🇹🇷 Turkey →

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the requested person had already been convicted in absentia in Kazakhstan in 2024;- the extradition file was outdated because it relied on a 2019 extradition request;- additional documents concerning the alleged conviction should have been obtained;- the prosecution was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.

The case concerned a fraud conviction rendered in absentia by the Gaziantep 17th Criminal Court of First Instance. Following finalization of the conviction, Turkish authorities sought the convicted person’s extradition from Georgia for sentence enforcement. Because the conviction had been rendered in absentia, Georgian authorities requested assurance under:- Article 3 of the Second Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extraditionthat the convicted person would be granted retrial upon return.The Gaziantep 17th Criminal Court explicitly issued such judicial assurance on 10 March 2022.The person was extradited to Türkiye.After return, he requested retrial. The lower court rejected the request on the ground that no retrial conditions existed. The objection was also rejected.Upon request of the Ministry of Justice, the Turkish Court of Cassation reviewed the matter by extraordinary appeal in the interest of law. The Court held that:- once retrial assurance had been formally given to Georgia,- Turkish courts were legally obliged to honor that assurance.The lower court’s refusal therefore violated both:- the Second Additional Protocol;- Turkish implementing legislation.The rejection decision was quashed.

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.

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.