THE BOTTOM LINE
- Territoriality is Not a Shield: Committing part of a crime in the Netherlands won’t automatically prevent surrender to another EU state, especially if that state conducted the primary investigation and prosecution.
- Legal Representation Matters: A conviction handed down in another EU country is enforceable even if the defendant was not physically present at the trial, as long as they were properly represented by legal counsel.
- Prison Condition Concerns Can Be Overcome: Despite general concerns over Belgian prison conditions, a specific, individual guarantee ensuring humane treatment was sufficient for the Dutch court to approve the surrender.
THE DETAILS
In a recent decision, the District Court of Amsterdam approved the surrender of a Dutch national to Belgium to serve a six-year prison sentence. The European Arrest Warrant (EAW) was issued following a conviction by the Brussels Court of Appeal for participation in a criminal organization and international drug trafficking. This case provides critical insights for international businesses and their leadership on the effectiveness and reach of EU-level judicial cooperation, demonstrating that national borders offer little protection against cross-border criminal liability.
The defendant’s legal team raised several arguments against the surrender, which the court systematically addressed. A key defense was that the crimes were partly committed on Dutch soil, which, under the Dutch Surrender Act (Art. 13 OLW), gives the court discretion to refuse the request. However, the court sided with the Public Prosecutor, reasoning that since the investigation, evidence, and prosecution were all centered in Belgium, refusing surrender would be inappropriate. This underscores a strong EU-wide principle: deference is typically given to the jurisdiction that has invested the resources to bring the case to justice. The argument that the defendant was not always present during his trial was also dismissed, as the court was satisfied he was aware of the proceedings and had appointed a lawyer who actively conducted his defense.
A particularly noteworthy aspect of this case involved the well-documented concerns about detention conditions in Belgium. The Amsterdam court has previously acknowledged a general risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in Belgian prisons. To overcome this significant hurdle, Belgian authorities provided a specific, individual guarantee for the defendant. This guarantee detailed that he would be held in the Andenne prison, with a minimum of 3 m² of personal space, separate sanitation, a bed, and access to daily activities. The Dutch court found this detailed assurance sufficient to mitigate the general risk, clearing the way for the surrender to proceed. This highlights that while systemic issues in other member states are taken seriously, they can be overcome with concrete, case-specific commitments.
SOURCE
Source: Rechtbank Amsterdam
