Serving a foreign sentence in the Netherlands: WOTS and WETS

Criminal transfer answers a different question than extradition

When transferring a sentence, an existing foreign sentence is central. That is different from handing someone over to another country or extraditing them for prosecution or execution. The concepts can come together in one history, for example when a return guarantee was discussed during a previous transfer of the person. Therefore, keep the complete previous decisions, but state which question is now before you. A discussion about the correctness of the foreign conviction may require a foreign legal remedy and will not be automatically reopened by a Dutch enforcement request.

The sanction type must also be clear. A prison sentence, custodial measure and conditional or alternative sanction do not automatically have the same transfer procedure. The central government distinguishes between these situations. Ask the lawyer which route applies to the specific judgment and which authority is competent. A form that can be used for a different type of sanction is not proof that the same conditions, deadlines or judicial treatment apply here. Start with the exact decision and not with a general desire to return to the Netherlands. (The government distinguishes these situations)

An EU membership or treaty must be linked to the correct route

The DJI explanation of WOTS and WETS describes WETS for the European route and WOTS for treaty relationships outside that application. Check per country which scheme actually applies; the date of the conviction and possible transitional questions may also be important. The published country overview of April 3, 2025 is an entry point, not a personal decision about your request. Have the current route confirmed by specialist legal assistance or the competent authority. A cross in an overview does not mean that all individual conditions have already been met. (DJI explanation of WOTS and WETS · published country overview from April 3, 2025)

A practical route comparison consists of three questions. Which country imposed the punishment? Which legal instrument is used for this type of sanction? What procedure follows for recognition and implementation? Write the answer on the map with the source and date. Avoid a list in which all countries outside the Netherlands are treated as the same category. A treaty can also allow different methods of implementation. The name WOTS is therefore not in itself an answer to the question of whether continuation or commutation of the sentence is appropriate.

A definitive verdict and sufficient connection require proof

The DJI information sheets of March 2026 mention, among other things, an irrevocable judgment, an appropriate sanction, sufficient remainder of the sentence, ties with the Netherlands and agreement from the countries involved. The precise application must be tested against applicable law. Collect the documents that prove your circumstances, such as relevant residence and housing information. Dutch nationality is an important factor, but does not replace every other requirement. Nor does the mere existence of family in the Netherlands automatically make a request complete or admissible. (March 2026 DJI Fact Sheets)

Describe the binding factually. Where did you live, what is your residence status and what does your intended return look like? Only add data that relates to it. An emotionally understandable wish may be a reason to ask for help, but the authorities must be able to check the legal conditions. Leave a missing or disputed document on the card as an issue. For example, an unclear statement that the sentence is final should be linked to the official state of the proceedings and not to a family member's expectation that an appeal is unlikely to follow.

At WETS, the foreign case is not simply tried again

The current WETS information sheet describes a route in which the country of conviction makes the formal request, IOS checks the conditions and the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal has a role in the assessment. The foreign offenses will not be dealt with again in an ordinary public criminal hearing. A prisoner or representative can let us know that a transfer of the sentence is desired. So keep your own request for attention separate from the formal request between authorities. Ask who took which step and which pieces are still missing.

Our analysis: this distinction in particular prevents incorrect expectations. A letter sent from prison may be important, but is not yet a confirmed acknowledgment or planned trip. Save receipts and specific status messages. Ask where the file is located and what the next dependent step is. If one agency still needs information from another country, sending the same attachment multiple times to random recipients can actually make the process confusing. Have the relevant attorney or registered contact person coordinate the information via a recognizable route.

Continuation and conversion have different consequences

The WOTS information sheet of March 2026 distinguishes between continuation of the foreign sentence and conversion to a Dutch sentence. The procedure that applies depends on the country and treaty. In the event of a commutation, the Dutch judge assesses the sentence without re-trial of the foreign facts. In case of continuation, the foreign sentence remains in principle the starting point, with legal adjustment options. Ask IOS or the lawyer in writing which route applies in your case. Do not assume that WOTS always means that a Dutch judge will re-determine the full sentence at his own discretion. (WOTS fact sheet from March 2026)

A route comparison should also include the practical order. Is a penalty recommendation necessary in advance, what decision will follow before transfer and will a commutation hearing take place afterwards? These questions are not interchangeable with an expectation about how severely the Netherlands usually punishes the same offense. A general penalty comparison on the Internet offers little certainty about the concrete trajectory. Have the relevant decisions and any conditions read together. This makes it visible whether a stated amount, remainder of the penalty or final moment is a provisional advice, legal limit or final decision.

