Compensation after unjustified pretrial detention

A favorable ending to the matter is the beginning of a new question

Article 533 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides a route for compensation for, among other things, police custody (inverzekeringstelling) and pre-trial detention under the conditions stated therein. The law also has a fairness assessment. Those who were not punished must therefore still have it determined whether the specific termination and damage fall under this route. The word unjustified in everyday language does not automatically mean that the previous arrest or decision to pre-trial detention was unlawful at the time. These are different legal questions.

Before the first meeting, make a list of the facts and decisions in the criminal case. Note whether all accusations have been ended and whether there is a combination of acquittal, conviction or other settlement. A newspaper headline that someone has been acquitted may be incomplete if several parts were involved. Therefore, let the lawyer look at the real documents. Correct demarcation prevents a request from being based on the wrong assumption and makes it clear which part of the detention is related to which case.

Three months requires a confirmed start and end date

The procedure page of Rechtspraak mentions a filing period of three months after the end of the case. Let us determine when this is in your situation and which court has jurisdiction. Don't just count from the day you read a news item, spoke to a lawyer or first thought about compensation. Ninety days is also not an automatic translation of three months. A concrete calendar date with an explanation of the starting point offers more certainty than an estimate in weeks.

Do not wait with advice until all pay slips or medical documents have been collected. A missing piece of evidence could be a follow-up question; a missed deadline is another problem. Note who prepares the request, who signs it, how it is submitted and how receipt is checked. Keep the sent version and proof of sending or receipt together. An agreement that someone is working on it does not indicate whether a piece has been received on time and to the correct court. Therefore, make that responsibility concrete.

Each period is given a legal title and a source

Create a list with start and end moments of the deprivation of liberty. State the title, place of residence and source for each period, for example a warrant or registration. Your own reminder of the number of nights is useful context, but may differ from the way reimbursement days are calculated. The first hours of interrogation, police custody (inverzekeringstelling) and pre-trial detention should not disappear unnoticed in one. A separate check is extra important for different locations or cases.

Add any restrictions and location changes with date. Have a lawyer check how transition days are treated and whether a day already falls under a different period. The goal is not complicated administration, but the prevention of duplicate or missing days. A simple table with a source per line can yield more than a long personal account without dates. The personal account can then explain the consequences, while the detention state remains the verifiable arithmetical foundation.

Use the current LOVS version and the correct application date

The LOVS agreements have been indexed as of January 1, 2026 for requests submitted on or after that date. The July 2026 version mentions €160 per day in police cells and €120 per day in detention centres, with a surcharge of €35 for the mentioned category of restrictions or EBI. This orientation is not an automatic individual assignment. Check applicability and day count based on the document and your own period, instead of copying old amounts from a previous case.

Save the version used next to the calculation. This makes visible why a certain amount has been chosen and prevents a later reader from thinking that the year of detention alone determines the benchmark. Even a frequently quoted amount may now be outdated. Therefore, write down whether the calculation is a provisional starting point or has already been checked by the lawyer. A transparent lower or higher total is easier to assess than a loosely rounded amount without traceable days, categories and applicable source version.

Lost income requires more than a gross estimate

In the case of a separate claim due to lost income, it is important what actually went wrong and why. Collect the relevant employment agreements, pay slips, declarations or other appropriate data. Distinguish between income not received, wages paid and expectations about assignments that have not yet been confirmed. For example, an entrepreneur may miss turnover while costs also disappear. A total of missed invoices does not automatically say the same as the actual financial loss suffered. Let the calculation method be explained.

Also mention other possible causes of loss of income. If a contract were to end or work was halted for other reasons, this deserves a place in the analysis. That doesn't make the request weaker by honesty; it makes the scope testable. A general amount for career loss is more difficult to assess than a concrete period with evidence and an explainable connection to the detention. Do not expect that every future disadvantage can be compensated in the same procedure without further substantiation.

