🇹🇷

Turkey

Extradition Law & Case Law

27
As requested
state
17
As requesting
state
Case Law
Extradition to Turkey refused: naturalized Brazilian status and generic FETÖ/PDY allegations barred surrender
✕
Summary
The case concerned an extradition request submitted by Turkey, based on reciprocity, for the prosecution of a naturalized Brazilian citizen accused of membership in the armed terrorist organisation FETÖ/PDY. The Brazilian Supreme Federal Court refused extradition on two independent grounds. First, the Court held that the requested person had acquired Brazilian nationality in January 2012, whereas the alleged offence was said to have occurred in April 2017. Since the offence was allegedly committed after naturalization, and there was no allegation of prior common crime or drug trafficking, Article 5, LI, of the Brazilian Constitution created an absolute constitutional bar to extradition. Secondly, the Court found that the Turkish request did not clearly and precisely individualize the requested person’s conduct. The allegations referred generally to his links with cultural and educational activities, alleged use of ByLock, bank movements and alleged association with FETÖ/PDY, but failed to explain with sufficient specificity his role, hierarchy or concrete contribution to the alleged terrorist organisation. The Court held that such lack of individualization prevented verification of double criminality under Brazilian law. The extradition request was therefore unanimously refused.
01/06/2026 · Brazilian Supreme Federal Court · EXT 1927 / DF
🇧🇷Brazil → 🇹🇷Turkey
DeniedExtradition
Extradition to Turkey refused due to risk of inhuman or degrading treatment
✕
Summary
If there is a current and concrete risk of a violation of the fundamental rights of the requested person, the extradition request must be refused. After reconstructing the procedural background and confirming that the formal requirements for extradition were met, the Court ruled out surrender on the ground that, if transferred to Turkey, the requested person would face a concrete risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. In particular, the Court relied on the updated picture of systemic concerns regarding the protection of fundamental rights in Turkey, with specific reference to detention conditions, the independence of the judiciary, the protection of fair trial rights, and the effectiveness of the guarantees arising under the ECHR. Referring to domestic and supranational case law, as well as several institutional and international sources, the Court held that any assurances provided by the requesting State were not sufficient, in the absence of objective, precise and up-to-date elements, to rule out the risk of violations of the requested person’s fundamental rights.
26/05/2026 · Court of Appeal of Milan · 60/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇹🇷Turkey
DeniedExtradition
European Convention on Extradition and assessment, by the Italian Judicial Authority, if the evidentiary framework is weak
✕
Summary
Where the 1957 European Convention on Extradition applies — which does not provide for an autonomous assessment of the evidentiary material by the authority of the requested State in cases of extradition for prosecution — the Italian judicial authority, on the one hand, must not confine itself to a merely formal review of the documentation attached to the surrender request and, on the other hand, is required to ascertain that the request sets out the reasons why, from the perspective of the requesting State, the commission of the offence attributed to the accused person was considered probable, without any possibility of directly examining the sources of evidence. Accordingly, even within the limits of a summary assessment as to the seriousness of the evidentiary indications, the requested authority must nevertheless assess, on the basis of the documents produced and the content of the request, the specificity of the charges and of the sources of evidence. That being clarified, where the evidentiary framework is sparse, Italian courts cannot rely on unsatisfactory and merely apparent reasoning, without specifying the allegations and the sources of evidence or investigative findings capable of linking the facts to the charges.
07/05/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 18521/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇹🇷Turkey
Reversal and remandExtradition
Extradition to Turkey, precautionary measures and prognosis on extradition
✕
Summary
Article 714 requires, for the adoption of a coercive measure aimed at securing surrender, a prognostic assessment as to whether the conditions exist for a judgment granting extradition. This provision constitutes an unavoidable “safeguard” for the requested person, as it prevents the risk of unjustified restrictions on his personal liberty and introduces a threshold already at the moment when the Court must decide whether to impose the coercive measure — and also when it is called upon to decide on an application for revocation or replacement of the measure. Therefore, especially if the request comes from a State — Turkey — whose situation is extremely complex, in light of the circumstances specifically documented by the defence concerning the risk of violations of the requested person’s fundamental rights, the Court cannot omit the prognostic assessment.
