as soon as possible after detention

started.179

This exception may occur when an immigrant is transferred from a place of

criminal detention into immigration detention but the officer authorized to complete the

interview is unavailable at the time of arrival.180

Another example is the case before the

AJRDCoS in 2009, where an individual had to be brought to the hospital urgently. The officer

was unable to interview the alien in the hospital, so he was formally detained while still in

the hospital and later on interviewed.181

174 C1.2.1 IG; for details see prior version C11/2.1 IG.

175 ABRvS, 27 Feb. 2009, LJN: BH6168.

176 ABRvS, 22 Jan. 2008, LJN: BC2998.

177 ABRvS, 20 Feb. 2009, LJN: BH4680.

178 Art 5.2.2.b AD; see also prior version of IG: A6/5.3.4.1.

179 Art 5.2.3 AD, A5/6.4 IG.

180 ABRvS, 5 Oct. 2001, LJN: AD5956.

181 ABRvS, 28 May 2009, zaaknr.: 200901606/1.



London, UK, 2013

40

As already evident from the explanation above, only specifically authorized officers may

conduct the interview,182

which is often very short.183

The law does not give any specifics on

formal requirements on how to conduct the interview. It is clear, however, that the interview

is conducted in Dutch. The immigrant may be granted an interpreter if the need arises.

However, when the police report does not state that the individual had problems

understanding or expressing himself during the interview, the court is reluctant to find that

the interview was unlawful given later complaints by the immigrant concerning that

matter.184

While the interview is a mandatory part of the procedure when putting someone into

detention, it is not always necessary when an alien already in detention on grounds of a

provision under Article 59, shifts to a detention based on another provision under the same

article. If an immigrant originally detained under subsection 1.a (illegal) files an application

for a residence permit, he transitions into detention under subsection 1.b. Similarly, when

the court takes a negative decision on matters concerning a person detained under

subsection 1.b the alien awaiting this decision transits to subsection 1.a as illegally resident.

This change of caterogy does not require the orginial detention to be lifted, or a new

interview. The alien solely receives a new order stating the change of category.185

In

accordance with Article 5.3 AD, the new order must be dated, signed and reasoned. This

pragmatic procedure was adopted to ensure faster handling of cases. A change of categoy

within the subsection does not lead to a repetition of the detention procedure.186

In

contrast, when an alien that was detained under Article 59.1 is re-detained under Article

59.2 or vice versa, he has to be heard again.187

182 A5/6.4 IG.

183 Supra note 138, p.236.

184 ABRvS, 16 Jan. 2007, LJN: AZ7564.


version: A6/5.3.4.4 IG; Staatssecretaris van Justitie. 2001. Tussentijds Bericht Vreemdelingencirculaire (TBV

2001/11). Staatscourant, Nr. 66, p. 9.

186 Besluit van 23 november 2000 tot uitvoering van de Vreemdelingenwet 2000 (Vreemdelingenbesluit 2000),

Staatsblad van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, 2000, Nr. 497, p. 204.


version: A6/5.3.4.5 IG;



London, UK, 2013

41

3.7.2 Legal Representation

Article 5.2.5 AD guarantees the right of an alien to be informed about his right to legal

representation during the interview before detention on the basis of Article 59 within a

reasonable time. This is in great contrast to border detention pursuant to Article 6 AA, where

the alien has no right to this information or legal asisstance.188

The Implementation

Guidelines, prior to amendment this year, provided that the officer authorized to conduct the

interview has to ensure that the lawyer is informed on time, normally via a fax to the Legal

Aid Service (advocaatpiketdienst).189

When the alien wants a lawyer, the reasonable time

requirement imposes a waiting time of two hours after the Legal Aid Service has been

informed before the interview may commence – without a lawyer if the latter has not arrived

by then.190

The Implementation Guidelines prior to amendment explain that the officer may

postpone the interview when the Legal Aid Service is closed. However, this is not obligatory.

In 2007, the Legal Aid Service was closed but the officer still went ahead with the interview

after having waited for two hours. The AJRDCoS ruled that this was well within the law.191

While the authorities have to make sure that the right to legal representation is respected,

there are limits to the request of the immigrant. In 2011, the alien requested his lawyer, who

he had hired, to be present during the interrogation. However, the Legal Aid Service sent

someone else. The Disctrict Court of Zwolle found that the right to legal representation had

been sufficiently respected.192

The Legal Aid Service also needs to be informed when the alien does not wish to be

represented or advised during the interview. In a case before the AJRDCoS in 2009, the

officer had informed the Legal Aid Service that the immigrant did not want a lawyer and

interviewed him subsequently. Later, the Legal Aid Service informed the authorities that the

immigrant in question actually had hired a lawyer, who had made an agreement with his

client to be present at the interview. The Council decided that this fact was not sufficient to

prove that there was a miscommunication. Upon being informed of his right to a lawyer, the

188 See Chapter 2.


version: A6/5.3.4.2 IG;

190 ABRvS, 16 July 2007, LJN: BB1374.

191 Ibid.

192 Rb Zwolle, 22 June 2011, Awb 11/19510, to be found in attachment to ABRvS, 1 July 2011, zaaknr.:

201107455/1/V3.



London, UK, 2013

42

alien had stated not to need one during the interview, so the prior agreement between him

and his lawyer did not make a difference with regard to the lawfulness of the interview.193

Regardless of whether the immigrant wants a lawyer during the interview or not, the

information sent to the Legal Aid Service needs to be clear and straightforward. If it cannot

be deduced from the officer’s communication whether a lawyer was required, the

subsequent interview renders the detention under Article 59 unjustified.194

When an

immigrant is unable to pay for the services of a lawyer, he can request legal aid pursuant to

Article 100 AA.

3.7.3 Consular Assistance

The Netherlands are party to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, in force since

1967, which obliges each Member State to facilitate communication between a foreign

national in detention and his home country’s consular post if he so requests.195

Similarly,

Article 5.5.2 subsection b of the Aliens Decree imposes the responsibility on part of the

authorities to inform the home state consular post as soon as possible of the foreign national

detained under Article 59.1. If these provisions are not follwed, this does not necessarily lead

to the detention being illegal. Instead, the court needs to weigh the interests protected with

the measure against the damage done to the individual rights in question.196

It is important

to note that it does not matter whether the immigrant undertook efforts to contact the

consular post on his own, since the responsibility rests with the authorities that put him in

detention.197

193 ABRvS, 27 July 2009, zaaknr.: 200904318/1/V3.

194 Rb Amsterdam, 27 Jan. 2005, LJN: AS9431.

195 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963, United Nations Treaty Series , vol. 596, p.261, Article

36.1.b: With a view to facilitating the exercise of consular functions relating to nationals of the sending

State:(…) (b) if he so requests, the competent authorities of the receiving State shall, without delay, inform

the consular post of the sending State if, within its consular district, a national of that State is arrested

or committed to prison or to custody pending trial or is detained in any other manner. Any communication

addressed to the consular post by the person arrested, in prison, custody or detention shall be forwarded by the

said authorities without delay. The said authorities shall inform the person concerned without delay of

his rights under this subparagraph;(…).

