Georgia

The case concerned criminal proceedings for theft against a defendant who had previously been extradited from Georgia to Türkiye on 7 February 2022.The lower court convicted the defendant.The defendant appealed, arguing inter alia that:- prosecution for the present offence violated the specialty principle because the offence was not mentioned in the extradition decision.The Turkish Court of Cassation examined:- the European Convention on Extradition;- Law No. 6706;- the Ministry of Justice Circular No. 69/4.The Court emphasized that under the specialty principle, an extradited person may only be:- prosecuted;- convicted;- or have a sentence enforcedfor offences that formed the basis of the extradition decision. The Court held that the lower court failed to verify whether the theft offence had been included within the extradition granted by Georgia. The Court ruled that:- extradition documents must first be obtained and reviewed;- if the theft offence was not covered, supplementary extradition consent must be requested from Georgian authorities.The conviction was therefore quashed.

The applicant had been convicted in absentia in Türkiye. After it was discovered that he was located in Georgia, Turkish authorities sought extradition.To secure extradition, the Turkish trial court issued a formal assurance under Law No. 3732 implementing the Second Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition, guaranteeing the applicant a renewed trial upon return.Following extradition, however, the domestic court rejected his retrial request.The court reasoned that the ordinary grounds for reopening under the Criminal Procedure Code were not satisfied.The Constitutional Court found this interpretation incompatible with the statutory retrial guarantee specifically governing extradition-based surrender. It held that the refusal rendered the prior extradition assurance ineffective and violated access to court.

The case concerned a fraud conviction rendered in absentia by the Gaziantep 17th Criminal Court of First Instance. Following finalization of the conviction, Turkish authorities sought the convicted person’s extradition from Georgia for sentence enforcement. Because the conviction had been rendered in absentia, Georgian authorities requested assurance under:- Article 3 of the Second Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extraditionthat the convicted person would be granted retrial upon return.The Gaziantep 17th Criminal Court explicitly issued such judicial assurance on 10 March 2022.The person was extradited to Türkiye.After return, he requested retrial. The lower court rejected the request on the ground that no retrial conditions existed. The objection was also rejected.Upon request of the Ministry of Justice, the Turkish Court of Cassation reviewed the matter by extraordinary appeal in the interest of law. The Court held that:- once retrial assurance had been formally given to Georgia,- Turkish courts were legally obliged to honor that assurance.The lower court’s refusal therefore violated both:- the Second Additional Protocol;- Turkish implementing legislation.The rejection decision was quashed.

Where there is a risk of exposure to inhuman or degrading treatment, as attested by reliable international sources, it is incumbent upon the Court of Appeal to request, through a targeted inquiry, supplementary information aimed at determining the specific prison conditions to which the requested person will actually be subjected. Furthermore, where a problematic situation in the prison system of the requesting State has been established, the assessment of the existence of a concrete risk of inhuman or degrading treatment must also be correlated with the particular circumstances of the requested person, including those related to their state of health.

Judicial review of custodial requirements — which is permitted in the phase between the conclusion of the so-called judicial stage and the moment when the Minister of Justice executes the extradition decree — is, however, precluded in the subsequent administrative phase, in which the coercive measure is adopted for the purpose of the physical surrender of the requested person to the requesting State. In this latter phase, the adoption of such measure is exclusively aimed at implementing the practical arrangements for surrender, the extradition decree constituting the legal basis to which reference must be made, without any further assessment of custodial requirements being relevant.