Overview
Iceland is not a member of the EU, but has been a Schengen-associated state since 2001. Extradition traffic between Germany and Iceland has been governed since 1 November 2019 by the Agreement between the EU, Iceland and Norway of 28 June 2006 on the surrender procedure (EU–IS/NO Surrender Agreement; OJ EU L 292 of 21 Oct 2006, p. 2). This agreement adopts the essential basic principles and procedural rules of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European Arrest Warrant.
Domestically, the surrender procedure is implemented in the Thirteenth Part of the IRG (Sections 98 ff. IRG) (Fifth Act Amending the IRG, Federal Law Gazette 2019 I p. 1999). In the bilateral relationship with Iceland, the European Convention on Extradition of 13 Dec 1957 has been superseded by the Surrender Agreement since 1 Nov 2019 (Art. 34 EU–IS/NO Surrender Agreement).
On the Icelandic side, the Lög um framsal sakamanna og aðra aðstoð í sakamálum (Framsalslög, No. 13/1984 as subsequently amended) applies. National law was adapted accordingly for EU–IS/NO surrenders. Mutual legal assistance traffic proceeds formally as in the EAW system, with only a few deviations (dual criminality, extradition of nationals).
Legal basis
Extradition to Iceland has been governed since 1 November 2019 by the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway of 28 June 2006 on the surrender procedure between the Member States of the European Union and Iceland and Norway (OJ EU L 292 of 21 Oct 2006, p. 2; entry into force: notice OJ EU L 230 of 6 Sep 2019, p. 1). Implemented domestically in the Thirteenth Part of the IRG (Sections 98 ff. IRG, inserted by the Fifth Act Amending the IRG of 2 Dec 2019, Federal Law Gazette 2019 I p. 1999).
In the bilateral relationship between Germany and Iceland, the European Convention on Extradition of 13 December 1957 has been superseded since 1 Nov 2019 (Art. 34(1) EU–IS/NO Surrender Agreement). It applies only subsidiarily, insofar as the Surrender Agreement does not apply.
On the German side, the Higher Regional Courts are competent in the admissibility proceedings (Section 29 IRG in conjunction with Sections 98 ff. IRG); the granting decision is made by the General Public Prosecutor's Office. On the Icelandic side, the Dómsmálaráðuneytið (Ministry of Justice) is the central authority; arrest warrants are issued by the Ríkissaksóknari (Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions), with jurisdictional review by the Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court of first instance).
For German citizens, Article 16(2) of the Basic Law in conjunction with Sections 98 ff. IRG applies. Iceland and Germany have mutually declared that they will in principle extradite their own nationals, with an assurance of return under Art. 7(2) EU–IS/NO Surrender Agreement.
Country-specific issues in Iceland
Change of regime as of 1 Nov 2019: Before this date, extradition traffic followed the European Convention on Extradition. Since then, the Surrender Agreement applies, with EAW-like structures: shorter time limits (60/90 days in total, 10 days after consent), the principle of mutual recognition, and a reduced review of dual criminality for list offenses.
Numerically limited extradition traffic: In practice, surrenders between Germany and Iceland are rather rare. Small population, low cross-border crime pressure. The formally correct handling of the procedure is all the more important.
Dual criminality: The substantive review is in principle retained (Art. 3(3) EU–IS/NO Surrender Agreement). Germany has not waived the review for list offenses (Art. 3(4)).
Judgments in absentia: Art. 8a of the Surrender Agreement (inserted by the 2009 Protocol) corresponds in substance to Art. 4a of the EAW Framework Decision; Section 98 IRG refers to the corresponding application of Section 83 IRG.
Detention conditions: Icelandic prisons are numerically small (the main facility: Litla-Hraun) and meet European standards. CPT reports raise no structural objections. The Aranyosi review is unproblematic in practice.
Detention conditions and the human-rights review
Detention conditions in Icelandic prisons meet high European standards. Iceland has a numerically small prison system (Fangelsismálastofnun); the main facilities are Litla-Hraun (closed prison), Kvíabryggja (open prison), Sogn and Hólmsheiði (pre-trial detention and women's prison in Reykjavík).
In its reports on Iceland (most recently 2019), the CPT found no structural deficiencies within the meaning of Article 3 ECHR. Individual objections concerned the condition of certain older facilities; no structural defects were attested. Hólmsheiði (opened 2016) is regarded as a modern reference facility for short-term and pre-trial detention.
No ECtHR convictions of Iceland for violations of Article 3 ECHR are known. The Aranyosi review is unproblematic in practice in Iceland surrenders. Specific assurances are relevant only in exceptional cases.
Lines of defense
The defense in Iceland surrender proceedings follows the structures of the EAW system, adapted to the Surrender Agreement:
- Section 98 IRG in conjunction with Section 83a IRG (minimum particulars): formal review of the presentation of the alleged offense, analogous to the EAW.
- Section 98 IRG in conjunction with Section 83 IRG (judgments in absentia): for Icelandic judgments in absentia, an assurance of the possibility of a retrial.
- Extradition of Germans: assurance of return under Art. 7(2) EU–IS/NO Surrender Agreement.
- Dual criminality: the substantive review is in principle retained (Germany has not waived the review for list offenses).
- Rule of specialty: limitation of prosecution to the offenses granted. Relevant in the case of possible onward surrenders Iceland → Nordic Arrest Warrant.
- Regime transition of 1 Nov 2019: in old cases, a review of whether the request formally falls under the European Convention on Extradition or the Surrender Agreement.
- Section 73 sentence 2 IRG (ordre public): in Iceland cases relevant only in exceptional constellations.
- Ne bis in idem (double jeopardy): in the case of parallel German investigations.
- Constitutional complaint with an urgent application (Section 32 BVerfGG): rarely promising in Iceland cases; only in the event of serious formal defects.
Legal representation in Icelandic 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.