Gaslighting is a sustained pattern of psychological manipulation in which one partner systematically undermines the other in their perception of reality. Dutch law contains no offence called gaslighting, but the conduct is not beyond the reach of the law: where it damages mental health it can amount to assault under art. 300 of the Dutch Criminal Code (Sr), it can support a temporary domestic exclusion order imposed by the mayor under the Wet tijdelijk huisverbod, and it can found a claim in tort under art. 6:162 and art. 6:106 of the Civil Code (BW). The practical difficulty is not the law but the evidence.
The term comes from the 1944 film Gaslight, in which a husband manipulates his wife into doubting her sanity by altering her surroundings and denying what she sees. In a legal setting the pattern matters more than the label. Isolated remarks prove nothing; a documented course of conduct over months or years, corroborated from outside the relationship, is what courts act on.
What gaslighting looks like in practice
The behaviour is cumulative and deliberately deniable. A perpetrator will persistently contradict the other person about events both of them witnessed, recast her feelings as irrational or hysterical, gradually cut her off from friends and family, use disclosed vulnerabilities against her, trivialise or ridicule her concerns, and turn responsibility for his own conduct back onto her. Each incident, taken alone, looks trivial or contestable. Taken together over time they erode self-esteem, memory and independent judgement, and produce dependence on the very person causing the harm.
Gaslighting rarely occurs alone. It is usually one technique within a broader pattern of coercive control: isolation, surveillance, humiliation, control of money, and the suppression of everyday needs. That is how the courts have come to describe it. In February 2025 the district court of Zeeland-West-Brabant convicted a man of extortion after years of exactly this conduct, and set out undue influence, coercive control and gaslighting as distinct but connected techniques, describing gaslighting as distorting the truth so that another person increasingly doubts herself (ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2025:1078). Where the relationship is ending, the same pattern often shapes the divorce; we discuss that separately in our article on coercive control and divorce.
Is gaslighting a criminal offence in the Netherlands?
There is no separate offence of gaslighting or of psychological abuse in the Dutch Criminal Code. Conduct of this kind is prosecuted, when it is prosecuted at all, under offences written for other purposes, and the choice of offence depends on what can be proved.
The most important route is assault. Art. 300 Sr is not confined to physical injury: damage to mental health can constitute the harm the provision requires. In January 2025 the district court of Amsterdam applied that reasoning to a marriage, convicting a man of assault for a regime of isolation, daily degradation, withholding of food and medical care, and threats, and holding that intentional damage to mental well-being falls within the offence (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2025:5663). What that judgment demonstrates is the standard of proof required: the court relied on the victim psychologist, on statements from people outside the household, and on a documented course of conduct, not on the complaint alone.
Alongside assault, three other provisions regularly come into play. Threats made to intimidate or control fall under art. 285 Sr. Systematic harassment or surveillance of a person, whether or not the parties still live together, is belaging under art. 285b Sr; it is important to know that belaging is a complaint offence, so the Public Prosecution Service will normally only prosecute if the victim has formally requested prosecution within the statutory period. Forcing someone to do, tolerate or refrain from something by violence or threat is coercion under art. 284 Sr, and where the object of the pressure is money or property the offence may be extortion under art. 317 Sr. Our guide to assault charges in the Netherlands sets out how these prosecutions run.
The temporary domestic exclusion order
The fastest protection available is the tijdelijk huisverbod, the temporary domestic exclusion order under the Wet tijdelijk huisverbod (Wth). It is worth being precise about what it is: this is an administrative measure, not a civil or criminal one. It is imposed by the mayor, or by an official acting under delegated authority, and it is reviewed by the administrative courts, not by the civil judge.
The mayor may impose the order where the presence of a person in the home poses a serious and immediate danger to the safety of one or more household members, or where there is a serious suspicion of such danger. Psychological violence counts; physical injury is not required. The threshold is lower than in a criminal prosecution, because the measure is preventive rather than punitive, but the danger must be made concrete. The order removes the person from the home for ten days and bars contact during that period, and the mayor may extend it to a maximum of twenty-eight days. Breach of the order is itself a criminal offence.
What the mayor must substantiate
A domestic exclusion order is not granted on an allegation alone. In October 2024 the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State upheld the annulment of an order because the mayor had relied on conflicting statements and on a risk assessment form completed on the basis of those statements, without seeking medical records, police reports or any earlier history of domestic violence (ECLI:NL:RVS:2024:4154). The lesson runs both ways: a victim who wants the measure to hold should make sure that objective material reaches the mayor, and a person facing an order should ask precisely what it rests on.
