CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 mars 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside } Published on 30 March 2026   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 32183/24 Bertus KOOPMANS against the Netherlands lodged on 30 October 2024 communicated on 12 March 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was suspected of having played a part in purchasing weapons in Slovakia, which were then brought to the Netherlands. He was charged under the Weapons and Ammunition Act ( Wet wapens en munitie ) with complicity in bringing a large number of weapons into the Netherlands and/or transferring these weapons and/or possession of these weapons in the Netherlands. On 14 December 2021 the Rotterdam Regional Court convicted the applicant of these charges and sentenced him to 36 months’ imprisonment, of which 6 months were suspended. On 21 April 2023 the Court of Appeal of The Hague acquitted the applicant of all charges. It found that there was no proof that the applicant had transferred or possessed weapons in the Netherlands. As regards the charge of complicity of bringing weapons into the Netherlands, it noted that the applicant had driven to Slovakia nine times, had bought weapons there which he had handed over to others, and had driven back to the Netherlands without weapons. The Court of Appeal concluded that there was no evidence that the applicant had had any knowledge as to what would happen with the weapons after he had handed them over. Subsequently, the applicant filed a request for compensation for the time spent in pre-trial detention (Article 533 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; “CCP”) and a request for compensation for legal costs and expenses (Article 530 of the CCP). On 11 July 2024 the Court of Appeal of The Hague dismissed these requests in two separate decisions. In both decisions the court quoted parts of the judgment of 21 April 2023 and ruled that: “In the opinion of the court, in view of the above [that is: its reasoning in the criminal case], the actions of the applicant are reprehensible, but given the way in which the charges have been brought forward ( gelet op de wijze van ten laste leggen ), this has not led to a conviction. The applicant has himself to blame for his detention due to his reprehensible actions ( laakbare handelen ), and there are therefore no grounds of equity for granting the request.” Relying on Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the Court of Appeal violated the presumption of innocence in the proceedings on his request for compensation, even though he had been acquitted of all charges. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Were the Court of Appeal’s decisions of 11 July 2024 compatible with the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention (see, inter alia, see Nealon and Hallam v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 32483/19 and 35049/19, § 168, 11 June 2024; Gomes Costa v. Portugal , no. 34916/16, §§ 106-111, 25 February 2025). In particular, did the Court of Appeal’s reasoning reflect an opinion that the applicant was guilty to the criminal standard of the commission of a criminal offence, thereby suggesting that the criminal proceedings against him should have been determined differently?