Overview
The Hellenic Republic (Greece) has been an EU member state since 1 January 1981, a Schengen member since 2000 and a member of the eurozone since 2001. It is formally fully integrated into the European Arrest Warrant system; the legal basis is Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA and Sections 78 ff. IRG.
In practice, however, extradition to Greece is highly problematic and currently inadmissible in a large number of cases. The decisive authority is the recent leading decision of the Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht, OLG) Schleswig-Holstein, decision of 13 Dec 2024 — 1 OAus 47/24: extradition to Greece is currently inadmissible on account of the detention conditions communicated by the Greek authorities in the available detention facilities. Current overcrowding, understaffing and deficiencies in medical, psychological and other care cannot rule out treatment incompatible with human dignity. This decision follows the settled line of the BVerfG, OLG Stuttgart, OLG Düsseldorf and OLG Celle case law and the ECtHR convictions.
On the Greek side, the Κώδικας Ποινικής Δικονομίας (Code of Criminal Procedure, KPD, Law 4620/2019 as subsequently amended) and the Ποινικός Κώδικας (Criminal Code, Law 4619/2019) apply.
Legal basis
Extradition to Greece is governed primarily by Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European Arrest Warrant, transposed domestically in Sections 78 ff. IRG. Greece transposed the Framework Decision into national law by Law 3251/2004 (FEK A' 127/9.7.2004).
On the German side, the Higher Regional Courts are competent in the admissibility proceedings (Section 29 IRG); the granting decision is made by the General Public Prosecutor's Office (Section 79(2) IRG). On the Greek side, the courts of appeal (Εφετεία) and the investigating judges (Aνακριτές) issue European Arrest Warrants; the receiving authority is the public prosecutor's office at the Athens Court of Appeal or at the locally competent court of appeal. The highest instance in criminal matters is the Άρειος Πάγος (Areios Pagos, Court of Cassation); the supreme administrative court is the Συμβούλιο της Επικρατείας.
For German citizens, Article 16(2) of the Basic Law in conjunction with Section 80 IRG applies. Greek nationals are extradited under Article 5(4) of the Greek Constitution only subject to conditions; within the scope of the EAW Framework Decision, however, the principle of mutual recognition applies.
Country-specific issues in Greece
OLG Schleswig-Holstein, decision of 13 Dec 2024 — 1 OAus 47/24 (leading decision): Extradition to Greece is currently inadmissible on account of the detention conditions communicated by the Greek authorities. Even in the available prison Nigrita, the requested person would in all likelihood be held in a cell with a total of four or five inmates, although the cell is designed for three inmates. According to the information provided by the Greek authorities, the individual detention space amounts to only 2.9–2.35 m² and thus falls below the Muršić minimum standard. The communicated deficiencies in medical care and staffing indicate considerable systemic shortcomings. This decision of the OLG competent for Schleswig-Holstein is the current guideline for the region.
Prior OLG and BVerfG case law: OLG Stuttgart, decision of 8 Jun 2016 — 1 Ausl. 321/15: extradition detention following a Greek extradition request requires that, within a reasonable period, an individual assurance of the requesting state be provided regarding continuous accommodation in an ECHR-compliant facility; abstract, general official declarations are not sufficient. OLG Düsseldorf, decision of 14 Dec 2015 — III-3 AR 15/15: extradition to Greece subject to the reservation of an assurance on detention conditions. OLG Celle, decision of 20 May 2008 — 1 ARs 21/08 (Ausl): inadmissible where a life sentence threatens for minor drug possession.
ECtHR — structural detention-conditions problems: ECtHR, judgment of 21 Jan 2011 — M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, 30696/09: Greece convicted of inhuman detention conditions for asylum seekers (overcrowding, hygiene, pushbacks); the decisive consequence was the temporary suspension of Dublin removals to Greece. Horshill v. Greece: violation of Article 3 ECHR on account of police-custody conditions. ECtHR, judgment of 14 Oct 2025 — B.F. v. Greece, 59816/13: a recent confirmation of problematic detention conditions, albeit a case-specific assessment with vulnerability-based differentiation.
CPT report July 2024: Despite some reforms, overcrowding and pushback practices against migrants remain documented. Systemic deficiencies also exist in ordinary imprisonment, in particular in Korydallos (Athens) and in the Athens airport detention facility.