The detainee's agreement is not an absolute requirement in every route

The rules on consent differ per legal framework and specific situation. The official information describes that transfer without personal consent is possible under certain conditions. WOTS also has treaty-related exceptions. Therefore, discuss in a timely manner whether you agree, what your objections are and through which procedure they can be raised. A signature on a form must be understood in its own context. It is not by itself just an acknowledgment of receipt, but also not without reading a waiver of any possible legal protection.

In case of language problems, a reliable explanation or translation of decisive parts is important. Establish who is authorized to act on behalf of the detainee and which contact person is officially registered. A family member can provide practical assistance without automatically having any procedural authority. Keep original foreign pieces next to translations. Your own Dutch summary can help the first discussion, but must remain recognizable as a summary. The precise meaning of a foreign decision should not disappear because a translator or assistant oversimplifies a legal difference.

An expected release is not a guaranteed execution moment

After transfer, Dutch enforcement law and the conditional release scheme may become relevant. The current DJI information also discusses the significance of an earlier foreign date that is sufficiently established. A possible foreign favorable decision that still has to be decided by a judge is different from a final date. Therefore, have it calculated separately which scenario is legally valid and which data are still uncertain. A family calendar with one probable release day is insufficient basis for a far-reaching choice about transfer.

Keep the sentence duration, detention already undergone, possible adjustment and execution conditions in separate lines. A shorter Dutch maximum may pose a different question than a difference in early release. The Guide to Conditional Release helps general understanding, but does not replace international calculation. Also include a return guarantee: such a guarantee has its own meaning and does not make every step faster or every desired implementation outcome certain. Have a specialist assess the concrete text and applicable route. (conditional release)

Fictional example: The family is already counting towards an expected return

In a fictional case, Jonas is serving a final prison sentence in an EU country. His family hears that execution in the Netherlands is possible and plans a homecoming based on a locally called early release moment. It is still unclear whether that moment is final and whether the formal transfer request has already been made. More careful preparation starts with the verdict, a status statement, detention details and a confirmation of the route. The family asks who is handling the file and which step still depends on foreign information.

A second fictional variant takes place outside the applicable WETS route. It appears that it must first be determined which treaty and which WOTS procedure apply. The Dutch comparison of a sentence is then not automatically the same as a full commutation hearing. Neither example predicts a transfer or end date. They show why the same wish to be closer to home can require different legal processes. The practical benefit lies in making the unknown part visible in a timely manner, before expectations about transport and release are treated as certainty.

Create one overview for both countries and their advisors

A roadmap stores the data that different authorities may need, with references to the original documents. Compare Dutch and foreign contact persons with their separate roles. Appoint who is authorized to receive documents and who will ask the next question. Do not use any self-invented confirmation of a foreign process moment. The overview helps coordination and prevents the same question from being formulated slightly differently in different language versions. Save old status messages so that progress and the reason for a changed expectation can be found.

• Verdict: country, judge, case number, date, sanction and final status.
• Detention: start date, part already undergone, source and any other procedures.
• Route: WETS or WOTS, instrument, sanction type and date of confirmation.
• Conditions: binding, residence status, agreement of countries and request for consent.
• Implementation: continuation or conversion, adaptation and release scenarios.
• Documents: original decisions, official statements, translations and missing appendices.
• Contact: foreign lawyer, Dutch specialist, registered helper and IOS status.

Have procedure choice and legal protection assessed early

International implementation may have formal options and limitations that are not apparent from a general information sheet. Ask early what specialized legal assistance is needed and what action cannot wait. The Legal Aid Board describes specific situations for WOTS in which government subsidies for legal aid are possible; this does not result in general free assistance for every contact or every WETS question. Have the specific assignment and financial route confirmed. Keep a quotation or decision about the government subsidy for legal aid next to the file, so that it is clear who actually handles which procedure. (Legal Aid Council describes specific situations for WOTS in which government subsidy for legal aid is possible)

Our conclusion: carrying out a foreign sentence in the Netherlands first requires a reliable route choice and then a verifiable file. A family wish, sent application or favorable general explanation does not constitute a decision to transfer. With the same source documents, clear contact roles and separate implementation scenarios, specialist help can provide targeted advice. Keep track of changes and have the meaning of consent, return guarantee and release assessed separately. This makes expectations more realistic and the next procedural step better substantiated, without suggesting a new trial or automatic reduction of the sentence.