Dutch immigration legislation distinguishes between two types of administrative detention of foreign nationals: border detention and territorial detention. Since 2007, the CPT has been advocating for immigration facilities for territorial detention to be removed from the scope of the Penitentiary Principles Act. The Dutch authorities agree with this position and the "Return and Detention of Foreign Nationals" Bill (Wet terugkeer en vreemdelingenbewaring) was introduced for discussion in Parliament to create a single legal base for administrative immigration detention, as far back as 2014. At the time of drafting, the Bill had still not been adopted.
In its 2025 report, the CPT is particularly critical of two aspects in the current draft of the Bill. First, the daily regime to be applied to border detention is potentially more restrictive than the regime currently in place. Second, not only is solitary confinement maintained as a disciplinary punishment for territorial detention, but the draft also introduces its application in the context of border detention. By expanding the use of solitary confinement to border detention, the draft legislation is misaligned with the approach of the Dutch prison service, which seeks to restrict the use of solitary confinement due to its demonstrably harmful effect on prisoners.
Although additional territorial detention capacity has been created, the resort to immigration detention is decreasing overall. For example, in 2024, some 4 400 foreign nationals were detained under immigration legislation, while in 2010 this figure stood at 7 812, representing a reduction of some 44% over 14 years.
However, the Dutch authorities have, for several years, prioritised the reduction of "nuisance" (petty crime and public disturbance) caused by certain asylum seekers. This policy objective includes the accelerated processing of asylum applications and a focus on return of the applicant to the country of origin in the event that asylum is denied. This approach appears to have had a tangible impact on the demography of those detained at Rotterdam DC, where the CPT observed a prevalence of foreign nationals with complex needs, including physical and mental health conditions, as well as substance use disorders. The facility was unable to meet the level of care required by the resident population, contributing to the high volume of inter-detainee violence observed and the subsequently frequent interventions by the Emergency Response Team (Intern Bijstandteam).
As regards criminal detention, the CPT visited Ter Apel Prison, which primarily accommodates sentenced foreign nationals awaiting removal from the Netherlands. The Committee was positively impressed with the offer of activities, education and work available. However, it found a high proportion of prisoners with mental and addictive disorders, many of whom accommodated on the Extra Care Unit, whose needs were not being met. In the CPT's view, the Extra Care Unit is not fit for purpose due to its large size, the sharing of its premises with a regular detention unit, and the lack of suitably qualified staff.
The Netherlands has a longstanding and well-established complaints system which, with some minor differences, functions both in prisons and places of administrative immigration detention. In recent years, the increasing volume of complaints has placed the system under considerable strain, and the process between the lodging of a complaint and its final decision can often take several months. The Dutch authorities should strengthen the effectiveness, and safeguard the confidentiality and independence of the complaints system. Particular attention should be paid to adapting complaint procedures to the specific circumstances of short-term immigration detention to ensure that the right of complaint remains a practical and effective remedy.
- Read the report in English.
- Read the executive summary and observations in English, in Dutch
- Read the response in English.
- Read the visit newsflashes
- The CPT and the Netherlands
