PHILIPSBURG:--- On 12 December 2025, the Court of First Instance ruled in favor of the Minister of Justice, affirming the lawful and proper application of the early conditional release framework under the Criminal Code.
The ruling follows a case brought by a detainee who objected to the refusal of early conditional release, despite being included in an internal assessment related to the management of limited detention capacity.
In its judgment, the Court confirmed that detainees do not have an individual or enforceable right to early conditional release. As a general rule, convicted persons are required to serve their sentence until the normal moment of conditional release, unless the Minister determines that proven and exceptional pressure on detention capacity justifies the application of Article 1:37 of the Criminal Code.
The Court held that the Minister reasonably arrived at her decision and that the refusal was carefully, transparently, and adequately reasoned. The decision was based, among other considerations, on advice from the Central Probation Board (CCR) and an assessment of the detainee’s conduct during detention.
Furthermore, the Court determined that the Minister did not act in violation of the principle of equality, meaning that all detainees are assessed using the same standards, and that no element of arbitrariness was present. The Court made clear that comparisons with individual cases do not create a legal right to early conditional release.
With this ruling, the Court confirms that the Minister of Justice has correctly interpreted and lawfully applied the early conditional release mechanism as codified in the Criminal Code. This judgment is consistent with the earlier ruling of the Court of Appeal, which also confirmed that early conditional release is not a right but an exceptional measure. It reinforces that these decisions are taken carefully, equally, and strictly within the framework of the law.
The Court further clarified that Article 1:37 of the Criminal Code is clear, complete, and directly applicable in its current form, without the need for additional policy rules, provided that each decision is assessed on an individual basis and properly substantiated.
