Preliminary hearing in criminal cases: the regiezitting explained

A preliminary hearing in criminal cases, known in Dutch practice as a regiezitting, is a court hearing held before the trial itself in which the court, the public prosecutor and the defence settle how the case will be prepared. The court rules on requests for further investigation, decides which witnesses will be heard and by whom, deals with pre-trial detention and fixes the timetable. It does not deal with guilt or sentence; that is reserved for the substantive hearing.

The term regiezitting does not appear in the Code of Criminal Procedure (Wetboek van Strafvordering, Sv). It is a practice that has grown up around the statutory rules on the trial hearing, and legally it is a session of the trial court that is opened and then adjourned. What is decided there, however, is governed by real statutory tests, and those tests are the subject of this article. It should not be confused with the pro forma hearing, which serves a different purpose and is dealt with in our article on the pro forma hearing.

When a court schedules a preliminary hearing

Case management hearings are used where the substantive hearing would otherwise be unmanageable. In practice that means large investigations with several defendants, files running to thousands of pages, cases in which many witnesses are to be examined, cases turning on expert evidence such as forensic or financial reports, and cases raising a disputed point of procedure, for instance about the lawfulness of the investigation or the admissibility of the prosecution.

The court decides whether to hold one, usually on the basis of the file and of correspondence from the parties. The defence can ask for one, and a well-reasoned request setting out what needs to be investigated and why it cannot wait is far more likely to succeed than a general complaint that the case is complex. Where a defendant is in pre-trial detention the case will in any event come back before the court at regular intervals, and those moments are often used for case management as well.

Preliminary hearings are not confined to the district court. In complex appeals the court of appeal holds them too, and the same rules on investigation requests apply, with the additional point that requests already refused at first instance need to be renewed and, usually, better substantiated.

What the court decides at a preliminary hearing

Four categories of decision dominate. The first is investigation requests: which witnesses and experts are to be heard, whether the investigating judge (rechter-commissaris) is to conduct further inquiries, and whether additional documents must be added to the file. The second is the composition and completeness of the file, including disputes about material the defence says is missing. The third is pre-trial detention. The fourth is planning: how many days the substantive hearing will take and when.

Decisions are usually given at the hearing itself or shortly afterwards in writing. They are recorded in the official record of the hearing, which matters, because a decision that is not recorded is difficult to rely on later.

The two tests for witness and investigation requests

This is where the preliminary hearing is won or lost, and it turns on which statutory test applies. Dutch law knows two, and the difference is the timing of the request.

If the defendant gives notice of the witnesses he wishes to call to the public prosecutor within the period laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure before the hearing, the defence interest test applies. The witness is called unless it can reasonably be assumed that the defendant will not be prejudiced in his defence by the refusal. That is a relatively generous standard, and it rewards preparation: the deadline is short and it is measured backwards from the hearing date.

If the request comes later, at or after the hearing, the necessity test applies. The court then grants the request only if it considers the further investigation necessary in order to decide the case. That is a stricter standard, applied against the state of the file at that moment, which is why late requests are so often refused. The preliminary hearing exists precisely so that requests are made at a point where the court can still act on them.

A separate line of authority applies to witnesses whose statements the prosecution wants to use as evidence. In its Keskin judgment against the Netherlands in 2021, the European Court of Human Rights held that a defendant who wishes to question a prosecution witness whose statement is used against him does not have to explain why. The Dutch Supreme Court adjusted its case law accordingly later that year. In practice this means the defence should say clearly, in each request, whether the witness is one whose statement forms part of the evidence, because that classification changes the test the court must apply.

Whatever the test, requests are granted on substance rather than on volume. A request that names the witness, states what the witness is expected to say, and explains why that matters for a specific element of the charge or for the reliability of existing evidence, stands a real chance. A list of names does not. Our article on investigative questions in criminal law goes into how those requests are built.

Pre-trial detention at the preliminary hearing

For a defendant in custody the detention question often overshadows everything else. Pre-trial detention requires serious suspicions of an offence for which it is permitted, plus at least one statutory ground: a risk of absconding, a serious risk of reoffending, the interests of the investigation, or, for the most serious offences, the shock to the legal order.

At the hearing the defence can ask for the detention to be lifted, on the basis that the suspicions or the grounds no longer hold, or for it to be suspended, which leaves the detention order in place but releases the defendant under conditions. Conditions typically include a reporting duty, a residence requirement, surrender of a passport, a contact ban or electronic monitoring, and they can be tightened rather than refused outright.

