Turkey Extradition Law — Case Law, Legal Framework and Procedure

Extradition cases involving Turkey — Requested and Requesting State

🇹🇷

Turkey

Turkey Extradition Law & Case Law — 48 cases

27
As requested
state
21
As requesting
state
Case Law
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
Binding effect of retrial guarantees following extradition for in absentia convictions
✕
Summary
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.
10/06/2024 · Turkish Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), 11th Criminal Chamber · E. 2024/3007, K. 2024/7949
🇹🇷Turkey → 🇬🇪Georgia
Procedural orderExtradition
Double Criminality and Human-Rights Review in Extradition Proceedings under Turkish Law
✕
Summary
The case concerned an extradition request submitted by the Russian Federation against an Uzbek national sought for:- murder committed to conceal another offence;- armed robbery committed by multiple offenders.The requested person was internationally sought through an Interpol Red Notice issued by Russian authorities.The İstanbul 15th 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 materials had not been sufficiently translated;- the offences were time-barred;- extradition would violate fair trial guarantees and legal certainty;- extradition conditions had not been satisfied.The Turkish Court of Cassation upheld the extradition admissibility decision.The Court emphasized that:- the requested person was not a Turkish citizen;- the offences constituted serious ordinary crimes under both Turkish and Russian law;- the offences were neither political nor military offences;- the alleged crimes were committed in Russia and therefore did not fall within Turkish territorial jurisdiction;- there was insufficient evidence that the requested person would face discriminatory prosecution, torture, or ill-treatment upon extradition.The Court therefore concluded that the extradition request satisfied the requirements of Law No. 6706 and applicable treaty obligations.
03/04/2024 · Turkish Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), 1st Criminal Chamber · E. 2024/2511, K. 2024/2306
🇹🇷Turkey → 🇷🇺Russia
GrantedExtradition
Retrial Guarantees and Extradition following in absentia convictions under Turkish Law
✕
Summary
The case concerned an extradition request submitted by the Netherlands against a Dutch national born in Ghana who had been convicted in absentia for organized criminal offences involving narcotics trafficking, money laundering, bribery, and criminal organization leadership. Dutch judicial authorities alleged that the requested person participated in:- cocaine importation and trafficking;- laundering of criminal proceeds;- bribery;- organized criminal activities.The Amsterdam Criminal Court sentenced the requested person in absentia to 12 years’ imprisonment.Dutch authorities subsequently issued:- an arrest warrant;- an Interpol Red Notice.The requested person was later apprehended in Türkiye in connection with separate Turkish investigations involving:- criminal organization offences;- money laundering allegations.Dutch authorities formally requested extradition for enforcement of the Dutch conviction.The İstanbul 33rd Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible under Law No. 6706.The defence appealed, arguing inter alia that:- the conviction had been rendered in absentia;- retrial guarantees were insufficient;- the requested person would face racial discrimination because he was Black and Ghanaian-born;- detention measures were unlawful;- defence rights had been restricted.The Turkish Court of Cassation rejected these objections. The Court held that:- Dutch judicial authorities had provided adequate guarantees under Article 3 of the Second Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition;- the requested person would be entitled to participate in renewed appellate proceedings;- no concrete evidence existed indicating discriminatory prosecution, torture, or ill-treatment risks;- procedural defence rights during Turkish extradition proceedings had been respected;- detention measures were lawful and proportionate.The Court therefore upheld the extradition admissibility judgment.
03/04/2024 · Turkish Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), 8th Criminal Chamber · E. 2024/4721, K. 2024/3037
🇹🇷Turkey → 🇳🇱Netherlands
GrantedExtradition
Double Criminality and Enforcement of Foreign Convictions in Extradition Proceedings under Turkish Law
✕
Summary
The case concerned an extradition request submitted by the Italian Republic against a person sought for:- intentional homicide;- firearms offences.Italian judicial authorities had issued a final sentence totaling 22 years’ imprisonment, and an international arrest warrant had been circulated through an Interpol Red Notice.The requested person was located in an immigration removal centre in Erzurum pending deportation proceedings.The Erzurum 3rd Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible under Law No. 6706 and the European Convention on Extradition.The defence appealed, arguing inter alia that:- fair-trial rights had been violated;- extradition conditions had not been satisfied.The Turkish Court of Cassation upheld the extradition admissibility decision.The Court emphasized that:- the requested person was not a Turkish citizen;- the offences also constituted offences under Turkish criminal law;- the offences were neither political nor military offences;- the offences did not fall within Turkish territorial jurisdiction;- the prosecution was not time-barred;- and no evidence existed suggesting discriminatory prosecution, torture, or ill-treatment risks in Italy.The Court therefore concluded that the extradition request satisfied the requirements of Law No. 6706 and the European Convention on Extradition.
27/03/2024 · Turkish Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), 1st Criminal Chamber · E. 2023/8585, K. 2024/2091
🇹🇷Turkey → 🇮🇹Italy
GrantedExtradition
Assessment of Extradition Refusal Grounds in Homicide Extradition Proceedings under Turkish Law
✕
Summary