30/04/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 20104/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇹🇷Turkey
Decision on precautionary measureExtradition
Procedural Safeguards and Consent-Based Extradition under Turkish Law in an Extradition Request from Denmark
✕
Summary
Under Turkish Law No. 6706 on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters, extradition proceedings must comply with procedural safeguards, including proper notification of the extradition request and clarification of whether the requested person consents to simplified extradition procedures. Failure to inform the requested person regarding consent-based extradition constitutes a procedural defect affecting defence rights.In extradition proceedings initiated upon a request from Denmark concerning organised-crime-related offences, the defence also relied on Articles 2 and 3 ECHR, alleging risks arising from organised criminal retaliation and insufficient state protection in the requesting State.The Turkish Court of Cassation held that the procedural defect required correction but ultimately upheld the admissibility of extradition.
12/01/2026 · Turkish Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), 5th Criminal Chamber · E. 2025/11836, K. 2026/84
🇹🇷Turkey → 🇩🇰Denmark
GrantedExtradition
Flight risk: the decision cannot be based only on criminal records or severity of the sentence
✕
Summary
In matters of flight risk, neither prior convictions nor the severity of the sentence can, in themselves, establish proof of a risk of absconding, as they are abstract considerations from which it is not possible to infer a genuine intention to evade the decision that the Court of Appeal will ultimately take at the end of the proceedings. In particular, while the severity of the sentence is an element of undeniable relevance, it cannot be regarded as the sole benchmark; rather, it must be assessed in conjunction with other specific factors capable of demonstrating a concrete likelihood that the requested person may clandestinely abscond.
30/12/2025 · Italian Supreme Court · 39/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇹🇷Turkey
Reversal and remandExtradition
Application of the speciality principle in Post-Extradition Criminal Proceedings
✕
Summary
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.
02/10/2025 · Turkish Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), 2nd Criminal Chamber · E. 2025/10783, K. 2025/17117
🇹🇷Turkey → 🇬🇪Georgia
GrantedExtradition
Indirect refoulement risk through safe third country and protection against onward extradition
✕
Summary
The applicant, a Chinese national of Uyghur Muslim origin, challenged a deportation order issued by Turkish migration authorities.The authorities designated Kyrgyzstan as a safe third country.The applicant argued that removal to Kyrgyzstan created a substantial risk of onward surrender to China, where he faced possible persecution due to his ethnic and religious identity.He submitted evidence indicating prior transfers of Uyghurs from Kyrgyzstan to Chinese authorities.The administrative court rejected his challengeThe Constitutional Court held that domestic courts failed to conduct sufficient scrutiny of:- direct removal risk to China;- indirect surrender risk through Kyrgyzstan;- country-specific human rights concerns.The Court found that effective procedural safeguards against refoulement had not been provided.
01/10/2025 · Constitutional Court of Türkiye, Second Section · Application No. 2022/108353
🇹🇷Turkey → 🇨🇳China
Rejected (procedural grounds)Extradition
Procedural Safeguards and Sufficiency of Extradition Documents in Extradition Proceedings under Turkish Law
✕
Summary
The case concerned an extradition request submitted by the Russian Federation against a person sought for the offence of establishing a criminal organization.The Ankara 33rd Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible under Law No. 6706 and the bilateral treaty between Türkiye and the Russian Federation.The defence appealed, arguing inter alia that:- the extradition request contained contradictory and incomplete information;- the alleged conduct, place of commission, and applicable legal provisions were insufficiently specified;- the requested person risked politically motivated prosecution;- extradition could expose the requested person to torture, ill-treatment, or disproportionate punishment;- defence rights had been violated;- and proportionality and family circumstances had not been properly considered.The Turkish Court of Cassation held that:additional information and supporting evidence should have been requested from the Russian Federation;the alleged acts should have been concretely specified regarding place, time, and manner of commission;translated and certified evidentiary materials linking the requested person to the alleged offence should have been obtained;double criminality and limitation-period assessments required further clarification.The Court further found that:- the requested person had not properly been informed about consent-based extradition procedures;- defence rights had been restricted because extradition materials had not been properly disclosed;- specialty-principle guarantees had not been reflected in the judgment;- and the lower court failed to assess family integration, long-term residence, health conditions, and proportionality under Article 11(4) of Law No. 6706.The extradition admissibility judgment was therefore quashed.