A personal story gains weight through concrete circumstances

Pre-trial detention can have consequences for health, family and daily functioning. Describe these consequences carefully without assuming that each burden will be reimbursed separately in addition to a standard amount. Have an assessment made of which damage has already been included in a usual compensation and which special circumstances require additional substantiation. A personal story can be informative when it contains dates, changes and concrete consequences. It becomes less clear when all problems after the arrest are attributed to that one cause without further explanation.

Only provide relevant sensitive information. A complete treatment archive is not automatically necessary to substantiate a specific complaint or event. Discuss which document supports the specific point and through which route it will be submitted. Furthermore, explain what was already happening before the detention and what demonstrably changed. This distinction prevents an existing problem from being presented as entirely new. It helps the assessor to understand why the stated consequences belong to this period and where a medical or other expert explanation may be desirable.

Fictional example: days, wages and a double claim

In a fictitious case, Daan is advised to investigate compensation after being acquitted. He counts the number of nights from his diary and multiplies it by an amount he saw online years earlier. In addition, he includes his entire monthly salary as missed income, while part of it has continued to be paid. His overview appears complete, but contains both a possible error in the detention days and an incorrect assumption about the actual missed wages. A higher total does not strengthen that substantiation.

Better preparation compares the orders and residence registration, uses the applicable standard version and compares the wage payment. Daan separately describes a specific event involving his family and assesses whether and how it is relevant. This example does not predict any amount awarded. It shows why different types of evidence should not end up in one column. The judge must be able to determine which part is a standard calculation, which part concerns actual financial damage and which part requires special explanation.

Lawyer's fees and deprivation of liberty are different components

A request for compensation for deprivation of liberty undergone is not the same as a request for attorney's fees or other procedural costs. There are legal routes that can be prepared in conjunction, but each part requires its own basis and substantiation. Use the guide to attorney fees after acquittal for that individual request for assistance. A legal aid invoice does not make clear the number of days of detention and a detaining state does not automatically explain which legal costs are reimbursable. (attorney's fees after acquittal)

Create one complete overview in which the components remain recognizable. Please state for each item whether any other compensation, insurance or payment is involved. Let the lawyer assess how this should be handled and prevent the same expense from being presented as completely uncovered twice. This way, the calculation remains explainable later if a part is adjusted. A joint filing may be practical, but should not mean that amounts are indiscriminately stacked on top of each other or that different legal requirements are lost.

Seven rules for a testable request

A statement of evidence links each damage item to a source and a calculation. If a document is missing, indicate who is requesting it and what the next step is. Keep the deadline and submission at the top, so that substantive elaboration does not supersede procedural necessity. The overview does not have to provide an independent legal opinion. It should especially help to quickly see which facts are established, which category is used and where explanation is still needed. This makes a conversation with the lawyer more efficient and substantive.

• Termination: final decision, date, case number and the settlement of all relevant allegations.
• Deadline: confirmed starting point, filing deadline, competent court and person responsible for filing.
• Deprivation of liberty: title, place of residence, beginning, end and source per individual period.
• Standard: LOVS version used, applicable category, day count and preliminary calculation.
• Income: concrete missed payment, cause, evidence and distinction between turnover, wages and actual disadvantage.
• Consequences: special circumstances, limited relevant evidence and distinction with existing complaints.
• Other items: attorney fees, previous payments and checking for double counting or another reimbursement route.

A convincing request is timely, verifiable and defined

Our conclusion is that compensation for pre-trial detention mainly requires a well-ordered follow-up step. An acquittal tells a lot about the criminal case, but does not complete the individual procedure. The quality of the request lies in the correct basis, reliable days and damage that can be traced back to its source. An emotionally important story and an accurate calculation can support each other. They must remain recognizable, so that an assessor does not have to guess which amount corresponds to which event.

Therefore, seek early advice and use a small statement of evidence as a starting point. Anyone who is still missing pieces can make this explicit without losing sight of the deadline. Anyone who has doubts about certain damage can have a specific question assessed instead of adding an unsubstantiated claim. The guide to pre-trial detention provides the process framework; this preparation focuses on the consequences afterwards. The final award remains an assessment of the request and the circumstances, not an automatic payment after a favorable criminal outcome.