196 ABRvS, 10 Feb. 2009, LJN: BH4190; ABRvS, 18 Feb. 2009, zaaknr.: 200808871/1.

197 ABRvS, 3 Sept. 2009, LJN: BJ7536.



London, UK, 2013

43

3.7.4 Holidays

Another area of concern related to due process in Dutch immigration jurisprudence concerns

the problem of respecting public holidays that may collide with deadlines of procedure

attached to immigration detention under Article 59. While the Council of State found that it

cannot be expected that the authorities work the same pace on holidays as they do on work

days, they should take measures to circumvent delays due to blocks of holidays and bridge

days occurring in a row.198

However, a simple delay in procedure due to such a holiday block

is not in itself a violation of due process. Since due process is not a statutory obligation, it has

to be weighed against the interests served with this detention. In a case in 2008, the Council

argued that because the immigrant accepted the reasons for detention, a delay of eight days

in due process did not outweigh the public interest served by his detention and thus did not

find a violation of due process.199

3.8 Appeal/Access to Justice

The individual in detention pursuant to Article 59 may appeal against this measure at any

time on the basis of Article 94 AA in conjunction with Article 69.3 AA. The possibility for

higher appeal is given in Article 95 AA, which has a filing deadline of one week attached to

it.200

Appeal may be filed by the indivual himself, his lawyer or authorized representative.201

Next to that, the Minister has the obligation to inform the court on the detention of the

individual in question within 28 days, should the immigrant not have filed an appeal himself

already. This way, review to the measure of detention on the ground of Article 59 is

automatic in the Netherlands. The court has to hear the case within 14 days of the Minister‘s

notice or the appeal by the immigrant.202

If these 14 days are not respected, detention

becomes unlawful from the due date onwards and has to be lifted.203

198 ABRvS, 12 June 2008, LJN: BD5485.

199 ABRvS, 17 July 2008, LJN: BD9028.

200 ABRvS, 10 June 2002, LJN: AE6645.

201 Article 70 AA.

202 Article 94.1 AA.

203 Rb Zwolle, 28 Dec. 2000, LJN: AB0124.



London, UK, 2013

44

In contrast, there is not automatic continuous review of the appropriateness of ongoing

detention. However, the immigrant can file an appeal on the matter at any time. As discussed

above in the Due Process and the Duration sections, detention under Article 59 has to be

well-reasoned and is subject to the limit of six months for illegally resident aliens (to be

found in case law) and four to six weeks for aliens resident on the basis of Article 8

subsections f, g or h AA.

Detention also has an effect on the access to justice concerning decisions on lawful stay. As

has already been discussed above, aliens in principle have lawful stay pursuant to Article 8 f,

g or h when they are awaiting a decision on their request for a temporary or permanent

residence permit, or a decision on a subsequent appeal. A negative decision is by law only

enforced after the time for appeal has lapsed and the deicision becomes final in accordance

with Article 73.1 and Article 82.1 AA.

Nevertheless, the alien in question may be detained under subsection b of Article 59.1. In

case of detention, the suspensive effect in legal recourse is lost as laid down in Article 73.4

and Aritcle 82.44 AA.204

This is due to the fact the alien’s original grounds based on Article 8

f, g and h becomes invalid upon the commencement of detention pursuant to Articlel 59.

Thus, the alien is no longer lawfully resident in the Netherlands205

and may not await the

decision there.206

In consequence, the alien might be deported before a decision is reached

on his appeal.207

He is thereby prevented from effective access to justice. The only exception

to this might be granted by a judge through a provisional ruling. If the court upon request for

a provisional ruling determines that expulsion is halted, the individual in question may await

the decision on the residence application or the subsequent appeal in the Netherlands.208

3.9 Conditions of Detention

In contrast to places of border detention pursuant to Article 6 who are run under a specific

set of rules drawn up for this purpose, immigration detention pursuant to Article 59 adheres

204 ABRvS, 11 March 2013, LJN: BZ4428.

205 Rb Haarlem, 29 June 2004, LJN: AQ1614.

206 Rb ‘s-Hertogenbosch, 18 July 2003, LJN: AK3549.

207 See supra note 138, p. 222.

208 Rb Amsterdam, 28 Aug. 2008, LJN: BG3926; ABRvS, 10 June 2002, LJN: AE6645.



London, UK, 2013

45

to a particular version of the Dutch prison rules (Penitentiaire Beginselenwet),209

the

socalled regime ‘retricted community’ (regime beperkte gemeenschap),210

which does not

aim for rehabilitiation or reintegration of the detainees. The underlying rationale behind this

is the fact that immigration detention is an administrative measure, not a penal one, and that

this measure is taken with a view to expulsion, meaning that the detainees only stay for a

short while and will not require reintegration or education in order to fit into Dutch society

after they are released, such as criminal offenders. The National Ombudsman criticises this in

his report of August 2012. He argues that this rationale facilitates rules that are sometimes

stricter than those applied in criminal detention. Foreign nationals cannot work or take part

in educational programs, they are constantly under surveillance and have no privacy as they

share a 10m2 cell with another immigrant, in which they are locked up from 5 p.m. to 8 a.m.

every day.211

In his view, which is shared by non-governmental organizations such as Amnesty

International,212

a person who has done nothing wrong should not be subjected to this

regime of rules that does not even give the possibility to go outside into the yard whenever

one desires to.

During the day, detainees may freely move around in the common area of their sections.

These common areas include a library and a sports hall, visitation rooms and meeting rooms

for lawyers. Acitivities are organized for four hours per week, which is in line with the prison

rules.213

Some detention facilities are equipped for families which include rooms for creative

and game acitivities.214

However, for the same reason that adults to not receive training or

209 Penitentiaire Beginselenwet, 18 June 1998, BWBR0009709, retrieved on 1-5-2013 from


210 Ibid Article 20.

211 De Nationale Ombudsman. 7 Aug. 2012. Vreemdelingenbewaring: strafregime of maatregel om uit te zetten.

Rapportnummer 2012/105, retrieved from www.nationaleombudsman.nl; Dienst Justitiële Inrichtingen,

Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie. Veiligheit en beveiliging, retrieved on 28-4-2013

http://www.dji.nl/Onderwerpen/Vreemdelingen-in-bewaring/Veiligheid-en-beveiliging/.