16/09/2025 · Turkish Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), 4th Criminal Chamber · E. 2025/5784, K. 2025/13611
🇹🇷Turkey → 🇷🇺Russia
Rejected (procedural grounds)Extradition
In Absentia Convictions and Defence Rights in Extradition Proceedings under Turkish Law
✕
Summary
The case concerned an extradition request submitted by the Republic of Kazakhstan against G.K. for alleged embezzlement offences committed between 2014 and 2016.The Bakırköy 20th Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible under Law No. 6706.The defence appealed, arguing inter alia that:- insufficient time had been provided for defence preparation;- the requested person had already been convicted in absentia in Kazakhstan in 2024;- the extradition file was outdated because it relied on a 2019 extradition request;- additional documents concerning the alleged conviction should have been obtained;- the prosecution was politically motivated;- extradition would expose the requested person to torture and ill-treatment;- specialty guarantees had not been properly addressed.The Turkish Court of Cassation held that the lower court failed to sufficiently investigate whether:- in absentia proceedings had occurred;- a conviction had become final;- defence rights had been respected in the requesting State.The Court emphasized that under:- Article 4(1)(ç) of Law No. 6706;- Article 18(2) of Law No. 6706;- and the bilateral judicial cooperation agreement between Türkiye and Kazakhstan,supplementary information and updated documentation should have been requested before assessing extradition admissibility.The Court therefore quashed the judgment.
15/09/2025 · Turkish Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), 5th Criminal Chamber · E. 2025/6330, K. 2025/9054
🇹🇷Turkey → 🇰🇿Kazakhstan
Rejected (procedural grounds)Extradition
Remaining sentence calculation and principle of speciality in extradition proceedings under Turkish Law
✕
Summary
The case concerned an extradition request submitted by the United Kingdom against H.D.B. for the execution of the remaining portion of a sentence imposed for intentional bodily harm.The extradition request arose after the requested person allegedly violated parole conditions relating to a six-year prison sentence imposed by the Wood Green Crown Court in 2008.The Aydın 4th Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible under Law No. 6706.The defence appealed, arguing inter alia that:- the sentence had effectively been completed following release in 2019;- the UK execution system had subsequently changed;- extradition would expose the requested person to disproportionate and inhuman punishment;- the extradition request failed to clearly specify the remaining executable sentence;- specialty-principle safeguards were insufficient.The Turkish Court of Cassation held that the lower court failed to sufficiently determine the exact remaining custodial sentence still executable in the United Kingdom.The Court emphasized that:- extradition detention may not exceed the remaining enforceable sentence;- proportionality assessment required clarification of the precise balance of sentence remaining;- supplementary information should have been requested from the requesting State.The Court further held that the judgment inadequately addressed specialty-principle protections under Article 10(4) of Law No. 6706.The extradition admissibility judgment was therefore quashed.
15/09/2025 · Turkish Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), 5th Criminal Chamber · E. 2025/6232, K. 2025/9055
🇹🇷Turkey → 🇬🇧United Kingdom
Rejected (procedural grounds)Extradition
Unlawful continuation of extradition detention after removal of Interpol Red Notice
✕
Summary
The applicant, a Jordanian national, was detained at Istanbul Sabiha Gökçen Airport pursuant to a Haitian extradition request based on an Interpol Red Notice concerning allegations of organized crime membership, murder, attempted murder, and armed robbery.A Turkish magistrate ordered provisional detention for up to forty days under Law No. 6706.After formal extradition proceedings commenced, detention was continued.During proceedings, the applicant submitted evidence that Interpol had removed the Red Notice because Haiti had allegedly provided misleading information.Despite this material development, Turkish courts rejected release requests and continued detention without substantively examining the new evidence.The Istanbul Heavy Criminal Court later ruled that extradition was inadmissible and ordered release.The Constitutional Court found that continued detention after withdrawal of the Red Notice lacked adequate justification. It held that the failure to reassess detention in light of changed circumstances violated Article 19 of the Constitution.
