→ 🇬🇧 United Kingdom

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.

The case concerned an extradition request submitted by the United States for the prosecution of the requested person for alleged wire fraud and aggravated identity theft in connection with the electronic filing of false tax returns. The requested person challenged the admissibility of extradition before the Supreme Court, arguing that the documents submitted by the United States were insufficient, that the facts for which extradition had been declared admissible were not clearly identified, and that the requirement of double criminality was not met. The Advocate General considered that the extradition documents were sufficient, including as to U.S. jurisdiction and the applicable statutory provisions. Although the description of the facts in the lower court’s decision was not entirely clear, the Advocate General considered that this could be remedied by reading the decision as referring to the facts set out in the supporting affidavit. The Advocate General further found that the alleged conduct corresponded under Dutch law to fraud and forgery, and recommended dismissal of the appeal; the Supreme Court followed that conclusion under Article 81(1) RO.