Turkey Extradition Law — Case Law, Legal Framework and Procedure

Extradition cases involving Turkey — Requested and Requesting State

🇹🇷

Turkey

Turkey Extradition Law & Case Law — 56 cases

27
As requested
state
29
As requesting
state
Case Law
Bail granted after extradition certification: delay and availability of release in Turkey constitute special circumstances
✕
Summary
A Turkish citizen and lawful permanent resident of the United States sought habeas review of her extradition certification for aggravated embezzlement and release after nearly two and a half years in custody. The court upheld the certification under the limited “any evidence” standard and rejected the discovery challenge, holding that the United States had no obligation or authority to obtain additional evidence on the petitioner’s behalf. It confirmed that the judicial power to grant bail in special circumstances extends to post-certification cases, notwithstanding the treaty’s provisions requiring detention until surrender. The requesting state’s prolonged delay and the availability of release in Turkey, particularly the fact that neither co-defendant had been detained, constituted special circumstances; the duration of custody and compelling family circumstances reinforced that conclusion when assessed together. Finding no danger to the community and that conditions could mitigate flight risk, the court ordered home detention with electronic monitoring at the petitioner’s expense, regular reporting to Pretrial Services, and travel restricted to Charlestown, Massachusetts, while leaving the extradition certification in place.
15/09/2026 · United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island · C.A. No. 26-cv-350-MRD-PAS; 2026 WL 2878925
🇺🇸United States → 🇹🇷Turkey
Decision on precautionary measureExtradition
Mandatory treaty detention forecloses bail despite special circumstances
✕
Summary
Following certification of the requested person’s extradition from the United States to Türkiye, the requested person renewed her application for release, relying on the existence of special circumstances and the court’s general authority to consider bail before and after certification. The District Court held that an extradition court has no discretion to grant bail where the governing treaty expressly requires the requested person to remain detained until the extradition request is determined and, if granted, until surrender. It found that Article 9 of the United States–Türkiye Extradition Treaty was a self-executing provision binding on the court as the supreme law of the land under the Supremacy Clause. The court rejected the special-circumstances argument and distinguished earlier authority granting bail because that authority had not considered the treaty’s mandatory-detention clause.
23/07/2026 · United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts · No. 24-mj-01198-DLC; 2026 WL 2123048
🇺🇸United States → 🇹🇷Turkey
Decision on precautionary measureExtradition
Extradition to Turkey allowed despite fair trial concerns, subject to detention and return assurances
✕
Summary
The requested person, a Dutch national of Kurdish origin, opposed extradition to Türkiye for prosecution for a drug-trafficking offence, arguing that his political activities exposed him to a flagrant denial of justice and that the criminal charge was a pretext for political persecution. The District Court acknowledged serious concerns regarding judicial independence and the rule of law in Türkiye but found no sufficiently concrete indication that the proceedings against the requested person were politically motivated or that his surrender would expose him to a flagrant breach of Article 6 ECHR. Extradition was therefore declared admissible. The Court nevertheless advised the Minister to obtain assurances concerning detention conditions, taking account of the requested person’s Kurdish background and public activities, and to require a specific and unconditional guarantee that, if convicted, he could return to the Netherlands to serve his sentence.
22/07/2026 · District Court of Amsterdam · ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2026:7662; Case No. 13-020824-26
🇳🇱Netherlands → 🇹🇷Turkey
GrantedExtradition
Extradition to Turkey refused: naturalized Brazilian status and generic FETÖ/PDY allegations barred surrender
✕
Summary
The case concerned an extradition request submitted by Turkey, based on reciprocity, for the prosecution of a naturalized Brazilian citizen accused of membership in the armed terrorist organisation FETÖ/PDY. The Brazilian Supreme Federal Court refused extradition on two independent grounds. First, the Court held that the requested person had acquired Brazilian nationality in January 2012, whereas the alleged offence was said to have occurred in April 2017. Since the offence was allegedly committed after naturalization, and there was no allegation of prior common crime or drug trafficking, Article 5, LI, of the Brazilian Constitution created an absolute constitutional bar to extradition. Secondly, the Court found that the Turkish request did not clearly and precisely individualize the requested person’s conduct. The allegations referred generally to his links with cultural and educational activities, alleged use of ByLock, bank movements and alleged association with FETÖ/PDY, but failed to explain with sufficient specificity his role, hierarchy or concrete contribution to the alleged terrorist organisation. The Court held that such lack of individualization prevented verification of double criminality under Brazilian law. The extradition request was therefore unanimously refused.
01/06/2026 · Brazilian Supreme Federal Court · EXT 1927 / DF
🇧🇷Brazil → 🇹🇷Turkey
DeniedExtradition
Extradition to Turkey refused due to risk of inhuman or degrading treatment
✕
Summary