29/07/2025 · Constitutional Court of Türkiye, Second Section · Application No. 2022/56012
🇹🇷Turkey → 🇭🇹Haiti
Unlawful DetentionExtradition
Individualized Offence Assessment and Evidentiary Sufficiency in Extradition Proceedings under Turkish Law
✕
Summary
The case concerned an extradition request submitted by the French Republic against a person sought for multiple offences connected with:- international drug trafficking;- money laundering;- organized criminal activity;- cross-border financial transfers.French judicial authorities alleged that the requested person participated between 2017 and 2021 in a transnational narcotics and financial-crime organization involving cocaine trafficking and laundering of criminal proceeds between France and foreign jurisdictions.The Kırklareli 2nd Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible under Law No. 6706.The defence appealed, arguing inter alia that:- no sufficiently convincing evidence linked the requested person to the alleged offences;- extradition would disproportionately affect the requested person’s family life and social integration in Türkiye under Article 11(4) of Law No. 6706.The Turkish Court of Cassation partially accepted the appeal. The Court held that:- the extradition request failed to adequately explain the underlying criminal investigations;- the factual allegations concerning where, when, and how the offences were allegedly committed were insufficiently specified;- certified translated evidentiary materials demonstrating the requested person’s connection to the offences had not been provided.The Court further emphasized that extradition admissibility must be separately assessed for each offence forming the basis of the extradition request.Because the lower court failed to individually analyze the extradition conditions for each alleged offence, the judgment was quashed.
14/05/2025 · Turkish Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), 10th Criminal Chamber · E. 2025/2713, K. 2025/5614
🇹🇷Turkey → 🇫🇷France
Rejected (procedural grounds)Extradition
Separate Offence Assessment and Sufficiency of Extradition Documents in Transnational Narcotics Extradition Proceedings
✕
Summary
The case concerned an extradition request submitted by the Kingdom of Spain against a Croatian national sought for:- drug trafficking;- membership in a criminal organization.Spanish judicial authorities alleged that the requested person participated in an international cocaine-trafficking network involving approximately 980 kilograms of cocaine transported from Brazil toward Spain through maritime routes.Spanish authorities issued:- an international arrest warrant;- a European Arrest Warrant;- and a provisional detention order.The requested person was apprehended in İstanbul following intelligence and operational cooperation involving Europol and Turkish anti-narcotics authorities. A forged passport was allegedly discovered during the arrest.The Kırklareli 1st Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible under Law No. 6706.The defence appealed, arguing inter alia that:- the extradition request insufficiently specified the offences and applicable legal provisions;- the alleged offence may not have fallen within Spanish territorial jurisdiction because the narcotics seizure occurred on the high seas;- the organization offence had not been separately analyzed;- fair-trial and defence-right guarantees had not been sufficiently examined;- family and social integration circumstances had not been assessed under Article 11(4) of Law No. 6706.The Turkish Court of Cassation partially accepted these objections. The Court held that:- extradition admissibility must be separately assessed for each offence forming the basis of the request;- the lower court failed to separately evaluate the “membership in a criminal organization” allegation;- Spanish authorities had not sufficiently provided the applicable legal provisions and explanatory legal framework required under Article 12(2)(c) of the European Convention on Extradition;- supplementary information should therefore have been requested pursuant to Article 18(2) of Law No. 6706 and Article 13 ECE.The extradition admissibility judgment was therefore quashed.
09/04/2025 · Turkish Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), 10th Criminal Chamber · E. 2025/430, K. 2025/4124
🇹🇷Turkey → 🇪🇸Spain
Rejected (procedural grounds)Extradition
Extradition to Turkey: systemic human rights violations and need for a concrete assessment of the risk of inhuman or degrading treatment
✕
Summary
With reference to extradition requests submitted by Turkey, in light of the situation—ascertained by various international institutions—of systematic violations by that State of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of detainees, particularly those belonging to the Kurdish ethnic group or to opposition parties, which persist notwithstanding the lifting of the suspension of the application of the European Convention on Human Rights adopted in that State following the attempted coup of 15 July 2016, it is necessary for the judicial authority to obtain unequivocal elements in order to verify, in concreto, that the person sought does not face a risk of being subjected, within Turkish detention facilities, to inhuman or degrading treatment.
