Extradition Lawyer in Amsterdam: Rechtbank Amsterdam and the Local Procedure

Who in Amsterdam decides after an arrest anywhere in the Netherlands?

The IRK is the Netherlands' sole court for incoming EU EAW surrender requests. That centralisation matters when someone is stopped in Rotterdam, Eindhoven or at Schiphol: the final surrender question is still directed to Amsterdam. In the normal procedure a panel of three IRK judges hears the person sought, the officier van justitie (public prosecutor) and defence counsel at a public hearing. This is not the criminal trial about guilt in the requesting state.

Do not confuse that panel with the rechter-commissaris (examining judge), whose involvement follows the arrest, or with the prosecution service organising the file. The court's own description also mentions third-country extradition work, but a request from a non-EU country follows the Uitleveringswet and applicable treaty framework, not the EU EAW timetable. The EU scheme rests on the Dutch Overleveringswet and Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA. For the separate nationwide procedural explanation see extradition from the Netherlands.

Where do the prosecutor, IRK, court staff and Schiphol officers fit?

What happens during the first 72 hours?

This is a practical action plan, not a rule that every case must reach an IRK merits hearing within 72 hours. The Amsterdam prosecution service describes an initial EAW custody period of up to three days, which the prosecutor may extend for a further three days. A lawyer must check the specific custody authority, its starting timestamp and the actual extension decision. Being questioned, presented to an examining judge, detained and tried for the foreign allegation are distinct events.

Under the post-2024 wording of Article 39(2), formal consent is declared before a court (during the initial custody period, any competent Dutch court; afterwards the competent court), not merely by telling airport police or the prosecutor that the person agrees.

Relatives should avoid contacting the requesting state's police on the person's behalf or circulating speculative allegations. A concise document pack passed to Dutch counsel is generally more useful than multiple unverified phone reports. If the detainee has no lawyer, the immediate request is for access to Dutch criminal-defence counsel and an explanation in a language the person understands.

How should an Amsterdam lawyer read the hearing clock?

Under Article 22 of the Overleveringswet, the ordinary EU surrender decision is generally due within 60 days from the relevant EAW arrest under Article 21, with a reasoned extension of up to 30 days in specific circumstances. Articles 22(4)–(5) allow further exceptional, reasoned extensions, with different limits where the court awaits EU judicial interpretation or investigates an individual fundamental-rights risk. If another state's consent is required, Article 22(2) may instead start the clock when that consent is received. The IRK can seek extra information and adjourn the case. Neither day 60 nor day 90 automatically ends the case or requires release; the defence must compare each extension and detention order against the case file.

Article 28(1) requires the IRK to deliver a reasoned judgment within 14 days after the hearing investigation is closed, not automatically 14 days after a first hearing which has been adjourned or reopened. After an authorising decision, Article 35 normally requires physical handover within ten days of the judgment, subject to statutory exceptions for circumstances outside the states' control or serious humanitarian reasons. The prosecutor coordinates the transfer. In the abbreviated procedure a person may be handed over sooner without the contested IRK merits hearing. Counsel must explain consent and any separate speciality waiver before a formal declaration is recorded.

Where is a person arrested at Schiphol actually kept?

Schiphol Airport is a common place for border checks by the Koninklijke Marechaussee. Near the airport, in Badhoevedorp, Justitieel Complex Schiphol (JCS) combines a detention centre, immigration facilities and a courtroom. Its official visiting address is Duizendbladweg 100, 1171 VA Badhoevedorp. But an airport arrest does not establish that the person is held at JCS, and the presence of immigration detainees in the same complex does not convert an EAW case into deportation proceedings.

Ask the arresting authority or lawyer for the current institution and detainee reference before arranging travel or visits. Transfer to another detention facility is possible; obtain confirmation from the current custodian rather than relying on the place of arrest. For visits, medical issues and lawyer contact, follow the facility's current authorisation process and confirm the detention regime. The JCS service desk for immigration detainees is not a general hotline for every EAW detainee. A separate immigration removal may carry different courts, deadlines and rights; see extradition versus deportation.

How can family attend or send material to the actual court?

The published public visiting address of Rechtbank Amsterdam is Parnassusweg 280, 1076 AV Amsterdam. Its central counter is ordinarily open weekdays 08:30–17:00. Visitors report at reception, undergo security screening and check in with the court attendant; they should bring identification and the hearing notice. Confirm the actual hearing venue on the summons rather than assuming every preliminary appearance occurs at this building. A public IRK hearing can normally be attended subject to court rules and capacity, while some custody hearings are not public.