If there is a current and concrete risk of a violation of the fundamental rights of the requested person, the extradition request must be refused. After reconstructing the procedural background and confirming that the formal requirements for extradition were met, the Court ruled out surrender on the ground that, if transferred to Turkey, the requested person would face a concrete risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. In particular, the Court relied on the updated picture of systemic concerns regarding the protection of fundamental rights in Turkey, with specific reference to detention conditions, the independence of the judiciary, the protection of fair trial rights, and the effectiveness of the guarantees arising under the ECHR. Referring to domestic and supranational case law, as well as several institutional and international sources, the Court held that any assurances provided by the requesting State were not sufficient, in the absence of objective, precise and up-to-date elements, to rule out the risk of violations of the requested person’s fundamental rights.
26/05/2026 · Court of Appeal of Milan · 60/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇹🇷Turkey
DeniedExtradition
European Convention on Extradition and assessment, by the Italian Judicial Authority, if the evidentiary framework is weak
✕
Summary
Where the 1957 European Convention on Extradition applies — which does not provide for an autonomous assessment of the evidentiary material by the authority of the requested State in cases of extradition for prosecution — the Italian judicial authority, on the one hand, must not confine itself to a merely formal review of the documentation attached to the surrender request and, on the other hand, is required to ascertain that the request sets out the reasons why, from the perspective of the requesting State, the commission of the offence attributed to the accused person was considered probable, without any possibility of directly examining the sources of evidence. Accordingly, even within the limits of a summary assessment as to the seriousness of the evidentiary indications, the requested authority must nevertheless assess, on the basis of the documents produced and the content of the request, the specificity of the charges and of the sources of evidence. That being clarified, where the evidentiary framework is sparse, Italian courts cannot rely on unsatisfactory and merely apparent reasoning, without specifying the allegations and the sources of evidence or investigative findings capable of linking the facts to the charges.
07/05/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 18521/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇹🇷Turkey
Reversal and remandExtradition
Extradition to Turkey, precautionary measures and prognosis on extradition
✕
Summary
Article 714 requires, for the adoption of a coercive measure aimed at securing surrender, a prognostic assessment as to whether the conditions exist for a judgment granting extradition. This provision constitutes an unavoidable “safeguard” for the requested person, as it prevents the risk of unjustified restrictions on his personal liberty and introduces a threshold already at the moment when the Court must decide whether to impose the coercive measure — and also when it is called upon to decide on an application for revocation or replacement of the measure. Therefore, especially if the request comes from a State — Turkey — whose situation is extremely complex, in light of the circumstances specifically documented by the defence concerning the risk of violations of the requested person’s fundamental rights, the Court cannot omit the prognostic assessment.
30/04/2026 · Italian Supreme Court · 20104/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇹🇷Turkey
Decision on precautionary measureExtradition
Extradition granted despite alleged political persecution and risk to life in Türkiye
✕
Summary
A Turkish national was sought for extradition from Georgia to Türkiye for prosecution in connection with an alleged premeditated murder and attempted murder committed in 2023. The requested person argued that he had been politically persecuted in Türkiye, that his life would be at risk upon surrender, and that the criminal proceedings were connected to his political views. The Supreme Court of Georgia held that these allegations were essentially hypothetical and were unsupported by concrete evidence capable of establishing substantial grounds for believing that extradition would expose him to a real risk of violations of his Convention rights. Taking into account Türkiye's international human rights obligations and the assurances provided by its central authorities, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision declaring extradition admissible.
10/03/2026 · Supreme Court of Georgia · 76/26
🇬🇪Georgia → 🇹🇷Turkey
GrantedExtradition
Double criminality not satisfied where aggregate sentence includes an offence not punishable in the requested State
✕
Summary
The Regional Court in Łódź denied the extradition request issued by the Republic of Turkey for the execution of 5-year prison sentence for document forgery and misconduct in the prison. The Court deemed the extradition request inadmissible due to lack of double criminality. The Court reasoned that one felony, namely possession of the unauthorized SIM card in the prison, does not have its counterpart in the Polish Criminal Code. The uniqueness of this interpretation rests in the fact that the Court refused to extradite the requested person despite another felony included in the culpable sentence has a counterpart in the Polish law. The Court inferred, therefore, that if any felony included in the culpable sentence and the joint punishment falls outside the scope of double criminality, extradition is inadmissible.
20/01/2026 · The Regional Court in Łódź · IV Kop 50/25
🇵🇱Poland → 🇹🇷Turkey
DeniedExtradition
Procedural Safeguards and Consent-Based Extradition under Turkish Law in an Extradition Request from Denmark
✕
Summary
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.
12/01/2026 · Turkish Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), 5th Criminal Chamber · E. 2025/11836, K. 2026/84
🇹🇷Turkey → 🇩🇰Denmark
GrantedExtradition
Flight risk: the decision cannot be based only on criminal records or severity of the sentence
✕
Summary