12/03/2025 · Italian Supreme Court · 15109/2025
🇮🇹Italy → 🇹🇷Turkey
Reversal and remandExtradition
Binding nature of retrial guarantees given to secure extradition
✕
Summary
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.
23/01/2025 · Constitutional Court of Türkiye, Plenary Assembly · Application No. 2020/16014
🇬🇪Georgia → 🇹🇷Turkey
Rejected (procedural grounds)Extradition
Specialty Principle and Supplementary Information Requirements in Extradition Proceedings under Turkish Law
✕
Summary
The case concerned an extradition request submitted by the Republic of Uzbekistan against N.K., an Uzbek national sought for offences including embezzlement, extortion, and forgery-related crimes allegedly committed between 2015 and 2017.The Istanbul Anatolian 17th Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request inadmissible under Article 10(2) of Law No. 6706, reasoning that the offences were punishable alternatively by fines or corrective labour measures rather than mandatory imprisonment.The public prosecutor appealed.The Turkish Court of Cassation held that the lower court had incorrectly interpreted Article 10(2) of Law No. 6706. The Court emphasized that the relevant Uzbek offences also carried custodial sentences exceeding one year and therefore satisfied the extraditability threshold.The Court further found that additional information should have been requested from Uzbekistan concerning:- whether restitution of the alleged financial damage affected continuation of criminal proceedings;- whether the requesting State still intended to pursue extradition;- and whether Uzbekistan would comply with the specialty principle by limiting prosecution to the offences forming the basis of extradition.The Court concluded that the lower court prematurely rejected the extradition request without obtaining the necessary supplementary information and assurances.The judgment was therefore quashed.
06/01/2025 · Turkish Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), 11th Criminal Chamber · E. 2024/5625i K. 2025/82
🇹🇷Turkey → 🇺🇿Uzbekistan
Rejected (procedural grounds)Extradition
Specialty principle and family-life proportionality in extradition proceedings under Turkish Law
✕
Summary
The case concerned an extradition request submitted by the Republic of Azerbaijan against Ç.N. for alleged fraud offences committed in 2016.The Bakırköy 22nd Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible under Law No. 6706.The defence appealed.The Turkish Court of Cassation identified multiple procedural and substantive deficiencies in the extradition proceedings.First, the Court held that an additional extradition request transmitted during separate extradition proceedings involving the same requested person had not been processed in accordance with Articles 13 and 15 of Law No. 6706. The supplementary request should have been formally submitted through the Public Prosecutor’s Office and examined separately with full defence guarantees.Second, the Court emphasized the specialty principle under:- Article 14 of the European Convention on Extradition;- Article 10(4) of Law No. 6706.Because Azerbaijani authorities had not expressly guaranteed that the requested person would only be prosecuted for the offences forming the basis of extradition, the extradition file was considered incomplete.Third, the Court stressed that the lower court failed to assess proportionality and family-life considerations under Article 11(4) of Law No. 6706. The defence had argued that the requested person:- had long resided in Türkiye;- lived together with family members in Türkiye;- maintained stable employment and residence;- and had school-age children integrated into Turkish society.The Court held that these personal and family circumstances required individualized assessment before extradition admissibility could properly be determined.The judgment was therefore quashed.