212 Amnesty International. November 2010. Vreemdelingen Detentie: In Strijd met Mensenrechten.

213 Supra note 211 Dienst Justitiële Inrichtingen, Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie. Veiligheit en beveiliging;

supra note 21.

214 Supra note 211 Dienst Justitiële Inrichtingen, Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie. Veiligheit en beveiliging.



London, UK, 2013

46

can work, children in detention do not receive a school education.215

Detainees are allowed

to receive visits for a limited amount of 2 hours per week, always under surveillance.216

In general, the Ombudsman criticizes that detainees are treated like criminals. Upon arrival,

their fingerprints are taken and they undergo a bodily check by two members of the centre’s

personnel. These checks can be repeated after every encounter with the outer world on part

of the detainee – and on account of the National Ombudsman this discretion is frequently

employed. Hence, after each time the detainee leaves the centre – for example to go to the

hospital or to a family occasion such as a wedding or a funeral – during which he is never left

unsupervised, he will be subjected to a bodily search upon return at the facility.

Furthermore, aliens may be checked after having received visitors inside the centre, despite

continued surveillance. As an illustration, parents are allowed to take their visiting children

under the age of four up on their laps. However, the report argues that the chance of being

searched after the visit is considerably higher when the detainee does this because it

increases the potential passing of forbidden objects from the visitor to the detainee.

Therefore, many detainees refrain from making physical contact with their children to not be

subjected to this humiliating search.217

In a reaction from September 2012 to questions from the 2nd

Chamber of Parliament

subsequent to the Ombudsman Report, the former Minister for Immigration, Integration and

Asylum, Mr. Leers,218

and State Secretary for Security and Justice, Mr. Teeven, explain that

the regime ‘restricted community’ is designed to fit the situation of immigrant detainees that

will leave the country in a matter of weeks or months and are therefore not subject to

ressocialization programs. The lack of these programs are compensated for through

alternative activity programs, however, there are no details on what kinds of acitivities those

are and when they are offered. The Minister stresses that the circumstances of detention are

not degrading in nature and that in fact they have recently been improved by doubling

215 Supra note 211 Ombudsman Report

216 Ibid.

217 Ibid.

218 This was a position under the first Rutte cabinet and its obligations lay now with the post of Minister of

Security and Justice under the second Rutte cabinet.



London, UK, 2013

47

visiting hours from one to two hours per week and by starting up two pilots where restricted

internet access is allowed in detention centres.219

3.9.1 Isolation

Foreign nationals in detention centres may be subjected to the disciplinary measure of being

placed in isolation for a maximum of 14 days. Isolation cells only contain a matress or sitting

cube. The use of those isolation cells has not been documented in the past. Recently,

however, the authorities started documenting the reason and the duration of isolation.220

In

2012, detention centres experienced an average of 75 isolations per month, adding up to

900 isloations per year distributed over 1230 detainees. The average duration of this

isolation was between six and seven days. Although the SP member Ms. Gesthuizen on the

Permanent Commission for Security and Justice during the recent general deliberation on

immigration detention expressed her concern that this practice of isloation was applied in a

far too lenient fashion, State Secretary of Security and Justice, Mr. Teeven, assured the

Commission that this measure adheres to the required norms and its application is in

principle proportional to the desired aims to maintain security for peer detainees and staff in

the centre. He admits however that the proportion of aliens serving isolation time is higher

than that of criminals due to the situation of high uncertainty and consequential tension

these individuls experience.221

3.9.2 Access to Health Care

Detainees under the Prison Rules have a right to medical care by professional personnel

within the facility.222

To this end, detention centres are equipped with medical staff

consisting of a common practitioner who is avaible daily from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. and a nurse,

who stays on until 10 p.m. During the night, a doctor on call may be requested by the guards

if necessary. The medical staff circulates through the different sections of the detention

centre during the week so that detainees can walk in during the contact hours on the

respective day. When an individual needs medical attention outside these contact hours, he

has to request this via a card that he posts in a box in the common area of the section. Upon

219 Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties. 5 Sept. 2012. Beantwoording kamervragen met

kenmerk 2012 Z14 940, retrieved on 1-5-2013 from http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-en-

publicaties/kamerstukken/2012/09/05/beantwoording-kamervragen-over-vreemdelingenbewaring.html.

220 Supra note 211 Ombudsman Report.

221 Supra note 21.

222 Supra note 209, Article 42.



London, UK, 2013

48

reception of this card, the nurse checks in with the detainee and determines whether the

doctor has to come. According to the Ombudsman Report, detainees that require care over a

longer period of time or who arrive with a condition that requires specific treatment, this is

often not or only poorly addressed during detention with consequential complications for

the detainee. When a person requires special treatment that can only be given in hospitals,

he has to wear handcuffs throughout this visit. Since this is experienced as degrading and

humiliating treatment, detainees often refrain from hospital visits which may worsen their

condition. When a detainee is released in the Netherlands because the view of expulsion

lapses, he is able to receive care in specific facilities for two more weeks. After that, he is on

his own, often with psychological problems worsened by the conditions of detention that

may lead to depression and tensions. 223

4 Conclusion

Dutch immigration law is part of Dutch administrative law and knows five rules to restrict an

alien’s freedom of movement, while four allow for the complete deprivation of an

immigrant’s liberty. The two main detention provisions currently employed by the Dutch

authorities constitute the measure of border detention under Article 6 subsection 1 and 2, as

well as immigration detention with a view to expulsion for reasons of public interest or

national security under Article 59 of the Dutch Aliens Act 2000. Border detention may be

imposed on aliens that have been rejected at the external borders of the Netherlands (equal

to the Schengen borders) in order to prevent them from illegal entry. Immigration detention

targets those immigrants who pose a risk to public interest or national security and who are

to be expelled. Aliens subjected to this measure are mostly illegally resident in the

Netherlands or are still awaiting a final decision on their residence status. Along other issues,

two major concerns have been outlined above which are brought to the fore especially by

organizations that support immigrants interests but also by the political opposition in the

country. The first concerns the problem that the system of immigration detention allows for

repeated detention without certainty to its duration. Immigrants are caught in the apparatus

and suffer from distortion of their daily rhythms and future prospects due to repeated

detention for timespans of several months. Aliens that cannot be expelled but equally do not

receive a residence permit are particularly affected by this as they remain illegally resident in

the Netherlands and have to fear for detention upon encounter with the police.