In matters of flight risk, neither prior convictions nor the severity of the sentence can, in themselves, establish proof of a risk of absconding, as they are abstract considerations from which it is not possible to infer a genuine intention to evade the decision that the Court of Appeal will ultimately take at the end of the proceedings. In particular, while the severity of the sentence is an element of undeniable relevance, it cannot be regarded as the sole benchmark; rather, it must be assessed in conjunction with other specific factors capable of demonstrating a concrete likelihood that the requested person may clandestinely abscond.
30/12/2025 · Italian Supreme Court · 39/2026
🇮🇹Italy → 🇹🇷Turkey
Reversal and remandExtradition
Extradition refused on refugee status, fair trial and inhuman treatment grounds
✕
Summary
The Regional Court in Radom denied the extradition request issued by the Republic of Turkey for the criminal proceedings for terrorism. The Court deemed the extradition request inadmissible due to three main reasons. Firstly, the requested person possesses the refugee status in Poland, therefore cannot be extradited. The Court underlined that the Republic of Poland is prevented from extraditing any refugee, who may be put under threat due to his political viewpoint. The Republic of Turkey is perceived by the Court as a country in which the political opposition is being fought. Secondly, the current political situation in the Republic of Turkey does not assure the fair trial. Thirdly, due to the type of the alleged felony, the requested person may be subject to inhuman or degrading treatment.
08/12/2025 · The Regional Court in Radom · II Kop 55/25
🇵🇱Poland → 🇹🇷Turkey
DeniedExtradition
Extradition to Turkey refused: double criminality, limitation and ne bis in idem concerns
✕
Summary
The Regional Court in Cracow denied the extradition request issued by the Republic of Turkey for the execution of 16-year prison sentence for banking and fiscal frauds. The Court deemed the extradition request inadmissible due to the lacking evidence. The Court reasoned that due to enigmatic descriptions of the alleged felonies it cannot be concluded that the requested person’s conduct is illegal also under the Polish law. Moreover, according to the Polish law, the felonies would have been already barred by limitations. Furthermore, the Court could not have understand the relationship between the two similar sentences rendered by the Turkish court, therefore it encountered certain doubts as to the potential breach of the ne bis in idem principle.
27/10/2025 · The Regional Court in Cracow · III Kop 122/25
🇵🇱Poland → 🇹🇷Turkey
DeniedExtradition
Application of the speciality principle in Post-Extradition Criminal Proceedings
✕
Summary
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.
02/10/2025 · Turkish Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), 2nd Criminal Chamber · E. 2025/10783, K. 2025/17117
🇹🇷Turkey → 🇬🇪Georgia
GrantedExtradition
Indirect refoulement risk through safe third country and protection against onward extradition
✕
Summary
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.
01/10/2025 · Constitutional Court of Türkiye, Second Section · Application No. 2022/108353
🇹🇷Turkey → 🇨🇳China
Rejected (procedural grounds)Extradition
Procedural Safeguards and Sufficiency of Extradition Documents in Extradition Proceedings under Turkish Law
✕
Summary
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.
16/09/2025 · Turkish Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), 4th Criminal Chamber · E. 2025/5784, K. 2025/13611
🇹🇷Turkey → 🇷🇺Russia
Rejected (procedural grounds)Extradition
In Absentia Convictions and Defence Rights in Extradition Proceedings under Turkish Law
✕
Summary
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.
15/09/2025 · Turkish Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), 5th Criminal Chamber · E. 2025/6330, K. 2025/9054
🇹🇷Turkey → 🇰🇿Kazakhstan
Rejected (procedural grounds)Extradition
Remaining sentence calculation and principle of speciality in extradition proceedings under Turkish Law
✕
Summary
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.
15/09/2025 · Turkish Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), 5th Criminal Chamber · E. 2025/6232, K. 2025/9055
🇹🇷Turkey → 🇬🇧United Kingdom
Rejected (procedural grounds)Extradition
Extradition granted for terrorism-related offences despite claims of political persecution and human rights risks
✕
Summary
A Turkish national was sought for extradition from Georgia to Türkiye for prosecution for several serious offences, including membership of an armed terrorist organisation, terrorism financing, attempts against the constitutional order, murder, attempted murder and aggravated robbery. The requested person argued that the proceedings were politically motivated, that he had been persecuted because of his political views, and that extradition would expose him to risks contrary to Articles 2 and 3 ECHR and to an unfair trial. The Supreme Court of Georgia found that the double criminality and other statutory extradition requirements were satisfied and that no concrete evidence established a real risk of political persecution, discriminatory treatment, torture, inhuman treatment or a flagrant denial of justice. It also relied on specific assurances provided by the competent Turkish authorities and dismissed the appeal, thereby upholding the decision declaring extradition admissible.
01/08/2025 · Supreme Court of Georgia · 99I-25
🇬🇪Georgia → 🇹🇷Turkey
GrantedExtradition
Unlawful continuation of extradition detention after removal of Interpol Red Notice
✕
Summary
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.
29/07/2025 · Constitutional Court of Türkiye, Second Section · Application No. 2022/56012
🇹🇷Turkey → 🇭🇹Haiti
Unlawful DetentionExtradition
Country Contributor
Vahit Bıçak
Haraç Law & Consultancy
Prof. Dr. Vahit Bıçak is a Turkish attorney, expert of criminal law, criminal procedure law, and evidence law, and an internationally recognised practitioner specialising in extradition, INTERPOL Red Notices, cross-border criminal investigations, international judicial cooperation, white-collar crime, anti-money laundering (AML), sanctions-related proceedings, cybercrime, and transnational financial offences.
He is the Founder and Chairman of Bıçak Law Firm, a full-service law firm headquartered in Ankara with an additional office in Istanbul. The firm advises domestic and international clients in complex criminal, regulatory, compliance, and cross-border dispute matters involving multiple jurisdictions and international enforcement authorities.
