Extradition to Türkiye – Turkish-speaking legal advice, legal assessment & defense in Hamburg

The attorneys at our Hamburg criminal law firm advise and represent defendants nationwide in extradition proceedings involving Turkey. We represent clients when extradition to Turkey is imminent, i.e., when the judicial authorities of the Republic of Turkey have contacted the German authorities with an extradition request, a Red Notice has been published from Turkey with Interpol, or an extradition warrant has already been issued on this basis. We also advise the defense team as German attorneys in extradition proceedings from Turkey to Germany. Following extradition to Germany for the purpose of prosecution, we regularly also act as defense attorneys in the subsequent criminal proceedings, particularly in cases involving drug-related charges.

With attorney Gül Pinar, you have an experienced lawyer specializing in extradition proceedings at your side who is familiar with the Turkish legal system and can also advise you in Turkish.

Extradition Agreement Türkiye

The basis for extraditions between Germany and the Republic of Turkey is the European Extradition Convention of 1957 (EUAÜbk), to which Germany and Turkey are also parties. According to Article 1 of the EUAÜbk, extradition is mandatory if the extradition request complies with the provisions of the agreement. Under German law, the provisions of the Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (IRG) also apply to extraditions.

In principle, extradition to the Republic of Turkey for the purposes of criminal prosecution or for the purpose of enforcing a sentence is legally possible. This means that both Germany and Turkey can request the other state to extradite a specific individual for criminal proceedings against them. An extradition request can also be made if a person has already been convicted in the respective state, but the sentence imposed has yet to be enforced. However, neither state extradites its own citizens.

Extradition proceedings, Interpol Red Notice and extradition detention

Extradition proceedings typically begin with an extradition request from the requesting state. This request is transmitted through diplomatic channels to the requested state, which can then issue an extradition warrant after examining each individual case. Typically, the person concerned only learns upon arrest that they are wanted by another state for the purposes of criminal prosecution or for the purpose of executing a sentence. This can happen, for example, if an extradition warrant has been issued. Alternatively, a so-called red notice, i.e., an international wanted person notice, may have been issued by INTERPOL at the request of the requesting state. Based on such a red notice, an extradition warrant can then be issued by the German courts.

Arrest in Germany on the basis of an international arrest warrant, an extradition warrant, or an Interpol Red Notice always carries the threat of extradition detention. If extradition to Turkey appears legally permissible in an individual case, the competent Higher Regional Court can order (initially) provisional detention pending extradition. The grounds for detention are usually the risk that the person being prosecuted will evade the extradition proceedings or the execution of the extradition (Section 15 (1) No. 1 of the International Criminal Court Act).

Legal action can be taken against an extradition warrant. Our firm's lawyers, who specialize in extradition law, consistently achieve either the revocation of an extradition warrant or at least its suspension ("exemption"). A careful examination of each individual case is crucial.

Obstacles to extradition to Turkey

An extradition warrant is often overturned because of an obstacle to extradition. Concerns regarding the rule of law, human rights, and problematic prison conditions in Turkey have been considered to be an obstacle to extradition. However, a violation of the ne bis in idem principle, the double jeopardy principle, can also be a reason for extradition to be inadmissible. For example, exporting drugs from Turkey to another country can lead to both Turkey and the other country initiating criminal proceedings against the person concerned.

With regard to Turkey, there have been and continue to be political developments that also impact the judicial circumstances there – and thus also the question of whether extradition to Turkey is legally permissible or not. According to Section 73, Sentence 1 of the International Criminal Court Act (IRG), the provision of legal assistance is inadmissible if it would contradict fundamental principles of German jurisprudence. This also includes if there is a risk of a violation of the fundamental right to a fair trial (Article 6 of the ECHR) or inhumane detention conditions (Article 3 of the ECHR). The Turkish judicial authorities must provide binding assurances in each individual case that such conditions are not imminent.

