Sharing a prison cell

Prisons: when can you share a cell?

A shared cell, often abbreviated in Dutch to MPC, is accommodation for several prisoners. As well as two-person cells, there are cells for six people. A single cell is also known in Dutch as an EPC.

The starting point is that every prisoner can be considered for a shared cell unless they are considered unsuitable. Under Article 19(2) of the Prisons Act (Penitentiaire beginselenwet, Pbw), the criteria are set out in the Regulations on the Selection, Placement and Transfer of Prisoners (Regeling selectie, plaatsing en overplaatsing van gedetineerden), referred to below as the Regeling Spog.

Objections to sharing a cell

Article 11a(2) of the Regeling Spog lists circumstances that may weigh against placement. These are called contraindications:

• mental health problems;
• addiction problems;
• state of health;
• behavioural problems;
• the background to the offence committed;
• restrictions imposed on the prisoner.

These circumstances do not automatically mean that sharing a cell is prohibited. They are factors that must be taken into account in the individual assessment. Their seriousness and significance may differ from person to person.

This is why a specific objection matters: what problems do you have, and why do they make sharing a cell unsuitable for you? An earlier contraindication identified at another prison may be a reason for further investigation.

Who will your cellmate be?

Suitability for a shared cell is a separate issue from who you are placed with. When choosing a cellmate, the governor may take account of your preference, age, language, and cultural or ethnic background. These factors are not listed as contraindications in Article 11a of the Regeling Spog; how they are applied is up to the governor.

As a rule, a non-smoker should not be placed with a smoker if the non-smoker objects. That objection therefore deserves specific attention.

What requirements must the cell meet?

The Regulations on Accommodation Requirements in Prisons (Regeling eisen verblijfsruimte penitentiaire inrichtingen, Revpi) set requirements for shared cells. Under Article 10(2) of the Revpi, a two-person cell must have:

• at least two chairs;
• a separate bed for each prisoner;
• lockable storage space for each prisoner.

A two-person cell does not have to be larger than a single cell. A cell meeting the minimum dimensions in Article 3 of the Revpi may accommodate no more than two prisoners. In practice, a bunk bed is used for this.

Cells intended for more than two people are subject to the requirements in Article 12a of the Revpi. The number of occupants therefore matters when determining which requirements the accommodation must meet.

Privacy and international human rights

The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) does not give prisoners a general right to their own cell. However, human rights still apply when you share a cell.

Article 3 of the ECHR prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment. Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) contains a similar prohibition. Severe overcrowding, too few beds, poor ventilation and insufficient privacy when using the toilet can be relevant here.

When do conditions become degrading?

In Kalashnikov v. Russia, decided on 15 July 2002, the European Court of Human Rights examined an extreme situation. Between 18 and 24 people were held in an eight-person cell measuring between 17 and 20.8 m². There were not enough beds, ventilation was poor, smoking was allowed and the toilet was not screened off. The prisoner had lived in these conditions for years, and his health had suffered. The Court found a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR.

Article 8 of the ECHR and Article 17 of the ICCPR also protect privacy. This must be taken into account when prisoners share a cell. Article 8 of the ECHR allows restrictions on privacy only under certain conditions, including a legal basis and necessity for one of the interests listed in that article.

European Prison Rules

The European Prison Rules are recommendations from the Council of Europe, not directly binding legislation. Rules 18.5, 18.6 and 18.7 take separate sleeping accommodation as the starting point, except where sharing is preferable. Shared accommodation must be suitable for that purpose, and its occupants must be compatible. As far as possible, prisoners should be given a choice beforehand.

These recommendations therefore do not give an absolute right to refuse a shared cell.

What happens if you refuse a shared cell?

Placement is not based solely on consent. The Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice and Protection of Juveniles (Raad voor Strafrechtstoepassing en Jeugdbescherming, RSJ) has ruled that refusing to move to or stay in a shared cell may be punishable under Article 50(1) of the Prisons Act (Penitentiaire beginselenwet, Pbw). The governor may impose a disciplinary punishment for this: a punishment within the prison.

This is shown, among other decisions, by RSJ 5 January 2022, R-20/7109/GA, and RSJ 12 April 2023, 22/28098/GA. Refusing simply because you prefer to be alone is therefore not without risk. Distinguish between your preference and specific reasons why sharing a cell is unsuitable for you.

Banned items in a shared cell

If banned items, also known as contraband, are found in a shared cell, all occupants may be held responsible and given a disciplinary punishment. This is different if it is clear that an occupant is not at fault.

This approach is reflected, among other decisions, in RSJ 18 June 2021, R-20/6000/GA, RSJ 31 October 2022, 21/23740/GA, and RSJ 7 December 2023, 22/30175/GA.

Your cellmate saying that they own the item is not always enough. In a decision of 22 December 2022, KC 2023/005, an iPhone had been found in the complainant's coat. His cellmate admitted that the phone belonged to him. Even so, the punishment of seven days in a punishment cell was upheld. Relevant factors included where the phone was found, the complainant's statement about what he knew, and the absence of an explicit statement that the phone had been kept hidden from him.

The question is therefore not only who owns the item, but also whether you are at fault.

