🇹🇷 Turkey →

Under Turkish Law No. 6706 on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters, extradition proceedings must comply with procedural safeguards, including proper notification of the extradition request and clarification of whether the requested person consents to simplified extradition procedures. Failure to inform the requested person regarding consent-based extradition constitutes a procedural defect affecting defence rights.In extradition proceedings initiated upon a request from Denmark concerning organised-crime-related offences, the defence also relied on Articles 2 and 3 ECHR, alleging risks arising from organised criminal retaliation and insufficient state protection in the requesting State.The Turkish Court of Cassation held that the procedural defect required correction but ultimately upheld the admissibility of extradition.

The case concerned criminal proceedings for theft against a defendant who had previously been extradited from Georgia to Türkiye on 7 February 2022.The lower court convicted the defendant.The defendant appealed, arguing inter alia that:- prosecution for the present offence violated the specialty principle because the offence was not mentioned in the extradition decision.The Turkish Court of Cassation examined:- the European Convention on Extradition;- Law No. 6706;- the Ministry of Justice Circular No. 69/4.The Court emphasized that under the specialty principle, an extradited person may only be:- prosecuted;- convicted;- or have a sentence enforcedfor offences that formed the basis of the extradition decision. The Court held that the lower court failed to verify whether the theft offence had been included within the extradition granted by Georgia. The Court ruled that:- extradition documents must first be obtained and reviewed;- if the theft offence was not covered, supplementary extradition consent must be requested from Georgian authorities.The conviction was therefore quashed.

The applicant, a Chinese national of Uyghur Muslim origin, challenged a deportation order issued by Turkish migration authorities.The authorities designated Kyrgyzstan as a safe third country.The applicant argued that removal to Kyrgyzstan created a substantial risk of onward surrender to China, where he faced possible persecution due to his ethnic and religious identity.He submitted evidence indicating prior transfers of Uyghurs from Kyrgyzstan to Chinese authorities.The administrative court rejected his challengeThe Constitutional Court held that domestic courts failed to conduct sufficient scrutiny of:- direct removal risk to China;- indirect surrender risk through Kyrgyzstan;- country-specific human rights concerns.The Court found that effective procedural safeguards against refoulement had not been provided.

The case concerned an extradition request submitted by the Russian Federation against a person sought for the offence of establishing a criminal organization.The Ankara 33rd 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 request contained contradictory and incomplete information;- the alleged conduct, place of commission, and applicable legal provisions were insufficiently specified;- the requested person risked politically motivated prosecution;- extradition could expose the requested person to torture, ill-treatment, or disproportionate punishment;- defence rights had been violated;- and proportionality and family circumstances had not been properly considered.The Turkish Court of Cassation held that:additional information and supporting evidence should have been requested from the Russian Federation;the alleged acts should have been concretely specified regarding place, time, and manner of commission;translated and certified evidentiary materials linking the requested person to the alleged offence should have been obtained;double criminality and limitation-period assessments required further clarification.The Court further found that:- the requested person had not properly been informed about consent-based extradition procedures;- defence rights had been restricted because extradition materials had not been properly disclosed;- specialty-principle guarantees had not been reflected in the judgment;- and the lower court failed to assess family integration, long-term residence, health conditions, and proportionality under Article 11(4) of Law No. 6706.The extradition admissibility judgment was therefore quashed.

The case concerned an extradition request submitted by the Republic of Kazakhstan against G.K. for alleged embezzlement offences committed between 2014 and 2016.The Bakırköy 20th Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible under Law No. 6706.The defence appealed, arguing inter alia that:- insufficient time had been provided for defence preparation;- the requested person had already been convicted in absentia in Kazakhstan in 2024;- the extradition file was outdated because it relied on a 2019 extradition request;- additional documents concerning the alleged conviction should have been obtained;- the prosecution was politically motivated;- extradition would expose the requested person to torture and ill-treatment;- specialty guarantees had not been properly addressed.The Turkish Court of Cassation held that the lower court failed to sufficiently investigate whether:- in absentia proceedings had occurred;- a conviction had become final;- defence rights had been respected in the requesting State.The Court emphasized that under:- Article 4(1)(ç) of Law No. 6706;- Article 18(2) of Law No. 6706;- and the bilateral judicial cooperation agreement between Türkiye and Kazakhstan,supplementary information and updated documentation should have been requested before assessing extradition admissibility.The Court therefore quashed the judgment.