Furthermore, they lack any serious future prospects of being able to find employment and

make a meaningful life for themselves. The second concern became manifested in January

223 Supra note 211 Ombudsman Report, p. 30.



London, UK, 2013

49

2013 with a proposal by the government for an amendment of the Aliens Act 2000 to

criminalize illegal stay. Many fear that this will marginalize immigrants even more and will

lead to further unregistered immigration and an increase in criminal activity as illegal

immigrants will fear to be caught by the system for example through registering with an

employer or for health insurance.



London, UK, 2013

50

5 Bibliography

5.1 Legislation

Algemene Wet Bestuursrecht, 1 Jan. 1994, BWBR0005537, retrieved on 28-4-2013 from

http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0005537/volledig/geldigheidsdatum_28-04-2013;

Grondwet voor het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden van 24 augustus 1815, BWBR0001840,

retrieved on 28-4-2013 from

http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001840/geldigheidsdatum_28-04-2013;

Penitentiaire Beginselenwet, 18 June 1998, BWBR0009709, retrieved on 1-5-2013 from


Reglement Regime Grenslogies, 1 April 1993, BWBR0005848, retrieved on 28-4-2013 from


Voorschrift Vreemdelingen 2000, 1 Apil 2001, BWBR0012002, retrieved on 28-4-2013 from

http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0012002/volledig/geldigheidsdatum_28-04-

2013#Opschrift;

Vreemdelingenbesluit 2000, 1 April 2001, BWBR0011825, retrieved on 28-4-2013 from

http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0011825/volledig/geldigheidsdatum_28-04-

2013#Opschrift;

Vreemdelingencirculaire A 2000, 1 April 2001, BWBR0012287, retrieved on 28-4-2013 from


Vreemdelingencirculaire B 2000, 1 April 2001, BWBR0012289, retrieved on 28-4-2013 from


Vreedemlingencriculaire C 2000, 1 April 2001, BWBR0012288, retrieved on 28-4-20113 from


Vreemdelingenwet 2000, 1 April 2001, BWBR0011823, retrieved on 28-4-2013 from




London, UK, 2013

51

5.2 Official Documents

Besluit van 23 november 2000 tot uitvoering van de Vreemdelingenwet 2000

(Vreemdelingenbesluit 2000), Staatsblad van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, 2000, Nr. 497;

De Nationale Ombudsman. 7 Aug. 2012. Vreemdelingenbewaring: strafregime of maatregel

om uit te zetten. Rapportnummer 2012/105, retrieved from www.nationaleombudsman.nl;

Dienst Justitiële Inrichtingen. Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie. Detentiecentrum Schiphol.

Retrieved on 28-4-2013 from http://www.dji.nl/Organisatie/Locaties/Detentiecentra-en-

uitzetcentra/Detentiecentrum-Noord-Holland/;

Dienst Justitiële Inrichtingen, Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie. Veiligheit en beveiliging.

Retrieved on 28-4-2013 http://www.dji.nl/Onderwerpen/Vreemdelingen-in-

bewaring/Veiligheid-en-beveiliging/;

Dienst Justitiële Inrichtingen, Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie. 2012.

Vreemdelingenbewaring in getal, 2007-2011, retrieved on 28-4-2013 from

http://www.dji.nl/Images/vreemdelingenbewaring-in-getal-2007-2011_tcm93-430853.pdf;

Immigratie- en Naturalisatiedienst, Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie. 2 April 2013. Het

Nederlandse vreemdelingenbeleid herschreven. Retrieved on 28-4-2013 from

http://www.ind.nl/Nieuws/Pages/HetNederlandsevreemdelingenbeleidherschreven.aspx;

Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties. 5 Sept. 2012. Beantwoording

kamervragen met kenmerk 2012 Z14 940, retrieved on 1-5-2013 from

http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-en-

publicaties/kamerstukken/2012/09/05/beantwoording-kamervragen-over-

vreemdelingenbewaring.html;

Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie. 19 Feb 2013. Anwoorden kamervragen over de oproep

van Vluchtelingenwerk Nederland om te stoppen met de grensdetentie van vluchtelingen.

Kenmerk 2013-0000002618, retrieved on 28-4-2013 from

http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-en-

publicaties/kamerstukken/2013/02/21/antwoorden-kamervragen-over-de-oproep-van-

vluchtenlingenwerk-nederland-om-te-stoppen-met-de-grensdetentie-van-

vluchtelingen.html;

Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie. 2013. Rapportage Vreemdelingenketen, Periode Januari

– December 2012, retrieved on 28-4-2013 from



London, UK, 2013

52

http://www.dienstterugkeerenvertrek.nl/images/rapportage-vreemdelingenketen-januari-

december-2012_tcm66-495405.pdf;

Rijksoverheid. 17 Dec. 2012. Nieuw Justitieel Complex Schiphol in gebruik genomen.

Retrieved on 28-4-2013 from http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/nieuws/2012/12/17/nieuw-

justitieel-complex-schiphol-in-gebruik-genomen.html;

Staatssecretaris van Justitie. 2001. Tussentijds Bericht Vreemdelingencirculaire (TBV

2001/11). Staatscourant, Nr. 66;

Tweede Kamer en Staten-Generaal. 1998-1999. Algehele herziening van de

Vreemdelingenwet (Vreemdelingenwet 2000). Memoire van Toelichting. Kamerstuk 26 732,

Nr. 3;


Vreemdelingenwet (Vreemdelingenwet 2000). Nota naar aanleiding van het verslag.

Kamerstuk 26 732, Nr. 7;

Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal. 1999-2000. Algehele herziening van de

Vreemdelingenwet (Vreemdelingenwet 2000). Kamerstuk 26 732, Nr. 12;


Vreemdelingenwet (Vreemdelingenwet 2000). Tweede Nota van Wijziging. Kamerstuk 26

732, Nr. 44;

Tweede Kamer der Staaten Generaal. 2006-2007. Terugkeerbeleid. Verslag van een

schriftelijk overleg. Kamerstuk 29 344, Nr. 58;

Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal. 2012-2013. Wijziging van de Vreemdelingenwet 2000 in

verband met de strafbaarstelling van illegaal verblijf van vreemdelingen in Nederland.


Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal. 2012-2013. Wijziging van de Vreemdelingenwet 2000 in

verband met de strafbaarstelling van illegaal verblijf van vreemdelingen in Nederland.


Vaste Commissie voor Veiligheid en Justitie. 13 March 2013. Verslag van een algemeen

overleg, gehouden op woensdag 13 maart 2013, over Opvang, terugkeer en

vreemdelingenbewaring – Vreemdelingenbeleid. Retrieved on 28-4-2013 from

http://www.parlementairemonitor.nl/9353000/1/j9vvij5epmj1ey0/vj8c5lhaymzk#p1.



