Overview
Norway is not a member of the EU, but it has been a Schengen-associated state since 2001. Since 1 November 2019, extradition traffic between Germany and Norway has been governed 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 essential core principles and procedural rules of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European Arrest Warrant.
Domestically, the surrender procedure is transposed in the Thirteenth Part of the IRG (Sections 98 ff. IRG) (Fifth IRG Amendment Act, Federal Law Gazette 2019 I p. 1999). The European Convention on Extradition of 13 Dec 1957 has, in the bilateral relationship with Norway, been superseded by the surrender agreement since 1 Nov 2019 (Art. 34 EU–IS/NO surrender agreement).
On the Norwegian side, the Lov om utlevering av lovbrytere mv. (Utleveringsloven, LOV-1975-06-13-39) applies. For EU–IS/NO surrenders, the act implementing the surrender agreement is decisive (Lov om pågripelse og overlevering til og fra Norge for straffbare forhold på grunnlag av en arrestordre, LOV-2012-01-20-4 — Arrestordreloven). Mutual-legal-assistance traffic proceeds formally as in the EAW system, with only a few deviations.
Legal basis
Extradition to Norway has, since 1 November 2019, been governed 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). Domestically transposed in the Thirteenth Part of the IRG (Sections 98 ff. IRG, inserted by the Fifth IRG Amendment Act of 2 Dec 2019, Federal Law Gazette 2019 I p. 1999).
The European Convention on Extradition of 13 December 1957 has, in the bilateral relationship between Germany and Norway, been superseded since 1 Nov 2019 (Art. 34(1) EU–IS/NO surrender agreement). It applies only in those constellations in which the surrender agreement is not relevant (e.g. for transit transports through third states).
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 Norwegian side, the Justis- og beredskapsdepartementet (Ministry of Justice and Public Security) is the central authority; arrest warrants are issued by the Statsadvokat (public prosecutor's office), with jurisdictional review by the tingrett (court of first instance).
For German citizens, Article 16(2) of the Basic Law in conjunction with Sections 98 ff. IRG applies. Norway and Germany have mutually declared that they will, in principle, extradite their own nationals, although subject to an assurance of return analogous to Art. 5 no. 3 of the EAW Framework Decision (Art. 7(2) EU–IS/NO surrender agreement).
Country-specific issues in Norway
Change of regime as of 1 Nov 2019: Before this date, extradition traffic was governed by the European Convention on Extradition. Since then, the surrender agreement with EAW-like structures applies: shorter time limits (60/90 days in total, 10 days after consent), the principle of mutual recognition, reduced review of dual criminality for list offenses.
Dual criminality and list offenses: Unlike under the EAW Framework Decision, the review of dual criminality is, in principle, retained (Art. 3(3) EU–IS/NO surrender agreement). A waiver in respect of list offenses (Art. 3(4)) is not mandatory; pursuant to its declaration on Art. 3(4), Germany has not waived the list catalogue.
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: Norwegian prisons (fengsler) are regarded as among the most progressive in the world — a high proportion of open custody, the Halden and Bastøy models. CPT reports raise no structural objections. The Aranyosi review is in practice not relevant.
Utleveringsloven for third states: For extradition requests from non-EU/non-IS states, the Utleveringsloven (LOV-1975-06-13-39) continues to apply on the Norwegian side.
Detention conditions and the human-rights review
Detention conditions in Norwegian prisons (fengsler) meet the highest European standards. The Norwegian correctional system (Kriminalomsorgen) is internationally regarded as a benchmark for rehabilitation-oriented imprisonment. Facilities such as Halden and Bastøy are regularly discussed as models for humane custody.
In its reports on Norway, the CPT has found no structural deficiencies within the meaning of Article 3 ECHR. Individual objections in the past concerned the practice of solitary confinement (avdelinger med særlig høyt sikkerhetsnivå), without any structural shortcomings being attested.
ECtHR convictions of Norway for breaches of Article 3 ECHR are extremely rare. The Aranyosi review is in practice unproblematic for Norway surrenders. Special assurances are relevant only in exceptional cases (long-term preventive detention forvaring, mental illness).
Lines of defense
The defense in Norway 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 description of the offense charged, analogous to the EAW.
- Section 98 IRG in conjunction with Section 83 IRG (judgments in absentia): for Norwegian 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 list-offense exception).
- Rule of specialty: limitation of prosecution to the offenses granted. Relevant in the case of possible onward surrenders Norway → Nordic Arrest Warrant.
- Forvaring (preventive detention): where Norwegian preventive detention (of indefinite duration) is to be enforced, an in-depth review against Article 3 ECHR (analogous to BVerfG 2 BvR 2333/08 on life without parole).
- Regime transition on 1 Nov 2019: in legacy cases, a review of whether the request formally falls under the European Convention on Extradition or the surrender agreement (cut-off date rule).
- Double jeopardy (ne bis in idem): in the case of parallel German investigations.
- Constitutional complaint with an urgent application (Section 32 BVerfGG): rarely promising in Norway cases; exceptions where there are formal defects or Forvaring questions.
Legal representation in Norwegian 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.