Prof. Dr. Bıçak has more than three decades of professional experience in criminal law, criminal procedure law, international criminal cooperation, organised crime, financial crime, compliance, and regulatory investigations. His practice focuses particularly on extradition proceedings, INTERPOL Red Notice matters, European Arrest Warrant-related issues, international fraud investigations, money laundering and asset tracing, sanctions and export control investigations, cybercrime and digital evidence, corporate criminal liability, crossborder economic and business crimes, and international criminal defense and judicial cooperation.
He regularly advises individuals, executives, companies, and foreign legal teams in matters involving parallel criminal investigations, provisional arrests, mutual legal assistance, international arrest requests, and transnational financial enforcement proceedings.
Prof. Dr. Bıçak is widely recognised as a leading practitioner in Türkiye in the field of business criminal law and white-collar crime. He has advised on legislative and regulatory matters concerning fraud, corruption, bribery, anti-money laundering compliance, insider dealing, cybercrime, tax-related offences, financial misconduct, and organised criminal structures.
Prof. Dr. Bıçak graduated from the Faculty of Law of Ankara University and obtained his Ph.D. in Law from the University of Nottingham in the United Kingdom with a thesis concerning improperly obtained evidence and criminal procedure safeguards.
Throughout his academic and professional career, he has served as a visiting scholar and lecturer at several internationally recognised institutions, including the City University of New York and Fordham Law School in the United States, Lyon II University Faculty of Law in France, and the University of Maribor in Slovenia.
He has also held academic positions at leading Turkish universities, including Hacettepe University, Gazi University, Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli University, Bilkent University, Atılım University, and Başkent University. Since 1990, he has lectured extensively on criminal law, criminal procedure law, evidence law, organised crime, financial crime, international criminal cooperation, cybercrime, and business criminal law.
Prof. Dr. Bıçak has authored numerous academic and professional publications concerning criminal law, constitutional law, anti-money laundering regulation, cybercrime, evidence law, and comparative legal systems. His international publications include contributions to comparative legal publications and international legal guides relating to anti-money laundering, constitutional law, cybersecurity, and regulatory enforcement.
He currently serves as the Türkiye Ambassador of the International Sanctions & Export Control Society (ISECS) and as the White-Collar Crime Law Representative for Türkiye at Cross Border Advisory Solutions.
Under his leadership, Bıçak Law Firm maintains active international cooperation with foreign law firms, compliance professionals, academics, and legal practitioners across multiple jurisdictions in matters involving extradition, sanctions, INTERPOL, financial crime, cyber investigations, and international regulatory enforcement. Prof. Dr. Bıçak is fluent in Turkish and English.
Country Contributor
Ali Yildiz
Ali Yildiz Legal
He is a member of both the Ankara and Brussels Bar Associations and has been dedicatedly practicing law since 2004. His academic journey in law began with an LLB degree from the University of Ankara, followed by an LLM in International and European Law at Vrije Universiteit Brussel. He is fluent in Turkish, proficient in English, and has a basic understanding of Dutch.
He is a human rights lawyer and expert in individual applications to the European Court of Human Rights, UN Human Rights Mechanisms, the INTERPOL Commission for the Control of Files, and extradition and asylum procedures.
He completed expert witness training in the University of London. He is a member of the EIN’s Directory of Experts on Country of Origin. He provides expert witness reports on Turkish law in general, as well as on extradition and asylum cases. He has been involved as an expert witness in cases in the USA, the UK, Scotland and Belgium.
He is the author of several human rights monitoring reports on Turkey.
He is a regular legal writer, publishing on Verfassungsblog, Just Security, and with The International Association of Constitutional Law. He often provides comments to international media, including the Wall Street Journal, Al-Monitor, Balkan Insight, Turkish Minute, Ahval, Free Turkish Press, and The National.
He is a member of the Legal Experts Advisory Panel of Fair Trials, a member of Lawyers Against Transnational Repression, and the recipient of the ECBA Scott Crosby Human Rights Award 2025.
His dedication to the legal profession has been recognized through several international distinctions. In 2019, he was shortlisted as a finalist for the Lawyers for Lawyers Award, which honours lawyers who have shown exceptional courage and commitment to defending human rights and the rule of law. In 2021, he was invited to join the Legal Experts Advisory Panel of Fair Trials, a leading European NGO promoting fairness and justice in criminal proceedings. In 2025, he became one of the founding members of Lawyers Against Transnational Repression, an international network of legal professionals defending those targeted across borders. That same year, he was honoured with the Scott Crosby Human Rights Award by the European Criminal Bar Association (ECBA) in recognition of his work for human rights and the legal profession.
Country Contributor
Mehmet Fırat Can Haraç
Mehmet Fırat Can Haraç Law Firm
Mehmet Fırat Can Haraç is a Turkish criminal defence lawyer and a member of the Istanbul Bar Association. He has been practising law since 2020 and is based in Istanbul. He is currently pursuing an LL.M. in Public Law at Bahçeşehir University, with a particular academic interest in criminal law, criminal procedure and fundamental rights.