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 applicant, a Jordanian national, was detained at Istanbul Sabiha Gökçen Airport pursuant to a Haitian extradition request based on an Interpol Red Notice concerning allegations of organized crime membership, murder, attempted murder, and armed robbery.A Turkish magistrate ordered provisional detention for up to forty days under Law No. 6706.After formal extradition proceedings commenced, detention was continued.During proceedings, the applicant submitted evidence that Interpol had removed the Red Notice because Haiti had allegedly provided misleading information.Despite this material development, Turkish courts rejected release requests and continued detention without substantively examining the new evidence.The Istanbul Heavy Criminal Court later ruled that extradition was inadmissible and ordered release.The Constitutional Court found that continued detention after withdrawal of the Red Notice lacked adequate justification. It held that the failure to reassess detention in light of changed circumstances violated Article 19 of the Constitution.

The case concerned an extradition request submitted by the French Republic against a person sought for multiple offences connected with:- international drug trafficking;- money laundering;- organized criminal activity;- cross-border financial transfers.French judicial authorities alleged that the requested person participated between 2017 and 2021 in a transnational narcotics and financial-crime organization involving cocaine trafficking and laundering of criminal proceeds between France and foreign jurisdictions.The Kırklareli 2nd Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible under Law No. 6706.The defence appealed, arguing inter alia that:- no sufficiently convincing evidence linked the requested person to the alleged offences;- extradition would disproportionately affect the requested person’s family life and social integration in Türkiye under Article 11(4) of Law No. 6706.The Turkish Court of Cassation partially accepted the appeal. The Court held that:- the extradition request failed to adequately explain the underlying criminal investigations;- the factual allegations concerning where, when, and how the offences were allegedly committed were insufficiently specified;- certified translated evidentiary materials demonstrating the requested person’s connection to the offences had not been provided.The Court further emphasized that extradition admissibility must be separately assessed for each offence forming the basis of the extradition request.Because the lower court failed to individually analyze the extradition conditions for each alleged offence, the judgment was quashed.

The case concerned an extradition request submitted by the Kingdom of Spain against a Croatian national sought for:- drug trafficking;- membership in a criminal organization.Spanish judicial authorities alleged that the requested person participated in an international cocaine-trafficking network involving approximately 980 kilograms of cocaine transported from Brazil toward Spain through maritime routes.Spanish authorities issued:- an international arrest warrant;- a European Arrest Warrant;- and a provisional detention order.The requested person was apprehended in İstanbul following intelligence and operational cooperation involving Europol and Turkish anti-narcotics authorities. A forged passport was allegedly discovered during the arrest.The Kırklareli 1st Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible under Law No. 6706.The defence appealed, arguing inter alia that:- the extradition request insufficiently specified the offences and applicable legal provisions;- the alleged offence may not have fallen within Spanish territorial jurisdiction because the narcotics seizure occurred on the high seas;- the organization offence had not been separately analyzed;- fair-trial and defence-right guarantees had not been sufficiently examined;- family and social integration circumstances had not been assessed under Article 11(4) of Law No. 6706.The Turkish Court of Cassation partially accepted these objections. The Court held that:- extradition admissibility must be separately assessed for each offence forming the basis of the request;- the lower court failed to separately evaluate the “membership in a criminal organization” allegation;- Spanish authorities had not sufficiently provided the applicable legal provisions and explanatory legal framework required under Article 12(2)(c) of the European Convention on Extradition;- supplementary information should therefore have been requested pursuant to Article 18(2) of Law No. 6706 and Article 13 ECE.The extradition admissibility judgment was therefore quashed.