London, UK, 2013

53

5.3 Case Law

5.3.1 Administrative Judicial Review Division of the Council of State

ABRvS, 5 Sept. 2001, LJN: AD4502, zaaknr.: 200103358/1;

ABRvS, 5 Oct. 2001, LJN: AD5956;

ABRvS, 15 Nov. 2001, LJN: AH9538;

ABRvS, 25 Jan. 2002, LJN: AE1108;

ABRvS, 1 May 2002, LJN: AE3705;

ABRvS, 10 June 2002, LJN: AE6645;

ABRvS, 24 July 2002; LJN: AE8061;

ABRvS, 17 April 2003, LJN: AH9320;

ABRvS, 17 Dec. 2004, zaaknr.: 200409206/1;

ABRvS, 13 Jan. 2006, LJN: AU9837;

ABRvS, 16 Jan. 2007, LJN: AZ7564;

ABRvS, 2 April 2007, LJN: BA2831;

ABRvS, 16 July 2007, LJN: BB1374;

ABRvS, 17 July 2007, zaaknr.: 200703945/1;

ABRvS, 22 Aug. 2007, LJN: BB2452;

ABRvS, 29 Aug. 2007, LJN: BB3120;

ABRvS, 11 Dec. 2007, LJN: BC1070;

ABRvS, 21 Jan. 2008, zaaknr.: 200707652/1;

ABRvS, 22 Jan. 2008, LJN: BC2998;

ABRvS, 23 Jan. 2008, LJN: BC4384;

ABRvS, 14 Feb. 2008, LJN: BC4719;



London, UK, 2013

54

ABRvS, 12 June 2008, LJN: BD5485;

ABRvS, 16 June 2008, LJN: BD5536;

ABRvS, 17 July 2008, LJN: BD9028;

ABRvS, 22 July 2008, zaaknr.: 200804746/1;

ABRvS, 21 Nov. 2008, LJN: BG5680;

ABRvS, 29 Dec. 2008, LJN: BG9512;

ABRvS, 3 Feb. 2009, zaaknr.: 200900047/1;

ABRvS, 10 Feb. 2009, LJN: BH4190;

ABRvS, 18 Feb. 2009, zaaknr.: 200808871/1;

ABRvS, 20 Feb. 2009, LJN: BH4680;

ABRvS, 27 Feb. 2009, LJN: BH6168;

ABRvS, 23 March 2009, LJN: BH8487;

ABRvS, 28 May 2009, zaaknr.: 200901606/1;

ABRvS, 17 June 2009, LJN: BJ1651;

ABRvS, 29 June 2009, LJN: BJ1619;

ABRvS, 1 July 2009, LJN: BJ1600;

ABRvS, 20 July 2009, LJN: BJ3641;

ABRvS, 27 July 2009, zaaknr.: 200904318/1/V3;

ABRvS, 28 Aug. 2009, LJN: BJ6909;

ABRvS, 3 Sept. 2009, LJN: BJ7536;

ABRvS, 29 Oct. 2009, LJN: BK2270;

ABRvS, 17 Nov. 2009, LJN: BK6033;

ABRvS, 18 Nov. 2009, LJN: BK4688;



London, UK, 2013

55

ABRvS, 9 Dec. 2009, LJN: BK6174;

ABRvS, 7 Feb. 2011, LJN: BP5114;

ABRvS, 11 March 2013, LJN: BZ4428;

5.3.2 Hoge Raad / Supreme Court

REK, 21 Aug. 1997, LJN: ZA3477.

5.3.3 Rechtbank Amsterdam

Rb Amsterdam, 19 Feb. 2002, LJN: AE2024;

Rb Amsterdam, 25 Jan. 2005, LJN: AS9656;

Rb Amsterdam, 27 Jan. 2005, LJN: AS9431;

Rb Amsterdam, 8 Nov. 2005, LJN: AU7456;

Rb Amsterdam, 13 Juni 2006, LJN: AZ2577;

Rb Amsterdam, 22 Feb. 2007, LJN: BA1740;

Rb Amsterdam, 10 April 2008, LJN BD0607;

Rb Amsterdam, 28 Aug. 2008, LJN: BG3926;

Rb Amsterdam, 15 Dec. 2008, LJN: BG7919;

5.3.4 Rechtbank Dordrecht

Rb Dordrecht, 27 Feb 2007, LJN: BA0563;

5.3.5 Rechtbank Haarlem

Rb Haarlem, 19 Apirl 2000, LJN: AA5762;

Rb Haarlem, 26 Jan. 2001, LJN: AB0012;

Rb Haarlem, 10 May 2001, LJN: AD6733;

Rb Haarlem, 14 Sept. 2001, LJN: AD7285;

Rb Haarlem, 19 Aug. 2002, LJN; AE8447;



London, UK, 2013

56

Rb Haarlem, 16 Oct. 2002, LJN: AF2389;

Rb Haarlem, 23 Oct. 2002, LJN: AF2392;

Rb Haarlem, 30 Dec. 2003, LJN AO2652;

Rb Haarlem, 29 June 2004, LJN: AQ1614;

Rb Haarlem, 3 Dec. 2004, LJN: AR8529;

Rb Haarlem, 9 Nov. 2005, LJN: AU6550;

Rb Haarlem, 2 May 2006, LJN: AX3993;

Rb Haarlem, 1 April 2011, LJN: BQ020;

5.3.6 Rechtbank Rotterdam

Rb Rotterdam, 17 Nov. 2005, LJN: AU7340;

5.3.7 Rechtbank ‘s-Gravenhage

Rb ‘s-Gravenhage, 18 Nov. 2010, LJN: BO7499;

5.3.8 Rechtbank ‘s-Hertogenbosch

Rb ’s-Hertogenbosch, 19 April 2001, LJN: ZA7047;

Rb ‘s-Hertogenbosch, 7 May 2001, LJN: ZA7046;

Rb ‘s-Hertogenbosch, 18 July 2003, LJN: AK3549;

5.3.9 Rechtbank Utrecht

Rb Utrecht, 6 June 2011, LJN: BQ7242;

Rb Utrecht, 8 Nov. 2011, LJN: BU4116;

5.3.10 Rechtbank Zutphen

Rb Zutphen, 23 Nov. 2005, LJN: AU8219;

Rb Zutphen, 14 Dec. 2005, LJN: AU8217;



London, UK, 2013

57

5.3.11 Rechtbank Zwolle

Rb Zwolle, 28 Dec. 2000, LJN: AB0124;

Rb Zwolle, 22 June 2011, Awb 11/19510, to be found in attachment to ABRvS, 1 July 2011,

zaaknr.: 201107455/1/V3;

5.4 Scholars

Baudoin et. al. 2008. Vrijheidsontneming van vreemdelingen. 2nd ed. Sdu Uitgevers, den

Haag;

Kampstra, E.M. 2012. Kernzaken Staats- en bestuursrecht. Vreemdelingenrecht. Kluwer,

Deventer;

Kox, M. 2007: 48 Vreemdelingen. Utrecht, retrieved on 24-4-2013 from

http://www.schipholwakes.nl/achtergrondinformatie-schipholwakes.htm;

Taekema, S. 2011. Understanding Dutch Law. 2nd

ed. Eleven International Publishing, The

Hague.