Article 8 ECHR and proportionality
An exclusion order interferes with the right to respect for private and family life under art. 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, so it must pursue a legitimate aim, have a basis in law and be necessary in a democratic society. Courts apply that test seriously but it is not a high hurdle where the danger is properly documented: in November 2025 the district court of Limburg dismissed an appeal against an order and its extension, finding the interference justified and not disproportionate (ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2025:13174).
Being heard, and challenging the order
The person to be excluded must in principle be heard before the order is made, unless the urgency makes that impossible. Because the order takes effect at once, the Wth provides a route straight to the provisional relief judge (voorzieningenrechter) of the district court for suspension or lifting, alongside the ordinary administrative objection to the mayor and appeal to the administrative court. Failing to hear the person concerned, or imposing an order without authority to do so, can render the order unlawful and expose the municipality to a claim: in 2017 the Council of State upheld an award of compensation to a man who had been excluded from his home for nine days on an order the mayor had no power to make (ECLI:NL:RVS:2017:2339).
Civil protection: contact bans and exclusion orders
The huisverbod lasts weeks, not months. Where the danger persists, the civil route is a contact ban or exclusion order sought from the provisional relief judge in summary proceedings (kort geding). The claim rests on unlawful act under art. 6:162 BW, with the order itself grounded in art. 3:296 BW, and is normally reinforced by a penalty payment for each breach. Because a contact ban restricts the freedom of the person against whom it is made, the court weighs the seriousness and recency of the conduct against that restriction, and expects the applicant to make the pattern concrete. Our guide to obtaining a restraining order explains how these proceedings run in practice.
Proving a pattern of psychological abuse
Evidence is where these cases are won and lost. Gaslighting is designed to be deniable, and in a criminal case the statement of one witness is by itself never enough to convict: art. 342 lid 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Sv) requires the account of a single witness to be supported from an independent source. The same instinct governs civil and administrative proceedings, where the judge weighs the material freely but will not act on assertion alone.
What carries weight, in roughly descending order, is contemporaneous material created before the dispute became legal. A dated record of incidents kept at the time, describing what was said and what the effect was, is more persuasive than a reconstruction written afterwards. Messages, e-mails and call logs are valuable precisely because they show the tone and frequency of the contact rather than a summary of it, and should be exported and preserved rather than left on a phone the other party may control. Reports from a GP, psychologist or psychiatrist establish that harm occurred and connect it to a period in time. Statements from colleagues, neighbours or family who noticed the change in behaviour supply the independent corroboration the law asks for. Files held by Veilig Thuis and police reports carry particular weight because they record professional observation.
It is worth being realistic about the limits. In June 2025 the district court of Noord-Holland convicted a man of choking his partner, relying in part on officers who described her trembling and visibly frightened immediately afterwards, but acquitted him of the alleged systematic denigration of the children because that allegation was not corroborated beyond the general observation that he shouted a great deal (ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2025:6690). Observable, dated, externally witnessed facts are provable; a general characterisation of a relationship is not.
Compensation for psychological harm
A victim can claim damages in tort under art. 6:162 BW, and non-material damages under art. 6:106 BW. The relevant limb is impairment of the person in another manner. The Supreme Court set out the test in 2019: the claimant must in principle establish mental injury with concrete evidence, although in exceptional cases the nature and seriousness of the breach and its consequences can carry the claim without a formal psychiatric diagnosis, and a violation of a fundamental right is not on its own enough (ECLI:NL:HR:2019:376).
That distinction decides real cases in both directions. In November 2025 the court of appeal in Arnhem-Leeuwarden awarded substantial non-material damages to a victim who described anxiety, panic attacks and nightmares, without insisting on a diagnosis, because the nature of the attack and its lasting consequences were established (ECLI:NL:GHARL:2025:7534). But the Supreme Court has repeatedly set aside awards that were not substantiated: in May 2025 and again in February 2026 it quashed damages granted to victims where the appeal court had not made the personal injury concrete (ECLI:NL:HR:2025:774; ECLI:NL:HR:2026:48). A claim for psychological harm therefore has to be built with medical and factual material, not asserted.
The amount is assessed on an equitable basis, taking account of the duration and severity of the conduct, its consequences for the victim and the degree of culpability. A claim can be brought in the civil courts or, where there is a prosecution, joined to the criminal proceedings as an injured party, which is quicker and cheaper but only works where the claim does not require extensive further investigation.
