Sweden

The case concerned an extradition request submitted by Sweden against a Swedish national sought for prosecution for aggravated narcotics trafficking. Swedish judicial authorities alleged that the requested person committed large-scale narcotics offences in Stockholm between early 2020 and 2 May 2020. The Solna District Court issued a detention order and Swedish authorities circulated an Interpol Red Notice requesting extradition.The requested person resided in Türkiye under a temporary residence permit issued in Muğla.The Fethiye 1st Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible under Law No. 6706.The defence appealed, arguing inter alia that:- the extradition judgment had not properly been translated and explained;- detention was disproportionate;- Türkiye possessed jurisdiction under Article 13 TCK;- extradition would expose the requested person to anti-Muslim discrimination in Sweden.The Turkish Court of Cassation rejected these objections but partially corrected the lower court’s legal reasoning. The Court held that:- narcotics trafficking offences fall within Türkiye’s universal jurisdiction under Article 13 TCK;- however, Sweden possessed primary territorial jurisdiction because the alleged offences occurred in Sweden;- Türkiye’s jurisdiction in such cases was supplementary rather than exclusive.The Court therefore concluded that:- extradition remained legally permissible despite the existence of Turkish universal jurisdiction.The Court additionally held that:- no evidence existed indicating discriminatory prosecution or torture risk;- procedural defence rights had been respected;- the extradition request satisfied the requirements of the European Convention on Extradition and Law No. 6706.The judgment was therefore corrected and upheld.

Turkey requested the extradition of the requested person for the enforcement of a sentence of six years and three months’ imprisonment for alleged membership in an armed terrorist organisation. The conviction was based mainly on the allegation that the requested person had downloaded and used the encrypted messaging application ByLock, which Turkish authorities associate with the Gülen movement. The Supreme Court of Sweden held that such conduct did not, in itself, amount to punishable participation in a terrorist organisation under Swedish law, and that the requirement of double criminality was therefore not satisfied. The Court further noted that the requested person had been granted refugee status in Sweden because Turkish authorities attributed to him a political opinion linked to the Gülen movement, and that the risk of persecution remained. Extradition was therefore barred under Sections 4 and 7 of the Swedish Extradition Act.

For the purposes of double criminality, it is necessary that, at the time of the decision on the extradition request, the Italian legal system classifies as an offence the conduct for which surrender is sought. However, it is not required that the abstract legal definition of the offence under the requesting State’s law finds an exact counterpart in a provision of Italian law. What must be established is that the conduct, described in its factual (naturalistic) elements, can be subsumed under a criminal offence provided for by the legal system of the requested State.

The case concerned an extradition request submitted by Türkiye for the prosecution of a Turkish national suspected of membership in an armed terrorist organisation, allegedly based on his role as editor-in-chief of a newspaper, contacts with senior members of the Gülen movement and alleged activity as a mouthpiece for that organisation. The Supreme Court of Sweden held that the conduct described in the request — journalistic activity as editor-in-chief of a newspaper — did not correspond to an offence under Swedish law, even if it had links to a designated organisation. The Court further noted that the requested person had been granted refugee status in Sweden on account of a risk of persecution based on a political opinion attributed to him by the Turkish authorities in connection with the Gülen movement. Since the grounds for refugee status remained valid, the Court found that extradition was barred under Swedish extradition law due to the risk of persecution on political grounds. It therefore declared that there were legal obstacles to extradition to Türkiye.

The case concerned a request by the People’s Republic of China for the extradition of QJ, a citizen of Saint Christopher and Nevis, for prosecution in China on allegations of large-scale embezzlement connected to his former position as chief financial officer of a state-owned company. The alleged conduct involved several transactions between 2008 and 2011, with an overall value of approximately 210 million yuan. The Swedish Supreme Court found that most of the alleged offences satisfied double criminality under Swedish law and that there was sufficient probable cause for the prosecution allegations. It also held, however, that extradition was barred on several human rights grounds. First, the Court found an impediment under Swedish extradition law because the requested person had been politically active in connection with demonstrations in Tiananmen Square and later in the Chinese democracy movement, and there was a risk that he would be persecuted on account of his political opinions. Secondly, the Court held that extradition to China would be incompatible with Articles 2, 3 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In particular, the Court relied on the risk of the death penalty, the general and individual risk of torture or inhuman treatment, the lack of sufficient guarantees of an independent and fair trial, and the limited value of possible assurances in light of the structure and functioning of the Chinese criminal justice system. The Supreme Court therefore declared that there were legal impediments to extradition.