The strength of such a request lies in the alternative it offers. A suspension request that explains where the defendant will live, what work or treatment is available, and which conditions would remove the ground the prosecution relies on, gives the court something to grant. Our articles on pre-trial detention and on the suspension of pre-trial detention set out the grounds and the procedure in full.

Preliminary hearing, pro forma hearing and substantive hearing

Three types of session are easy to confuse, and the difference is one of purpose rather than of formality.

A pro forma hearing exists because a defendant in pre-trial detention cannot simply be held indefinitely while the investigation runs. The case has to be brought before the court at fixed intervals, and where the investigation is not finished the case is formally called and adjourned. The detention decision is reviewed and little else happens, although the defence can and often does use the moment to raise other matters.

A preliminary hearing is about the preparation of the case on the merits. It is scheduled because there is something to decide: investigation requests, the completeness of the file, the timetable. It takes real preparation on all sides and produces decisions that shape the substantive hearing.

The substantive hearing is the trial: the charge is put, the evidence is examined, the prosecutor makes the closing speech and states the sentence sought, the defence pleads and the defendant has the last word. Our guide to the criminal court hearing in the Netherlands describes how that day runs; further background on preparatory hearings generally is in Dutch law preliminary hearings explained.

In practice the categories blur. A hearing listed as pro forma may become a case management hearing because the defence has filed substantiated requests, and a preliminary hearing frequently deals with detention as well. What matters is not the label on the summons but whether requests have been filed in time and properly reasoned.

How to prepare, as a defendant and as counsel

Preparation starts with the file. Counsel reads it in full, identifies what the prosecution intends to rely on, and works out where the evidence is weakest or untested. Only then do the requests take shape, because a request that is not tied to a specific evidential problem is difficult to justify under either test.

The defendant has a part in this. Names of witnesses, documents, telephone data, alibi material and the sequence of events are often known to the defendant and to nobody else, and they need to reach counsel before the deadline for giving notice of witnesses, not after the hearing. Discussing the position honestly with counsel is the point of legal professional privilege; counsel cannot ask for what he does not know about.

Attendance is a separate question. A defendant is generally not obliged to attend a preliminary hearing and can be represented by counsel with written authority. Where pre-trial detention is on the agenda, attendance usually helps, because the court is deciding on that person and personal circumstances carry weight. Where the hearing is purely procedural, counsel alone may be enough, and the court can be asked to excuse attendance.

Finally, keep expectations realistic. A refused request is not the end of the matter: it can be renewed at the substantive hearing if circumstances change or if the evidence develops, and a refusal that turns out to have prejudiced the defence is a ground of appeal. But renewing a request is harder than making it properly the first time.

Mistakes that cost cases

The first is a vague request. Asking to hear a witness because his statement is important, without explaining what he would add and to which part of the case, invites refusal under either test and burns the opportunity.

The second is missing the deadline for giving notice of witnesses to the public prosecutor. The consequence is not that the request is impossible but that it is judged under the stricter necessity test, which is a materially worse position for no reason other than timing.

The third is treating a hearing labelled pro forma as unimportant. Decisions taken there about detention and about the course of the investigation are real decisions, and a hearing attended without preparation is an opportunity handed to the other side.

The fourth is leaving the file unchecked. Where material is missing from the file, or where the defence believes exculpatory material exists that has not been added, the preliminary hearing is the moment to raise it. Complaints made for the first time at the substantive hearing are met with the question why they were not made earlier.

The new Code of Criminal Procedure

The Netherlands has adopted a new Code of Criminal Procedure, which was passed by the Senate in February 2026 and published in the Bulletin of Acts and Decrees in March 2026. It does not take effect all at once: entry into force is arranged book by book by royal decree, and no date has been set for all of it. Until a book enters into force, the present provisions and the present article numbers continue to apply, including those governing investigation requests and pre-trial detention. Anyone reading older commentary should therefore check which version of the Code it describes.

Getting help

A preliminary hearing is the point at which a criminal case is shaped. What is granted there determines what evidence the court will have, and what is refused there is difficult to recover later. That makes it a hearing to prepare for properly rather than one to attend and see what happens.

Law and More assists defendants in complex criminal cases: reading and challenging the file, drafting and arguing investigation requests within the deadlines, applying for the lifting or suspension of pre-trial detention, and conducting the substantive defence. If a preliminary hearing has been listed in your case, or you think one should be requested, contact our criminal law team in good time, because the deadlines run from the hearing date rather than from the moment you decide to act.

The preliminary hearing (regiezitting)