Human Rights Group Challenges Antwerp Police Over Preventive Arrests

Antwerp (The Brussels Morning Newspaper) – October 09, 2026 – Belgium’s League for Human Rights has filed a complaint with the Flemish Agency for Domestic Governance over Antwerp police procedures allowing the preventive detention of people identified as repeat sources of public nuisance. Under the approach described in an internal police memo, officers can administratively detain designated individuals for up to 12 hours, even when they are not committing an offence or causing a disturbance at the time. The police say the measure is intended to protect public order and improve quality of life. The human rights organisation disputes its legality, while Antwerp’s mayor has defended the policy. Police union representatives have also sought clarification over the new instructions.

The complaint, reported on 9 October by Anadolu Agency and Belgian media, centres on whether a person’s previous behaviour or inclusion on a police list can provide sufficient grounds for detention without evidence of an offence or an ongoing disturbance.

The League for Human Rights argues that the measure raises legal concerns because it permits the deprivation of liberty based on an individual’s designation as a known troublemaker. Its chairwoman, Kati Verstrepen, told Belgian public broadcaster VRT that detaining someone for 12 hours solely because they had been labelled and placed on a list was, in the organisation’s view, unlawful.

Antwerp Mayor Els van Doesburg has defended the approach, saying it targets people whose behaviour has reportedly caused difficulties in public spaces, including aggressively approaching passers-by for money or drugs and establishing sleeping places in public areas. She also referred to problems involving alcohol abuse and severe drug addiction among the people targeted by the measure.

The complaint brings the legal basis for the police procedure into focus. The dispute concerns the circumstances in which administrative detention can be used, the relevance of a person’s previous conduct and the extent to which authorities can intervene before a new offence or disturbance occurs.

What Does the Antwerp Police Memo Authorise Officers To Do?

The controversy emerged after Gazet van Antwerpen reported on an internal police memo setting out the approach to people identified as known sources of public nuisance. VRT subsequently reported that Antwerp police had confirmed the measure to the broadcaster.

According to the reports, officers can arrest designated individuals during checks and hold them administratively for up to 12 hours, even if the person is not committing an offence at the time of the encounter.

The procedure therefore differs from an intervention prompted by an immediately observable offence or an active disturbance. The central issue raised by the League for Human Rights is whether a person’s history and inclusion on a police list can justify detention in the absence of conduct that independently warrants such action.

The reports describe 12 hours as the maximum period of detention under the approach. They do not establish that every person identified by police will automatically be detained for that length of time in every circumstance.

The police have presented the measure as part of their response to public-order problems. According to VRT’s reporting, the stated objectives include protecting public order, improving the city’s liveability and encouraging affected individuals to accept assistance.

However, the available reporting does not establish that the policy has resulted in a particular number of arrests, nor does it provide a complete account of how frequently officers have applied the instructions since their introduction.

The distinction between the existence of the policy and its practical implementation remains important. The internal memo sets out the approach described by the media, while the complaint challenges whether the procedure is legally permissible.

Why Has the League for Human Rights Filed a Complaint?

The League for Human Rights has challenged the legal justification for detaining people because of their previous conduct or reputation.

Its objection is that being regarded as a known troublemaker cannot, by itself, establish a lawful reason to deprive someone of liberty. The organisation’s chairwoman, Kati Verstrepen, has argued that a designation on a police list is insufficient justification for holding someone for 12 hours.

The complaint was submitted to the Flemish Agency for Domestic Governance, known in Dutch as the Agentschap Binnenlands Bestuur. The agency is part of the Flemish administration and deals with aspects of local government oversight.

The filing asks the authorities to examine the police approach within the relevant legal framework. The reported complaint reflects the League’s position that the measure is unlawful; it does not, in itself, amount to a judicial ruling that the procedure breaches Belgian law.

The organisation’s objection also relates to the distinction between preventing public nuisance and imposing restrictions on personal liberty. Authorities may have responsibilities for public order, but the League argues that these responsibilities do not automatically justify detention based on a person’s past behaviour.

The complaint follows the organisation’s previous objections to preventive restrictions imposed by Antwerp authorities, including house-arrest measures affecting young people around New Year’s Eve.

Those earlier disputes concerned different measures and legal circumstances. They provide background to the organisation’s position but do not determine whether the current police detention procedure is lawful.

The present complaint concerns administrative arrests of people identified as repeat sources of public nuisance, rather than the specific house-arrest orders challenged in earlier proceedings.

How Has Antwerp’s Mayor Defended the Preventive Detention Policy?

Mayor Els van Doesburg has defended the approach as a response to behaviour affecting public spaces and the city’s liveability.

According to Anadolu Agency’s report, the mayor said the measure targets people who allegedly accost passers-by aggressively while seeking money or drugs, establish places to sleep in public areas and experience problems including alcohol abuse and severe drug addiction.

Her defence places the policy within the city’s efforts to address public nuisance. The police have similarly said the approach is intended to protect public order and improve quality of life, while encouraging affected people to accept assistance.

The stated aim of encouraging assistance is relevant to understanding how the authorities have presented the policy. However, the published reporting does not provide detailed information about the services offered, the criteria used to determine whether someone is eligible for support or the procedures followed when a person declines assistance.

Nor does the available information establish that every individual covered by the approach has committed the same conduct or has the same personal circumstances.

The mayor’s explanation and the human rights organisation’s objection address different aspects of the dispute. The city has emphasised public order and the problems it says the measure is designed to address. The League has focused on the legal basis for detention and whether previous behaviour can justify restricting a person’s liberty when no offence or disturbance is occurring.

The central question is therefore not simply whether the city has a public-order objective, but whether the specific means used to pursue that objective are permitted under the applicable law.