He is a native Turkish speaker, professionally proficient in English, and has a basic knowledge of Italian and French.

His practice focuses on criminal defence, extradition proceedings, international judicial cooperation in criminal matters, INTERPOL Red Notices and cross-border criminal cases.
His extradition experience includes representing a Russian national sought for extradition from Türkiye, as well as Turkish nationals whose extradition to Türkiye was sought from Italy. He has also worked on extradition cases involving Belgian and Greek nationals, providing legal opinions on issues arising under Turkish extradition law and procedure.
He has experience in INTERPOL-related matters and has prepared applications before the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF), particularly concerning Red Notices. His work in international criminal cooperation has a particular focus on the protection of fundamental rights and the human-rights implications of extradition, international arrest measures and other forms of cross-border criminal cooperation.
He has also prepared individual applications to the European Court of Human Rights concerning alleged violations of rights protected under the European Convention on Human Rights and closely follows the Court’s case law and proceedings.
Alongside his legal practice, Fırat is actively involved in international professional organisations. He serves as an Executive Officer of the European Young Bar Association (EYBA) and is involved in the Association’s work concerning the Council of Europe.
His principal professional interests include criminal defence, extradition law, INTERPOL mechanisms, international criminal cooperation, criminal procedure and the protection of fundamental rights in cross-border criminal proceedings.
Need legal assistance?

Extradition proceedings involving Turkey

Contact a specialist lawyer with proven experience in extradition cases.

Contact →