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
Extradition to Turkey refused: ByLock use and alleged Gülen links did not satisfy double driminality
✕
Summary
The case concerned a Turkish extradition request for the prosecution of the requested person on allegations of setting up or running an armed criminal terrorist group linked to Fethullah Gülen. The Romanian court found that the factual basis of the accusation consisted mainly of the alleged use of the ByLock encrypted messaging application, sending emails and carrying out money transfers said to be connected to a terrorist organisation. The Court held that those allegations did not correspond to an offence under Romanian law, since mere use of ByLock and generic assertions of membership in the Gülen movement did not fall within the Romanian offence of setting up or running a terrorist organisation. It also considered that the way the allegations were formulated supported the conclusion that there were serious reasons to believe the request was aimed at prosecuting or punishing the requested person on political or ideological grounds, or because of membership of a particular social group, and that his situation could worsen if surrendered. The Court therefore found that the statutory and Convention conditions for extradition were not met and dismissed Türkiye’s request.
24/12/2019 · Bucharest Court of Appeal
🇷🇴Romania → 🇹🇷Turkey
DeniedExtradition
Extradition to Turkey refused: no double criminality, political offence and fair trial risks
✕
Summary
The case concerned an extradition request submitted by Türkiye against a naturalised Brazilian citizen of Turkish origin, accused of supporting the Fethullah Gülen movement by depositing money in Bank Asya and thereby allegedly financing a terrorist organisation. The Supreme Federal Court of Brazil first held that the requested person’s naturalised Brazilian citizenship did not, in itself, bar extradition, since the alleged conduct predated his naturalisation. However, the Court found that the double criminality requirement was not satisfied because the alleged acts occurred in 2013–2014, before Brazil enacted its anti-terrorism legislation in 2016, and the more severe criminal law could not be applied retroactively. It further held that, if the conduct were analysed under Brazil’s former National Security Law, it would amount to a political offence, for which extradition is constitutionally barred. Finally, the Court considered that the political and institutional situation in Türkiye created serious doubts as to whether the requested person would receive a fair trial with due process before an independent and impartial tribunal. The extradition request was therefore refused.
06/08/2019 · Supreme Federal Court of Brazil · 1.578
🇧🇷Brazil → 🇹🇷Turkey
DeniedExtradition
Extradition to Turkey refused due to real risk of inhuman or degrading prison conditions
✕
Summary
Turkey requested the extradition from Finland of a Lithuanian citizen for the enforcement of a custodial sentence, and the requested person opposed extradition on the ground that Turkish prison conditions exposed him to a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. The Supreme Court first held that EU citizenship did not in itself prevent extradition because the requested person was merely visiting Finland and could not be regarded as permanently resident there. As regards prison conditions, however, the Court found that objective and reliable Council of Europe material supported the existence of a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 19 of the EU Charter and Article 3 ECHR, while Turkey failed to provide the requested individualised information concerning the prison in which the person would be detained and the conditions there. The Court therefore held that the extradition request could not be granted.
19/03/2019 · Supreme Court of Finland · KKO:2019:26 — ECLI:FI:KKO:2019:26
🇫🇮Finland → 🇹🇷Turkey
DeniedExtradition
Continuity of Extradition Admissibility Following the Entry into Force of Law No. 6706
✕
Summary
The case concerned an extradition request submitted by the Russian Federation against a Georgian national sought for prosecution for intentional homicide. Russian judicial authorities had initiated homicide proceedings and issued an in absentia arrest warrant dated 15 December 2000. The requested person was internationally sought for extradition to Russia.He was apprehended in Türkiye on 23 May 2017 while attempting to leave the country. Following arrest, Turkish judicial authorities ordered detention pending extradition proceedings.Russian authorities transmitted an extradition request through the Turkish Ministry of Justice pursuant to the European Convention on Extradition.The Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible.The defence appealed.The Turkish Court of Cassation held that:- despite repeal of former Article 18 TCK by Article 36 of Law No. 6706,- the new law did not alter the requested person’s legal position.The Court further held that:- intentional homicide constituted an offence under Turkish criminal law;- extradition conditions were satisfied under: Law No. 6706; Article 6 ECHR; the European Convention on Extradition.The extradition admissibility judgment was upheld.