The case concerned an extradition request submitted by Poland against a Polish national sought for prosecution for intentional homicide. Polish judicial authorities initiated a murder investigation concerning the death of M. H. and issued international search measures for extradition purposes.The Antalya Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office initiated extradition proceedings following communications from the Turkish Ministry of Justice.The Antalya 10th Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible under Article 18 of Law No. 6706.The defence appealed, arguing inter alia that:- the investigation was incomplete;- defence rights had been restricted;- the judgment was procedurally unlawful.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 alleged offence constituted an offence under Turkish criminal law;- the offence was neither political nor military in nature;- the alleged offence had been committed in Poland and therefore did not fall within Turkish territorial jurisdiction;- the prosecution was not time-barred under Polish law;- no evidence existed indicating discriminatory prosecution, torture, or ill-treatment risks.The Court additionally noted that:- the requested person had refused consent-based extradition procedures.The extradition admissibility judgment was therefore upheld and the release request rejected.
20/03/2024 · Turkish Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), 1st Criminal Chamber · E. 2023/6334, K. 2024/1885
🇹🇷Turkey → 🇵🇱Poland
GrantedExtradition
Unlawful prolonged extradition detention due to failure of periodic judicial review
✕
Summary
The applicant, an Iranian passport holder sought by Azerbaijani authorities for fraud-related offences, was detained in Türkiye for extradition purposes following an Interpol Red Notice. The applicant consented to extradition under the simplified surrender procedure.Although the extradition itself was accepted as lawful, the Constitutional Court held that Turkish judicial authorities failed to comply with the statutory requirement under Law No. 6706 to review detention at thirty-day intervals.The applicant remained detained for an extended period pending surrender without regular judicial supervision and without decisions on repeated release applications.The Court concluded that this omission rendered the detention unlawful under Article 19 of the Constitution. Compensation was awarded.
19/12/2023 · Constitutional Court of Türkiye · Application No. 2021/28076
🇦🇿Azerbaijan → 🇹🇷Turkey
Unlawful DetentionExtradition
Universal Jurisdiction and Extradition in International Narcotics Trafficking Proceedings under Turkish Law
✕
Summary
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.
11/12/2023 · Turkish Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), 10th Criminal Chamber · E. 2023/15061, K. 2023/10878
🇹🇷Turkey → 🇸🇪Sweden
GrantedExtradition
Extradition to Iran and Judicial Assessment of Retrial Assurances under Turkish Law
✕
Summary
The case concerned an extradition request submitted by the Islamic Republic of Iran against T.R. for offences including fraud, forgery, abuse, and unlawful acquisition of property.The Denizli 5th Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible under Law No. 6706 on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters.The requested person appealed, arguing inter alia that:- the extradition request was procedurally defective;- the dispute was essentially civil/legal in nature;- he had applied for retrial before Iranian judicial authorities;- he had lived peacefully in Türkiye during the relevant period.The Turkish Court of Cassation examined the request under:- Law No. 6706;- the 2010 Agreement on Legal and Criminal Judicial Cooperation between Türkiye and Iran.The Court found that:- the offences fell within extraditable offences under Article 10 of Law No. 6706;- none of the refusal grounds under Article 11 existed;- the extradition documents sufficiently established identity and offence details;- the requested person had not consented to simplified extradition.Particular importance was given to diplomatic/judicial assurances transmitted through the Turkish Ministry of Justice, according to which:- the requested person would be retried in Iran;- criminal responsibility would be limited to the offences specified in the extradition request;- the person would not be extradited onward to a third State.The Court held that these guarantees were sufficient and upheld the admissibility of extradition.
20/11/2023 · Turkish Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), 11th Criminal Chamber · E. 2023/5883, K. 2023/8335
🇹🇷Turkey → 🇮🇷Iran
GrantedExtradition
Territorial Jurisdiction and Family-Life Proportionality in Extradition Proceedings under Turkish Law
✕
Summary
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.
09/10/2023 · Turkish Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), 11th Criminal Chamber · E. 2023/4828, K. 2023/6902
🇹🇷Turkey → 🇩🇪Germany
Rejected (procedural grounds)Extradition
Extradition to Turkey refused over ByLock-based terrorism conviction and risk of persecution
✕
Summary
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.
13/07/2023 · Supreme Court of Sweden · B 7581-22
🇸🇪Sweden → 🇹🇷Turkey
DeniedExtradition
Political persecution and fundamental rights risk as mandatory bar to extradition
✕
Summary
In extradition proceedings, a mandatory ground for refusal arises where the request, formally based on an ordinary offence, in fact conceals a purpose of political persecution, provided that the person concerned submits concrete elements showing that surrender would expose them to a violation of their fundamental rights.
14/06/2023 · Italian Supreme Court · 31588/2023
🇮🇹Italy → 🇹🇷Turkey
DeniedExtradition
Judicial Review of Cross-Border Transfer of Criminal Proceedings under Law No. 6706
✕
Summary
The case arose from the killing of Jamal Khashoggi inside the Saudi Arabian Consulate in Istanbul.Turkish prosecutors initiated criminal proceedings and indicted Saudi suspects. Because:- Saudi Arabia refused extradition of its nationals;- the suspects could not be physically secured for trial in Türkiye,Saudi authorities requested transfer of proceedings under Article 24 of Law No. 6706.The Turkish Ministry of Justice approved transfer.The Istanbul Heavy Penal Court suspended domestic proceedings and transferred the case to Saudi Arabia.The applicant challenged the transfer.The Constitutional Court examined whether this transfer violated the procedural obligation to conduct an effective investigation under the right to life.The judgment analyzed:- the Ministry of Justice’s role as Central Authority;- conditions for transfer of proceedings;- judicial reviewability of transfer decisions;- and compatibility of the transfer mechanism with constitutional guarantees. The judgment provides significant analysis regarding the relationship between:- criminal jurisdiction;- extradition impossibility;- prosecution transfer mechanisms;- international cooperation constraints.The Constitutional Court found a violation of the procedural aspect of the right to life, holding that the transfer of criminal proceedings to Saudi Arabia and the termination of domestic prosecution failed to satisfy the State’s obligation to conduct an effective investigation into the killing of Jamal K..
