→ 🇬🇧 United Kingdom

The UK requested that Portugal surrender a Portuguese national accused of murder. At the time the international arrest warrant was issued, the EU notification made on behalf of Portugal under Article 603(2) of the EU‑UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement stated that Portugal would only surrender Portuguese nationals, on a reciprocal basis, in cases of terrorism or organised crime. When the requested person was arrested, a new notification was already in force, which no longer restricted the surrender of Portuguese nationals in those cases.The Portuguese Supreme Court held that, under the rules governing the temporal application of extradition law, the relevant notification was the one in force when the international arrest warrant was issued. Consequently, Portugal could not grant the surrender of one of its own nationals in a case that did not involve terrorism or organised crime.

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.