Netherlands - District Court of The Hague, NL19.31932

The State Secretary for Justice and Security has placed the Appellant under detention for the purpose of deportation. The Appellant refutes this claim, stating that he is stateless, so there is nowhere for him to go. The Court states that there can still be a prospect of deportation when the Appellant is stateless.

Case status
Case number
Date of decision
Court / UN Treaty Body
The District Court of The Hague ("Rechtbank Den Haag")
Language(s) the decision is available in
Applicant's country of birth
Applicant's country of residence
Relevant Legislative Provisions
  • Article 59, first paragraph, sub a of the Dutch Aliens Act 2000
  • Article 5.1b, first, third and fourth paragraph of the Dutch Aliens Decree 2000

The Appellant claims to be stateless and born in 1961. By decision of 19 December 2019 (the contested decision), the State Secretary for Justice and Security (hereinafter “Defendant”) imposed on the Appellant the measure of detention pursuant to Article 59, first paragraph, opening sentence and under sub a, of the Dutch Aliens Act 2000. The Appellant brought an appeal against the contested decision. This appeal also seeks a claim for compensation.

Decision & Reasoning

The District Court of the Hague finds that the Appellant has contested only one serious ground. Even without that ground, there are enough grounds to justify the imposed detention measure. In the opinion of the Court, the undisputed grounds give rise to a risk that the Defendant might evade supervision and obstruct the preparation of the removal procedure. The Court accepted the Defendant’s statement that the Appellant (according to his own statement) has evaded supervision.

The Court considered that deportation proceedings can also be applied in case the person is stateless. The Defendant may investigate whether the Appellant can return to his country of origin or any other country where his admission is guaranteed, as the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State  has decided in the decision of 30 October 2009 (ECLI:NL:RVS:2009:BK2272). The Court follows the Defendant's position that a laissez-passer can also be issued by the Turkish representation as a claimant is stateless. According to the judgment of the Division of 30 May 2016 (ECLI:NL:RVS:2016:618), the Defendant is allowed to investigate whether the Appellant can be deported to that country on the basis of the indication that the Appellant was born in Turkey. The Court is of the opinion that there is a prospect of deportation.

With regard to the request for less restrictive measures, the Court is of the opinion that, given the grounds on which the measure was based, the Defendant rightly took the view that in this case no other effective measure could have been applied. The Defendant substantiated this at the hearing by stating that the Dutch Repatriation and Departure Service (hereinafter “DT&V”) considered the imposition of lighter measures, but concluded that they should not apply taking into consideration the fact that the Appellant did not possess an identity document and did not cooperate sufficiently. As the Appellant did not comply with either of these elements, the Court accepted the Defendant’s argument.


The application was rightly rejected as unfounded, therefore the request for compensation of damages has also been denied.

Caselaw cited

Judgment of the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State of 30 October 2009 (ECLI:NL:RVS:2009:BK2272)

Judgment of the Division of 30 May 2016 (ECLI:NL:RVS:2016:618)