Published on 20 July 2026
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 18915/25
Joeri LAADSTRA
against the Netherlands
lodged on 17 June 2025
communicated on 29 June 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment resulting from the use of pain-inducing measures and physical restraint techniques in a youth care institution, as well as the adequacy of the domestic authorities’ response to those allegations.
In February 2014 the applicant (born 2000) was voluntarily admitted to a youth care institution (“Woodbrookers”, closed in May 2024). It was agreed that the use of “grabbing and holding” was the only permissible restraint technique.
On 3 May 2014 the applicant suffered a broken and fully dislocated shoulder. He claims the incident happened during the day. According to Woodbrookers, staff had to force him down to the ground somewhere in the evening. At 23h36, he was examined at the hospital. Ten days later, two screws were surgically placed in his shoulder.
In August 2014 Woodbrookers sent an incident report to the Health Inspector, according to which the restraint techniques had been applied correctly and in line with protocol.
In January 2015 the Health Inspector closed the investigation, based on Woodbrookers’ incident report.
In September 2015 the applicant’s mother, acting on his behalf, pressed charges against the involved staff members. In her police report and in the subsequent domestic proceedings, she alleged that staff had applied unlawful means of restraint on 3 May 2014, causing serious and long-term injuries, by (1) forcing/twisting the applicant’s arm in such a manner that his nerves were blocked (armvlecht) while forcing him to the ground, (2) falling on top of the applicant, and (3) after hearing a “crack” in his shoulder, applying another armvlecht while dragging him to a solitary confinement cell, where he was left for hours without medical care. She also alleged – in less detail – that the applicant had been subjected to an armvlecht on other occasions (incl. in June 2014, according to the few Woodbrookers daily reports which had been made available to her) even though it was agreed – in the treatment plan and again after the incident – that no physical force was to be used against him. She claimed that the stitches of his healing wound had torn open on each occasion, at least three times necessitating medical treatment.
In December 2015 the police interviewed the applicant as a witness. He submitted photographs of his injuries.
In January 2016 the police interviewed Woodbrookers’ operational manager.
In February 2016 the prosecutor decided not to investigate or prosecute the incident of 3 May 2014 (noting she had “received no information” about the other alleged incidents). The decision noted “conflicting accounts” as to whether more force was used after the applicant had gone to the ground; the applicant’s mother claimed another armvlecht had been applied, whereas staff claimed a bokkenpoot had been applied (i.e. forcing/twisting thumb toward the wrist). It went on to note:
“[S]taff are expected to conduct themselves in a proper and professional manner, but given the [behavioural] problems of the young people in the care centre, the use of some physical restraint (enige fysieke dwang) cannot be avoided in all circumstances. I do not consider the use of an armvlecht and/or a bokkenpoot to be unacceptable in this context. Due to an unfortunate combination of circumstances, the use of this coercion ... led to a bone fracture. This is obviously regrettable, but I do not believe that ... the actions of staff were disproportionate or that the use of coercive measures (dwangmaatregelen) ... constituted criminal conduct.”
In June 2024, the applicant lodged a complaint under Article 12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the prosecutor’s decision. He reiterated the allegations and claimed that the decision was based on an ineffective investigation, ill-conceived, taken on too narrow grounds, and not in line with Article 3 of the Convention.
In July 2024 another prosecutor considered that the applicant’s complaint about the incident of 3 May 2014 should be dismissed (noting there were “no indications” of other incidents).
In August 2024 the Advocate-General recommended that the applicant’s complaint be dismissed, agreeing with the prosecutors’ positions.
On 18 February 2025, following a hearing, the Court of Appeal dismissed the complaint. It reiterated the main findings of the investigation and noted that the applicant – after the armvlecht and falling down had caused his shoulder to fracture – had been put in an isolation cell “for some time” before receiving medical aid, all of which had “undisputedly had a great impact” on him. The court went on to hold that any possible charges for simple assault and leaving someone in a helpless condition had become time-barred (verjaard) in 2020. It found that no serious assault (the only possible charge not yet time-barred) had taken place on 3 May 2014, because in view of the prevailing behavioural problems of young people at youth care institutions, it was not deemed unlawful for staff to use “some physical coercion [causing] some form of pain(stimuli) [in response to] transgressive behaviour [and] resistance”. The court also found that no serious assault had taken place “in so far as it could be established” that incidents after 3 May 2014 had caused the applicant’s stitches to tear open.
The applicant complains under Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention that he was subjected to, or not protected against, ill-treatment in the form of pain‑inducing techniques and other physical restraint methods at Woodbrookers on and after 3 May 2014. He also complains there was no legal basis or regulatory framework for the impugned measures. Finally, he complains there was no effective investigation or effective remedy for his allegations.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the applicant subjected to ill-treatment in the circumstances of the case (see Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, § 100-101, ECHR 2015, and Pranjić‑M‑Lukić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 4938/16, §§ 72-74, 2 June 2020)? Did the authorities of the respondent State fail to take reasonable operational measures to protect him against such risk (see X and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 22457/16, §§ 177-78 and 181-83, 2 February 2021; O’Keeffe v. Ireland [GC], no. 35810/09, § 149, ECHR 2014 (extracts); and R.B. v. Estonia, no. 22597/16, § 78, 22 June 2021)?
2. Was there in place, at the relevant time, a legislative and regulatory framework of protection against ill-treatment in youth care institutions (see X and Others, cited above, §§ 177-80, and Tunikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 55974/16 and 3 others, § 95, 14 December 2021)?
3. Did the authorities conduct an effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations of such treatment (see X and Others, cited above, §§ 177-78 and 184-91; El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, § 182, ECHR 2012; and V.K. v. Russia, no. 68059/13, § 185, 7 March 2017)?
4. Did the respondent State comply with its substantive and procedural obligations under Article 8 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, F.O. v. Croatia, no. 29555/13, §§ 78-82, 22 April 2021, as regards the educational context)?
5. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective remedy, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
The parties are requested to include in their submissions a detailed time‑line of the events of 3 May 2014, and copies of all available (daily, incidental, medical, etc.) reports and records in connection with the injuries, pain‑inducing techniques and other restraint methods allegedly sustained by the applicant at Woodbrookers on or after that date.