Dual criminality: outside the list catalogue of Article 2(2) of the EAW Framework Decision, a substantive review applies. Particular note: OLG Celle 1 ARs 21/08 — petty drug offenses carrying the threat of a heavy sentence in Greece are, as a matter of principle, problematic under extradition law.
Detention conditions and the human-rights review
According to the settled case law of the BVerfG, the Higher Regional Courts and the ECtHR, detention conditions in Greek prisons are structurally problematic. Decisive for the north today is the line of the OLG Schleswig-Holstein (1 OAus 47/24 of 13 Dec 2024): extradition currently inadmissible.
The central facilities are Korydallos (Athens, Greece's largest prison, traditionally overcrowded and used for pre-trial detention and the enforcement of sentences), Nigrita (Serres), Diavata (Thessaloniki), Domokos (central Greece, high-security) and Larissa. The Korydallos prison has also been described in parliamentary questions (P-5496/2010 European Parliament) as a European negative example.
The structural deficiencies are: (1) overcrowding — individual detention space regularly below the Muršić minimum standard of 3 m²; (2) inadequate medical and psychological care amid chronic understaffing; (3) hygiene deficiencies — old building stock, inadequate separation of sanitary areas; (4) violence and mistreatment — documented incidents in several facilities; (5) lack of access to effective remedies.
In German extradition practice, following the second stage of review under Aranyosi/Căldăraru and the OLG Schleswig line, a substantiated, facility-specific assurance binding under international law and containing all Aranyosi parameters must regularly be obtained. Experience shows that the Greek authorities are currently often unable to give such assurances reliably — the extradition then fails under Section 73 sentence 2 IRG in conjunction with Article 4 of the EU Charter / Article 3 ECHR.
Lines of defense
The defense in Greece EAW cases is geared to the following points:
- OLG Schleswig-Holstein 1 OAus 47/24 of 13 Dec 2024 (leading decision): before the OLG Schleswig-Holstein, extradition to Greece is currently regularly inadmissible. Legal representation should present this decision as the central argument.
- Section 80 IRG (extradition of Germans): review of the connection to the place of the offense and the assurance of return.
- Section 73 sentence 2 IRG in conjunction with Article 4 of the EU Charter / Article 3 ECHR — Aranyosi/Căldăraru: the first stage of review (a general concern of detention conditions contrary to human rights) is to be affirmed for Greece; the second stage (a concrete risk) is regularly triggered. A substantiated, facility-specific assurance containing the Muršić parameters is required; blanket declarations do not suffice (OLG Stuttgart 1 Ausl. 321/15).
- Muršić standard (ECtHR GC, 7334/13): the 3 m² threshold and the cumulative rebuttal conditions — regularly not met in the case of Greece (cf. 2.35–2.9 m² Nigrita).
- Section 83b(2) IRG (bar to the granting decision): where there is a long-standing habitual residence in Germany, the exercise of discretion by the General Public Prosecutor's Office.
- Section 73 IRG / Article 6 TEU (rule of law, migration/asylum-law questions): for third-country nationals, consideration of the M.S.S. line on the structural asylum problem.
- Directive 2010/64/EU (translation): for non-Greek-speaking requested persons, full availability of all documents.
- Section 81 no. 1 IRG (sentence range): for petty drug offenses carrying the threat of a heavy sentence in Greece, a special review (OLG Celle 1 ARs 21/08).
- Section 83 IRG (judgments in absentia): Greek in-absentia proceedings are frequent — an assurance of a retrial must be demanded (OLG Stuttgart 3 Ausl. 17/98).
- Rule of specialty (Section 83h IRG): limitation to the offenses granted.
- Double jeopardy (ne bis in idem) (Article 50 of the EU Charter, Article 54 CISA): review of the blocking effect of parallel proceedings.
- Constitutional complaint with an urgent application (Section 32 BVerfGG): where fundamental-rights objections remain — in the case of Greece, demonstrably high prospects of success.
Legal representation in Greek extradition proceedings
An extradition case is a specialized mutual-legal-assistance procedure that goes beyond classic criminal defense. Engaging a defense lawyer specialized in extradition law at an early stage is regularly decisive — not only after the formal extradition arrest warrant has been issued, but already from the moment of an arrest based on an Interpol notice, an SIS alert or a European Arrest Warrant.
As a Certified Specialist in Criminal Law with a focus on extradition law, I advise and represent affected persons nationwide before the competent Higher Regional Courts and in constitutional complaint proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court.