Complaints procedure (beklagprocedure)

Prisons: what can you complain about?

The right of adult prisoners to make a complaint (beklag) is set out in Chapter 11 of the Penitentiary Principles Act (Penitentiaire beginselenwet, Pbw). Article 60 Pbw allows complaints about:

• A decision made about you by the director, or someone acting on the director’s behalf.
• A failure or refusal to make a decision.
• The implementation of a decision.
• A general rule or situation that conflicts with higher-ranking legislation or regulations.
• Structural and significant shortcomings in the director’s duties of care.

This means that not every concern can be assessed on its merits. The Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice and Protection of Juveniles (RSJ) clarified this distinction in September 2023. The same complaints procedure applies to prisoners in an Intensive Supervision Unit (AIT) or the Extra Secure Institution (EBI).

Medical complaints and decisions made by others

There is a separate procedure for medical complaints. However, a complaint about structural failings by the director in their duties of care may fall within the remit of the complaints committee (beklagcommissie). In KC2025/002, a complaint about the prolonged withholding of medical care during pregnancy was accepted for consideration.

A decision by the selection officer (selectiefunctionaris) falls outside the powers of the complaints committee (beklagcommissie). In KC2025/006, this also applied to placement in an arrestees’ unit that followed directly from such a decision.

Mediation

Under Article 59a Pbw, you can request mediation orally or in writing if you are dissatisfied with the director’s conduct or care. Staff conduct is treated as conduct by the director for this purpose. If the matter concerns a decision against which a complaint (beklag) can be made, you must submit the request no later than the seventh day after becoming aware of it.

The visiting commissioner (maandcommissaris), a member of the Supervisory Committee (Commissie van Toezicht), tries to reach a solution within four weeks. Both parties may explain their position. An interpreter is arranged if necessary. The outcome is recorded in writing and translated if necessary.

Young offenders’ institutions: separate rules

Chapter 13 of the Young Offenders’ Institutions Framework Act (Beginselenwet justitiële jeugdinrichtingen, Bjj) applies to young people. Article 65 Bjj sets out which decisions made by or on behalf of the director can be challenged through a complaint (beklag). This may also include a failure or refusal to make a decision. The framework for adults set out by the Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice and Protection of Juveniles (RSJ) in September 2023 does not apply to young people.

Mediation for young people and parents

Article 64 Bjj allows young people to request mediation orally or in writing about the director’s conduct or care. Here too, staff conduct is attributed to the director. If the matter concerns a decision against which a complaint (beklag) can be made, the request must be submitted within seven days of becoming aware of it.

The visiting commissioner (maandcommissaris) aims to reach a solution within six weeks. The young person and the director can give their account, with an interpreter if necessary. They receive the written outcome, with a translation if needed.

Within four weeks of receiving the outcome, the director must state whether they agree with the visiting commissioner’s assessment and what measures they will take. The young person can make a complaint (beklag) against that statement.

Parents, a guardian, a stepparent or foster parents can also approach the visiting commissioner (maandcommissaris) about how the director has behaved towards them.

Hospital orders and forensic care

People subject to a hospital order (ter beschikking gestelden) have a complaints procedure under the Hospital Orders Framework Act (Beginselenwet verpleging ter beschikking gestelden, Bvt). This is a separate procedure within forensic care. The procedure described below concerns adult prisoners under the Pbw and young people under the Bjj.

Filing a complaint: where, how and when?

Send your written complaint to the complaints committee (beklagcommissie) of the institution where the decision was made. This remains the correct committee even if you have since been transferred. This follows from Article 61 Pbw and Article 66 Bjj.

You do not have to use a special form. However, clearly describe which decision you are challenging and why. An unclear complaint may be declared inadmissible: this means the committee will not assess its merits. If your command of Dutch is insufficient, you may write in another language.

File your complaint no later than the seventh day after the day on which you learned of the decision. Filing late without a valid reason will generally result in the complaint being declared inadmissible. Trying to resolve the problem yourself first may be a valid reason for delay, but this will be assessed. Do not wait until you have left the institution before filing your first complaint.

Withdrawing a complaint

Withdrawal means deliberately choosing not to have your complaint considered further. For adults, case law from the Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice and Protection of Juveniles (RSJ) requires this to be done in writing; an oral withdrawal that is later disputed is not legally valid.

You may receive a deadline letter (termijnbrief) asking you to confirm within fourteen days whether you want your complaint to be considered. If a young person has been released, a failure to respond can generally be treated as a withdrawal.

A withdrawn complaint is not usually reopened. A new complaint about the same subject can be considered if it is still filed within the deadline.

Consideration of the complaint and the hearing

The complaints committee (beklagcommissie) consists of three members, supported by a secretary. Straightforward cases or cases whose outcome is immediately clear can be decided by a single complaints adjudicator (beklagrechter). The director receives your complaint so they can respond; you receive that response in writing.

Even after filing, the complaint may be referred to the visiting commissioner (maandcommissaris) for mediation. Anyone who has discussed your complaint as visiting commissioner may not sit on the committee that decides it. Mediation is also possible during the hearing if both parties agree.

Your rights during the hearing

The hearing takes place in the institution and is generally not public. A hearing may be omitted if it is immediately clear that the complaint is inadmissible, unfounded or well-founded.

Under Articles 64 and 65 Pbw and Articles 69 and 70 Bjj, the following rights apply, among others:

• You and the director may explain your positions orally.
• You can submit questions that you would like the director or witnesses to be asked.
• You may bring a legal adviser, or another trusted person with the committee’s permission.
• An interpreter will be arranged if your command of Dutch is insufficient.

The parties may be heard separately. In that case, the main points of the statement are shared with the other party. After a transfer, you may be heard by another complaints committee (beklagcommissie). This is called a hearing on behalf of another committee (rogatoir verhoor). A report is made of that hearing; your lawyer’s presence there does not replace their opportunity to also attend the hearing with the institution’s management.

