Aangifte Smaad: Filing a Defamation Complaint in the Netherlands

Dutch law treats defamation as something the state prosecutes only when the person targeted asks it to. Under artikel 269 Sr, smaad, laster and eenvoudige belediging are complaint-only offences (klachtdelicten), so the report (aangifte) is not a formality that starts a machine already in motion. It is the step that decides whether there is a case at all.

One line in the Wetboek van Strafvordering carries most of the risk. Artikel 164 lid 1 Sv provides that a klacht consists of an aangifte together with a request to prosecute. A person who reports the statement to the police and never asks for a prosecution may have done everything else correctly, and in time, and still not have filed the klacht that artikel 269 Sr requires.

This page covers the criminal route: who may file, what the report must contain, how long there is, how the Openbaar Ministerie decides, and what remains when it declines. What smaad and laster actually require as offences, and the separate civil claim, are covered on defamation in the Netherlands.

Information last verified on 21 July 2026. This page provides general legal information about Netherlands law and does not constitute legal advice in an individual case.

A klacht is an aangifte plus a request to prosecute

This is the single sentence to get right. Artikel 164 lid 1 Sv, in the archaic spelling the enacted text still carries, puts it this way:

De klachte bestaat in eene aangifte met verzoek tot vervolging.

An aangifte, on its own, is a report that an offence has been committed. A klacht is that report plus an express request that the person responsible be prosecuted. For an ordinary offence the distinction has no consequence, because the public prosecution service (Openbaar Ministerie) can act without being asked. For a klachtdelict it is decisive: without the request, the condition in artikel 269 Sr is not met.

The fix is a single sentence. The request should be stated at the counter, in the words used to describe what happened, and it should appear in the written record of the report. Artikel 163 lid 5 Sv gives the person reporting (de aangever) a copy of the aangifte or of the official written record of it (proces-verbaal), which is the document on which to check that the request was written down.

Artikel 164 lid 2 Sv makes artikel 163 leden 2, 3 and 5 apply to a klacht as well, so the same rules on writing it up, on language and on receiving a copy hold in both cases.

Which defamation offences need a klacht

Smaad, laster and eenvoudige belediging are klachtdelicten: under artikel 269 Sr they are prosecuted only on the klacht of the person against whom the offence was committed. The article does not work through a list of numbers. It designates the offences by titel rather than by article number: belediging strafbaar krachtens deze titel, that is, belediging punishable under Titel XVI of Boek Tweede Sr. It states no time period of its own.

Two carve-outs sit in the same article, and the second is easy to miss. Artikel 269 lid 2 Sr disapplies the klacht requirement to the cases covered by artikel 267 Sr, and artikel 269 lid 3 Sr disapplies it to insults directed at members of generally representative bodies (leden van algemeen vertegenwoordigende lichamen), such as the Tweede Kamer, Provinciale Staten and a gemeenteraad. In both situations the Openbaar Ministerie can proceed without any klacht at all.

What matters here is only which cases lid 2 lifts out of the klacht requirement. The artikel 267 Sr cases are those where the insult is directed at the King and the immediate royal circle, at an ambtenaar during or in respect of the lawful exercise of office, or at a public body or public institution. Members of algemeen vertegenwoordigende lichamen are expressly excluded from artikel 267 Sr by lid 1 sub 2, and lid 3 of artikel 269 Sr then takes them out of the klacht requirement anyway, so an insult to a councillor carries no enhanced penalty and needs no klacht either. The uplift itself is set out on the page on belediging.

Who is entitled to file

Artikel 64 Sr gives the right to file the klacht to the person against whom the act was committed. That is narrower than the right to report: artikel 161 Sv allows anyone with knowledge of an offence to make an aangifte or a klachte, but a report from a friend, a colleague or an employer does not supply the klacht that artikel 269 Sr asks for.

Artikel 65 Sr covers the substitutions. Where the person designated in artikel 64 Sr is under sixteen, is under curatele other than for verkwisting, or cannot judge whether a klacht serves their interest because of a psychische stoornis, psychogeriatrische aandoening or verstandelijke handicap, the klacht is filed by their wettige vertegenwoordiger in burgerlijke zaken (lid 1).

If that person has died, artikel 65 lid 2 Sr gives the right to their parents, their children and their surviving spouse, unless it appears that the deceased did not want a prosecution. Artikel 65 lid 3 Sr handles the case where the klacht has to be made against the legal representative: it then passes to the spouse, to a bloedverwant in de rechte linie, or, failing all of those, to a brother and a sister.

Three months, and the day the clock starts

The klacht period is three months, and under artikel 66 Sr it runs from the day the person entitled to file learned of the act, not from the date of publication. The statutory trigger is kennis heeft genomen van het gepleegde feit, so the date on the post, the letter or the broadcast is not what matters.

A worked example makes the difference concrete. Suppose a defamatory post appears on an obscure forum on 3 February 2026 and the person it names first hears about it on 20 April 2026. The three months run from 20 April, so the klacht can be filed until 20 July 2026, even though the statement is more than five months old by then. The date of awareness can be contested, which is why it is usually documented.

Artikel 66 lid 2 Sr closes off the obvious extensions. Once the period has begun, the death of the person against whom the act was committed, or the loss, acquisition or reacquisition of the right to file, does not stop or lengthen it. The text is explicit that the period runs on without extension: loopt deze termijn zonder verlenging door.

How the report is actually made

Artikel 163 lid 1 Sv provides that an aangifte is made orally or in writing with the competent official, either by the aangever in person or by someone else holding a special written authority (een bijzondere schriftelijke volmacht) for that purpose. A written aangifte is signed by the aangever or that representative (lid 4).

