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: 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
Indirect refoulement risk through safe third country and protection against onward extradition
✕
Summary
The applicant, a Chinese national of Uyghur Muslim origin, challenged a deportation order issued by Turkish migration authorities.The authorities designated Kyrgyzstan as a safe third country.The applicant argued that removal to Kyrgyzstan created a substantial risk of onward surrender to China, where he faced possible persecution due to his ethnic and religious identity.He submitted evidence indicating prior transfers of Uyghurs from Kyrgyzstan to Chinese authorities.The administrative court rejected his challengeThe Constitutional Court held that domestic courts failed to conduct sufficient scrutiny of:- direct removal risk to China;- indirect surrender risk through Kyrgyzstan;- country-specific human rights concerns.The Court found that effective procedural safeguards against refoulement had not been provided.
01/10/2025 · Constitutional Court of Türkiye, Second Section · Application No. 2022/108353
🇹🇷Turkey → 🇨🇳China
Rejected (procedural grounds)Extradition
Procedural Safeguards and Sufficiency of Extradition Documents in Extradition Proceedings under Turkish Law
✕
Summary
The case concerned an extradition request submitted by the Russian Federation against a person sought for the offence of establishing a criminal organization.The Ankara 33rd Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible under Law No. 6706 and the bilateral treaty between Türkiye and the Russian Federation.The defence appealed, arguing inter alia that:- the extradition request contained contradictory and incomplete information;- the alleged conduct, place of commission, and applicable legal provisions were insufficiently specified;- the requested person risked politically motivated prosecution;- extradition could expose the requested person to torture, ill-treatment, or disproportionate punishment;- defence rights had been violated;- and proportionality and family circumstances had not been properly considered.The Turkish Court of Cassation held that:additional information and supporting evidence should have been requested from the Russian Federation;the alleged acts should have been concretely specified regarding place, time, and manner of commission;translated and certified evidentiary materials linking the requested person to the alleged offence should have been obtained;double criminality and limitation-period assessments required further clarification.The Court further found that:- the requested person had not properly been informed about consent-based extradition procedures;- defence rights had been restricted because extradition materials had not been properly disclosed;- specialty-principle guarantees had not been reflected in the judgment;- and the lower court failed to assess family integration, long-term residence, health conditions, and proportionality under Article 11(4) of Law No. 6706.The extradition admissibility judgment was therefore quashed.
16/09/2025 · Turkish Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), 4th Criminal Chamber · E. 2025/5784, K. 2025/13611
🇹🇷Turkey → 🇷🇺Russia
Rejected (procedural grounds)Extradition
In Absentia Convictions and Defence Rights in Extradition Proceedings under Turkish Law
✕
Summary
The case concerned an extradition request submitted by the Republic of Kazakhstan against G.K. for alleged embezzlement offences committed between 2014 and 2016.The Bakırköy 20th Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible under Law No. 6706.The defence appealed, arguing inter alia that:- insufficient time had been provided for defence preparation;- the requested person had already been convicted in absentia in Kazakhstan in 2024;- the extradition file was outdated because it relied on a 2019 extradition request;- additional documents concerning the alleged conviction should have been obtained;- the prosecution was politically motivated;- extradition would expose the requested person to torture and ill-treatment;- specialty guarantees had not been properly addressed.The Turkish Court of Cassation held that the lower court failed to sufficiently investigate whether:- in absentia proceedings had occurred;- a conviction had become final;- defence rights had been respected in the requesting State.The Court emphasized that under:- Article 4(1)(ç) of Law No. 6706;- Article 18(2) of Law No. 6706;- and the bilateral judicial cooperation agreement between Türkiye and Kazakhstan,supplementary information and updated documentation should have been requested before assessing extradition admissibility.The Court therefore quashed the judgment.
15/09/2025 · Turkish Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), 5th Criminal Chamber · E. 2025/6330, K. 2025/9054
🇹🇷Turkey → 🇰🇿Kazakhstan
Rejected (procedural grounds)Extradition
Remaining sentence calculation and principle of speciality in extradition proceedings under Turkish Law
✕
Summary
The case concerned an extradition request submitted by the United Kingdom against H.D.B. for the execution of the remaining portion of a sentence imposed for intentional bodily harm.The extradition request arose after the requested person allegedly violated parole conditions relating to a six-year prison sentence imposed by the Wood Green Crown Court in 2008.The Aydın 4th Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible under Law No. 6706.The defence appealed, arguing inter alia that:- the sentence had effectively been completed following release in 2019;- the UK execution system had subsequently changed;- extradition would expose the requested person to disproportionate and inhuman punishment;- the extradition request failed to clearly specify the remaining executable sentence;- specialty-principle safeguards were insufficient.The Turkish Court of Cassation held that the lower court failed to sufficiently determine the exact remaining custodial sentence still executable in the United Kingdom.The Court emphasized that:- extradition detention may not exceed the remaining enforceable sentence;- proportionality assessment required clarification of the precise balance of sentence remaining;- supplementary information should have been requested from the requesting State.The Court further held that the judgment inadequately addressed specialty-principle protections under Article 10(4) of Law No. 6706.The extradition admissibility judgment was therefore quashed.