The Federal Constitutional Court has also stipulated that, before deciding on the admissibility of an extradition, higher regional courts must obtain written clarification of certain circumstances, such as the concrete risk of political persecution (cf. Art. 3 of the EU Extradition Act) or the practicality of, for example, guaranteed detention conditions. For this purpose, questionnaires are sent to the requesting state via the judicial authorities. These include, for example, questions about which prison someone would be housed in, the size of the cell, and how many people would be accommodated. Furthermore, local medical care and – in cases of extradition for the purposes of criminal prosecution – the question of whether the person being extradited to the requesting state can personally attend a trial against them are recurring topics.

These assurances are requested by the respective public prosecutor's office via the national judicial authorities or embassies. If such specific information is not provided by the requesting state within a specified time limit, the Higher Regional Court may declare the extradition inadmissible.

Legal situation regarding extraditions to Turkey

There are now repeated rulings by both the Higher Regional Courts and the Federal Constitutional Court declaring extradition to Turkey inadmissible. The decisive factors were often inadequate detention conditions and the lack of guarantees of minimum procedural rights in Turkey. In many cases, a constitutional complaint remains the last effective means of preventing extradition in the final instance.

In particular, the attempted coup in Turkey on July 15, 2016, had (negative) effects on the human rights situation in Turkey. As a result, extraditions were repeatedly declared inadmissible due to a perceived obstacle to extradition. In a ruling dated May 12, 2017 (case no. 2 Ausl A 76/15), the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main specified the admissibility requirements for extradition to Turkey, stating that "specific assurances must be given regarding detention conditions that comply with the ECHR, the prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment, the rule of law of the proceedings, and the visiting rights of German diplomatic missions abroad." Furthermore, the prison to which a suspect is to be taken must be specified. The Higher Regional Court of Berlin had already made a similar decision in its decision of 17 January 2017 (case no. (4) 151 AuslA 11/16 (10/17)) and stated the following regarding the content of the internationally binding assurances to be given by Turkey:

Indication of the detention facility (exact name of the detention facility) – located within a maximum distance of 250 kilometers from the German Embassy or a German (General) Consulate – into which the person being prosecuted will be taken after extradition and in which he will be detained for the duration of his deprivation of liberty;
Assurance that the physical accommodation and other detention conditions in this prison comply with European minimum standards and that prisoners there are not at risk of inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the ECHR;
Description of the detention conditions in the named prison, in particular with regard to: number of places, total number of prisoners, number, size and equipment of the cells (including details of windows, fresh air supply and heating), occupancy of the cells, equipment of the prison with sanitary facilities, catering conditions, type and conditions of access of prisoners to medical care;
Assurance that visits by diplomatic or consular representatives of the Federal Republic of Germany to the persecuted person are possible during the period of his or her detention, even unannounced.

In its decision of June 2, 2017 (case no. 2 AR (Ausl) 44/17), the Higher Regional Court of Celle initially emphasized that the extradition of a person being prosecuted for the purposes of criminal prosecution and the execution of a sentence to Turkey was not fundamentally inadmissible, despite the political situation there at that time. However, it could not be ruled out that the detention conditions there violated the minimum human rights standards enshrined in Article 3 of the ECHR. The fear that the person being prosecuted, as a suspected supporter of the "Gülen movement," would not receive a fair trial in Turkey was also recognized, for example, by the Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe (decision of October 19, 2018 (case no. Ausl 301 AR 134/18)) and called for further clarification.

After 2020, however, the case law of the higher regional courts in proceedings "regarding general crime" changed quite uniformly (again) to the effect that "the concern that the guarantee of a fair trial for those persecuted in Turkey no longer exists" was a matter of concern. This was the ruling of the Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court in its decision of December 29, 2020 (case no. 301 AR 198/20) and the Bremen Higher Regional Court in its decision of January 3, 2022 (case no. 1 Ausl A 28/20). The Bremen Higher Regional Court declared extradition to Turkey permissible because the concerns regarding the detention conditions there could be addressed by the assurance of ECHR-compliant detention conditions. In a decision dated January 23, 2025 (case no. 2 OAus 26/24), the Brandenburg Higher Regional Court has also recently considered the Republic of Turkey's assurance, which is binding under international law, that the conditions of detention of the person being persecuted there comply with the requirements of Article 3 of the ECHR, that he will not be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of this provision, and that the responsible German diplomatic mission abroad has the opportunity to visit the person being persecuted and to inform itself on site about the existing conditions, to be reliable.

