Published on 22 June 2026
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 8717/24
Berry OPPERHUIZEN
against the Netherlands
lodged on 18 March 2024
communicated on 3 June 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the refusal by judicial authorities to suspend the applicant’s detention on remand, pending his appeal of a conviction to an ISD measure (ISD-maatregel, plaatsing in een inrichting voor stelselmatige daders), in order to execute prior final convictions.
An ISD measure entails placement of repeat offenders in a special facility for up to two years, starting from the date the judgment becomes final. During this period, individuals may receive tailored mental health care, support, and behavioural programmes aimed at reducing the risk of reoffending.
The applicant was placed in pre-trial detention on 7 July 2023 on suspicion of theft, an offence of which he had previously been repeatedly convicted. On 4 October 2023 the Regional Court of Amsterdam convicted the applicant, in three joined cases, to an ISD measure for a period of two years.
The applicant lodged an appeal. Pending appeal, the applicant sought suspension of his remand detention to serve previously imposed final sentences, on the ground that such detention is generally not deducted from the duration of the ISD measure in order not to undermine its rehabilitative purpose. He also referred to the difference in detention regime. The advocate‑general argued against this request by referring to a national agreement not to suspend remand detention to execute other sentences, in view of the legal order of execution and the difference in detention regimes.
On 28 November 2023 the Amsterdam Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s suspension request, citing complex issues concerning the execution of sentences and differing detention regimes.
The applicant complains under Article 5 of the Convention that the authorities should have suspended his remand detention to enable him to serve previously imposed final sentences, as this would have constituted the least intrusive means of securing his detention and resulted in a shorter overall period under a less restrictive regime, given that remand detention is generally not deducted from an ISD measure. He further complains that the Court of Appeal failed to adequately assess his individual circumstances.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Has the applicant been deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s remand detention, pending his appeal against the imposition of an ISD measure, lawful and not arbitrary, given the refusal to allow him to serve prior convictions in lieu of such detention, even though that period of remand detention would not be deducted from the duration of the measure imposed?