16/12/2024 · Turkish Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), 11th Criminal Chamber · E. 2024/5904, K. 2024/15592
🇹🇷Turkey → 🇦🇿Azerbaijan
Rejected (procedural grounds)Extradition
Citizenship revocation, international protection and evidentiary sufficiency in extradition proceedings
✕
Summary
The case concerned an extradition request submitted by Belgium against an Albanian national sought for prosecution for:- organized drug trafficking;- participation in a criminal organization.Belgian judicial authorities alleged that the requested person participated in a criminal organization involved in large-scale narcotics trafficking and that approximately 3.2 tons of narcotics were connected to the investigation. Belgian authorities issued:- an arrest warrant;- an Interpol Red Notice.The requested person had previously acquired Turkish citizenship exceptionally by Presidential decision in 2020, but his citizenship was later revoked in 2023 on national-security and public-order grounds.The requested person challenged the citizenship-revocation decision before the Council of State (Danıştay), and the administrative litigation remained pending during extradition proceedings.The requested person additionally filed an international-protection application before Turkish migration authorities.The Çankırı Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible.The defence appealed, arguing inter alia that:- the Belgian extradition request lacked sufficiently concrete factual and evidentiary detail;- no adequate explanation existed regarding where, when, and how the alleged offences were committed;- specialty-principle guarantees had not been provided;- pending citizenship and asylum proceedings had not been resolved;- extradition would disproportionately affect the requested person’s family life and children residing in Türkiye.The Turkish Court of Cassation accepted these objections. The Court held that:- the outcome of the citizenship-revocation litigation and international-protection proceedings should have been awaited;- Belgian authorities had not sufficiently substantiated the allegations with concrete evidence such as: bank-transfer records; Sky ECC communication contents; and other investigative materials; - proportionality analysis under Article 11(4) of Law No. 6706 had not been adequately conducted;- Belgium had failed to provide an explicit specialty-principle undertaking under: Article 10(4) of Law No. 6706; Article 14 ECE.The extradition admissibility judgment was therefore quashed.
15/10/2024 · Turkish Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), 8th Criminal Chamber · E. 2024/18054, K. 2024/7673
🇹🇷Turkey → 🇧🇪Belgium
Rejected (procedural grounds)Extradition
Double Criminality and Human Rights Review in Extradition Proceedings to the United States
✕
Summary
The case concerned an extradition request submitted by the United States against a U.S. citizen sought for:- intentional homicide;- unlawful possession of firearms.According to the extradition materials, U.S. authorities alleged that the requested person killed James A. Richardson in Seattle on 29 December 2019. U.S. judicial authorities subsequently issued arrest and international search measures for extradition purposes. Following the extradition request transmitted through the Turkish Ministry of Justice, the İstanbul 11th Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible under:- Law No. 6706;- the bilateral judicial cooperation agreement between Türkiye and the United States;- Article 6 ECHR.- An additional decision was later rendered concerning the firearms offence.The defence appealed, arguing inter alia that:- the requested person was innocent;- another person had allegedly confessed and was serving a life sentence in the United States;- the extradition materials were inaccurate and unreliable.The Turkish Court of Cassation rejected these objections. The Court held that:- the requested person and the internationally sought person were clearly identified as the same individual;- the offences constituted offences under Turkish criminal law;- the offences were neither political nor military offences;- the offences were allegedly committed in the United States and therefore did not fall within Turkish territorial jurisdiction;- the offences were not time-barred;- no evidence existed indicating discriminatory prosecution, torture, or ill-treatment risks upon extradition.The Court therefore upheld the extradition admissibility decisions.
25/09/2024 · Turkish Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), 1st Criminal Chamber · E. 2024/669, K. 2024/5967
🇹🇷Turkey → 🇺🇸United States
GrantedExtradition
Country Contributor
Vahit Bıçak
Bıçak Law Firm
Prof. Dr. Vahit Bıçak is a Turkish attorney, expert of criminal law, criminal procedure law, and evidence law, and an internationally recognised practitioner specialising in extradition, INTERPOL Red Notices, cross-border criminal investigations, international judicial cooperation, white-collar crime, anti-money laundering (AML), sanctions-related proceedings, cybercrime, and transnational financial offences.
He is the Founder and Chairman of Bıçak Law Firm, a full-service law firm headquartered in Ankara with an additional office in Istanbul. The firm advises domestic and international clients in complex criminal, regulatory, compliance, and cross-border dispute matters involving multiple jurisdictions and international enforcement authorities.
Prof. Dr. Bıçak has more than three decades of professional experience in criminal law, criminal procedure law, international criminal cooperation, organised crime, financial crime, compliance, and regulatory investigations. His practice focuses particularly on extradition proceedings, INTERPOL Red Notice matters, European Arrest Warrant-related issues, international fraud investigations, money laundering and asset tracing, sanctions and export control investigations, cybercrime and digital evidence, corporate criminal liability, crossborder economic and business crimes, and international criminal defense and judicial cooperation.
He regularly advises individuals, executives, companies, and foreign legal teams in matters involving parallel criminal investigations, provisional arrests, mutual legal assistance, international arrest requests, and transnational financial enforcement proceedings.