For a case-related enquiry the court lists IRKadministratie.Straf.rb-ams@rechtspraak.nl; its general information address is different. These addresses are administrative, not a substitute for the lawyer's filing obligation, confidential document transmission or an emergency detention application. Ask counsel which secure filing channel and case number to use. Foreign judgments and medical records should be clearly labelled, dated and, where appropriate, supplied with a usable translation. A family member generally should not expect the court office to give confidential case details without authority.

Can the IRK decision be appealed to a higher Amsterdam court?

Under Article 29(2) of the Overleveringswet, the IRK hears incoming EAW decisions in first and only instance; there is no ordinary appeal to Gerechtshof Amsterdam against its substantive surrender decision. Ordinary criminal appeal information on the general court website does not change that special rule. The exceptional cassatie in het belang der wet (cassation in the interest of the law) is not an ordinary appeal available to the requested person to overturn their own decision. Separate questions about detention orders, later implementation, EU-law interpretation or urgent rights protection require separate jurisdiction and procedural analysis; they are not an appeal disguised under another label.

The practical consequence is to raise relevant objections, supporting documents and interpreter problems before the IRK closes the hearing. The lawyer can seek clarification from the issuing state through the proper judicial route where needed. For detailed refusal grounds, possible protective applications and their separate prerequisites consult how to stop extradition from the Netherlands; this local page does not replace that remedies analysis.

What do recent Amsterdam decisions teach about evidence?

Amsterdam's own IRK case-law newsletter for 2026 illustrates why a short factual dossier matters more than a generic assertion that foreign proceedings are unfair. In ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2026:9057 (8 September 2026) the chamber initially found insufficient effective judicial protection in material concerning a Greek prosecution warrant. In a different Greek EAW case, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2026:9777 (1 October 2026), the IRK relied on further information dated 14 September to find that judicial examination of the warrant’s conditions, including proportionality, could be available after surrender. This was an interim judgment: the court continued examining detention conditions, not a blanket authorisation of Greek EAWs. A lawyer must therefore check later developments before relying on the earlier case as a categorical bar.

A further Greek prosecution-EAW ruling, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2026:10092 (decided 23 September and published 16 October 2026), also found the issuing-state answers insufficient to demonstrate effective judicial review of the EAW’s issue conditions, especially proportionality; the Amsterdam court declared the prosecutor’s application inadmissible and lifted the surrender detention. Although this ruling was published after the 1 October interim ruling, it was decided earlier and concerned a separate warrant. These outcomes must not be collapsed into either a universal refusal or a universal approval: Dutch counsel should ask the IRK to examine the precise issuing authority, current Greek explanations and accessible post-surrender judicial remedy in this person’s file.

The same newsletter describes ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2026:9107 (10 September 2026), in which individual assurances concerning a Latvian prison and the person's safety answered the identified detention concern. These are decisions of the IRK itself, not superior-court precedents binding all later IRK panels. Interpretation of EU law by the Court of Justice of the EU, by contrast, controls the legal framework. The court's published account of CJEU C-510/19 also explains why the Amsterdam prosecutor's functions and judicial control of custody must not be treated as interchangeable. Ask counsel to connect any case-law argument to the particular issuing authority, destination institution and current evidence; broad country labels do not decide an individual application.

What should a family or foreign lawyer prepare before contacting Dutch counsel?

• The person's exact name, citizenship(s), date of birth, available ID and any Dutch residence-registration information; do not send original passports to an unknown recipient.
• Time and location of the Schiphol or city arrest, arresting agency, current detention facility, case reference and any notice of the EAW or third-country request.
• Names of existing Dutch and requesting-state lawyers, consent or waiver forms already presented, and every known hearing or custody-order date.
• Relevant employment, address, family-care and attendance evidence if a supervised release or suspension request is being considered; no document guarantees release.
• Foreign judgments, summonses and proof of service where the warrant concerns a conviction; identify missing translations and disputed dates.
• Prompt, specific information about medicines, acute health needs, interpretation needs and requests for consular communication.

Hypothetical example: a Polish national is detained at Schiphol on a Polish EAW while living and working in Amsterdam. Their sister can immediately record the exact arrest time, request confirmation of the facility and send the Dutch lawyer proof of address and employment. The lawyer checks the Amsterdam prosecutor's custody order, whether the examining judge has seen the person, the IRK hearing notice and the Polish court papers. Nothing in the airport location alone proves which court will decide the surrender: for this incoming EU warrant, it is the Amsterdam IRK.

This site's team can coordinate cross-border defence with appropriately instructed local counsel. Request a case review.