Where children are involved
Children exposed to a pattern of psychological abuse between their parents are themselves affected, and that has consequences in family law. It bears on parental authority, on the residence of the children and on contact arrangements, and it is a factor the court weighs when deciding what the best interests of the child require. Veilig Thuis or the Child Protection Board (Raad voor de Kinderbescherming) may become involved and may ask the children judge for a family supervision order under art. 1:255 BW. Where contact would expose a child to continuing manipulation, contact can be restricted or supervised. These questions are decided on the child interests, not as a sanction against a parent, which is why documented evidence of the effect on the child matters more than the history between the adults. Our family law practice deals with these applications regularly.
If you are the one accused
Allegations of psychological abuse are sometimes made in the middle of a contested separation, and an exclusion order can be imposed within hours on material you have not seen. A person in that position has real procedural rights and should use them at once rather than waiting for the order to expire.
You are entitled to be heard before the order is made unless urgency prevents it, and to see the material the mayor relied on. You can ask the provisional relief judge to suspend or lift the order immediately, and separately lodge an objection with the mayor and, if that fails, appeal to the administrative court. You may put in written evidence, expert reports and witness statements to rebut the allegation. And you can argue proportionality: the Council of State has confirmed that an order resting on conflicting statements and a risk assessment form, without corroborating documents or any earlier history, does not hold (ECLI:NL:RVS:2024:4154). If an order is annulled, compensation for the period of exclusion is possible but not automatic, and requires evidence of the loss and a causal link (ECLI:NL:RVS:2017:2339).
One warning. What you say in the first days is difficult to correct later, and administrative, criminal and family proceedings will feed into each other. Take advice before making a statement.
What to do now
If you recognise this pattern, start with the evidence, because it is the part that cannot be recovered later. Keep a dated record of incidents as they happen and export your messages to a device the other person cannot reach. See your GP or a psychologist, both for your own sake and because a professional assessment made now will carry weight later. Contact Veilig Thuis, the national advice and reporting centre for domestic violence, on 0800-2000; it is free, available around the clock and can set protective measures in motion. Call the police if there is immediate danger, and ask about a domestic exclusion order.
Then decide on a strategy rather than a single step. A criminal complaint, an exclusion order, a civil contact ban and a damages claim serve different purposes and run on different timetables, and the right combination depends on whether you are still living together, whether there are children, and what you can prove. Mediation is generally not the answer here: it presupposes a rough balance between the parties, and where one has spent years dismantling the judgement of the other that balance does not exist.
How Law and More can help
Law and More advises both people subjected to psychological abuse and people facing an allegation of it. We assess what can realistically be proved, apply for or challenge a domestic exclusion order, bring or defend summary proceedings for a contact ban, quantify and pursue a claim for psychological harm, and coordinate the criminal, administrative and family strands so that they do not undermine one another. Our family and divorce lawyers in Eindhoven and Amsterdam handle these matters confidentially. Contact us to discuss your situation.
Frequently asked questions
Is gaslighting a criminal offence under Dutch law?
Not explicitly. Dutch law does not contain a specific criminal offence of gaslighting. However, conduct falling within this category can be prosecuted under existing provisions, primarily as psychological assault under Article 300 Sr (where serious mental harm is caused), threats under Article 285 Sr, or stalking under Article 285b Sr. In January 2025 the district court of Amsterdam convicted a man of assault under Article 300 Sr for a regime of isolation, degradation and deprivation, holding that intentional damage to mental health falls within the offence (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2025:5663).
What evidence do I need to prove gaslighting in court?
Courts require objective evidence alongside the victim’s testimony. The most effective evidence includes a contemporaneous diary, digital communications (emails, WhatsApp messages), medical or psychological reports confirming mental harm, witness statements from those who observed changes in your behaviour, and reports from Veilig Thuis or police. A victim’s testimony alone is insufficient for a criminal conviction; corroborating evidence from an independent source is required under Article 342 lid 2 WvSv.
Can I obtain a restraining order based on psychological abuse alone?
Yes. A temporary domestic exclusion order (tijdelijk huisverbod) can be issued on the basis of psychological domestic violence, including gaslighting, where there is a serious and immediate threat. The threshold is lower than for criminal prosecution. The order may also be combined with a non-contact order. The accused has the right to be heard and may challenge the order before the administrative court.
Can I claim compensation for psychological damage caused by gaslighting?
Yes. You can seek civil damages under Article 6:162 BW (unlawful act) for psychological harm. Non-material damages for personal injury are available under Article 6:106 BW. The Dutch Supreme Court has indicated that, in cases of serious normative violation, compensation may be awarded based on the gravity of the conduct and its consequences—even without a formal psychiatric diagnosis, provided the nature and seriousness of the conduct and its consequences are concretely established (ECLI:NL:GHARL:2025:7534). Where the mental injury is not made concrete, the Supreme Court sets such awards aside (ECLI:NL:HR:2026:48). The amount is determined on an equitable basis.