15/09/2025 · Turkish Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), 5th Criminal Chamber · E. 2025/6232, K. 2025/9055
🇹🇷Turkey → 🇬🇧United Kingdom
Rejected (procedural grounds)Extradition
Individualized Offence Assessment and Evidentiary Sufficiency in Extradition Proceedings under Turkish Law
✕
Summary
The case concerned an extradition request submitted by the French Republic against a person sought for multiple offences connected with:- international drug trafficking;- money laundering;- organized criminal activity;- cross-border financial transfers.French judicial authorities alleged that the requested person participated between 2017 and 2021 in a transnational narcotics and financial-crime organization involving cocaine trafficking and laundering of criminal proceeds between France and foreign jurisdictions.The Kırklareli 2nd Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible under Law No. 6706.The defence appealed, arguing inter alia that:- no sufficiently convincing evidence linked the requested person to the alleged offences;- extradition would disproportionately affect the requested person’s family life and social integration in Türkiye under Article 11(4) of Law No. 6706.The Turkish Court of Cassation partially accepted the appeal. The Court held that:- the extradition request failed to adequately explain the underlying criminal investigations;- the factual allegations concerning where, when, and how the offences were allegedly committed were insufficiently specified;- certified translated evidentiary materials demonstrating the requested person’s connection to the offences had not been provided.The Court further emphasized that extradition admissibility must be separately assessed for each offence forming the basis of the extradition request.Because the lower court failed to individually analyze the extradition conditions for each alleged offence, the judgment was quashed.
14/05/2025 · Turkish Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), 10th Criminal Chamber · E. 2025/2713, K. 2025/5614
🇹🇷Turkey → 🇫🇷France
Rejected (procedural grounds)Extradition
Separate Offence Assessment and Sufficiency of Extradition Documents in Transnational Narcotics Extradition Proceedings
✕
Summary
The case concerned an extradition request submitted by the Kingdom of Spain against a Croatian national sought for:- drug trafficking;- membership in a criminal organization.Spanish judicial authorities alleged that the requested person participated in an international cocaine-trafficking network involving approximately 980 kilograms of cocaine transported from Brazil toward Spain through maritime routes.Spanish authorities issued:- an international arrest warrant;- a European Arrest Warrant;- and a provisional detention order.The requested person was apprehended in İstanbul following intelligence and operational cooperation involving Europol and Turkish anti-narcotics authorities. A forged passport was allegedly discovered during the arrest.The Kırklareli 1st Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible under Law No. 6706.The defence appealed, arguing inter alia that:- the extradition request insufficiently specified the offences and applicable legal provisions;- the alleged offence may not have fallen within Spanish territorial jurisdiction because the narcotics seizure occurred on the high seas;- the organization offence had not been separately analyzed;- fair-trial and defence-right guarantees had not been sufficiently examined;- family and social integration circumstances had not been assessed under Article 11(4) of Law No. 6706.The Turkish Court of Cassation partially accepted these objections. The Court held that:- extradition admissibility must be separately assessed for each offence forming the basis of the request;- the lower court failed to separately evaluate the “membership in a criminal organization” allegation;- Spanish authorities had not sufficiently provided the applicable legal provisions and explanatory legal framework required under Article 12(2)(c) of the European Convention on Extradition;- supplementary information should therefore have been requested pursuant to Article 18(2) of Law No. 6706 and Article 13 ECE.The extradition admissibility judgment was therefore quashed.
09/04/2025 · Turkish Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), 10th Criminal Chamber · E. 2025/430, K. 2025/4124
🇹🇷Turkey → 🇪🇸Spain
Rejected (procedural grounds)Extradition
Binding nature of retrial guarantees given to secure extradition
✕
Summary
The applicant had been convicted in absentia in Türkiye. After it was discovered that he was located in Georgia, Turkish authorities sought extradition.To secure extradition, the Turkish trial court issued a formal assurance under Law No. 3732 implementing the Second Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition, guaranteeing the applicant a renewed trial upon return.Following extradition, however, the domestic court rejected his retrial request.The court reasoned that the ordinary grounds for reopening under the Criminal Procedure Code were not satisfied.The Constitutional Court found this interpretation incompatible with the statutory retrial guarantee specifically governing extradition-based surrender. It held that the refusal rendered the prior extradition assurance ineffective and violated access to court.