Complaining about placement or conditions

You can submit a complaint (beklag) to the complaints committee (beklagcommissie) about placement in a shared cell or the circumstances of sharing. Specific information helps explain why you believe the decision or conduct was not sufficiently careful. Two decisions show how the governor's duty of care is assessed.

Earlier medical objections not properly investigated

In the decision of 30 March 2022, KC 2022/014, a prisoner had spent three years in a single cell at JC Zaanstad. According to him, there had been a contraindication to sharing a cell. After being transferred to PI Nieuwegein, he asked for an appointment with a psychologist.

Nevertheless, the new prison decided that there was no longer a contraindication. He was placed in a shared cell while still on the waiting list for the psychologist. A psychologist from JC Zaanstad later concluded that there was a contraindication, after which he was placed alone again.

The complaints adjudicator (beklagrechter) found that the governor should first have investigated the earlier contraindication and/or consulted a psychologist. The governor had not acted with sufficient care. The complaint was upheld, and the prisoner received compensation of €30.00.

Placed with a smoker despite your objection

In the decision of 25 July 2024, KC 2024/018, a non-smoker had been placed with a smoker despite his objection. The prison management had done nothing to end the situation as quickly as possible.

The complaints committee (beklagcommissie) ruled that the management had breached its duty of care. The fact that the prisoner had not continued to complain did not change this. No exceptional circumstances had been put forward to justify the failure to intervene. The complaint was upheld, and €7.50 was awarded.

These amounts relate to the individual cases and are not a standard payment for every incorrect shared-cell placement.

Prisons and immigration detention: findings from research

From September 2010 to January 2011, the then Inspectorate for the Implementation of Sanctions (Inspectie voor de Sanctietoepassing) investigated the use of shared cells in prisons and immigration detention. Its report was published in April 2011.

The inspectorate identified both advantages and disadvantages. The opportunity to choose a cellmate made a particular difference: where there was freedom of choice, advantages were more often reported and occupants generally felt safe. Without that choice, the disadvantages were more pronounced. The research did not indicate substantial safety risks from shared-cell use.

How much choice a person had varied between institutions. Some encouraged cell sharing by offering, for example, extra visits, recreation, outdoor exercise or sport, or a discount on television or fridge rental. These were local practices, not general rights.

The inspectorate recommended that non-smokers should not be placed with smokers against their will. It also recommended that medical or mental health staff first check for contraindications. At the time, new arrivals were regularly placed directly in shared cells; in detention centres, this was even standard practice during the research period.

Shared cells during the coronavirus crisis

During the coronavirus crisis from 2020 onwards, debate arose because cellmates could not always keep 1.5 metres apart. The Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice and Protection of Juveniles (RSJ) did not accept that two prisoners could simply be treated as a family. This is shown by RSJ 29 April 2020, S-20/3503/SGA.

A placement decision was not temporarily suspended if the governor could explain that sharing a cell created no, or hardly any, additional health risk.

The Custodial Institutions Agency (DJI) applied special measures at the time. New prisoners spent at least their first eight days alone. The initial medical assessment checked for coronavirus symptoms and vulnerability. Mild symptoms led to a test. Those who remained symptom-free could then share a cell; those with symptoms were isolated under the protocol.

On 9 February 2021, the minister at the time reported that the use of shared cells had fallen sharply. With these measures in place, he saw no reason to abolish shared cells. These were measures and assessments from the coronavirus period.

How has shared-cell use developed?

Until 2004, being alone in a cell was the traditional starting point. Exceptions existed for foreign nationals and sometimes for prisoners serving short sentences and people detained for failing to pay a fine or carry out community service. In 2002, the Emergency Drug Couriers Act (Noodwet drugskoeriers) made shared accommodation possible for drug smugglers arrested at Schiphol.

Because of cell shortages, shared-cell use was expanded in 2004. The introduction of the former Article 19(3) of the Prisons Act (Penitentiaire beginselenwet, Pbw) also made shared cells possible under the limited association regime (regime van beperkte gemeenschap).

The Custodial Institutions Agency (DJI) Master Plan 2013–2018 aimed to use more than 3,000 cells for shared accommodation as part of budget cuts. The aim was to have approximately 50 per cent of prisoners sharing cells by the end of 2018. This was a policy target, not a finding about actual occupancy in the end.

On 14 March 2023, of the 8,963 prisoners, 6,187 were in single cells, 2,584 in two-person cells and 192 in six-person cells. This meant that approximately 31 per cent were in shared cells.

What does this mean for you?

You do not automatically have a right to your own cell. However, your personal circumstances must be properly assessed. In practice, you can take the following steps:

• Identify specific problems. Explain which mental, physical or other circumstances make sharing a cell unsuitable for you.
• Refer to earlier assessments. Mention any earlier contraindication, especially after a transfer, and ask for it to be investigated before a different assessment is made.
• Object to smoke. State clearly that you do not smoke and do not want to be placed with a smoker.
• Discuss your preference for a cellmate. This can be taken into account, although you will not always be able to choose for yourself.
• Do not underestimate the risks of banned items. Even items belonging to a cellmate can lead to punishment if you are considered at fault.
• Support your complaint with details. Describe the placement decision, your objections, any medical information and how the prison management responded.

A reasoned objection is different from simply refusing. Refusal carries a risk of disciplinary punishment.

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
• Complaints procedure (beklagprocedure)
• Compulsory treatment