Territorial Jurisdiction and Family-Life Proportionality in Extradition Proceedings under Turkish Law

Share this case

Keywords / Topics

🇬🇧 Summary

The case concerned an extradition request submitted by the Federal Republic of Germany against G.B.F.E., a German national sought for fraud offences allegedly committed in 2018. According to German authorities, the requested person participated in an organized fraud scheme targeting elderly victims in Germany through telephone calls allegedly made from Türkiye.The İzmir 12th Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible under Law No. 6706.The defence appealed, arguing inter alia that:- the requested person did not consent to extradition;- he had long resided in Türkiye;- he was married to a Turkish citizen;- he had a young child living in Türkiye;- extradition would disproportionately interfere with family life;- and he intended to apply for Turkish citizenship.The Turkish Court of Cassation held that the lower court failed to sufficiently investigate whether the alleged offences should legally be regarded as committed in Türkiye under Article 8 of the Turkish Criminal Code.The Court emphasized that:- Turkish law applies where acts are partially committed in Türkiye or where results occur in Türkiye;- the extradition file suggested that the alleged fraudulent telephone calls may have originated from Türkiye;- additional documents and clarification should therefore have been obtained.The Court further stressed that:the requested person’s long-term residence;- family integration;- Turkish spouse;- child living in Türkiye;- required a proportionality assessment under Article 11(4) of Law No. 6706.- The Court also identified deficiencies concerning specialty-principle guarantees under:- Article 10(4) of Law No. 6706;- Article 14 of the European Convention on Extradition.The extradition admissibility judgment was therefore quashed.

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 10(4), Article 11(1)(c)(4), Article 11(4), Article 18)
- Turkish Criminal Code (Article 8)
- Turkish Criminal Procedure Code (Articles 260, 285, 291, 298)
- European Convention on Extradition (Article 14)
- Former Code of Criminal Procedure (Law No. 1412) (Article 321)

ECHR References

Although not expressly cited, the judgment strongly implicates:
- Article 8 ECHR (right to private and family life);
- proportionality principles in extradition proceedings.

CJEU References

None

Academic Commentary

The Federal Republic of Germany requested the extradition of G.B.F.E. for prosecution relating to three fraud offences allegedly committed on 7 June 2018, 12 June 2018, and 13 June 2018.
According to German judicial authorities, the requested person allegedly participated together with other individuals in a telephone fraud organization targeting elderly persons in Germany. Victims were allegedly deceived by callers impersonating police officers and persuaded to withdraw money and valuables for delivery to members of the criminal network.
The extradition file indicated that some of the relevant telephone communications may have originated from Türkiye.
The İzmir 12th Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible under Law No. 6706 on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters.
The defence appealed, arguing that:
– the requested person opposed extradition;
– he had lived in Türkiye for approximately five years;
– he was married to a Turkish citizen;
– he had a seven-month-old child;
– extradition would disproportionately interfere with private and family life;
– he intended to apply for Turkish citizenship.
The Turkish Court of Cassation examined the case under:
– Law No. 6706;
– the European Convention on Extradition;
– Article 8 of the Turkish Criminal Code concerning territorial jurisdiction.
The Court emphasized that under Turkish criminal law, offences are deemed committed in Türkiye where acts are wholly or partially carried out within Turkish territory.
Because the extradition file suggested that the alleged fraudulent telephone activity may have originated from Türkiye, the Court held that additional investigation was necessary to determine:
– whether Turkish territorial jurisdiction existed;
– whether Turkish prosecutorial authorities had initiated proceedings elsewhere in Türkiye;
– whether the offences should legally be regarded as committed in Türkiye.
The Court further stressed the importance of Article 11(4) of Law No. 6706, which allows refusal of extradition where extradition would disproportionately harm the requested person or family members due to long-term residence or family circumstances.
The Court additionally identified deficiencies regarding the specialty principle because German authorities had not expressly guaranteed that the requested person would only be prosecuted for the offences underlying the extradition request.
The judgment was therefore quashed.