The case concerned an extradition request submitted by the Republic of Uzbekistan against N.K., an Uzbek national sought for offences including embezzlement, extortion, and forgery-related crimes allegedly committed between 2015 and 2017.The Istanbul Anatolian 17th Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request inadmissible under Article 10(2) of Law No. 6706, reasoning that the offences were punishable alternatively by fines or corrective labour measures rather than mandatory imprisonment.The public prosecutor appealed.The Turkish Court of Cassation held that the lower court had incorrectly interpreted Article 10(2) of Law No. 6706. The Court emphasized that the relevant Uzbek offences also carried custodial sentences exceeding one year and therefore satisfied the extraditability threshold.The Court further found that additional information should have been requested from Uzbekistan concerning:- whether restitution of the alleged financial damage affected continuation of criminal proceedings;- whether the requesting State still intended to pursue extradition;- and whether Uzbekistan would comply with the specialty principle by limiting prosecution to the offences forming the basis of extradition.The Court concluded that the lower court prematurely rejected the extradition request without obtaining the necessary supplementary information and assurances.The judgment was therefore quashed.

The case concerned an extradition request submitted by the Republic of Azerbaijan against Ç.N. for alleged fraud offences committed in 2016.The Bakırköy 22nd Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible under Law No. 6706.The defence appealed.The Turkish Court of Cassation identified multiple procedural and substantive deficiencies in the extradition proceedings.First, the Court held that an additional extradition request transmitted during separate extradition proceedings involving the same requested person had not been processed in accordance with Articles 13 and 15 of Law No. 6706. The supplementary request should have been formally submitted through the Public Prosecutor’s Office and examined separately with full defence guarantees.Second, the Court emphasized the specialty principle under:- Article 14 of the European Convention on Extradition;- Article 10(4) of Law No. 6706.Because Azerbaijani authorities had not expressly guaranteed that the requested person would only be prosecuted for the offences forming the basis of extradition, the extradition file was considered incomplete.Third, the Court stressed that the lower court failed to assess proportionality and family-life considerations under Article 11(4) of Law No. 6706. The defence had argued that the requested person:- had long resided in Türkiye;- lived together with family members in Türkiye;- maintained stable employment and residence;- and had school-age children integrated into Turkish society.The Court held that these personal and family circumstances required individualized assessment before extradition admissibility could properly be determined.The judgment was therefore quashed.

The case concerned an extradition request submitted by Belgium against an Albanian national sought for prosecution for:- organized drug trafficking;- participation in a criminal organization.Belgian judicial authorities alleged that the requested person participated in a criminal organization involved in large-scale narcotics trafficking and that approximately 3.2 tons of narcotics were connected to the investigation. Belgian authorities issued:- an arrest warrant;- an Interpol Red Notice.The requested person had previously acquired Turkish citizenship exceptionally by Presidential decision in 2020, but his citizenship was later revoked in 2023 on national-security and public-order grounds.The requested person challenged the citizenship-revocation decision before the Council of State (Danıştay), and the administrative litigation remained pending during extradition proceedings.The requested person additionally filed an international-protection application before Turkish migration authorities.The Çankırı Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible.The defence appealed, arguing inter alia that:- the Belgian extradition request lacked sufficiently concrete factual and evidentiary detail;- no adequate explanation existed regarding where, when, and how the alleged offences were committed;- specialty-principle guarantees had not been provided;- pending citizenship and asylum proceedings had not been resolved;- extradition would disproportionately affect the requested person’s family life and children residing in Türkiye.The Turkish Court of Cassation accepted these objections. The Court held that:- the outcome of the citizenship-revocation litigation and international-protection proceedings should have been awaited;- Belgian authorities had not sufficiently substantiated the allegations with concrete evidence such as: bank-transfer records; Sky ECC communication contents; and other investigative materials; - proportionality analysis under Article 11(4) of Law No. 6706 had not been adequately conducted;- Belgium had failed to provide an explicit specialty-principle undertaking under: Article 10(4) of Law No. 6706; Article 14 ECE.The extradition admissibility judgment was therefore quashed.