5.5 Organizations and Institutions

Amnesty International. November 2010. Vreemdelingen Detentie: In Strijd met

Mensenrechten;

Humanist Association: Immigration Policy in the Netherlands is in violation of human rights.

Retrieved on 27-4-2013 from http://svj.hu.nl/mensenrechten/2013/04/14/humanist-

association-immigration-policy-in-the-netherlands-is-in-violation-of-human-rights/;

Kenniscentrum Commissie van Toezicht, Vreemdelingenbewaring, retrieved on 3-4-2013

from:

http://www.commissievantoezicht.nl/dossiers/vreemdelingenbewaring/vreemdelingenbewa

ring/;

VluchtelingenWerk Nederland. 27 Dec. 2012. Oproep VluchtelingenWerk: ‘Geen

vluchtelingen meer in de cel’. Retrieved on 28-4-2013 from

http://www.vluchtelingenwerk.nl/persberichten/geen-vluchtelingen-meer-in-de-cel.php.



London, UK, 2013

58

5.6 International Instruments

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 3 Sept. 1953,

213 UNTS 221 [hereafter ECHR];

Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008

on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-

country nationals, Official Journal of the European Union, L 348/98 of 24.12.2008 [hereafter:

Return Directive];

Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, 15 March 2006

establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across

borders, Official Journal L 105/1 of 13-4-2006;

UNHCR. 2012. Detention Guildelines. Guidelines on the Applicable Criteria and Standards

relating to the Retrieved on 28-4-2013 from

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/503489533b8.html;

Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963, United Nations Treaty Series 2005, vol. 596.



London, UK, 2013

59

6 Annex

Vreemdelingenwet 2000

Artikel 6:

1. De vreemdeling aan wie toegang is

geweigerd kan worden verplicht zich op te

houden in een door de ambtenaar belast met

grensbewaking aangewezen ruimte of plaats.

2. Een ruimte of plaats, bedoeld in het eerste

lid, kan worden beveiligd tegen ongeoorloofd

vertrek.

Artikel 55.1:

De vreemdeling die rechtmatig verblijf geniet

op grond van artikel 8, onder f, dient zich, in

verband met het onderzoek naar de

inwilligbaarheid van de aanvraag om een

verblijfsvergunning beschikbaar te houden op

een door Onze Minister aangewezen plaats,

overeenkomstig hem daartoe door de

bevoegde autoriteit gegeven aanwijzingen.

Aliens Act 2000

Article 6:

1. An alien who has been refused entry into

the Netherlands may be required to stay in a

space or place designated by a border control

officer.

2. A space or place, as referred to in subsection

1, may be secured against unauthorised

departure.

Article 55.1

An alien who is lawfully resident on the

grounds of section 8 (f)224

shall keep himself

available, in connection with the screening of

his application for a residence permit, at a

place designated by Our Minister in

accordance with the directions given to him by

the competent authority for this purpose.

224 Artikel 8(f): De vreemdeling heeft in Nederland

uitsluitend rechtmatig verblijf: in afwachting van

de beslissing op een aanvraag tot het verlenen van

de verblijfsvergunning, bedoeld in de artikelen 14

en 28, terwijl bij of krachtens deze wet dan wel op

grond van een rechterlijke beslissing uitzetting van

de aanvrager achterwege dient te blijven totdat op

de aanvraag is beslist; translation: (f) pending a

decision on an application for the issue of a

residence permit as referred to in sections 14 and

28 in circumstances where, by or pursuant to this

Act or on the ground of a judicial decision,

expulsion of the applicant should not take place

until the decision on the application has been

given;



London, UK, 2013

60

Artikel 56:

1. Overeenkomstig bij algemene maatregel

van bestuur te geven regels kan, indien het

belang van de openbare orde of de nationale

veiligheid zulks vordert, door Onze Minister de

vrijheid van beweging worden beperkt van de

vreemdeling die:

a. geen rechtmatig verblijf heeft;

b. rechtmatig verblijf heeft op grond

van artikel 8, met uitzondering van de

onderdelen b, d en e.

2. Toepassing van het eerste lid blijft

achterwege wanneer en wordt beëindigd

zodra de vreemdeling te kennen geeft

Nederland te willen verlaten en hiertoe voor

hem ook gelegenheid bestaat.

Article 56:

1. In accordance with rules issued by Order in

Council Our Minister may, for reasons of public

interest225

or national security, restrict the

freedom of movement of an alien who:

a. is not lawfully resident;

b. is lawfully resident on the grounds

of article 8, with the exception of b, d

and e;

2. If the alien has indicated that he wishes to

leave the Netherlands and also has the

opportunity to do so, subsection 1 shall not be

applied or, if already applied, shall cease to

apply as soon as such an indication is given.

225 Openbare orde can also be translated into

“public policy” or “public safety” (give sources!)



London, UK, 2013

61

Artikel 57:

1. Onze Minister kan de vreemdeling wiens

aanvraag om een verblijfsvergunning als

bedoeld in artikel 28 is afgewezen de

aanwijzing geven zich op te houden in een

bepaalde ruimte of op een bepaalde plaats en

aldaar de aanwijzingen van de bevoegde

autoriteit in acht te nemen, ook indien de

beschikking waarbij de aanvraag is afgewezen

nog niet onherroepelijk is dan wel het beroep

de werking van de beschikking opschort.

2. Op aanvraag van de vreemdeling kan een

andere ruimte of plaats worden aangewezen.

3. Een aanwijzing als bedoeld in het eerste lid

blijft achterwege indien de vrijheid van

beweging van de vreemdeling is beperkt in

verband met het onderzoek naar de aanvraag

om een verblijfsvergunning en de vreemdeling

zich daadwerkelijk beschikbaar heeft

gehouden en de beschikking tot afwijzing

meer dan acht weken na de indiening van de

aanvraag is gegeven.