In our opinion, given the current political and human rights situation in Turkey, extradition there could be considered inadmissible: https://verfassungsblog.de/falsches-vertrauen/

When it comes to the threat of a "blood feud" in Turkey, the Brandenburg Higher Regional Court recently ruled in its decision of September 2, 2024 (case no. 1 OAus 26/24) that this is generally not an obstacle to extradition to Turkey. Eight years earlier, the Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court had already listed when extradition may be inadmissible in cases of "blood feud": “Reprisals threatened against the person being pursued by way of ‘blood feud’ may render extradition inadmissible if it can be assumed that the requesting state is unable to effectively protect the physical integrity of the person being pursued while in custody.”

Overall, case law on extraditions to Turkey has set increasingly higher standards in recent years, particularly with regard to the assurances provided by the Turkish judicial authorities. However, the current political and judicial situation in Turkey is no reason for the German judiciary to declare an extradition there inadmissible. This was recently expressly stated by the Hanseatic Higher Regional Court in a decision dated August 6, 2025, in response to our corresponding submission. In the extradition proceedings, we had pointed out the developments in Turkey, particularly since March 2025, with numerous arrests, as can be seen from media reports. In this respect, the Hanseatic Higher Regional Court in the area of general crime saw no reason to doubt the independence of the courts.

Constitutional complaint and case law of the Federal Constitutional Court

If the competent Higher Regional Court declares an extradition admissible, there is no longer any legal recourse. The only remaining option is to appeal to the Federal Constitutional Court, i.e., file a constitutional complaint and, if necessary, apply for interim relief. There are repeatedly successful constitutional complaints, particularly regarding extraditions to Turkey:

Federal Constitutional Court, decision of 21 May 2024 (case no. 2 BvR 1694/23)

In its decision of May 21, 2024, the Federal Constitutional Court largely upheld a constitutional complaint against the decision of the Braunschweig Higher Regional Court regarding the admissibility of the extradition of a Turkish citizen to Turkey. The defendant had been sentenced to a long prison term in Turkey for theft. While in a correctional facility in Germany, he attempted suicide in January 2023, suffering severe burns. Despite his known suicidal tendencies, the Braunschweig Higher Regional Court deemed extradition to Turkey admissible and ordered the continuation of his extradition detention.

In response to the constitutional complaint filed against this decision, the Federal Constitutional Court ruled that the complainant's right to effective legal protection under Article 19, Paragraph 4 of the Basic Law had been violated because the Higher Regional Court had failed to adequately examine whether preventive measures against a further suicide attempt were necessary. The Federal Constitutional Court emphasized the obligation of German courts to comprehensively investigate all relevant facts and, in particular, to examine the human rights and treatment options of the person being prosecuted after a possible transfer. The Turkish assurances regarding detention conditions at Yalvaç Prison and psychological support were not sufficiently substantiated in the case before the court. From a medical perspective, the continued health risk to the person being prosecuted was considered to be significant.

The Federal Constitutional Court subsequently ordered a temporary suspension of extradition. The case was remanded to the Higher Regional Court for further review.

Federal Constitutional Court, decision of December 18, 2023 (case no. 2 BvR 1368/23)

The man was wanted by the Republic of Türkiye for cocaine trafficking. According to the assurances given, he would be placed in a detention facility that complies with European human rights standards after his transfer.

However, the Federal Constitutional Court criticized the Celle Higher Regional Court for failing to adequately examine whether the complainant or defendant could be present in person in Turkish criminal proceedings or could only participate via video conference. While the case law of the European Court of Human Rights permits video assistance, it does so only under the condition that the right to a fair trial and genuine participation are guaranteed.

The Federal Constitutional Court therefore demanded detailed clarification of the actual procedural conditions, in particular the use and reliability of video technology and the possibility of confidential communication with defense counsel. It pointed out that personal presence in the courtroom is a fundamental element of the rule of law and may not be replaced by a mere video transmission if this compromises effective participation.

