🇹🇷 Turkey →

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 Greece against a Ukrainian national convicted of migrant smuggling.Greek judicial authorities alleged that the requested person transported ten Iraqi nationals from İstanbul toward Greece in June 2001. The Greek Chalkida Three-Member Criminal Court sentenced the requested person to:- 9 years and 1 month imprisonment;- a substantial monetary fine.Greek authorities subsequently initiated extradition proceedings for enforcement of the sentence.The Bakırköy 3rd Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible.The Turkish Court of Cassation quashed the judgment. The Court first provided a broad doctrinal explanation of extradition law under:- the Turkish Constitution;- the European Convention on Extradition;- Turkish Criminal Code Article 18.The Court emphasized that extradition must be refused where:- the offence falls within Turkish territorial jurisdiction;- or prosecution is time-barred.Applying Article 8 of the Turkish Criminal Code, the Court held that the alleged migrant-smuggling offence was deemed partially committed in Türkiye because the migrants were allegedly transported from İstanbul toward Greece.The Court further held that:- the alleged conduct constituted an offence under Turkish law at the relevant time;- the applicable Turkish limitation period had expired.The Court therefore concluded that extradition was legally impermissible under:- Article 7(1) ECE;- Article 10 ECE;- Article 18(1)(d-e) TCK.The Court additionally identified several procedural deficiencies, including:- absence of adequate identification materials;- failure to provide the requested person with the right of final statement;- insufficient reasoning in the judgment.The extradition admissibility judgment was quashed and the requested person was ordered released.