Overview
Sweden is an EU member state and is fully integrated into the system of the European Arrest Warrant. The legal basis is Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (EAW) and Sections 78 ff. IRG. Unlike Denmark, Sweden has no opt-out in the area of justice and home affairs and is therefore also bound by the post-Lisbon directives on the rights of accused persons (Directives 2010/64/EU, 2012/13/EU, 2013/48/EU) and by the European Investigation Order (Directive 2014/41/EU).
Extradition traffic between Germany and Sweden is regular in numerical terms; detention conditions and the rule of law are unproblematic by ECtHR and CPT standards. Of particular practical relevance are extraditions for the purpose of prosecution for offenses involving violence, drugs and property, as well as transfers for the enforcement of Swedish custodial preventive measures (rättspsykiatrisk vård — forensic-psychiatric care).
A recent leading decision is BVerfG 2 BvR 1713/21 of 20 Apr 2022: the Federal Constitutional Court overturned a transfer to Sweden for the enforcement of a preventive measure because the OLG had breached the duty to investigate and to make a reference under Article 267 TFEU. Swedish extradition law: Lag (2003:1156) om överlämnande från Sverige enligt en europeisk arresteringsorder for EU EAWs, supplemented by the Utlämningslagen (1957:668) for non-EU traffic.
Legal basis
Extradition to Sweden is governed primarily by Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European Arrest Warrant (OJ EC L 190 of 18 Jul 2002), transposed in the Eighth Part of the IRG (Sections 78 ff. IRG). On the Swedish side the Lag (2003:1156) om överlämnande från Sverige enligt en europeisk arresteringsorder (Act on surrender from Sweden on the basis of a European Arrest Warrant) applies.
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 Swedish side, the Åklagarmyndigheten (Public Prosecution Authority) is the central issuing authority; the execution of incoming requests lies with the international division of the Åklagarmyndigheten in Stockholm. Judicial review is carried out by the tingsrätt (court of first instance).
For German citizens, Article 16(2) of the Basic Law in conjunction with Section 80 IRG applies. Sweden has implemented the return clause under Article 5(3) of the EAW Framework Decision. Extradition of German citizens for the purpose of prosecution is therefore only possible against an assurance of return for the enforcement of any custodial sentence in Germany.
Within Nordic internal traffic, the Nordic Arrest Warrant Convention 2005 (Nordisk arrestordre) additionally applies, but it is not relevant in relation to Germany. For non-EU traffic (e.g. in the case of non-EU citizens who are to be transited through Sweden), the Swedish Utlämningslagen (1957:668) applies.
Country-specific issues in Sweden
Enforcement of preventive measures (rättspsykiatrisk vård): Sweden — like Germany — recognizes custodial preventive measures of incapacitation and rehabilitation. Where extradition is sought to enforce such measures, special review obligations arise if the requested person has a mental illness. BVerfG 2 BvR 1713/21 of 20 Apr 2022: the OLG should have referred to the ECJ under Article 267(3) TFEU the question of whether, and under what conditions, Article 1(3) of the EAW Framework Decision in conjunction with Article 3(1) of the EU Charter (the right to physical and mental integrity) precludes a transfer where there is a concrete risk of serious harm to health.
Judgments in absentia: Swedish criminal procedure law permits trial in absentia in certain constellations (Chapter 46 § 15 Rättegångsbalken). Where extradition is sought for the enforcement of a sentence based on a judgment in absentia, Section 83 IRG (Article 4a of the EAW Framework Decision) must be reviewed; as a rule, an assurance of an effective opportunity for a retrial is obtained.
Procedural rights (post-Lisbon directives): Unlike Denmark, Sweden is fully bound by Directive 2010/64/EU (interpretation), Directive 2012/13/EU (the right to information) and Directive 2013/48/EU (access to a lawyer). Objections regarding deficient access to a lawyer can therefore be based directly on the transposition of the directives into Swedish law.
Detention conditions: Swedish prisons meet high European standards. CPT and ECtHR case law shows no structural deficiencies within the meaning of Article 3 ECHR / Article 4 of the EU Charter. The Aranyosi review does not arise in practice; exceptions only in individual cases involving particular vulnerabilities.
Dual criminality: Outside the list of offenses under Article 2(2) of the EAW Framework Decision / Section 81 no. 4 IRG, dual criminality must be reviewed on the merits. Swedish criminal offenses (brottsbalken) are largely comparable to German ones; in individual cases, insult offenses (förolämpning) and sexual offenses with differing consent requirements may be problematic.
Detention conditions and the human-rights review
Detention conditions in Swedish prisons (kriminalvårdsanstalter) meet high European standards. The Swedish prison system (Kriminalvården) is regarded as one of the most progressive in Europe — with open and semi-open forms of detention, differentiated security levels (level 1 to 3), good medical care and a pronounced focus on resocialization.
The Swedish pre-trial detention practice (häktning), however, has been criticized internationally. CPT reports (most recently in 2022) have objected to the pre-trial detention periods, which are frequently long by European comparison, and to the far-reaching restrictions (restriktioner — bans on contact and visits). The UN Committee against Torture (CAT) has also addressed this practice. This is relevant to German defense practice in detention-related extraditions, in particular in protracted economic-crime and organized-crime proceedings.
ECtHR convictions of Sweden for violations of Article 3 ECHR are atypical; in isolated cases, violations of Article 5 ECHR (duration and reasoning of pre-trial detention) have been found. The Aranyosi review is generally unproblematic; in individual cases an assurance regarding the restriction regime may be advisable.
Lines of defense
The defense in Sweden EAW cases follows formal and procedural points of review:
- Section 83a IRG (minimum particulars): formal review of the way the alleged offense is set out. Standard: BVerfG 2 BvR 2009/22 of 15 Feb 2023.
- Section 83 IRG (judgments in absentia): for Swedish judgments in absentia, an assurance of the opportunity for a retrial.
- Section 80 IRG (extradition of Germans): review of the connection to the place of the offense and the assurance of return. Sweden has implemented Article 5(3) of the EAW Framework Decision — an assurance of return is standard.
- Enforcement of preventive measures: where custodial preventive measures (rättspsykiatrisk vård) are enforced, an in-depth duty to investigate medical care and continuity of care. Leading case: BVerfG 2 BvR 1713/21 of 20 Apr 2022.
- Dual criminality: outside the list of offenses, a review on the merits. Swedish offenses are regularly comparable; an individual review in the case of sexual offenses (the doctrine of consent since 2018).
- Rule of specialty (Section 83h IRG): limitation of prosecution to the offenses granted. Relevant in the case of possible onward transfers Sweden → Nordic Arrest Warrant.
- Pre-trial detention restriction regime: where a lengthy pre-trial detention is anticipated, obtain an assurance regarding contact, visits and access to a lawyer (CPT recommendations).
- Double jeopardy (ne bis in idem) (Section 83(1) no. 1 IRG): where there are parallel German investigations.
- Constitutional complaint with an urgent application (Section 32 BVerfGG): rarely promising in Sweden cases; exceptions where there are formal defects under Section 83a IRG or a breach of the duty to make a reference (Article 101(1) sentence 2 of the Basic Law).
Legal representation in Swedish 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.