The Federal Constitutional Court provisionally bars the surrender of a Turkish national to the Republic of Korea — for up to six months. The Higher Regional Court's order, it found, pointed "with regard to the size of the assured cell" to a breach of the court's duty to investigate under Art. 19(4) first sentence of the Basic Law.
Where there are concrete indications that the trial court failed to properly investigate the size of a cell assured by the requesting state, a constitutional complaint is neither inadmissible from the outset nor manifestly unfounded. The balancing of consequences under § 32 BVerfGG may then come out in the requested person's favour and provisionally bar the extradition — for no longer than six months.
What the case was about
The Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main (Oberlandesgericht, OLG) had, by order of 19 December 2025, declared the extradition of a Turkish national for prosecution in the Republic of Korea admissible. It relied on assurances given by the Korean authorities as to detention conditions — among them at least 3.4 m² of personal cell space, and at least 5.4 m² in a single cell. The constitutional complaint, coupled with an application for interim relief, was directed against that decision and was filed in time with the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht, BVerfG) on 21 January 2026.
The decision
The First Chamber of the Second Senate provisionally barred the surrender of the complainant to the authorities of the Republic of Korea in order to safeguard the proceedings — for no longer than six months. The Office of the Public Prosecutor General in Frankfurt am Main (Generalstaatsanwaltschaft) was charged with implementing the order. Importantly for practice, the order did not affect the continuation of extradition detention — what was stopped was the surrender itself.
The decisive grounds
The Chamber held the constitutional complaint to be "neither inadmissible in its entirety from the outset nor manifestly unfounded", and found that the balancing of consequences required under § 32(1) BVerfGG came out in the complainant's favour (as recounted in the principal-decision order of 21 May 2026, marginal no. 2). On the merits, the OLG Frankfurt order pointed "with regard to the size of the cell assured by the Republic of Korea to a breach of the trial court's duty of investigation flowing from Art. 19(4) first sentence of the Basic Law".
At its core the case turned on whether the assured cell area had been soundly investigated. Two points stood out:
- the calculation of the area — for instance whether and how the sanitary area is deducted;
- the distinction between shared and single-cell accommodation — that is, whether standards for shared cells are impermissibly transferred to a single cell.
Significance for practice
This interim order is what set the "Korea complex" in motion. It does not stop the extradition for good; it stops it because of a specifically identified investigative deficit as to cell size. In doing so it fits within the recent line of case law on the trial courts' duty of investigation where a violation of Art. 3 ECHR and Art. 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR) threatens — and extends that line to extradition to a third state.
How matters unfolded is shown by the rest of the complex: the OLG obtained supplementary information and, by order of 30 March 2026, again declared the extradition admissible. The constitutional complaint ultimately failed because the complainant did not address this subsequent decision within the time limit (BVerfG, order of 21 May 2026 — 2 BvR 143/26).
Where minimum cell areas are assured, it pays to argue precisely how the area is calculated (in particular the deduction of sanitary space) and whether standards for shared cells are impermissibly transferred to a single cell. Equally important: after a successful interim order, every subsequent OLG decision must be brought into the constitutional complaint within the time limit — otherwise the success won at the first stage may come to nothing.
Citation: BVerfG, order of 9 February 2026 — 2 BvR 143/26 (interim injunction).
Source: Full text at bundesverfassungsgericht.de; procedural history documented in BVerfG, order of 21 May 2026 — 2 BvR 143/26.
Context: Second stage of the "Korea complex". Later in the proceedings: OLG Frankfurt, stage 3 (30 Mar 2026) and BVerfG, principal decision (21 May 2026).