Greece Extradition Law — Case Law, Legal Framework and Procedure

Extradition cases involving Greece — Requested and Requesting State

🇬🇷

Greece

Greece Extradition Law & Case Law — 12 cases

1
As requested
state
11
As requesting
state
Case Law
EAW remitted for individualised assessment of detention conditions in Greece
✕
Summary
The requested person challenged an Italian appellate decision authorising surrender to Greece under a European Arrest Warrant issued for prosecution for attempted murder and aggravated robbery. The Court held that the risk of inhuman or degrading treatment must be assessed also in relation to prosecution EAWs and requires an individualised examination of the actual detention conditions awaiting the requested person, including available personal space, overcrowding, time outside the cell, staffing levels and other compensating factors. It found that the appellate court had accepted the information supplied by the Greek authorities without sufficiently assessing whether those conditions complied with Article 3 ECHR and Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The judgment was therefore quashed and remitted for a new assessment of prison conditions, while the separate complaint concerning an alleged risk of discrimination connected with the requested person’s Kurdish ethnicity was dismissed.
13/08/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 31286/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇬🇷Greece
Reversal and remandEAW
EAW for prosecution: supplementary information cannot be sought for exploratory Purposes
✕
Summary
The Italian Court of Appeal ordered the surrender of a person sought by Greece under a European Arrest Warrant issued for prosecution in connection with aggravated theft and participation in a criminal organisation. The requested person challenged the adequacy of the factual information in the EAW, the failure to seek supplementary information, the continuing validity of the underlying arrest warrant and the failure to recognise his family and professional integration in Italy. The Supreme Court held that the EAW contained the minimum information required to identify the alleged conduct and that supplementary information may be requested only where necessary to decide on surrender, not for exploratory purposes or to reassess the evidential basis of the accusation. It also held that the requested person had failed to prove the stable and continuous five-year residence required for the safeguard applicable to prosecution EAWs, and declared the appeal inadmissible.
17/07/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 27353/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇬🇷Greece
GrantedEAW
Surrender refused where deliberate absence was not established and retrial rights depended on a further judicial determination
✕
Summary
Greece sought the surrender of a married couple to serve sentences imposed in their absence for grievous bodily harm with intent and assisting the offender. The Court held that the issuing judicial authority had not proved that the requested persons deliberately absented themselves from trial, since there was insufficient evidence that they knew of the scheduled proceedings or had unequivocally waived their right to attend. Their possibility of obtaining a retrial was also insufficient under section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003 because it depended on the Greek court first determining that specified procedural conditions, a breach of procedural rules or force majeure had been established. The Court additionally found that assurances concerning their detention could not be relied upon in light of two significant previous breaches and that surrender would therefore expose them to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR; both requested persons were discharged.
28/05/2026 · Westminster Magistrates’ Court
🇬🇧United Kingdom → 🇬🇷Greece
DeniedExtradition
Surrender to Greece refused in NGO Migration case: no double criminality and risk to freedom of expression
✕
Summary
The case concerned a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Greek authorities against the founder and administrator of an NGO active in the field of migration, who was accused of participation in a criminal organization, facilitating unlawful entry, and facilitating unlawful residence of third-country nationals in Greece. The requested person argued that his activities were humanitarian in nature and that the prosecution was aimed at silencing his criticism of Greek migration practices. The Hålogaland Court of Appeal held that the conduct described in the arrest warrant did not satisfy the requirement of double criminality under Norwegian law, noting that the requested person had been present in Norway at the time of the alleged acts, thereby triggering the territoriality-based double criminality rule under section 8(1)(k) of the Arrest Order Act. The court further found that several aspects of the alleged conduct were protected under Norway’s obligations arising from the Refugee Convention and international human rights law. It also identified concrete indications that the prosecution entailed a real risk of interference with the requested person’s freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR, referring to documented concerns regarding the misuse of criminal proceedings against migration human rights defenders in Greece. The request for surrender was therefore unanimously refused.
