Overview
Turkey is a member of the Council of Europe and a contracting state to the European Convention on Extradition. The basis for extradition is the European Convention on Extradition of 13 Dec 1957, together with its additional protocols, and Sections 1 ff. IRG. The European Arrest Warrant does not apply in relation to Turkey.
Turkey cases are among the most sensitive extradition scenarios. Since the attempted coup of 2016 and the domestic political developments that followed — persecution of the Gülen movement, the Kurdish question, PKK prosecutions, restrictions on press freedom — every Turkish alert must be reviewed for political background (Section 6(2) IRG).
The number of granting decisions has fallen markedly in recent years. Red Notices from Turkey are subject to increasingly critical review both by Interpol (CCF) and by the German Higher Regional Courts.
Legal basis
Extradition to Turkey is governed by the European Convention on Extradition of 13 Dec 1957, supplemented by the additional protocols — to the extent ratified by both states. Domestically, Sections 1 ff. IRG apply.
On the German side, the Higher Regional Courts are competent in the admissibility proceedings (Section 13 IRG); the granting decision is made by the Federal Office of Justice (Bundesamt für Justiz, BfJ) (Section 74 IRG). On the Turkish side, the Ministry of Justice (Adalet Bakanlığı) is the central authority; requests are drawn up by the Turkish criminal courts or by the general public prosecutor's offices at the regional courts of appeal.
The European Convention on Extradition binds Turkey to the classic grounds for refusal — political offenses (Art. 3), military offenses (Art. 4), fiscal offenses (Art. 5), non-extradition of a state's own nationals (Art. 6), the death penalty (Art. 11, practically obsolete among Council of Europe members under Protocol No. 13 to the ECHR).
Country-specific issues in Turkey
Political persecution (Section 6(2) IRG / Art. 3(2) European Convention on Extradition): the central point of review. In numerous decisions (among others Kavala v. Turkey, 28749/18; Demirtaş v. Turkey No. 2, 14305/17) the ECtHR has found structural deficiencies in the Turkish justice system — in particular in proceedings with a political dimension. In individual cases the German Higher Regional Courts have refused extradition to Turkey on grounds of political persecution (among others OLG Hamm, OLG Karlsruhe, KG Berlin).
Detention conditions (Article 3 ECHR): according to CPT reports and ECtHR decisions, Turkish detention conditions are structurally deficient, in particular in high-security facilities. Since the attempted coup of 2016, the occupancy density has risen drastically. An assurance of human-rights-compliant accommodation must regularly be obtained.
Gülen connection: the Turkish justice system designates the Gülen movement as a terrorist organization (“FETÖ”); under German case law the corresponding criminal allegations are regularly incompatible with Art. 3(2) of the European Convention on Extradition / Section 6(2) IRG, because mere membership of, or contacts with, the Gülen movement before 2016 do not readily qualify under terrorism criminal law.
The Kurdish question / PKK allegations: where there are PKK, HDP or other Kurdish-political connections, the political dimension is usually obvious. What is decisive is the distinction between terrorist acts of violence (potentially extraditable) and political expression of opinion (not extraditable).
Detention conditions and the human-rights review
According to CPT reports and ECtHR decisions, detention conditions in Turkish prisons are structurally critical. Since 2016 the occupancy density has worsened considerably. Documented issues include overcrowding, inadequate medical care, practices of isolation and — in individual cases — allegations of torture, in particular in high-security custody (“F-type” and “T-type” prisons).
In numerous decisions the ECtHR has convicted Turkey of violations of Article 3 ECHR. In Turkey extradition cases, German case law has repeatedly required concrete assurances and — where they were inadequate — refused the extradition. The KG Berlin and the OLG Celle have conducted detention-conditions reviews on several occasions.
In defense practice, the submission of current CPT reports, ECtHR judgments and NGO documentation (Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, Memorial-Türkei) is standard. Assurances from the Turkish public prosecutor's office must be examined for their reliability.
Lines of defense
The defense in Turkey extradition proceedings demands particular care and is regularly a top-tier defense running several lines of defense in parallel:
- Section 6(2) IRG / Art. 3(2) European Convention on Extradition (political persecution): the core point where there is a Gülen, Kurdish or opposition-political connection. Submission of ECtHR case law (Kavala, Demirtaş), NGO reports, country reports of the Federal Foreign Office.
- Article 3 ECHR / Section 73 IRG (detention conditions): current CPT reports, ECtHR judgments on Turkish facilities, a concrete assurance regarding the intended prison. Cell floor space, medical care, practice of isolation.
- Article 6 ECHR (fair trial): structural objections following the ECtHR decisions on the Turkish justice system (among others Selahattin Demirtaş; Can Dündar; Alparslan Altan, 12778/17, on the independence of the Constitutional Court).
- Dual criminality (Art. 2 European Convention on Extradition): careful review where allegations are based on the Turkish Anti-Terror Law (TMK) — terrorist propaganda, membership of a terrorist organization — as to their substantive equivalence in German law.
- Interpol deletion: Red Notices from Turkey are promising targets for a CCF complaint, in particular where there is a political background. After 2016 the CCF deleted numerous Turkish alerts.
- Rule of specialty (Art. 14 European Convention on Extradition): strict limitation to the offenses granted; extensions only with German consent.
- Constitutional complaint with an urgent application (Section 32 BVerfGG): the standard remedy where the OLG has found the extradition admissible and fundamental-rights objections remain. Prospects of success are substantial in carefully prepared proceedings.
Legal representation in Turkish 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.