Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2025:748
Date: 2025-10-02
Language of the case: Dutch
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Belgium

Summary  C-391/24 – 1 
Case C-391/24 [Nolgers] i 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
4 June 2024 
Referring court: 
Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel (Belgium) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
3 June 2024 
Applicant: 
LZ 
Defendant: 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Application for supervised release made by LZ, a person convicted and given the 
additional penalty of being ‘made available’ to the sentencing court 
(terbeschikkingstelling). 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Interpretation of Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA in relation to the question of 
whether a convicted person who has been made available to the sentencing court 
and who is subject to supervised release with special conditions (treatment in a 
closed institution) can be transferred to another Member State under that 
framework decision. 
 
i The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-391/24 
 
2  
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
Is Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA (Council Framework Decision on the 
application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments and probation 
decisions with a view to the supervision of probation measures and alternative 
sanctions) to be interpreted as meaning that if, in the context of the ‘making 
available’ of a convicted person to the sentencing court (terbeschikkingstelling), 
Belgium delivers a judgment granting the convicted person supervised release 
with special conditions, and that judgment is forwarded by the competent Belgian 
authority, together with the certificate referred to in the Framework Decision, to 
the competent authority in the Netherlands, the Netherlands must recognise and 
enforce that judgment by, inter alia, monitoring compliance with the special 
conditions, while taking into account the fact that the convicted person holds 
Netherlands nationality and wishes to return to the Netherlands? 
Does this also apply when a special condition is imposed requiring the convicted 
person to undergo inpatient treatment in the Netherlands for his sexual problems 
and to be transferred from prison to a closed institution in the Netherlands? 
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the 
application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments and probation 
decisions with a view to the supervision of probation measures and alternative 
sanctions 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Judicial Code: Articles 78, 92 § 1 and 635 
Penal Code: Article 34bis – 34quinquies 
Law of 17 May 2006 on the external legal status of persons sentenced to a 
custodial sentence and the rights granted to the victim within the framework of the 
modalities for the serving of sentences (‘the Law of 17 May 2006’): Articles 95/2, 
95/21, 95/22, 95/23, 95/24 § 1, 95/25 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 On 2 December 2011, LZ, a Netherlands national, was sentenced to eight years in 
prison by the rechtbank van eerste aanleg Antwerpen (Court of First Instance, 
Antwerp, Belgium) for, inter alia, the forcible rape of his daughter, a minor. In 
addition, LZ was made available to the sentencing court for a period of 10 years 
NOLGERS 
 
3 
(Articles 34bis – 34quinquies of the Penal Code). On 3 July 2019, LZ’s main 
custodial sentence ended and the additional 10-year period began.  
2 LZ was convicted of sexual offences and other crimes on several occasions before 
2011. According to the psychosocial report of the prison’s psychosocial service 
(‘the PSD’), LZ has already had extensive treatment, including specialised 
inpatient treatment for his sexual problems, followed by outpatient counselling. 
That has not stopped him from committing further sexual offences against minors. 
3 LZ was himself sexually abused as a child. The PSD considers the chaotic and 
unstable environment of his upbringing with sexual abuse to be a major 
criminogenic element. The prognosis for LZ is very bleak and the risk of 
recidivism is high. Long-term inpatient treatment of the sexual problems is 
considered by the PSD to be absolutely necessary in order to overcome the risk of 
recidivism. 
4 In 2013 and 2015, LZ unsuccessfully applied to be transferred to the Netherlands 
to serve his sentence there. In 2016, the Reclassering Nederland service 
(Netherlands Probation Service) reported that the Netherlands authorities were 
willing to recognise the custodial sentence, but not the additional 10-year penalty, 
because there is no equivalent for it in the Netherlands. That means that if 
transferred to the Netherlands, LZ would be released at the end of his prison 
sentence.  
5 LZ is currently being detained in Leuven Centraal prison. In the context of the 
annual review of his additional 10-year penalty, he applied for supervised release. 
LZ wants to undergo inpatient treatment in the Netherlands and also to stay in the 
Netherlands afterwards. The sentencing court refused his application. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
6 If there is a risk that a convicted person who has been made available to the 
sentencing court will again commit serious offences that undermine the physical 
or psychological integrity of third parties, and that risk cannot be overcome by the 
imposition of special conditions in the case of supervised release, an application 
for supervised release must be refused. In that case, the convicted person must 
continue to be deprived of his or her liberty (Article 95/21 of the Law of 17 May 
2006). 
7 The court finds that there is a high risk that LZ will commit serious offences 
undermining the psychological or physical integrity of third parties. Long-term 
inpatient treatment of LZ is considered necessary to overcome the risk of 
recidivism. To date, no opportunity has been found for such treatment. 
8 Regarding inpatient treatment in Belgium, the sentencing court notes that LZ is 
not eligible for this because he has no right of residence in Belgium, and therefore 
the cost of treatment will not be reimbursed by a health insurance fund. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-391/24 
 
4  
9 Regarding treatment in the Netherlands, a first obstacle is posed by the fact that 
Netherlands law does not provide for the making available of convicted persons to 
the sentencing court. Although the term ‘terbeschikkingstelling’ exists, it is used 
in the Netherlands for the measure referred to as internment in Belgium. The 
Belgian Service for International Cooperation in Criminal Matters has informed 
the PSD that the Netherlands cannot adopt a judgment concerning a measure 
whereby a person is made available to the sentencing court, because there is no 
equivalent for this in the Netherlands. A second impediment is that, according to 
the Netherlands Probation Service, a condition of undergoing inpatient treatment 
involves a custodial sentence, which is not transferable through Framework 
Decision 2008/947/JHA.  
10 The risk of serious offences that undermine the physical or psychological integrity 
of third parties being committed during supervised release cannot therefore be 
overcome by the imposition of special conditions. Consequently, supervised 
release cannot be granted and LZ must remain in custody. 
11 The referring court now queries whether, notwithstanding the fact that the 
additional penalty at issue here is not known in the Netherlands – the Netherlands 
is nevertheless obliged under the framework decision to recognise and enforce a 
judgment granting the convicted person supervised release with special conditions 
(treatment in a closed institution).