Prof. Dr. Bıçak is widely recognised as a leading practitioner in Türkiye in the field of business criminal law and white-collar crime. He has advised on legislative and regulatory matters concerning fraud, corruption, bribery, anti-money laundering compliance, insider dealing, cybercrime, tax-related offences, financial misconduct, and organised criminal structures.
Prof. Dr. Bıçak graduated from the Faculty of Law of Ankara University and obtained his Ph.D. in Law from the University of Nottingham in the United Kingdom with a thesis concerning improperly obtained evidence and criminal procedure safeguards.
Throughout his academic and professional career, he has served as a visiting scholar and lecturer at several internationally recognised institutions, including the City University of New York and Fordham Law School in the United States, Lyon II University Faculty of Law in France, and the University of Maribor in Slovenia.
He has also held academic positions at leading Turkish universities, including Hacettepe University, Gazi University, Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli University, Bilkent University, Atılım University, and Başkent University. Since 1990, he has lectured extensively on criminal law, criminal procedure law, evidence law, organised crime, financial crime, international criminal cooperation, cybercrime, and business criminal law.
Prof. Dr. Bıçak has authored numerous academic and professional publications concerning criminal law, constitutional law, anti-money laundering regulation, cybercrime, evidence law, and comparative legal systems. His international publications include contributions to comparative legal publications and international legal guides relating to anti-money laundering, constitutional law, cybersecurity, and regulatory enforcement.
He currently serves as the Türkiye Ambassador of the International Sanctions & Export Control Society (ISECS) and as the White-Collar Crime Law Representative for Türkiye at Cross Border Advisory Solutions.
Under his leadership, Bıçak Law Firm maintains active international cooperation with foreign law firms, compliance professionals, academics, and legal practitioners across multiple jurisdictions in matters involving extradition, sanctions, INTERPOL, financial crime, cyber investigations, and international regulatory enforcement. Prof. Dr. Bıçak is fluent in Turkish and English.
Country Contributor
Ali Yildiz
Ali Yildiz Legal
He is a member of both the Ankara and Brussels Bar Associations and has been dedicatedly practicing law since 2004. His academic journey in law began with an LLB degree from the University of Ankara, followed by an LLM in International and European Law at Vrije Universiteit Brussel. He is fluent in Turkish, proficient in English, and has a basic understanding of Dutch.
He is a human rights lawyer and expert in individual applications to the European Court of Human Rights, UN Human Rights Mechanisms, the INTERPOL Commission for the Control of Files, and extradition and asylum procedures.
He completed expert witness training in the University of London. He is a member of the EIN’s Directory of Experts on Country of Origin. He provides expert witness reports on Turkish law in general, as well as on extradition and asylum cases. He has been involved as an expert witness in cases in the USA, the UK, Scotland and Belgium.
He is the author of several human rights monitoring reports on Turkey.
He is a regular legal writer, publishing on Verfassungsblog, Just Security, and with The International Association of Constitutional Law. He often provides comments to international media, including the Wall Street Journal, Al-Monitor, Balkan Insight, Turkish Minute, Ahval, Free Turkish Press, and The National.
He is a member of the Legal Experts Advisory Panel of Fair Trials, a member of Lawyers Against Transnational Repression, and the recipient of the ECBA Scott Crosby Human Rights Award 2025.
His dedication to the legal profession has been recognized through several international distinctions. In 2019, he was shortlisted as a finalist for the Lawyers for Lawyers Award, which honours lawyers who have shown exceptional courage and commitment to defending human rights and the rule of law. In 2021, he was invited to join the Legal Experts Advisory Panel of Fair Trials, a leading European NGO promoting fairness and justice in criminal proceedings. In 2025, he became one of the founding members of Lawyers Against Transnational Repression, an international network of legal professionals defending those targeted across borders. That same year, he was honoured with the Scott Crosby Human Rights Award by the European Criminal Bar Association (ECBA) in recognition of his work for human rights and the legal profession.
Need legal assistance?

Extradition proceedings involving Turkey

Contact a specialist lawyer with proven experience in extradition cases.

Contact →