15/05/2026 · Hålogaland Court of Appeal · 26-050254SAK-HALO
🇳🇴Norway → 🇬🇷Greece
DeniedEAW
Preliminary reference on effective judicial protection where Greek prosecutor issues prosecution EAW
✕
Summary
The case concerned a Greek European Arrest Warrant issued for both prosecution and the execution of custodial sentences. The District Court of Amsterdam delivered an interim decision referring a preliminary question to the Court of Justice of the European Union on the requirement of effective judicial protection. The Court noted that the case was comparable to Wertergen, a pending preliminary-reference case concerning judicial protection against the decision of a Greek public prosecutor to issue a prosecution EAW. Since the requested person was in surrender detention, the Court also requested that the reference be dealt with under the urgent preliminary ruling procedure.
06/05/2026 · District Court of Amsterdam · ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2026:6385; Case number 13-248279-25
🇳🇱Netherlands → 🇬🇷Greece
Procedural orderEAW
EAW, risk of inhuman or degrading treatment and request of “individualized” information
✕
Summary
The Court of Appeal must carry out a specific assessment where the requested person, on the basis of objective, reliable, precise and properly updated elements, alleges a serious risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in the issuing State. Once the existence of a general and current risk of inhuman treatment in the Member State has been established on the basis of reliable sources, it is necessary to verify whether, in the конкрет case, the person subject to the European Arrest Warrant would actually be exposed to such treatment. Accordingly, a targeted inquiry must be conducted in order to ascertain—through “individualised” information to be requested from the issuing State—the specific detention conditions to which the requested person will be subjected, with particular regard to those aspects identified by reliable sources as critical and capable of giving rise to a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment.
06/06/2025 · Italian Supreme Court · 21486/2025
🇮🇹Italy → 🇬🇷Greece
Reversal and remandEAW
EAW, risk of inhuman or degrading treatment and assessment by the judicial authority
✕
Summary
Once the existence of a current, general risk of inhuman treatment in the issuing Member State has been established on the basis of reliable sources, it must then be assessed whether, in the specific case, the person subject to the European Arrest Warrant would be exposed to such treatment. Accordingly, a targeted assessment must be carried out to determine—through “individualised” information to be requested from the issuing State—the concrete conditions of detention to which the requested person will be subjected, with particular regard to those aspects identified by reliable sources as critical and capable of giving rise to a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. Where the content of such information excludes that risk, the Court of Appeal must, in accordance with the principle of mutual recognition, simply take note of it and proceed with the surrender, without requiring any additional guarantees regarding detention conditions. Conversely, where the risk is not excluded and the Court of Appeal must refuse surrender, the decision on surrender is to be regarded as issued “on the basis of the state of the file”, so that it may be reassessed if and when the obstacle to surrender ceases to exist.
18/02/2025 · Italian Supreme Court · 6981/2025
🇮🇹Italy → 🇬🇷Greece
GrantedEAW
EAW and sought person’s right to seek a retrial in the issuing State
✕
Summary
In the context of a European Arrest Warrant, a surrender decision is lawful even where no Italian translation of the judgment underlying the request has been provided. Moreover, where the European Arrest Warrant expressly states that the requested person has the right to seek a retrial in the issuing State and that, following surrender, he will be expressly informed of that right, the condition required for surrender pursuant to a so-called “executive” warrant must be considered satisfied.
11/02/2025 · Italian Supreme Court · 5794/2025
🇮🇹Italy → 🇬🇷Greece
GrantedEAW
Post-Brexit surrender to the United Kingdom upheld under the TCA subject to a life-sentence review guarantee
✕
Summary