An oral report is not a lesser one. Under artikel 163 lid 2 Sv the official receiving it puts it in writing, reads it back, and then signs it together with the aangever or the authorised representative, with the reason recorded if the aangever cannot sign. That written record is also why an oral report normally ends up satisfying the written element that artikel 268 Sr uses.

Artikel 163 lid 3 Sv is directly useful to anyone whose Dutch is limited: a person who does not understand or speak Dutch sufficiently must be enabled to make the aangifte in a language they do understand or speak, or be given the necessary linguistic assistance. Artikel 163 lid 7 Sv adds a translation of the written confirmation on request.

On the online route, the statute supports less than most readers expect. Artikel 163 lid 4 Sv permits an aangifte to be transferred electronically only through a facility designated by or under an algemene maatregel van bestuur, and only for the offences that facility allows. The list of permitted offences is not in the article, so whether a smaad report can go through the online channel is a question for the police channel actually used, and the oral and written routes remain available in any case.

Receiving the klacht is not discretionary. Artikel 165 lid 1 Sv states that every public prosecutor (officier van justitie) and every hulpofficier van justitie is bevoegd en verplicht, competent and obliged, to receive it.

Eight days to withdraw

Artikel 67 Sr provides that the person who filed the klacht remains competent to withdraw it for eight days after the day of filing. The article sets no conditions and no other window, which matters where a report is made in the first heat of a dispute that is then settled directly.

The eight days sit inside the three months of artikel 66 Sr and do not extend them. Nothing in artikel 67 Sr addresses what happens after a withdrawal, so it should not be read as a general right to reconsider later.

The Openbaar Ministerie decides whether to prosecute

Artikel 167 lid 1 Sv provides that where, in the light of the investigation, the Openbaar Ministerie considers that a prosecution should take place, whether by issuing an out-of-court punishment order (strafbeschikking) or otherwise, it proceeds to that as soon as possible. Artikel 167 lid 2 Sv then states the principle of prosecutorial discretion (opportuniteitsbeginsel): a prosecution may be waived on grounds derived from the algemeen belang, and the decision may also be deferred on conditions for a set period.

So a valid klacht is a necessary condition for a prosecution, not a sufficient one. Filing one does not oblige the Openbaar Ministerie to bring a case, and the police neither take that decision nor run the case afterwards. The statutory ground for declining is stated in the broadest terms the code has, gronden aan het algemeen belang ontleend, and the assessment belongs to the Openbaar Ministerie on the file in front of it.

If the case is dropped: beklag at the gerechtshof

Artikel 12 lid 1 Sv gives a rechtstreeks belanghebbende the right to lodge a written complaint (beklag) with the court of appeal (gerechtshof) where an offence is not prosecuted, a prosecution is not continued, or the case is dealt with by a strafbeschikking. The competent gerechtshof is the one in whose rechtsgebied the decision was taken, with separate rules for decisions by the landelijk parket and the functioneel parket, which go to the gerechtshof Den Haag. Artikel 12 lid 2 Sv extends the notion of rechtstreeks belanghebbende to a legal person whose objects and actual activities make it directly affected, and artikel 12 lid 4 Sv allows the written complaint (klaagschrift) to be transferred electronically.

Artikel 12i Sv sets out what the gerechtshof can do. If the beklag is admissible and the gerechtshof finds that a prosecution should have been brought or continued, it orders that this be done; it may also refuse to give that order on grounds derived from the algemeen belang. Artikel 12 lid 3 Sv rules out a beklag where there is already an irrevocable final decision as referred to in artikel 482a Sv.

Three separate three-month periods, and how to keep them apart

Three-month periods appear at different points in this procedure and they are not the same period. Artikel 12 Sv lays down no general deadline for a beklag at all; the two limits below are tied to particular situations.

Two qualifications belong with the table. Artikel 12k lid 2 Sv allows a beklag after that period where the strafbeschikking is not fully executed, and artikel 12l lid 1 Sv bars a beklag entirely for offences for which the suspect has been buiten vervolging gesteld or has been served with a decision that the case has ended.

A false report is itself an offence

The counterweight on a page about how to file is artikel 268 Sr. It punishes the person who intentionally submits, or has put in writing, a false klacht or aangifte with a public authority against a specific person, whereby that person's honour or good name is attacked. The offence is called lasterlijke aanklacht.

The elements are demanding: intent, a specific target, a report to the overheid, in writing or reduced to writing, that is false, and resulting damage to honour or good name. The fault word is opzettelijk, so a report made in good faith which the Openbaar Ministerie later declines to take further is a different thing from one that is deliberately false, and the article is aimed at the second.

The maximum is two years of prison (gevangenisstraf) or a fine (geldboete) of the fourth category, EUR 27,500 under the amounts applicable from 1 January 2026. A category is a ceiling rather than a tariff, because artikel 24 Sr requires the court to take the defendant's means (draagkracht) into account. How the categories are set and when they change is covered on the page on belediging.

The civil claim is a separate route

A civil claim under artikel 6:162 BW runs independently of the criminal route: it needs no klacht and is not bound by the three-month klachttermijn. It is also the route that produces a rectificatie, a takedown or damages, none of which a criminal prosecution delivers to the person defamed. The elements, the forum and the kort geding option are set out on defamation in the Netherlands, and where the statement is an insult rather than the imputation of a specific fact, see belediging. The Netherlands defamation law section maps how the criminal and civil routes fit together.