18/12/2017 · Turkish Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), 1st Criminal Chamber · E. 2017/1722, K. 2017/5151
🇹🇷Turkey → 🇷🇺Russia
GrantedExtradition
Transition from Former Turkish Extradition Regime to Law No. 6706 in Extradition Proceedings
✕
Summary
The case concerned an extradition request submitted by the Republic of Bulgaria against a Bulgarian national convicted of intentional homicide. According to the extradition materials, Bulgarian judicial authorities alleged that the requested person intentionally killed another Bulgarian citizen on 6 May 2003. The requested person was convicted and sentenced to aggravated imprisonment for 18 years following appellate review before Bulgarian courts. The conviction became final after review by the Bulgarian Supreme Court. After leaving Bulgaria, the requested person became internationally wanted through an Interpol Red Notice.Following apprehension in Türkiye, Bulgarian authorities transmitted an extradition request through the Turkish Ministry of Justice pursuant to the European Convention on Extradition.The Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible.The defence appealed.During appellate review, Law No. 6706 on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters entered into force and repealed former Article 18 TCK.The Turkish Court of Cassation held that:- the legislative amendment did not materially alter the requested person’s legal position;- extradition conditions remained satisfied under the new law;- the extradition request complied with: Law No. 6706; the European Convention on Extradition; the European Convention on Human Rights.The Court therefore corrected the legal basis of the judgment by replacing the reference to former Article 18 TCK with Law No. 6706 and upheld the extradition admissibility decision.
20/06/2016 · Turkish Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), 1st Criminal Chamber · E. 2016/2892, K. 2016/3163
🇹🇷Turkey → 🇧🇬Bulgaria
GrantedExtradition
General Conditions for Extradition and Enforcement of Foreign Sentences under Turkish Law
✕
Summary
The case concerned an extradition request submitted by Romania against a Syrian national convicted of fraud offences and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment by Romanian courts.Romanian authorities requested extradition for enforcement of the final sentence pursuant to the European Convention on Extradition.The requested person was apprehended in Kilis after entering Türkiye and was temporarily detained pending extradition proceedings.The Kilis Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible under Article 18 of the former Turkish Criminal Code and the European Convention on Extradition.The defence appealed.The Turkish Court of Cassation upheld the extradition admissibility decision.Before examining the concrete case, the Court provided a general overview of Turkish extradition law, emphasizing:- the constitutional basis of extradition;- the interaction between domestic and international extradition norms;- the positive and negative conditions governing extradition requests.The Court held that:- the requested person was not a Turkish citizen;- a final foreign conviction existed;- the offence constituted an extraditable offence;- none of the refusal grounds under Turkish law applied;- and the extradition request complied with treaty obligations under the European Convention on Extradition.The extradition admissibility judgment was therefore affirmed.
24/07/2014 · Turkish Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), 15th Criminal Chamber · E. 2014/16190, K. 2014/13991
🇹🇷Turkey → 🇷🇴Romania
GrantedExtradition
Extradition of Former Turkish Citizens and Nationality-Based Protection under Turkish Law
✕
Summary
The case concerned an extradition request submitted by Hungary against an Austrian citizen of Turkish origin sought for prosecution for attempted intentional homicide. According to the extradition materials, Hungarian judicial authorities alleged that the requested person attempted to kill another individual in Hungary on 25 June 2011. Hungarian authorities initiated criminal proceedings and issued:- a detention order;- an international arrest warrant.The requested person entered Türkiye and was apprehended in İstanbul on 12 October 2013. Turkish judicial authorities ordered detention pending extradition proceedings.Hungarian authorities transmitted an extradition request through the Turkish Ministry of Justice pursuant to the European Convention on Extradition.The Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible under Article 18 TCK.The defence appealed, arguing inter alia that:- although the requested person had lost Turkish citizenship, he continued benefiting from rights granted to former Turkish citizens;- extradition should therefore be refused;- and Türkiye should exercise jurisdiction itself.The Turkish Court of Cassation rejected these objections. The Court held that:- the requested person had formally lost Turkish citizenship pursuant to a Council of Ministers decision;- the requested person was therefore not protected by the constitutional rule prohibiting extradition of Turkish citizens;- the alleged offence also constituted an offence under Turkish criminal law;- the extradition request complied with: Article 18 TCK; Article 6 ECHR; the European Convention on Extradition.The Court therefore upheld the extradition admissibility judgment.
12/05/2014 · Turkish Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), 1st Criminal Chamber · E. 2014/2119, K. 2014/3011
🇹🇷Turkey → 🇭🇺Hungary
GrantedExtradition
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
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 →