Procedural Safeguards and Consent-Based Extradition under Turkish Law in an Extradition Request from Denmark

Share this case

Keywords / Topics

🇬🇧 Summary

Under Turkish Law No. 6706 on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters, extradition proceedings must comply with procedural safeguards, including proper notification of the extradition request and clarification of whether the requested person consents to simplified extradition procedures. Failure to inform the requested person regarding consent-based extradition constitutes a procedural defect affecting defence rights.In extradition proceedings initiated upon a request from Denmark concerning organised-crime-related offences, the defence also relied on Articles 2 and 3 ECHR, alleging risks arising from organised criminal retaliation and insufficient state protection in the requesting State.The Turkish Court of Cassation held that the procedural defect required correction but ultimately upheld the admissibility of extradition.

Cite this case

Need to reference this case in a brief, article or submission?

Legislation

Law No. 6706 on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters (Article 18, Article 19, Article 23),
European Convention on Extradition,
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (Article 2, Article 3, Article 6),
Turkish Criminal Procedure Code (CMK)
Turkish Constitution, Article 38 (prohibition of extradition of citizens and fundamental guarantees)

ECHR References

Soering v. United Kingdom (1989)
Chahal v. United Kingdom (1996)
H.L.R. v. France (1997)
M.S.S. v. Belgium & Greece (2011)
Othman v. United Kingdom (2012)
A.M. v. Switzerland (2022)

CJEU References

None

The case concerned an extradition request submitted by the Kingdom of Denmark against H.R. in relation to allegations including aggravated blackmail, aggravated assault, possession or use of explosive materials, and attempted homicide.
The Doğubayazıt 1st Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible under Law No. 6706 and ordered continuation of detention pending extradition proceedings.
The defence argued that extradition would expose H.R. to serious risks to life and physical integrity due to organised criminal threats allegedly directed against his family in Denmark. The defence relied on Articles 2 and 3 ECHR and referred to Strasbourg jurisprudence concerning risks arising from non-state actors and insufficient state protection.
The defence submitted that:
– a shooting attack had occurred against relatives of H.R. in Denmark shortly after his arrest;
– family members had allegedly received death threats and extortion demands;
– Danish authorities had allegedly failed to provide effective protection.
Reference was made to Strasbourg case law including:
– Soering v. United Kingdom;
– Chahal v. United Kingdom;
– H.L.R. v. France;
– Othman v. United Kingdom.
On appeal, the Turkish Court of Cassation identified procedural deficiencies in the extradition proceedings. In particular, the requested person had not been adequately informed regarding consent-based extradition procedures and related procedural rights under Law No. 6706 and the European Convention on Extradition.
The Court held that these omissions constituted procedural defects affecting defence rights. Nevertheless, the Court considered that the defects could be corrected at appellate level without requiring reversal of the substantive extradition assessment.
The Court therefore corrected the reasoning of the lower court and upheld the conclusion that the extradition request was admissible under Turkish law.