Greek Supreme Court (Areios Pagos) Decision No. 158/2024 – Brief SummaryIn Decision No. 158/2024, the Greek Supreme Court (Areios Pagos) dismissed the appeal of a British national against a decision authorising his surrender to the United Kingdom for prosecution on multiple serious offences, including sexual offences against minors, assault, and threatening behaviour.The Court held that, following Brexit, surrender proceedings between Greece and the United Kingdom are governed exclusively by the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA), which replaced both the European Arrest Warrant framework and the 1957 European Convention on Extradition in relations between the UK and EU Member States.The Supreme Court found that the UK arrest warrant complied with all formal and substantive requirements of the TCA, including a sufficiently detailed description of the alleged offences, the applicable legal provisions, and the potential penalties. It emphasised that the executing judicial authority is not required to examine the merits of the criminal accusations but only to verify compliance with the surrender conditions laid down in the Agreement.The Court rejected the appellant's arguments concerning insufficient information, proportionality, statute of limitations, and alleged risks of unfair treatment or inhuman conditions in Scotland. In particular, it held that the limitation defence under Article 601(1)(d) TCA was inapplicable because the alleged offences had been committed abroad by a foreign national and therefore did not fall within Greek criminal jurisdiction, which means that the statutes of limitation under Greek law does not pose a reason to deny extradition request.Finally, the Court concluded that none of the mandatory or optional grounds for refusing surrender under the TCA were applicable. It therefore upheld the execution of the UK arrest warrant, maintained the requested person's detention pending surrender, and ordered him to pay the procedural costs of the appeal.
24/01/2024 · Greek Supreme Court (Areios Pagos) · 158/2024
🇬🇷Greece → 🇬🇧United Kingdom
GrantedExtradition
EAW to Greece: offence committed in the requested State and stable social integration in the national territory
✕
Summary
The requested individual allegedly sent a package containing drugs from France to Greece. The judges of the requested State, France, found that the offence occurred on French territory. The decision also highlights the requested individual’s integration in France, where he resided with his family, consisting of his wife and three young children, aged 7, 6 and 3.
05/10/2022 · Appeal Court of Aix-en-Provence · 208/MAE/2022, 2022/03221
🇫🇷France → 🇬🇷Greece
DeniedEAW
Territorial Jurisdiction and Statute of Limitations as Grounds for Refusal of Extradition under Turkish Law
✕
Summary
The case concerned an extradition request submitted by Greece against a Ukrainian national convicted of migrant smuggling.Greek judicial authorities alleged that the requested person transported ten Iraqi nationals from İstanbul toward Greece in June 2001. The Greek Chalkida Three-Member Criminal Court sentenced the requested person to:- 9 years and 1 month imprisonment;- a substantial monetary fine.Greek authorities subsequently initiated extradition proceedings for enforcement of the sentence.The Bakırköy 3rd Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible.The Turkish Court of Cassation quashed the judgment. The Court first provided a broad doctrinal explanation of extradition law under:- the Turkish Constitution;- the European Convention on Extradition;- Turkish Criminal Code Article 18.The Court emphasized that extradition must be refused where:- the offence falls within Turkish territorial jurisdiction;- or prosecution is time-barred.Applying Article 8 of the Turkish Criminal Code, the Court held that the alleged migrant-smuggling offence was deemed partially committed in Türkiye because the migrants were allegedly transported from İstanbul toward Greece.The Court further held that:- the alleged conduct constituted an offence under Turkish law at the relevant time;- the applicable Turkish limitation period had expired.The Court therefore concluded that extradition was legally impermissible under:- Article 7(1) ECE;- Article 10 ECE;- Article 18(1)(d-e) TCK.The Court additionally identified several procedural deficiencies, including:- absence of adequate identification materials;- failure to provide the requested person with the right of final statement;- insufficient reasoning in the judgment.The extradition admissibility judgment was quashed and the requested person was ordered released.
23/01/2013 · Turkish Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), 9th Criminal Chamber · E. 2012/10020, K. 2013/1180
🇹🇷Turkey → 🇬🇷Greece
DeniedExtradition
Surrender to Greece refused: issuing authority failed to provide required supporting information
✕
Summary
The case concerned a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Greek judicial authority for drug-related offences, including introduction, purchase, transport and possession of narcotic substances. The requested person had been arrested in Italy and placed under a coercive measure, later replaced by an obligation to reside in a specified municipality. The Court of Appeal of Bologna requested supplementary documentation from the Greek authorities, including the restrictive measure underlying the warrant, if different from the judgment already transmitted, and the report required under Italian EAW legislation, with particular reference to the sources of evidence. The Greek authorities replied that there were no further restrictive measures beyond the transmitted judgment and that the only source of evidence was the requested person’s failure to appear. The Court held that, despite its request, the required documentation under Articles 6, 16 and 17 of Law No. 69/2005 had not been provided. In particular, the issuing authority failed to transmit a sufficiently detailed report clarifying the facts and evidentiary elements supporting the warrant. The Court therefore refused surrender and declared the coercive measure ineffective.
