🇹🇷 Turkey →

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.