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 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 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 Netherlands against a Dutch national born in Ghana who had been convicted in absentia for organized criminal offences involving narcotics trafficking, money laundering, bribery, and criminal organization leadership. Dutch judicial authorities alleged that the requested person participated in:- cocaine importation and trafficking;- laundering of criminal proceeds;- bribery;- organized criminal activities.The Amsterdam Criminal Court sentenced the requested person in absentia to 12 years’ imprisonment.Dutch authorities subsequently issued:- an arrest warrant;- an Interpol Red Notice.The requested person was later apprehended in Türkiye in connection with separate Turkish investigations involving:- criminal organization offences;- money laundering allegations.Dutch authorities formally requested extradition for enforcement of the Dutch conviction.The İstanbul 33rd Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible under Law No. 6706.The defence appealed, arguing inter alia that:- the conviction had been rendered in absentia;- retrial guarantees were insufficient;- the requested person would face racial discrimination because he was Black and Ghanaian-born;- detention measures were unlawful;- defence rights had been restricted.The Turkish Court of Cassation rejected these objections. The Court held that:- Dutch judicial authorities had provided adequate guarantees under Article 3 of the Second Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition;- the requested person would be entitled to participate in renewed appellate proceedings;- no concrete evidence existed indicating discriminatory prosecution, torture, or ill-treatment risks;- procedural defence rights during Turkish extradition proceedings had been respected;- detention measures were lawful and proportionate.The Court therefore upheld the extradition admissibility judgment.

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 Sweden against a Swedish national sought for prosecution for aggravated narcotics trafficking. Swedish judicial authorities alleged that the requested person committed large-scale narcotics offences in Stockholm between early 2020 and 2 May 2020. The Solna District Court issued a detention order and Swedish authorities circulated an Interpol Red Notice requesting extradition.The requested person resided in Türkiye under a temporary residence permit issued in Muğla.The Fethiye 1st Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible under Law No. 6706.The defence appealed, arguing inter alia that:- the extradition judgment had not properly been translated and explained;- detention was disproportionate;- Türkiye possessed jurisdiction under Article 13 TCK;- extradition would expose the requested person to anti-Muslim discrimination in Sweden.The Turkish Court of Cassation rejected these objections but partially corrected the lower court’s legal reasoning. The Court held that:- narcotics trafficking offences fall within Türkiye’s universal jurisdiction under Article 13 TCK;- however, Sweden possessed primary territorial jurisdiction because the alleged offences occurred in Sweden;- Türkiye’s jurisdiction in such cases was supplementary rather than exclusive.The Court therefore concluded that:- extradition remained legally permissible despite the existence of Turkish universal jurisdiction.The Court additionally held that:- no evidence existed indicating discriminatory prosecution or torture risk;- procedural defence rights had been respected;- the extradition request satisfied the requirements of the European Convention on Extradition and Law No. 6706.The judgment was therefore corrected and upheld.

The case concerned an extradition request submitted by the Islamic Republic of Iran against T.R. for offences including fraud, forgery, abuse, and unlawful acquisition of property.The Denizli 5th Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible under Law No. 6706 on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters.The requested person appealed, arguing inter alia that:- the extradition request was procedurally defective;- the dispute was essentially civil/legal in nature;- he had applied for retrial before Iranian judicial authorities;- he had lived peacefully in Türkiye during the relevant period.The Turkish Court of Cassation examined the request under:- Law No. 6706;- the 2010 Agreement on Legal and Criminal Judicial Cooperation between Türkiye and Iran.The Court found that:- the offences fell within extraditable offences under Article 10 of Law No. 6706;- none of the refusal grounds under Article 11 existed;- the extradition documents sufficiently established identity and offence details;- the requested person had not consented to simplified extradition.Particular importance was given to diplomatic/judicial assurances transmitted through the Turkish Ministry of Justice, according to which:- the requested person would be retried in Iran;- criminal responsibility would be limited to the offences specified in the extradition request;- the person would not be extradited onward to a third State.The Court held that these guarantees were sufficient and upheld the admissibility of extradition.