10/07/2008 · Court of Appeal of Bologna · 2417/2008
🇮🇹Italy → 🇬🇷Greece
Rejected (procedural grounds)EAW
Country Contributor
Georgios Fouskarinis
Karydas – Fouskarinis & Associates Law Office
Georgios Fouskarinis is Managing Partner at Karydas – Fouskarinis & Associates Law Office, focusing on complex criminal litigation, white collar crime, extradition proceedings and cross-border litigation.
He is admitted to the Athens Bar Association and holds an LL.M. in Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure and Human Rights from the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, where he is also a PhD c. in Criminal Law. He has been a Visiting Researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law in Freiburg.
His practice encompasses the full spectrum of criminal defense work, including organized crime, financial crime, fraud, money laundering, corruption-related offences, corporate criminal liability and criminal investigations involving individuals and businesses.
He regularly advises domestic and international clients facing criminal exposure in Greece and has significant experience in matters involving international judicial cooperation.
Georgios has developed a particular focus on extradition proceedings, European Arrest Warrants and Interpol-related matters. He has successfully represented foreign nationals in criminal proceedings before the Greek courts and has advised clients in cases involving multiple jurisdictions, international arrest requests and cross-border enforcement mechanisms.
In addition to his litigation practice, he has acted as a legal expert on Greek law before courts and legal proceedings in the United Kingdom and the United States, providing expert opinions on issues of Greek criminal law, criminal procedure and extradition law.
His professional approach combines courtroom advocacy, strategic litigation and rigorous academic analysis. He is known for developing legally sophisticated defense strategies in complex criminal matters and for advising clients on criminal risk management in situations involving Greece.
He regularly publishes in legal journals and acts as a scientific associate in legal publications.
Country Contributor
Alexis Anagnostakis
Anagnostakis Law Offices
Driven by a deep passion for justice, Alexis Anagnostakis has dedicated his career to defending human rights and upholding the rule of law.
Born in Athens in 1978 and a graduate of the Law School of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (2001), he is a barrister with over two decades of experience in criminal law, practising under the Athens Bar Association with rights of audience before the Hellenic Supreme Court and the Council of State.
He is admitted to the International Criminal Court's List of Counsel, defending individuals accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, while safeguarding their right to a fair trial and navigating the complexities of international criminal justice.
As a member of the International Criminal Court Bar Association, he advances international criminal law principles through professional development, advocacy, and the exchange of legal expertise.
Separately, he is regularly instructed as an expert witness on Greek criminal procedure and human rights compliance in extradition proceedings before the UK's Westminster Magistrates' Court.
Throughout his career, he has focused on safeguarding human rights, fair trials, and the rule of law in Europe, holding key positions including:
• Human Rights Officer and Chairman of the ECBA Human Rights Committee
• Advisory Board Member of the European Criminal Bar Association
• International Officer of the Defence Extradition Lawyers Forum (UK)
• Co-Chair of the European Criminal Justice Observatory
• Member of the Coalition's Steering Committee for Endangered Lawyers' Day 2024
Within the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE), he serves on the Criminal Law, Human Rights, and Anti-Money Laundering Committees, and the Surveillance Working Group. He is also active in the European Fraud and Compliance Lawyers, the Victims of Crime Association of Lawyers, and Friends of ERA.
As a member of the European Commission's Expert Group on Anti-SLAPP, he contributes expertise on strategic lawsuits against public participation and EU rule-of-law policy — work that is distinct from, and additional to, his extradition practice noted above. His litigation practice extends to successful representations before the European Court of Human Rights, the Court of Justice of the European Union, and the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, with publications in Greek and European legal journals.
Need legal assistance?

Extradition proceedings involving Greece

Contact a specialist lawyer with proven experience in extradition cases.

Contact →