Federal Constitutional Court, decision of August 3, 2023 (case no. 2 BvR 1838/22)

Following a constitutional complaint filed by a Turkish citizen against the Naumburg Higher Regional Court's decision of August 16, 2022 (case no. 1 AR 112/22), which had declared his extradition to Turkey admissible, the Federal Constitutional Court overturned the decision and remanded the case. The extradition request for the purpose of criminal prosecution was based on a judgment rendered in absentia for manslaughter.

The court criticized the Naumburg Higher Regional Court for failing to adequately examine whether the extradition was compatible with German fundamental rights and the binding minimum standards under international law. In particular, there was no reliable assurance from Turkey that the complainant would be granted a retrial with an effective opportunity to defend himself.

In its decision, the Federal Constitutional Court emphasized that German legal protection in extraditions must be not only formal but also substantive, and that German courts are obligated to critically examine the respect of fundamental rights by the requesting judiciary. A mere reference to Turkish law is insufficient. The Federal Constitutional Court therefore overturned the higher regional court's admissibility decision and demanded a detailed review.

Federal Constitutional Court, decision of 30 March 2022 (case no. 2 BvR 2069/21)

The Higher Regional Court of Hamm had declared the extradition of a Turkish citizen to Turkey for the purposes of criminal prosecution permissible. The extradition request was based on an allegation of manslaughter. The person being sought was recognized as a refugee in Italy.

In its decision of March 30, 2022, the Federal Constitutional Court found a violation of the complainant's fundamental right under Article 101, paragraph 1, sentence 2 of the Basic Law. The Higher Regional Court of Hamm failed to refer the question of whether refugee recognition by the Italian authorities is binding for the extradition proceedings in Germany to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). This constitutes a violation of the complainant's right to a lawful judge (Article 101, paragraph 1, sentence 2 of the Basic Law) and constitutes a breach of duty under Article 267, paragraph 3 of the TFEU.

The ruling points out that Germany has a duty under EU law to consider Italy's recognition as a refugee when deciding on extradition. Extradition would be inadmissible as long as refugee status exists, because it provides protection from political persecution (Geneva Convention on Refugees). The ECJ must clarify how this recognition should be taken into account in the extradition proceedings.

The Federal Constitutional Court also examined that there were no sufficient indications of actual political persecution and that the Turkish authorities had provided assurances regarding a fair trial. However, given these circumstances, there was no compelling obstacle to extradition.

ECJ, judgment of 18 June 2024 (case C-352/22)

After the Higher Regional Court of Hamm referred this question to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for a decision, the ECJ ruled on June 18, 2024, that a third-country national who has been recognized as a refugee in an EU Member State may not be extradited to their country of origin as long as this recognition exists. The crucial condition is that the requested Member State initiates an exchange of information with the authority of the first Member State that granted refugee status prior to extradition, and that this authority has not revoked the recognition.

The ECJ relies on the principle of non-refoulement under the Geneva Refugee Convention, as well as on the principles of mutual trust and loyal cooperation between EU member states. Extradition would undermine the protection mechanism of refugee status, as an asylum procedure and associated legal remedies in another EU state are necessary to maintain protection status.

The ECJ emphasizes that recognition of refugee status in a Member State is binding and may not be effectively terminated by extradition, as this would constitute a violation of EU fundamental rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The decisions of the EU Member States must be closely coordinated in this context, and the rights of recognized refugees must be comprehensively protected.

We expect the Federal Constitutional Court to address extradition issues to Turkey again in 2025. As lawyers specializing in extradition law, we also file constitutional complaints if there is a good chance of success.

Turkish-speaking legal assistance for extradition from or to Turkey

Our criminal law firm in Hamburg offers legal assistance in cases of threatened extradition to or from Turkey. We are familiar with current case law and have in-depth expertise in extradition law, as well as extensive experience in extradition proceedings, renditions, and constitutional complaints before the Federal Constitutional Court.