The case concerned an extradition request submitted by the Federal Republic of Germany against G.B.F.E., a German national sought for fraud offences allegedly committed in 2018. According to German authorities, the requested person participated in an organized fraud scheme targeting elderly victims in Germany through telephone calls allegedly made from Türkiye.The İzmir 12th Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible under Law No. 6706.The defence appealed, arguing inter alia that:- the requested person did not consent to extradition;- he had long resided in Türkiye;- he was married to a Turkish citizen;- he had a young child living in Türkiye;- extradition would disproportionately interfere with family life;- and he intended to apply for Turkish citizenship.The Turkish Court of Cassation held that the lower court failed to sufficiently investigate whether the alleged offences should legally be regarded as committed in Türkiye under Article 8 of the Turkish Criminal Code.The Court emphasized that:- Turkish law applies where acts are partially committed in Türkiye or where results occur in Türkiye;- the extradition file suggested that the alleged fraudulent telephone calls may have originated from Türkiye;- additional documents and clarification should therefore have been obtained.The Court further stressed that:the requested person’s long-term residence;- family integration;- Turkish spouse;- child living in Türkiye;- required a proportionality assessment under Article 11(4) of Law No. 6706.- The Court also identified deficiencies concerning specialty-principle guarantees under:- Article 10(4) of Law No. 6706;- Article 14 of the European Convention on Extradition.The extradition admissibility judgment was therefore quashed.

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 the Republic of Bulgaria against a Bulgarian national convicted of intentional homicide. According to the extradition materials, Bulgarian judicial authorities alleged that the requested person intentionally killed another Bulgarian citizen on 6 May 2003. The requested person was convicted and sentenced to aggravated imprisonment for 18 years following appellate review before Bulgarian courts. The conviction became final after review by the Bulgarian Supreme Court. After leaving Bulgaria, the requested person became internationally wanted through an Interpol Red Notice.Following apprehension in Türkiye, Bulgarian 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.During appellate review, Law No. 6706 on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters entered into force and repealed former Article 18 TCK.The Turkish Court of Cassation held that:- the legislative amendment did not materially alter the requested person’s legal position;- extradition conditions remained satisfied under the new law;- the extradition request complied with: Law No. 6706; the European Convention on Extradition; the European Convention on Human Rights.The Court therefore corrected the legal basis of the judgment by replacing the reference to former Article 18 TCK with Law No. 6706 and upheld the extradition admissibility decision.

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.

The case concerned an extradition request submitted by Hungary against an Austrian citizen of Turkish origin sought for prosecution for attempted intentional homicide. According to the extradition materials, Hungarian judicial authorities alleged that the requested person attempted to kill another individual in Hungary on 25 June 2011. Hungarian authorities initiated criminal proceedings and issued:- a detention order;- an international arrest warrant.The requested person entered Türkiye and was apprehended in İstanbul on 12 October 2013. Turkish judicial authorities ordered detention pending extradition proceedings.Hungarian 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 under Article 18 TCK.The defence appealed, arguing inter alia that:- although the requested person had lost Turkish citizenship, he continued benefiting from rights granted to former Turkish citizens;- extradition should therefore be refused;- and Türkiye should exercise jurisdiction itself.The Turkish Court of Cassation rejected these objections. The Court held that:- the requested person had formally lost Turkish citizenship pursuant to a Council of Ministers decision;- the requested person was therefore not protected by the constitutional rule prohibiting extradition of Turkish citizens;- the alleged offence also constituted an offence under Turkish criminal law;- the extradition request complied with: Article 18 TCK; Article 6 ECHR; the European Convention on Extradition.The Court therefore upheld the extradition admissibility judgment.

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.