What if the gaslighting has also affected the children?
Where gaslighting occurs in a family context and the children are exposed to or harmed by the psychological abuse, this may have implications for parental authority and contact arrangements. In serious cases, the Child Protection Board (Raad voor de Kinderbescherming) may become involved and recommend a supervision order (OTS) under Article 1:255 BW. The children’s court will always assess the arrangements in the child’s best interests.
What are coercive control and undue influence, and how do they relate to gaslighting?
Coercive control refers to a pattern of behaviour that seeks to deprive a victim of their autonomy through isolation, surveillance, humiliation, and manipulation. Gaslighting is one of the key tactics used in coercive control. Dutch courts have expressly recognised undue influence, coercive control and gaslighting as distinct techniques: in February 2025 the district court of Zeeland-West-Brabant convicted a man of extortion after years of such manipulation and awarded the victim non-material damages (ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2025:1078). Evidence from criminal proceedings can also be used in civil cases.
What can I do if I have been falsely accused of gaslighting?
You have significant procedural rights to defend yourself. You may submit written evidence and call witnesses, commission an independent expert report, challenge any exclusion or contact order before the administrative court, and apply for urgent suspension of the order. Where an order is unlawfully imposed due to insufficient evidence, you may claim compensation under Article 6:162 BW (ECLI:NL:RVS:2017:2339). Legal representation is strongly advised.
Can evidence from criminal proceedings be used in civil cases about gaslighting?
Yes. Under Article 161 Rv, a final criminal conviction constitutes binding proof of the convicted facts in civil proceedings. Other criminal evidence—such as police reports, expert assessments, and witness statements—may also be used in civil proceedings, with the civil court assessing their weight and relevance. Findings about coercive control and psychological manipulation made in a criminal case are in practice also relied on in family law proceedings about parental authority and contact.
How long does a domestic exclusion order last?
An initial order lasts ten days and may be extended by the mayor for up to 28 days in total. During this period, the accused must not return to the home, make contact with the victim, or collect belongings without authorisation. Breach of the order is a criminal offence. After the exclusion period, the court may impose a longer civil non-contact or exclusion order if the threat persists.
Does Article 8 ECHR (right to family life) protect an accused person from an exclusion order?
Article 8 ECHR applies but does not prevent an exclusion order where a genuine threat exists. Courts apply a proportionality test: the order must be necessary, not go further than required, and must be based on concrete facts. Where these conditions are met, the safety of the victim takes precedence. However, if the order is disproportionate or inadequately substantiated, the accused can invoke Article 8 ECHR to challenge it. Where the mayor has properly substantiated the danger, the courts uphold the order (ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2025:13174).
Is mediation appropriate in cases involving gaslighting?
Mediation requires a degree of balance and good faith between the parties. In cases where one party has subjected the other to a sustained pattern of psychological manipulation, standard mediation is generally not appropriate—the power imbalance makes genuine negotiation impossible and may expose the victim to further harm. Specialist support, including legal representation and therapeutic assistance, is preferable in such situations.
Where can I get immediate help if I am experiencing gaslighting?
You can contact Veilig Thuis (0800-2000), the national advice and reporting centre for domestic violence, which operates 24 hours a day and is free of charge. Your GP can also refer you to specialist psychological support and can document your situation professionally. In urgent cases, contact the police. For legal advice specific to your situation, Law & More’s family and divorce lawyers in Eindhoven and Amsterdam are available for a confidential consultation.
Key legal sources
- Article 300 Sr – assault, including damage to mental health
- Article 284 Sr – coercion; Article 285 Sr – threats; Article 285b Sr – belaging (a complaint offence)
- Article 342 lid 2 Sv – the account of a single witness needs independent support
- Wet tijdelijk huisverbod – temporary domestic exclusion order imposed by the mayor
- Articles 6:162 and 6:106 BW – unlawful act and non-material damages; Article 3:296 BW – injunctions
- Article 8 ECHR – respect for private and family life
- ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2025:5663 – coercive control as assault under Article 300 Sr
- ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2025:1078 – undue influence, coercive control and gaslighting described by the court
- ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2025:6690 – the limits of corroboration for psychological abuse
- ECLI:NL:HR:2019:376 – impairment of the person in another manner under Article 6:106 BW
- ECLI:NL:RVS:2024:4154 and ECLI:NL:RVS:2017:2339 – substantiation of, and compensation for, a domestic exclusion order
- ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2025:13174 – Article 8 ECHR proportionality of a domestic exclusion order
