→ 🇬🇷 Greece

Greece sought the surrender of a married couple to serve sentences imposed in their absence for grievous bodily harm with intent and assisting the offender. The Court held that the issuing judicial authority had not proved that the requested persons deliberately absented themselves from trial, since there was insufficient evidence that they knew of the scheduled proceedings or had unequivocally waived their right to attend. Their possibility of obtaining a retrial was also insufficient under section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003 because it depended on the Greek court first determining that specified procedural conditions, a breach of procedural rules or force majeure had been established. The Court additionally found that assurances concerning their detention could not be relied upon in light of two significant previous breaches and that surrender would therefore expose them to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR; both requested persons were discharged.

The case concerned a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Greek authorities against the founder and administrator of an NGO active in the field of migration, who was accused of participation in a criminal organization, facilitating unlawful entry, and facilitating unlawful residence of third-country nationals in Greece. The requested person argued that his activities were humanitarian in nature and that the prosecution was aimed at silencing his criticism of Greek migration practices. The Hålogaland Court of Appeal held that the conduct described in the arrest warrant did not satisfy the requirement of double criminality under Norwegian law, noting that the requested person had been present in Norway at the time of the alleged acts, thereby triggering the territoriality-based double criminality rule under section 8(1)(k) of the Arrest Order Act. The court further found that several aspects of the alleged conduct were protected under Norway’s obligations arising from the Refugee Convention and international human rights law. It also identified concrete indications that the prosecution entailed a real risk of interference with the requested person’s freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR, referring to documented concerns regarding the misuse of criminal proceedings against migration human rights defenders in Greece. The request for surrender was therefore unanimously refused.

The requested individual allegedly sent a package containing drugs from France to Greece. The judges of the requested State, France, found that the offence occurred on French territory. The decision also highlights the requested individual’s integration in France, where he resided with his family, consisting of his wife and three young children, aged 7, 6 and 3.

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.