After the Federal Constitutional Court provisionally barred surrender to South Korea, the OLG Frankfurt obtained further assurances and supplementary information and rejected the renewed application on admissibility: an overall assessment showed "reasonable conditions of detention".
A gap in judicial inquiry criticised by the Federal Constitutional Court in interim proceedings is not a definitive bar to extradition. The ordinary court may close it by obtaining supplementary assurances and information from the requesting state and conducting a fresh overall assessment of the conditions of detention.
Background
This case forms the third stage of the so-called Korea complex — the dispute over the extradition of a Turkish national to the Republic of Korea. By interim order of 9 February 2026, the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht, BVerfG) had barred the surrender pending the decision on the constitutional complaint, for a maximum of six months. The earlier admissibility decision of the Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht, OLG) Frankfurt of 19 December 2025 indicated, "as regards the size of the […] assured cell space", a violation of the ordinary court's duty of inquiry under Art. 19(4) sentence 1 Basic Law.
The senate responded at once. In the reasons of its order continuing detention dated 17 February 2026 it announced that it would obtain, "in light of the order of the Federal Constitutional Court of 9 February 2026 […], further assurances and supplementary information". Enclosed with a note verbale of 5 March 2026, the Korean authorities transmitted additional information.
The decision
By order of 30 March 2026 the OLG Frankfurt rejected the person's application for a renewed decision on the admissibility of extradition.
The operative reasons
In its reasoning the senate stated that "an overall assessment of the supplementary information showed that reasonable conditions of detention awaited the complainant in the Republic of Korea" (as reproduced in the BVerfG order of 21 May 2026). The court thereby responded directly to the constitutional court's criticism and closed the previously flagged gap in inquiry concerning the size of the assured cell space.
The Korean assurances had already been reproduced in the order of 19 December 2025:
- at least 3.4 m² of personal space, and at least 5.4 m² in a single cell;
- in the facility initially named, 5.94 to 7.48 m² for single accommodation;
- for shared accommodation a personal area of 3 m² could not be guaranteed, which is why single accommodation was assured at the person's request.
Stage 3 shows the judicial dialogue between the ordinary court and the constitutional court in its purest form: the BVerfG's interim order operates not as a definitive bar to extradition but as a prompt for further inquiry. The Higher Regional Court "cures" the deficit in inquiry identified by the BVerfG by obtaining supplementary information and conducting a fresh overall assessment.
The practical consequence is delicate: the fresh examination on the merits creates a "constitutional-procedural unity". The constitutional complaint must now also challenge this second OLG order in time and with sufficient substantiation — and it was precisely on this point that the complaint failed in the principal proceedings (BVerfG, order of 21 May 2026). Where the ordinary court obtains new assurances after an interim criticism, the defense must not lose sight of the supplementary order: it is the procedural hinge on which the outcome of the entire case can turn.
Citation: OLG Frankfurt am Main, order of 30.03.2026 — 2 OAus 88/25 (reported after BVerfG, order of 21.05.2026 — 2 BvR 143/26).
Source: Not separately published; documented in BVerfG, order of 21.05.2026 — 2 BvR 143/26, paras. 4 f., 13. This account is based on that source and on the senate's earlier admissibility decision of 19.12.2025.
Context: Third stage of the "Korea complex". See also OLG Frankfurt, stage 1 (19 Dec 2025) and the concluding decision on the merits BVerfG, principal decision (21 May 2026).