10/05/2023 · Constitutional Court of Türkiye (Anayasa Mahkemesi), First Section · Application No. 2022/53952
🇸🇦Saudi Arabia → 🇹🇷Turkey
Procedural orderExtradition
Extradition to Turkey refused: lack of specific factual allegations, political context and fair trial risks
✕
Summary
The case concerned an extradition request submitted by Türkiye against a Turkish national accused of involvement in the Fethullah Gülen movement, terrorist financing, qualified fraud, membership of an armed organisation and offences against the Turkish constitutional order. The Supreme Federal Court of Brazil held that the request did not satisfy the requirements for extradition because the requesting State had failed to describe the facts with sufficient clarity and precision, without identifying the requested person’s specific functions, hierarchical position or role within the alleged criminal organisation. This lack of specificity prevented a proper assessment of double criminality. The Court also found that the factual context had a political connotation and that, in light of the institutional situation in Türkiye and concerns regarding judicial independence, there were insufficient guarantees that the requested person would receive a fair, impartial trial before an independent judge. In addition, Brazil’s refugee authority had recognised the requested person as a refugee on the basis of facts coinciding with those underlying the extradition request, triggering non-refoulement protection. The extradition request was therefore refused and the precautionary measures previously imposed were revoked.
05/04/2022 · Supreme Federal Court of Brazil · 1.693
🇧🇷Brazil → 🇹🇷Turkey
DeniedExtradition
Extradition to Turkey refused: journalistic activity not criminal and refugee status bars surrender
✕
Summary
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.
14/12/2021 · Supreme Court of Sweden · 3370-21
🇸🇪Sweden → 🇹🇷Turkey
DeniedExtradition
Extradition to Turkey: assessment of detention conditions and risk of inhuman or degrading treatment
✕
Summary
Extradition to turkey and risk of inhuman or degrading treatment: in cases of passive extradition to turkey, the detention conditions to be afforded to the requested person must be assessed in concreto, given that, since july 2016, the application of the european convention on human rights has been formally suspended in that state, and that instances of arbitrary detention and widespread practices of torture within penitentiary facilities have been documented, giving rise to a high level of risk of inhuman or degrading treatment not limited to political detainees.
20/04/2021 · Italian Supreme Court · 26742/2021
🇮🇹Italy → 🇹🇷Turkey
Reversal and remandExtradition
Double Criminality and Fair-Trial Compatibility in Extradition Proceedings under Turkish Law
✕
Summary
The case concerned an extradition request submitted by the Republic of Ireland against an Irish national sought for:- intentional homicide;- possession of stolen property.Irish judicial authorities had issued an arrest warrant dated 20 February 2007, and the requested person was internationally sought for criminal prosecution.The requested person was apprehended in Kuşadası on 17 July 2020 and detained by Turkish judicial authorities pending extradition proceedings.Following a request transmitted through the Turkish Ministry of Justice pursuant to the European Convention on Extradition, extradition proceedings were initiated before the Söke judicial authorities.The Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible under Law No. 6706.The defence appealed, arguing that extradition conditions had not been satisfied.The Turkish Court of Cassation upheld the extradition admissibility decision.The Court emphasized:- Article 6 ECHR;- the European Convention on Extradition;- and the fact that the alleged offences also constituted offences under Turkish criminal law.The Court concluded that the extradition request complied with applicable domestic and international legal requirements.
01/12/2020 · Turkish Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), 1st Criminal Chamber · E. 2020/3647, K. 2020/3147
🇹🇷Turkey → 🇮🇪Ireland
GrantedExtradition
Extradition to Turkey refused: Gülen-related allegations did not satisfy double criminality
✕
Summary
The case concerned a request by Turkey for the extradition of a Turkish national for prosecution for alleged membership of the FETÖ/PDY organisation. The conduct described in the extradition request consisted essentially of having greeted visitors during a Spanish-language training programme in Spain, participated in meetings in a student house allegedly linked to the organisation, and read books associated with FETÖ and the Risale-i Nur. The Audiencia Nacional held that, although the formal extradition documents had been submitted through diplomatic channels, the facts described did not amount to any criminal offence under Spanish law. It accepted the Public Prosecutor’s reasoning that neither the alleged reading of religious or ideological texts nor the alleged association with followers of Fethullah Gülen, without concrete terrorist acts or participation in criminal conduct, could satisfy the requirement of double criminality. The Court therefore refused extradition at the judicial stage, without examining the remaining grounds for refusal raised by the defence
30/01/2020 · Audiencia Nacional (Madrid) · 35/2020
🇪🇸Spain → 🇹🇷Turkey
DeniedExtradition
Country Contributor
Vahit Bıçak
Haraç Law & Consultancy
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.
Country Contributor
Mehmet Fırat Can Haraç
Mehmet Fırat Can Haraç Law Firm
Mehmet Fırat Can Haraç is a Turkish criminal defence lawyer and a member of the Istanbul Bar Association. He has been practising law since 2020 and is based in Istanbul. He is currently pursuing an LL.M. in Public Law at Bahçeşehir University, with a particular academic interest in criminal law, criminal procedure and fundamental rights.