The complaint places that question before the Flemish administrative oversight authorities. The available reports do not record a final decision on the legality of the new approach.

What Concerns Have Police Unions Raised About the Instructions?

The controversy has also prompted questions from police union representatives.

VRT reported that the National Syndicate of Police and Security Personnel, commonly referred to by its Dutch abbreviation NSPV, had requested clarification about the preventive-arrest procedure. The union said officers working in the field had raised questions about the instructions and sought answers from Mayor Van Doesburg and the police chief.

The union reportedly submitted approximately seven specific questions and requested a response within five days. It also said it was considering issuing strike notice if its concerns were not addressed.

The union’s intervention introduces a separate issue from the complaint submitted by the League for Human Rights. While the League has questioned the legality of the detention policy, the union has sought greater clarity about the instructions and their implications for officers expected to apply them.

A report published by News Minimalist, summarising coverage by Belgian newspaper Le Soir, also described concerns from the SNPS and CGSP unions. According to that report, the unions questioned the absence of prior consultation and raised questions about whether the police organisation would assume legal responsibility if detentions led to lawsuits. CGSP representative Sigi Claes reportedly warned that the approach could lead to people being targeted because of their reputations.

These concerns do not establish that officers have unlawfully detained individuals. They indicate that the procedure has prompted requests for clarification from within the police workforce as well as objections from an external human rights organisation.

The questions raised by the unions concern how the instructions should be interpreted and applied, and how officers and the police organisation would deal with legal challenges arising from their implementation.

The reports available on 9 October do not establish that the unions have issued a strike notice or that the police have withdrawn or suspended the instructions.

What Is the Legal Dispute Over Administrative Arrests?

Administrative arrest is distinct from detention arising from a criminal investigation or prosecution. In the Antwerp dispute, the issue is whether police can use administrative powers to detain someone preventively when that individual is not committing an offence or causing a disturbance at the time.

The League for Human Rights has argued that the person’s inclusion on a police list does not independently justify detention. The police and city, by contrast, have presented the approach as a tool for addressing recurring public nuisance.

Resolving the dispute requires consideration of the applicable legal provisions, the circumstances in which administrative arrest is permitted and the grounds that must exist before officers can exercise that power.

The published reports do not provide a full legal opinion from the Flemish Agency for Domestic Governance on the current procedure. They also do not establish that a court has ruled on the precise instructions described in the memo.

It is therefore necessary to distinguish the organisation’s legal objection from an established legal finding. The League has filed a complaint and described the measure as unlawful, but the complaint’s submission does not itself settle the question.

The distinction is particularly relevant because the procedure concerns detention before any new offence or disturbance has occurred. Whether prior conduct can provide sufficient grounds for such a measure is at the centre of the challenge.

The authorities’ stated public-order objectives and the legal conditions governing detention are related but separate questions. A public-order objective does not, by itself, resolve whether a particular method of enforcement is legally authorised.

The complaint provides a mechanism for the Flemish administration to examine the issue. Any subsequent decision would need to be considered on the basis of its actual findings and scope, rather than assumptions about the outcome.

What Is the Background to Antwerp’s Earlier Preventive Restrictions?

Antwerp has previously faced disputes over preventive restrictions intended to limit public nuisance, particularly around New Year’s Eve.

The League for Human Rights has documented its objections to preventive restrictions imposed by local authorities, including house arrests affecting young people in Antwerp. The organisation has argued that restrictions on liberty must have a sufficient legal basis and comply with fundamental rights.

In 2024, Antwerp issued 47 preventive house-arrest orders, according to the League’s published account. The restrictions required the affected young people to remain at home between 18:00 and 08:00, with checks conducted to verify compliance.

The organisation challenged the legality of those measures, arguing that they imposed excessive restrictions on personal freedom and movement.

In a separate development, Belgium’s Council of State ruled on 15 December 2025 that a particular house-arrest measure imposed on an Antwerp young person was lawful. According to the League’s account of the judgment, the court considered the New Municipal Law to provide a sufficient legal basis for that specific restriction. The ruling concerned that individual case and should not be treated as a decision on the separate administrative-arrest procedure now under scrutiny.

The earlier dispute illustrates that preventive public-order measures have already been the subject of legal and administrative scrutiny in Antwerp. However, house arrest and administrative detention are different measures, and their legality depends on their respective legal bases and circumstances.

The current complaint concerns the reported ability of police to detain designated individuals for up to 12 hours during checks, even when no offence or disturbance is occurring at that moment.

The League’s position on the new procedure is consistent with its stated concern about preventive restrictions on liberty. The outcome, however, cannot be inferred from its earlier challenges or from the ruling on an individual house-arrest case.

What Happens Next in the Antwerp Preventive-Arrest Dispute?

As of 9 October 2026, the reported developments include the complaint filed by the League for Human Rights, the city’s defence of the policy and requests from police union representatives for clarification.

The League’s complaint places the legal basis of the procedure before the Flemish Agency for Domestic Governance. The agency’s response, and any subsequent legal proceedings, will be important in determining how the dispute develops.

The police union’s request for answers is a separate strand of the issue. The union has sought clarification from the mayor and police chief and has indicated that it could consider industrial action if its questions remain unanswered. The available reporting does not confirm that such action has been initiated.

The Antwerp police have maintained that the measure is intended to protect public order, improve liveability and encourage people affected by recurring problems to accept assistance. The League, meanwhile, argues that a person’s reputation or inclusion on a list cannot independently justify detention.

No final determination of the current procedure’s legality is established in the reports available for this article. It would therefore be premature to state that the measure has been approved, overturned or suspended.