Germany

EAW and risk of removal of a mother of a minor child: as clarified by the Court of Justice, refusal of surrender cannot be based solely on the fact that the requested person is a mother of young children living with her. The best interests of the child must be protected, but they do not automatically preclude the execution of an EAW. Nor is it necessary to raise a question of constitutionality in Italy, since the Constitutional Court has already clearly held that the fundamental rights to which the Framework Decision is subject are those recognised under European Union law and, consequently, by all Member States when implementing EU law. It follows that the judicial authorities of the executing State are precluded from refusing surrender outside the cases required or permitted by the Framework Decision, on the basis of purely national standards of protection of fundamental rights that are not shared at the European level.

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.