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 allowed despite fair trial concerns, subject to detention and return assurances
✕
Summary
The requested person, a Dutch national of Kurdish origin, opposed extradition to Türkiye for prosecution for a drug-trafficking offence, arguing that his political activities exposed him to a flagrant denial of justice and that the criminal charge was a pretext for political persecution. The District Court acknowledged serious concerns regarding judicial independence and the rule of law in Türkiye but found no sufficiently concrete indication that the proceedings against the requested person were politically motivated or that his surrender would expose him to a flagrant breach of Article 6 ECHR. Extradition was therefore declared admissible. The Court nevertheless advised the Minister to obtain assurances concerning detention conditions, taking account of the requested person’s Kurdish background and public activities, and to require a specific and unconditional guarantee that, if convicted, he could return to the Netherlands to serve his sentence.
22/07/2026 · District Court of Amsterdam · ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2026:7662; Case No. 13-020824-26
🇳🇱Netherlands → 🇹🇷Turkey
GrantedExtradition
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
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
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
Extradition may be certified where treaty requirements, dual criminality and probable cause are established for concealing evidence and protecting an offender
✕
Summary
The United States, acting on behalf of the Republic of Türkiye, sought the extradition of Eylem Tok, a Turkish national, on charges of destroying, concealing or altering evidence under Article 281 of the Turkish Criminal Code and protecting an offender under Article 283 of the same code. The charges arose not from the underlying fatal traffic accident — which the record attributes entirely to her minor son, T.C. — but from her conduct in the hours immediately following it: taking a victim’s cell phone from security officers under a false pretext and concealing it, removing her son and two other minors from the accident scene before police could observe or question them, and flying with her son out of Türkiye on one-way tickets within three hours of the collision.Following an extradition hearing under 18 U.S.C. § 3184, Chief Magistrate Judge Cabell denied the relator’s motion to dismiss, denied her motion for release from custody, and certified her extraditability to the Secretary of State on both offences. The decision is a companion to In re Extradition of T.C., 740 F. Supp. 3d 10 (D. Mass. 2024), concerning the relator’s son, and it addresses in detail several recurring questions of U.S. extradition law: the minimum-gravity (one-year punishability) requirement and its interaction with treaty accessory clauses, the treatment of foreign-law expert evidence that contradicts the requesting State’s position, the dual criminality doctrine, the meaning of “charged with an offense” in a treaty that does not require a charging document, the probable cause standard, and the “special circumstances” test for bail pending extradition.
11/02/2025 · United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts · No. 24-MJ-01365-DLC; 765 F. Supp. 3d 46
🇺🇸United States → 🇹🇷Turkey
GrantedExtradition
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 →