He is a native Turkish speaker, professionally proficient in English, and has a basic knowledge of Italian and French.

His practice focuses on criminal defence, extradition proceedings, international judicial cooperation in criminal matters, INTERPOL Red Notices and cross-border criminal cases.
His extradition experience includes representing a Russian national sought for extradition from Türkiye, as well as Turkish nationals whose extradition to Türkiye was sought from Italy. He has also worked on extradition cases involving Belgian and Greek nationals, providing legal opinions on issues arising under Turkish extradition law and procedure.
He has experience in INTERPOL-related matters and has prepared applications before the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF), particularly concerning Red Notices. His work in international criminal cooperation has a particular focus on the protection of fundamental rights and the human-rights implications of extradition, international arrest measures and other forms of cross-border criminal cooperation.
He has also prepared individual applications to the European Court of Human Rights concerning alleged violations of rights protected under the European Convention on Human Rights and closely follows the Court’s case law and proceedings.
Alongside his legal practice, Fırat is actively involved in international professional organisations. He serves as an Executive Officer of the European Young Bar Association (EYBA) and is involved in the Association’s work concerning the Council of Europe.
His principal professional interests include criminal defence, extradition law, INTERPOL mechanisms, international criminal cooperation, criminal procedure and the protection of fundamental rights in cross-border criminal proceedings.
Need legal assistance?

Extradition proceedings involving Turkey

Contact a specialist lawyer with proven experience in extradition cases.

Contact →