23/01/2025 · Constitutional Court of Türkiye, Plenary Assembly · Application No. 2020/16014
🇬🇪Georgia → 🇹🇷Turkey
Rejected (procedural grounds)Extradition
Specialty Principle and Supplementary Information Requirements in Extradition Proceedings under Turkish Law
✕
Summary
The case concerned an extradition request submitted by the Republic of Uzbekistan against N.K., an Uzbek national sought for offences including embezzlement, extortion, and forgery-related crimes allegedly committed between 2015 and 2017.The Istanbul Anatolian 17th Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request inadmissible under Article 10(2) of Law No. 6706, reasoning that the offences were punishable alternatively by fines or corrective labour measures rather than mandatory imprisonment.The public prosecutor appealed.The Turkish Court of Cassation held that the lower court had incorrectly interpreted Article 10(2) of Law No. 6706. The Court emphasized that the relevant Uzbek offences also carried custodial sentences exceeding one year and therefore satisfied the extraditability threshold.The Court further found that additional information should have been requested from Uzbekistan concerning:- whether restitution of the alleged financial damage affected continuation of criminal proceedings;- whether the requesting State still intended to pursue extradition;- and whether Uzbekistan would comply with the specialty principle by limiting prosecution to the offences forming the basis of extradition.The Court concluded that the lower court prematurely rejected the extradition request without obtaining the necessary supplementary information and assurances.The judgment was therefore quashed.
06/01/2025 · Turkish Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), 11th Criminal Chamber · E. 2024/5625i K. 2025/82
🇹🇷Turkey → 🇺🇿Uzbekistan
Rejected (procedural grounds)Extradition
Specialty principle and family-life proportionality in extradition proceedings under Turkish Law
✕
Summary
The case concerned an extradition request submitted by the Republic of Azerbaijan against Ç.N. for alleged fraud offences committed in 2016.The Bakırköy 22nd Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible under Law No. 6706.The defence appealed.The Turkish Court of Cassation identified multiple procedural and substantive deficiencies in the extradition proceedings.First, the Court held that an additional extradition request transmitted during separate extradition proceedings involving the same requested person had not been processed in accordance with Articles 13 and 15 of Law No. 6706. The supplementary request should have been formally submitted through the Public Prosecutor’s Office and examined separately with full defence guarantees.Second, the Court emphasized the specialty principle under:- Article 14 of the European Convention on Extradition;- Article 10(4) of Law No. 6706.Because Azerbaijani authorities had not expressly guaranteed that the requested person would only be prosecuted for the offences forming the basis of extradition, the extradition file was considered incomplete.Third, the Court stressed that the lower court failed to assess proportionality and family-life considerations under Article 11(4) of Law No. 6706. The defence had argued that the requested person:- had long resided in Türkiye;- lived together with family members in Türkiye;- maintained stable employment and residence;- and had school-age children integrated into Turkish society.The Court held that these personal and family circumstances required individualized assessment before extradition admissibility could properly be determined.The judgment was therefore quashed.
16/12/2024 · Turkish Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), 11th Criminal Chamber · E. 2024/5904, K. 2024/15592
🇹🇷Turkey → 🇦🇿Azerbaijan
Rejected (procedural grounds)Extradition
Citizenship revocation, international protection and evidentiary sufficiency in extradition proceedings
✕
Summary
The case concerned an extradition request submitted by Belgium against an Albanian national sought for prosecution for:- organized drug trafficking;- participation in a criminal organization.Belgian judicial authorities alleged that the requested person participated in a criminal organization involved in large-scale narcotics trafficking and that approximately 3.2 tons of narcotics were connected to the investigation. Belgian authorities issued:- an arrest warrant;- an Interpol Red Notice.The requested person had previously acquired Turkish citizenship exceptionally by Presidential decision in 2020, but his citizenship was later revoked in 2023 on national-security and public-order grounds.The requested person challenged the citizenship-revocation decision before the Council of State (Danıştay), and the administrative litigation remained pending during extradition proceedings.The requested person additionally filed an international-protection application before Turkish migration authorities.The Çankırı Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible.The defence appealed, arguing inter alia that:- the Belgian extradition request lacked sufficiently concrete factual and evidentiary detail;- no adequate explanation existed regarding where, when, and how the alleged offences were committed;- specialty-principle guarantees had not been provided;- pending citizenship and asylum proceedings had not been resolved;- extradition would disproportionately affect the requested person’s family life and children residing in Türkiye.The Turkish Court of Cassation accepted these objections. The Court held that:- the outcome of the citizenship-revocation litigation and international-protection proceedings should have been awaited;- Belgian authorities had not sufficiently substantiated the allegations with concrete evidence such as: bank-transfer records; Sky ECC communication contents; and other investigative materials; - proportionality analysis under Article 11(4) of Law No. 6706 had not been adequately conducted;- Belgium had failed to provide an explicit specialty-principle undertaking under: Article 10(4) of Law No. 6706; Article 14 ECE.The extradition admissibility judgment was therefore quashed.
15/10/2024 · Turkish Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), 8th Criminal Chamber · E. 2024/18054, K. 2024/7673
🇹🇷Turkey → 🇧🇪Belgium
Rejected (procedural grounds)Extradition
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
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 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
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
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 →