4. De aanwijzing, bedoeld in het eerste lid,

vervalt indien de beschikking waarbij de

aanvraag is afgewezen is vernietigd of zodra

het vertrek van de vreemdeling uit de ruimte

of plaats nodig is om Nederland te verlaten.

5. De termijn, bedoeld in het derde lid, wordt

opgeschort gedurende de termijn waarin de

vreemdeling de beperking van zijn

bewegingsvrijheid niet in acht heeft genomen.

Artikel 58.1:

Indien zulks voor de uitzetting noodzakelijk is,

kan Onze Minister in het geval, bedoeld in

artikel 57, eerste lid, de vreemdeling een

ruimte of plaats aanwijzen, die is beveiligd

tegen ongeoorloofd vertrek.

Article 57:

1. Our Minister may give an alien whose

application for a residence permit as referred

to in Article 28 has been rejected a direction to

stay in a given space or at a given place and to

observe the directions of the competent

authority there, even if the decision rejecting

the application is not yet irrevocable or if the

application for review suspends the operation

of the decision.

2. Another space or place may be designated

at the request of the alien.

3. A direction as referred to in subsection 1

shall not be given if the freedom of movement

of the alien is restricted in connection with the

screening of his application for a residence

permit and the alien has actually kept himself

available and the decision to reject the

application was given more than eight weeks

after the submission of the application.

4. A direction as referred to in subsection 1

shall lapse if the decision in which the

application was rejected has been quashed or

as soon as the departure of the alien for the

space or place is necessary in order to leave

the Netherlands.

5. The time limit referred to in subsection 3

shall be suspended during any period in which

the alien has not complied with the restriction

on his freedom of movement.

Article 58.1:

In the case referred to in section 57, subsection

1, Our Minister may, if this is necessary for the

purpose of expulsion, designate for the alien a

space or place which is secured against

unauthorized departure.



London, UK, 2013

62

Artikel 50:

1. De ambtenaren belast met de grensbewaking en

de ambtenaren belast met het toezicht op

vreemdelingen, zijn bevoegd, hetzij op grond van

feiten en omstandigheden die, naar objectieve

maatstaven gemeten, een redelijk vermoeden van

illegaal verblijf opleveren hetzij ter bestrijding van

illegaal verblijf na grensoverschrijding, personen

staande te houden ter vaststelling van hun

identiteit, nationaliteit en verblijfsrechtelijke

positie. Degene die stelt Nederlander te zijn, maar

dat niet kan aantonen, kan worden onderworpen

aan de dwangmiddelen als bedoeld in het tweede

en vijfde lid. Bij algemene maatregel van bestuur

worden de documenten aangewezen waarover

een vreemdeling moet beschikken ter vaststelling

van zijn identiteit, nationaliteit en

verblijfsrechtelijke positie.

2. Indien de identiteit van de staande gehouden

persoon niet onmiddellijk kan worden vastgesteld,

mag hij worden overgebracht naar een plaats

bestemd voor verhoor. Hij wordt aldaar niet langer

dan gedurende zes uren opgehouden, met dien

verstande, dat de tijd tussen middernacht en

negen uur voormiddags niet wordt meegerekend.

3. Indien de identiteit van de staande gehouden

persoon onmiddellijk kan worden vastgesteld en

indien blijkt dat deze persoon geen rechtmatig

verblijf geniet, dan wel niet onmiddellijk blijkt dat

hij rechtmatig verblijf heeft, mag hij worden

overgebracht naar een plaats bestemd voor

verhoor. Hij wordt aldaar niet langer dan

gedurende zes uren opgehouden, met dien

verstande, dat de tijd tussen middernacht en

negen uur voormiddags niet wordt meegerekend.

4. Indien nog grond bestaat voor het vermoeden

dat de opgehouden persoon geen rechtmatig

verblijf heeft, kan de in het tweede en derde lid

bepaalde termijn door de Commandant der

Koninklijke marechaussee respectievelijk door de

korpschef in het belang van het onderzoek met ten

hoogste acht en veertig uren worden verlengd.

5. De in het eerste lid bedoelde ambtenaren zijn

bevoegd de opgehouden persoon aan diens

kleding of lichaam te onderzoeken, alsmede zaken

van deze persoon te doorzoeken.

6. Bij algemene maatregel van bestuur worden

nadere regelen gegeven omtrent de toepassing

van de voorgaande leden van dit artikel.

Article 50:

1. The border control officers and aliens supervision

officers are authorised to stop persons in order to

check their identity, nationality and residence

status either because there is, on the basis of

objective criteria, a reasonable suspicion that such

persons are illegally resident or in order to prevent

illegal residence of persons after they have crossed

the border. A person who alleges that he has

Netherlands nationality but is unable to prove this

may be subjected to coercive measures as referred

to in subsections 2 and 5. The documents which an

alien must possess in order to establish his identity,

nationality and residence status shall be

designated by Order in Council.

2. If the identity of a person who has been stopped

cannot be immediately established, he may be

transferred to a place of interview. He shall not be

detained there for longer than six hours, for which

purpose, however, the period between midnight

and nine o’clock in the morning is not counted.

3. If the identity of a person who has been stopped

cannot be immediately established and if it

transpires that this person is not lawfully resident

in the Netherlands or it is not immediately

established that he is lawfully resident, he may be

transferred to a place of interview. He shall not be

detained there for longer than six hours, for which

purpose, however, the period between midnight

and nine o’clock in the morning is not counted.

4. If there is still a basis for the suspicion that the

detained person is not lawfully resident, the period

referred to in subsections 2 and 3 may be extended

for a maximum of forty-eight hours in the interests

of the investigation by the commander of the Royal

Netherlands Military Constabulary or, as the case

may be, the chief of police in the place where the

person is present.

5. The officials referred to in subsection 1 are

authorised to search the clothing and body of the

detained person and his belongings.

6. Further rules on the application of the above

subsections shall be laid down by Order in Council.



London, UK, 2013

63

Artikel 59

1. Indien het belang van de openbare orde of de

nationale veiligheid zulks vordert kan, met het oog

op de uitzetting, door Onze Minister in bewaring

worden gesteld de vreemdeling die:

a. geen rechtmatig verblijf heeft;

b. die rechtmatig verblijf heeft op grond

van artikel 8, onder f, g en h.

2. Indien de voor de terugkeer van de vreemdeling

noodzakelijke bescheiden voorhanden zijn, dan wel

binnen korte termijn voorhanden zullen zijn, wordt

het belang van de openbare orde geacht de

bewaring van de vreemdeling te vorderen, tenzij

de vreemdeling rechtmatig verblijf heeft gehad op

grond van artikel 8, onder a tot en met e, en l.

