The Higher Regional Court Frankfurt holds the extradition of a Turkish national to South Korea for prosecution (trafficking in around 28 kg of ketamine) admissible. Neither the prospective sentence nor the prison conditions bar surrender; Korea has assured, among other things, at least 3.4 m² of personal space, at least 5.4 m² in a single cell and, on request, single-cell accommodation. This admissibility ruling was subsequently suspended on an interim basis by the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht, BVerfG) – it opens the "Korea complex".
What the case was about
The Republic of Korea requested the extradition for prosecution of the requested person, who was arrested in Frankfurt on 31 July 2025. The request was based on arrest warrants issued by the Jeonju District Court (10 April 2025) and the Goyang branch of the Uijeongbu District Court (2 April 2025). He is accused of having acted as a local "warehouse keeper" and "senior dropper" for narcotics (ketamine), of having taken receipt of a total of 28.0403 kg of ketamine in a rented office apartment, and of having arranged the distribution of 25.1492 kg in 28 instances.
The requested person neither consented to simplified extradition nor waived the principle of speciality. The proceedings therefore proceeded to a full admissibility review under § 29 IRG.
The decision
The Higher Regional Court Frankfurt am Main (Oberlandesgericht, OLG) declared the extradition to the Republic of Korea for prosecution admissible and ordered the continuation of extradition detention. The documents complied with Art. 12 of the European Convention on Extradition (ECE); the acts were punishable under the law of both states (under German law, among others, § 4 NpSG and §§ 95, 96 AMG) and extraditable under Art. 2(1) ECE, which Korea acceded to with effect from 29 December 2011.
The reasoning
Sentence and proportionality. The threatened penalty of seven years up to "an indefinite period" was not unbearably harsh. According to the diplomatic note of 1 September 2025, the prosecution would not seek a life sentence. Even in the theoretical event of a life sentence, Korean law allows conditional release after 20 years (Arts. 72 et seq. of the Korean Criminal Code), so that the prospect of a life in liberty was secured.
Prison conditions and assurances. The relevant standard was the body of principles developed for extradition traffic, drawing on Art. 1(1) Basic Law, Art. 3 ECHR and the minimum standard of public international law (Art. 25 Basic Law). The principle of mutual trust applies as long as it is not shaken by countervailing facts, such as systemic deficiencies (BVerfG, order of 28 July 2016 – 2 BvR 1468/16); cogent grounds are required for a significant probability of a rights violation in the individual case (BVerfG, order of 17 May 2017 – 2 BvR 893/17). An assurance does not relieve the court of its own risk assessment as to its reliability (cf. ECtHR, Othman v. United Kingdom, judgment of 17 January 2012, no. 8139/09; BVerfG, order of 4 December 2019 – 2 BvR 1258/19).
Korea had assured that the requested person would be granted at least 3.4 m² of personal space throughout the entire period of detention, and at least 5.4 m² in a single cell. In the institution initially named, single-cell accommodation would offer 5.94 to 7.48 m²; under shared accommodation, 3 m² could not be guaranteed – which is why single-cell accommodation was assured on request. The Concluding Observations of the UN Committee against Torture on the sixth periodic report of the Republic of Korea of 16 August 2024 (CAT/C/KOR/CO/6; occupancy rate in 2023: 113 %) indicated — despite the persistent overcrowding criticised there — continuous improvements. There were no doubts as to the reliability of the assurance; no further investigation into possible penal institutions was required. The court rejected the alternative application for an oral hearing under § 30(3) IRG.
Significance for practice
The decision is a thoroughly reasoned third-state admissibility ruling that works through the classic catalogue of review: dual criminality, proportionality of the sentence, prison conditions and the reliability of assurances. It was precisely at the interface of the "cell-size assurance", however, that the subsequent constitutional review set in: the BVerfG saw a possible violation of the specialist court's duty to investigate (Art. 19(4) sentence 1 Basic Law) and provisionally prohibited surrender. The decision is thus the starting point of an instructive four-stage set of proceedings.
An assurance on cell size does not relieve the court of its own risk assessment. Especially in third-state proceedings, defense counsel should test the reliability of every assurance in concrete terms – which institution, what minimum floor space under shared rather than single-cell accommodation, what sources on actual occupancy – and apply for an oral hearing under § 30(3) IRG and for further investigation. Where the duty to investigate is curtailed, the route via a constitutional complaint (Art. 19(4) Basic Law) is open, as the further course of the Korea complex shows.
Citation: OLG Frankfurt am Main, order of 19 December 2025 – 2 OAus 88/25.
Source: Hessenrecht state case-law database (juris); ECLI:DE:OLGHE:2025:1219.2OAUS88.25.00.
Context: First stage of the "Korea complex". The further course: BVerfG, interim order (9 Feb 2026), OLG Frankfurt, stage 3 (30 Mar 2026) and BVerfG, principal decision (21 May 2026).