Requesting a postponement

You, your lawyer and the director can request an adjournment (aanhouding): a postponement of the proceedings. The committee can also decide to adjourn, for example to allow further investigation. Explain why a postponement is needed and that you wish to attend. Your lawyer’s absence does not automatically require the committee to postpone the hearing.

Witnesses, camera footage and other evidence

The committee can hear witnesses, but may refuse a request if it already has enough information. It cannot compel anyone to attend or to give truthful evidence. There is no separate right of appeal against an interim decision on hearing witnesses.

The absence of witness statements can have consequences. In the decision of the Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice and Protection of Juveniles (RSJ) of 30 March 2012, 11/4331/GA, the complainant’s account was considered credible because the institution’s management had not heard witnesses to the incident.

Camera footage can also serve as evidence. If the director bases a disciplinary punishment on it, the footage must remain available for the complaint (beklag) and appeal. In the decision of the Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice and Protection of Juveniles (RSJ) of 7 September 2007, 07/1466/GA, a decision could not stand because the allegation was based entirely on footage that had disappeared. Camera footage is not always necessary: a clear, factual written report generally carries considerable weight.

A fair opportunity to respond to evidence also matters. In KC 2012/126, the complaints committee (beklagcommissie) disregarded an official report (proces-verbaal) because the complainant was not allowed to see it. The punishment was found to be unreasonable and the complainant received € 60 in compensation (tegemoetkoming).

Suspension: temporarily stopping implementation

During your complaints procedure, you can ask the chair of the appeals committee of the Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice and Protection of Juveniles (RSJ) to stop all or part of the implementation of the director’s decision. This is called suspension (schorsing) and is governed by Article 66 Pbw and Article 71 Bjj.

A request for suspension to the Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice and Protection of Juveniles (RSJ) does not replace your complaint. You must therefore also file a written complaint with the complaints committee (beklagcommissie). The chair hears the director before deciding on suspension.

Decision and compensation

Under Article 67 Pbw and Article 72 Bjj, the committee must give its decision within four weeks of receiving the complaint. In special circumstances, it may extend this period by up to four weeks. You and the director will be notified. Exceeding the deadline does not in itself have any legal consequences.

The possible outcomes are:

• Inadmissible (niet-ontvankelijk): the merits are not assessed, for example because the complaint was filed too late.
• Unfounded (ongegrond): the decision meets the requirements of the applicable rules and the interests involved.
• Well-founded (gegrond): the decision conflicts with applicable legislation or treaty provisions, or is unreasonable or unfair after weighing the interests involved.

If the complaint is well-founded, the committee may overturn all or part of the decision, make a replacement decision itself, or require the director to make a new decision (Article 68 Pbw and Article 73 Bjj). The consequences must be remedied where possible. If this is not possible, the committee assesses whether compensation (tegemoetkoming) is appropriate; this may take the form of money.

You receive a reasoned decision free of charge, with information about appealing. A translation is arranged if necessary. If an appeal is lodged against an oral decision, that decision will also be set out in writing. Published decisions must not reveal your identity.

Filing many complaints is not readily considered an abuse of the procedure. However, repeatedly filing the same inadmissible or unfounded complaints on a large scale may lead to them being declared inadmissible.

Appeals to the RSJ and challenges to impartiality

You and the director can appeal to the Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice and Protection of Juveniles (Raad voor Strafrechtstoepassing en Jeugdbescherming, RSJ). The deadline is seven days after receipt of the written decision or after the oral decision (Article 69 Pbw and Article 74 Bjj).

Explain why you challenge the substance of the outcome. For adult prisoners, simply listing procedural errors is not enough. The Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice and Protection of Juveniles (RSJ) applies less strict requirements to a prisoner’s written appeal than to one submitted by a lawyer or director. The appeals committee can deal with the case in writing and uphold or overturn the decision, or declare the appeal inadmissible.

An appeal does not automatically stop implementation, except in relation to any compensation awarded. A separate request for suspension (schorsing) can be made under Article 70 Pbw or Article 75 Bjj.

If there are specific indications of bias, you can challenge a member of the Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice and Protection of Juveniles (RSJ) dealing with your case by requesting their recusal (wraking) under Article 31 of the Act Establishing the Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice and Protection of Juveniles (Instellingswet Raad voor Strafrechtstoepassing en Jeugdbescherming). The proceedings are then paused. If the member does not accept the challenge, a separate recusal chamber (wrakingskamer) decides it. There is no legal remedy against that decision. Repeated requests require newly discovered circumstances; abuse can prevent further requests from being considered. The Pbw contains no recusal procedure for the complaints committee (beklagcommissie) itself.

Article 33 of the same Act allows the Procurator General at the Supreme Court (procureur-generaal bij de Hoge Raad) to bring an appeal in cassation in the interests of the law (cassatie in het belang der wet) against decisions of the Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice and Protection of Juveniles (RSJ).

What does this mean for you?

Record when you learned of the decision and file your complaint with the correct committee on time. Clearly describe what was decided, why you disagree and which evidence is relevant. If necessary, ask for camera footage to be preserved, for witnesses to be heard, for an interpreter or for legal assistance. If you want your complaint to be considered further, respond to any deadline letter (termijnbrief). After the decision, check the appeal deadline immediately, even if the decision was given orally.

This page draws on the expertise of Mr. S.P.C. (Stan) Broekmans, a specialist in detention law at Hameleers Antonides Advocaten. Do you have a question about your own situation? Please get in touch; an initial assessment is free.

Other topics

• Arrestant detainees
• Belongings
• Camera surveillance
• Compensation
• Compulsory treatment
• Contact between parent and child