3. Bewaring van een vreemdeling blijft achterwege

indien en wordt beëindigd zodra hij te kennen

geeft Nederland te willen verlaten en hiertoe voor

hem ook gelegenheid bestaat.

4. Bewaring krachtens het eerste lid, onder b, of

het tweede lid duurt in geen geval langer dan vier

weken. Indien voorafgaande aan de beslissing op

de aanvraag toepassing is gegeven aan artikel 39,

duurt de bewaring krachtens het eerste lid, onder

b, in geen geval langer dan zes weken.

5. Onverminderd het vierde lid duurt de bewaring

krachtens het eerste lid niet langer dan zes

maanden.

6. In afwijking van het vijfde lid en onverminderd

het vierde lid kan de bewaring krachtens het eerste

lid ten hoogste met nog eens twaalf maanden

worden verlengd, indien de uitzetting, alle

redelijke inspanningen ten spijt, wellicht meer tijd

zal vergen, op grond dat de vreemdeling niet

meewerkt aan zijn uitzetting of de daartoe

benodigde documentatie uit derde landen nog

ontbreekt.

7. Het vijfde en zesde lid zijn van overeenkomstige

toepassing op de vreemdeling aan wie de

verplichting of maatregel, bedoeld in artikel 6,

eerste of tweede lid, dan wel artikel 58 is

opgelegd.

Article 59

1. If necessary for reasons of public interest or

national security, Our Minister may, with a

view to expulsion, order the remand in custody

of an alien who:

a. is not lawfully resident;

b. is lawfully resident on the grounds

of article 8 subsection f,g and h.

2. If the papers necessary for the return of the

alien are available or will shortly become

available, it is deemed to be for reasons of

public interest that the alien be remanded in

custody, unless the alien has been lawfully

resident on the grounds of article 8 subsection

a- e and l.

3. An alien shall not be remanded in custody or

the remand shall be ended as soon as the alien

has indicated that he wishes to leave the

Netherlands and also has the opportunity to

do so.

4. Remand in custody pursuant to subsection 1

b or subsection 2 shall in any event last for no

longer than four weeks. If article 39 has been

applied prior to the decision on the

application, the remand in custody pursuant

to subsection 1 b shall in any event not exceed

six weeks.

5. Without prejudice to subsection 4, remand

in custordy pursuant to subsection 1 shall not

exceed six months.

6. In derogation from subsection 5 but without

prejudice to subsection 4, remand in custody

pursuant to subsection 1 may be extended by

12months at most, when the expulsion despite

all reasonable efforts may require more time

on the grounds that the alien does not

cooperate in his expulsion or that the

necessary documentation from 3rd

countries is

still missing.

7. Subsections 5 and 6 apply mutatis mutandis

to aliens on whom are imposed Article 6

subsection 1 or 2, or Article 58.



London, UK, 2013

64

Artikel 48

1. De korpschef en de Commandant der

Koninklijke marechaussee geven Onze

Minister door hem gevraagde inlichtingen

over de uitvoering van deze wet en van de

Schengengrenscode.

2. Onze Minister kan aan de korpschef en

aan de Commandant der Koninklijke

marechaussee aanwijzingen geven over de

uitvoering van deze wet en van de

Schengengrenscode. Onze Minister kan

individuele aanwijzingen geven aan de

ambtenaren, bedoeld in artikel 47, eerste

lid.

3. Onze Minister kan aanwijzingen geven

over de inrichting van de werkprocessen

en bedrijfsvoering aan:

a. de korpschef, door tussenkomst van

Onze Minister van Veiligheid en

Justitie;

b. de Commandant der Koninklijke

marechaussee, door tussenkomst van

de Minister van Defensie.

4. Bij algemene maatregel van bestuur

kunnen nadere regels worden gesteld

over het eerste, tweede en derde lid.

Article 48

1. The chief of police and the commander of

the Royal Netherlands Military

Constabulary shall furnish Our Minister

with the information requested by him

about the implementation of this Act and

of the Schengen Borders Code.

2. Our Minister may issue directions to the

chief of police and the commander of the

Royal Netherlands Military Constabulary

about the implementation of this Act and

of the Schengen Borders Code. Our

Minister may issue individual directions to

the officials referred to in section 47,

subsection 1.

3. Our Minister may issue directions about

the organisation of the job procedures and

mode of operation to:

(a) the chief of police, through the

intermediary of the Minister of

Security and Justice;

(b) the commander of the Royal

Netherlands Military Constabulary

through the intermediary of the

Minister of Defence.

4. Further rules may be laid down by Order in

Council regarding paragraphs 1, 2 and 3.



London, UK, 2013

65

Artikel 3

1. In andere dan de in de Schengen

grenscode geregelde gevallen, wordt

toegang tot Nederland geweigerd aan de

vreemdeling die:

a. niet in het bezit is van een geldig

document voor

grensoverschrijding, dan wel in

het bezit is van een document

voor grensoverschrijding waarin

het benodigde visum ontbreekt;

b. een gevaar oplevert voor de

openbare orde of nationale

veiligheid;

c. niet beschikt over voldoende

middelen om te voorzien zowel in

de kosten van verblijf in

Nederland als in die van zijn reis

naar een plaats buiten Nederland

waar zijn toegang gewaarborgd is,

of

d. niet voldoet aan de voorwaarden

die bij of krachtens algemene

maatregel van bestuur zijn

gesteld.

2. Bij of krachtens algemene maatregel van

bestuur worden regels gesteld over de

weigering van toegang op grond van deze

wet of ter uitvoering van de

Schengengrenscode.

3. De ambtenaren belast met de

grensbewaking weigeren niet dan

ingevolge een bijzondere aanwijzing van

Onze Minister de toegang aan de

vreemdeling die te kennen geeft dat hij

asiel wenst.

Article 3

1. Entry into the Netherlands shall be

refused, in cases different from those in

the Schengen Borders Code, to an alien

who:

a. is not in possession of a valid

travel document or is in possession

of a valid travel document in

which the requisite visa is missing;

b. (b) constitutes a serious threat to

public order (ordre public) or

national security;

c. (c) does not have sufficient means

to defray both the costs of his stay

in the Netherlands and the costs of

his journey to a place outside the

Netherlands where his entry is

guaranteed, or

d. (d) does not fulfil the conditions

laid down by or pursuant to Order

in Council.

2. Rules concerning the refusal of entry on

the basis of this law or through

implementation of the Schengen Borders

Code shall be laid down by or pursuant to

Order in Council.

3. The border control officers shall not, save

in accordance with a special direction

issued by Our Minister, refuse entry into

the Netherlands to an alien who indicates

that he wishes to have asylum.